#83

BitVenom is a dev, he worked on HW:R and is heavily involved with bringing us the mod tools and probably more stuff (click on his name, he rebuilt the GFX engine). Fair warning.

lol.

Heck he probably made many of those ‘various’ changes. Come to think of it I don’t think theres anyone more qualified to comment on the feasibility of listing every change.

4 Likes
#84

Ah. So he did.

So is he claiming something that isn’t true then? Because it would imply that he is…

I reiterate: It is not impossible to document every single balance tweak accurately with numbers. It is also not unfeasible based on the fact that every single proper RTS game ever to have existed doesn’t seem to suffer from this limitation:

They consider accurate patch notes to be a primary focus because of how it affects balance: This is important in a competitive multiplayer game. Think Starcraft.

This isn’t Starcraft: Nor is it very competitive. That doesn’t make my point any weaker though: They COULD post every single change. And it is not unfeasible to think that they SHOULD have done that… Because every other developer does it.

/E: I read your edit… Well… He is qualified to talk about code. But in that case he is “not talking truths” to us.

#85

Post removed, official warning given.

Do not insult gbx staff here.

#86

I said he’s claiming something that isn’t true: I.E never happened, not reality etc.

I’m sorry i don’t know a more proper word for that than lying: Considering he knew what he was saying. I am not insulting him personally: I am claiming that a thing, that happened, happened.

So… Saying something happened is an insult? I never called him names of any kind. I did NOT insult him. That was NOT my intent. My intent was to make this known: He said a thing that isn’t true.

I think you have bigger priorities than editing posts that don’t actually insult people, just because the content is critical of a developer. Yes: I was being critical. But i’m pretty sure that no normal person would consider my posts specifically insults towards him…

No. I was trying to get a proper answer from him.

#87

Since it seems to be a source of contention I did go through some of my favorite game’s patch logs. These include but are not limited to big games like COH2 and smaller games like Gnomoria and even indie games like ADOM and almost every single patch note contains some form of ‘various’ or ‘multiple’ or ‘other’ fixes item.

In fact the software I am responsible for on a day to day basis for multiple companies is a financial consolidation software used by big multinationals. The requirement for that software to be super specific about any changes is much, much higher than any game ever would be (and rightly so) and even then there are instances were some of the patch notes are a little on the vague side simply because there is no sane reason for it to be more specific.

I can obviously not give examples of things in my line of work but if you are unable to find examples using google I can PM you examples in various games’ patch notes where exact lines like:

Other

  • Addressed two issues causing crashes

or

Fixed various bugs with UI

and other very vague changes are quite common. I apologize if this is dragging the issue out a bit but what I experience on a daily basis is contrary to what some think is normal and hope that this clear this issue up somewhat.

ps. I’m dead serious about the PM offer. I have heaps of examples of games patch notes. Like gobs of 'em.

1 Like
#88

^^ How many of those “various” and “multiple” things are about balance issues? I can understand bug fixes and crashing issues to be shown with such descriptions because the reasons for them are often complicated and also have very little relation to the end-user anyway: It is not important to know how they fixed a crashing bug unless you specifically want to know, from a curiosity standpoint.

But i don’t often see balance changes to be shown like that: “various balance fixes” brings a question: WHAT balance things were changed so i can react to them, for example, in multiplayer games.

So when they say “Various fixes to ships and weapons.” I find that unacceptable: It’s not the end of the world. But… We don’t know what was fixed exactly: And it matters from a gameplay standpoint. Things behave differently than before: And we don’t know exactly how.

ALL multiplayer RTS games always bring up balance changes accurately: So that people can change their strategy accordingly.

There’s actually a good example from a previous Relic game, the Dawn of War 2 i was talking about. At one point during its lifetime, the devs decided to revamp the entire MP gameplay and changed things a lot: Everything was documented because it was necessary. They changed fundamental aspects like counters. Suddenly a thing that countered another thing, no longer countered the same thing.

Understandably: It is for such changes that we need all the information. And it is not unfeasible to think like this. I am also a game developer so i understand that it is certainly not impossible: it is harder than… Not being specific. But it’s not impossible or unfeasible. I find it realistic to think like this.

#89

Erm, ‘various fixes to ships and weapons’ are fixes, not balance changes. Afaik they’re not balancing anything yet, just fixing stuff. This was made rather clear. Considering this specific line wasn’t under the Multiplayer Beta section as well…

I think you misunderstood and misread the patch notes much like me initially.

1 Like
#90

They do change balance in relation to before they were fixed… It’s not that complicated. I didn’t misunderstand it.

If you change the way specifically weapons(you know, the primary method of killing your enemy) and ships(you know, your units) work, then it’s balance affecting by default.

How can you not see that?

I want to see HOW they were fixed, and what was actually broken and not intended. Now we have to guess. I don’t find my view of this thing unreasonable in the slightest. It’s realistic to think like this. Did they change the way formations work? Did they change damage outputs, accuracy etc? Not sure, but ALL those things are balance things.

#91

Visuals, lighting, minor geometry changes, none of witch effect how the weapons or ships function in the game since weapon hit chances are dictated by rng. What you are asking for hasn’t happened yet. The issue you are rising does not exist yet. Well actually…

One balance change was made, the damage Veygr assault kamikaze do has been reduced. I guess technically it can be considered a bug but a damage value was changed, that classifies it as a balance change. That was listed rather clearly in the Multiplayer Beta.

I am of course just going off the patch notes myself.

1 Like
#92

Excuse me? I think you’re still misunderstanding: It has nothing to do with visuals. That line is about gameplay. Why?

They wouldn’t say that they changed ships and weapons if all they did was change visuals. They would have used graphical terms like:

Fixed lighting, fixed geometry etc.

Perhaps to you it seems that i’m more and more wrong… But here’s the thing: I find your position completely illogical in the first place so… I’d be guessing: You are in the wrong here…

When they say they fixed weapons and ships: They are NOT talking about graphics. If they were, they would have said it. It’s that simple.

/E: I’m also a graphics artist specifically in relation to games. When you change visuals, they are often engine-spanning and NOT per-ship basis. Here’s a good hint: They specifically said they changed UV’s on some ships: THAT is being specific about a graphics issue: UV-map being the way the textures map onto the model in 3D-space.

So when they say they fixed ships and weapons, they are not talking about graphics. Sorry for repeating this. I’m right.

#93

I was hoping it was merely a misunderstanding. Interestingly you’ve made it clear in a previous post that you do not believe the person who actually made these changes. The posts in this thread would indicate that these various changes were not balance changes but it looks like nothing on this planet can change your mind.

An interesting situation to find oneself in.

1 Like
#94

If they say they changed weapons and ships, i.e the way they work: It is balance affecting. End of story.

/E: I’m not saying the guy who posted those said they aren’t balance changes: I’m saying there’s not enough information if they were. And they most certainly were: If they were talking about visuals, they’d made it clear like they did on the same notes… About the part with UV’s…

Nothing was said about visuals in the part i’m talking about, thus they were either:

A: Gameplay fixes.

or

B: Whoever wrote the notes isn’t clear enough.

When you don’t specifically say that they were visual changes, they most likely weren’t.

#95

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

The option to “Flag as Inappropriate” does not apply to perfectly civil posts that simply disagree with your point of view. Do not abuse flags. Please only flag post that are actually inappropriate in content.

Now, as this rather interesting topic seem to be going without any insults and flames being thrown around, please carry on.

4 Likes
#96

Devs should not waste time making reports at nitpicking level.
They should be working in the game until it shines out of problems (including having the right of free time to rest and be with their friends or family).
I don’t even see them fixing anything. We either had the game released 10 days ago with some work to be done or wait until March next year to get a “real complete game” with some work to be done.

Maybe this is the primary critique to GBX: they should have made 2 release dates - one for pragamtic ppl now at US35,00 and another for the next year at US200,00, so anyone that wants an utopic complete game just wait another year (Delivery in Tunis …).

2 Likes
#97

You don’t even see them fixing anything?

How much have you read the patch notes? How much have you played before and after the patch? How much work have you done inside the Gearbox development team?

You’re clearly not involved in the process as some of us gamers are. Get involved and maybe you’ll notice something. Or maybe you can read the patch notes for a start.

2 Likes
#98

I just want to reinforce that you’re only involved because there is a game out, playable for everyone. The other option would be to get you involved next year or not involved at all, to be fair.

If you don’t get it, just check how involved the CnC community is with the latest cancelled Generals game. They are there dying in boredom without a game. It’s ironic that of the last 3 big RTS projects under development (HW, Grey Goo and Generals 2) the one with the most extensive and structured beta testing stage is the one cancelled. That lesson about project budget should have been enough, but apparently not. And just remember: streaming of that game is on Youtube and it visibly shows a lot to be done and it was being considered ready.

If to wait just two months from November to January the silence was a huge burden for the HW fans, imagine if they decided to wait even more. The game would be ready and there would be almost no one to play, due to lack of timing/interest. Btw, I know some ppl involved since 2005 waiting for a miserable patch and they are not complaining all that much now.

If you’re upset because you’re expecting more, you have the right to it, I don’t want you to change your mind, just because I disagree. But I think there is too many rant about the same issues. Let’s enjoy the game for instance.

1 Like
#99

To be clear I also want them to post any and all balance changes made to ships, especially for multiplayer. This is super important for the game going forward. Luckily for us, BitVenom has confirmed that when they start making changes to ‘beta’ stuff (The multiplayer is the only part of the game that is labeled as such) then details on the changes will be found in abundance. This alone is all that is needed to confirm that this ‘Various fixes to ships and weapons.’ line is most likely not balance changes. Handily it is also not in the Multiplayer section of the patch notes. That is another indication that these fixes are not multiplayer balance changes.

The problem seems to be that you are taking this particular line in the patchnotes out of context. The context in this case is quite clear, especially if you look at something like the veygr assault craft note as well. Even though a lot of people consider it to be a bug, it is still at it’s most basic a balance change and is thus posted in the correct section of the notes. If these various fixes were balance changes they too would have posted in the same place. In fact the same goes for single player balance changes since there are relevant sections for them as well.

Interestingly I have a guess as to what caused the veygr issue in the first place. Spoiler alert

In the campaign Makaan launches suicide assault craft that do a LOT of damage. Managed to take out a few of my destroyers. That was never removed from Beta and is why they do so much damage in Multiplayer. This is why the change is specifically put under the Multiplayer section of the patch notes as it only effects the assault craft in MP, not in SP. Since singleplayer is balanced and stable (I’ve finished both campaigns, HW1 twice) no changes to ship stats would need to be made there (theoretically). Then again they might revisit the campaign units at some point. I know from reading the modding section they made special provision to allow different unit stats in singleplayer and in multiplayer and even in skirmish I believe.

Look I made the same mistake at the start of the thread so it happens.

#100

I am not taking anything out of context. If they say they changed weapons and ships, they are talking about gameplay changes. Because:

Weapons and ships aren’t the same thing as their graphical representation. If it was about visuals, they would have said it was about visuals.

It’s not this difficult to get: When people don’t specifically make it clear that it’s talking about visuals, it most likely isn’t. Occam’s Razor. If they were talking about visuals, they’d talk about geometry, lighting, UV-maps…

It doesn’t matter under what line they put it in: It’s not under balance changes because i assume the fixes were actual fixes: But gameplay fixes automatically affect balancing. Especially if it’s about weapons and ships(i.e the way the basic game works.)

So. I’m repeating myself like hell here. But: I’m ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE LINE of the whole OP. Anything else there, is of no consequence to my point; Unless to reinforce the idea that they weren’t talking about visuals. There is enough context there to understand this. Especially if you’re a game developer. I can see you are not.

Your entire argument is about semantics… Now you’re arguing that gameplay fixes aren’t balance-affecting because they were not listed under balance changes… But if you change the underlying mechanics of the game, that is by default balance affecting.

I’m sorry: But there is no conceivable scenario where you would be right here… I actually know what i’m talking about. I probably have more experience than you in game development(15 years.) And your entire argument is now about semantics: That something doesn’t change balance based only on the fact that it’s listed under a category in the patch notes you don’t think can affect balancing because it’s not specifically called “balance fixes.” That is no argument at all. That’s lunacy.

#101

My entire argument is based off of what the devs say, not semantics. I thought I made that rather clear in my last post. I can see where that might be a problem if you don’t believe the devs either. At that point it does seem rather silly continuing :sweat_smile:

#102

Move on. Take it to pms if you must.

1 Like