Dear Rory

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

"

allbusiness написал:

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

It is very common for a department head, etc to focus on managing people and/or programs which do the work, instead of directly doing the work.

But this doesn't mean "I haven't played it myself" is anywhere near a good excuse. As a top man he should have been well-informed enough to give the appearance of having played it himself.

Head QA balancers of every major video game have extensive playtime. All balance changes in a game like Dota or Riot for example are done by their QA testers who although aren't on the level of professional players, would wipe the floor with 99% of the population.

Chris Wilson probably could outplay at least 70%.

But that isn't the point. What you view as a mandatory model is an optional one. What is important at the end of the day is access to knowledge and experience, regardless of whether it is direct or second-hand. There is such a thing as good, second-hand information.

I mean, I've watched various people stream PoE far more than I've actually played PoE. But I had my eyes open, so I noticed things.

I kind of agree with you that GGG haven't been in touch with their own game. But some beta decisions indicate they've made at least limited progress in getting in touch with people who are in touch with it.

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

Apparently, GGG can collect data about which keystones players use.

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

"

Aim_Deep написал:

This build is broken. It already chases all the aura nodes in upper half of tree. RM was the only thing that allowed it.

There are many others.

60*.7=42. 50*.84=42. No change.

40*.7=28. 35*.84=29 (after rounding down as the game does for MCM). Net of +1 percent.

Stop with the Chicken Little.

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

If I was in charge of this game, I wouldn't need to theorize which parts of the game are underpowered. A computer would tell me.

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

As a former MTG tournament player, I understand how that game was balanced. But I didn't measure a deck's success purely by its first-place finishes, because if any deck is 50% of the field it only stands to reason that one of the horde would widdle its way into a top 8 finish. Instead you need to look at the average performance of the archetype as a whole to determine the real winner.

This isn't as easy as watching some stream or video. It's definitely not as easy as setting up a playtest gauntlet with your pals to try out new builds. For an established metagame, it's a rigorous statistical process drawing upon the recorded results of hundreds if not thousands of tournament players.

So let's not pretend that you or anyone else can divine by feels. A statistician working tournament data might know more about a MTG metagame than you ever would care to. And he might not even actively play a single match.

Science is the proper method. Not opinion.

Now let us consider the possibilities of automation for a bit.

Apparently, GGG can collect data about which keystones players use. They've displayed such data in spiffy infographics in the past.

Sites like poestatistics can track things like XP per hour and player deaths. They even know the difference between real XP time and when you're just chilling in town or trading.

Thus, logically, it should be possible for GGG to collect data not on the popularity of a node on the passive tree - popularity is irrelevant, really - but instead on the average XP per hour of builds (at any one given level) which have allocated a particular passive node. Possibly they could also do this for item affixes/uniques and for loot per hour (perhaps some formula of XP times the player's IIR/IIQ).

Imagine sitting atop such data. Knowing which passives and items generated the most XP per unit time. At that point, would extensively playing the game really be necessary? Wouldn't playing the game for the purpose of making balances decisions blind you to your personal playstyle preferences more than enlighten you?

If I was in charge of this game, I wouldn't need to theorize which parts of the game are underpowered. A computer would tell me.

"

allbusiness написал:

What still needs to happen to this day is that the power level of auras needs to be reduced, because they are far too integral to the style of the game right now, and wielding multiple auras/heralds gives far greater rewards then simply playing with an uncapped mana pool.

"

raics написал:

Look at Blood Magic keystone, data says it is being used but it won't tell you it isn't being used for its original purpose at all.

"

allbusiness написал:

GGG can see that everyone used CWDT+IC+EC before. Statistically it should say 'nerf this because it's being utilized far too much.'

"

allbusiness написал:

why everyone was using RM? Because auras are immensely far too strong, and that stacking multiple auras together yields far too many rewards (it is a major reason why LL with Shavs is so ridiculously crazy good, as you can stack a few auras on life, while a few other can be put on mana). Only ingame experience can tell you that, numbers can't tell you that.