Companion Change Feedback

[Ghisallo]

Once again. I am talking about low level companions and low level players not Star Fortress. Whatever you said applies to lvl 65 players but not those whoa re just starting the game and or on their first character. The current system is very discouraging considering how majority ignore your plea to group up on planets.

 

And my point is that they balanced even the "regular": H2's around 60+ toons and level sync.

 

If you read everything it is pretty clear actually. Should they have done it this way? Not saying that...but its what they did. The basically expect people to just level through the story and dodge the planetary heroics. They don't say this but when in a video NOT in a Star fortress but on Dromond Kaas, Eric said a "capable player can solo them" that is LEVEL 60+ and level sync with all those extra abilities... what do you think will happen to a person doing it at level? Answer not soloing it.

 

The issue is this. People need to stop looking at the game the way they think makes sense or what they want. Rather look at the design and statements and say "what did they say?"

Edited November 22, 2015 by Ghisallo

[LordArtemis]

In true amateur fashion they failed to see how lazy and self entitled a big portion of the player base is.

 

And, unfortunately, everything you just said likely means absolutely zero to Bioware. It doesn't matter if the majority of players are lazy, entitled, etc....

 

...let me demonstrate what likely matters.

 

Take a look. True story.

[DarthEnrique]

Your entire response here is a non-sequitur to my point. I am not talking about the nature of story. I am saying that saying there is going to be a story focus has NO bearing on how they decide to actually design the solo playable content. Assuming it would is half the mistake of those very upset because I have even seen story fans saying what is the point of ez-mode play.

 

And there are people who have complained. You're not going to convince me or others who are unhappy with the nerfing to change or minds nor are you going to convince the ones Bioware is losing to come back and play because they nerfed the comps...

[LordArtemis]

You can't really balance around players because there are too many variables. What you do is look at content and then buff a bit to account for it. That is the best you can do in an MMO.

 

This is absolutely correct, though it is likely they will buff companions more than just a bit if they want to overcome the problems this system presents.

 

One of the problems here is that some folks are making assumptions about this game based on gameplay that they have had for perhaps 9 months, or one year, or a bit over one year.

 

The game launched in Dec of 2011. I have been playing since launch....on and off of course. I tested the game in Beta...I HAVE experienced how companions were set up the entire time, or almost the entire time.

 

And I can tell you for most of their existence they have been OP. Especially in the case of Treek, which sort of became the default companion for easy mode.

 

This is not my opinion, this is not speculation. This is actual game history.

 

We are not talking about 4.0 and 4.0.2 IMO....we are talking about 4.0 and onward compared to prior to 4.0. That is where the distinct change occurred, and that is where the problem sits IMO.

 

I don't think we need companions as powerful as they were in 4.0 to satisfy most of the players, but I think they need to be MUCH stronger than they are now to be comparable to prior to 4.0.

 

And that is that.

Edited November 22, 2015 by LordArtemis

[Akeashar]

Well if you are saying that they are reverting companions back to original strength... yeah... not happening, fact. They are going to try and minimize loss while maintaining their original vision as much as possible as well... it is a compromise decision on their part.

 

I have to ask since you're throwing around the word Fact a lot with what Bioware are and aren't doing. Are you a Bioware employee? You seem to speak a lot in explaining what Eric really means by his posts.

[DarthEnrique]

And my point is that they balanced even the "regular": H2's around 60+ toons and level sync.

 

If you read everything it is pretty clear actually. Should they have done it this way? Not saying that...but its what they did. The basically expect people to just level through the story and dodge the planetary heroics. They don't say this but when in a video NOT in a Star fortress but on Dromond Kaas, Eric said a "capable player can solo them" that is LEVEL 60+ and level sync with all those extra abilities... what do you think will happen to a person doing it at level? Answer not soloing it.

 

The issue is this. People need to stop looking at the game the way they think makes sense or what they want. Rather look at the design and statements and say "what did they say?"

I have yet to see a Herioc that anyone who is just lvl 60+ can play I've seen a lot of low lvls playing Heriocs been helping a few of them with them. I have yet to go to a console and get the option to play a Herioc in solo mode so I have no idea what you are talking about. I've seen FLASHPOINTS you can do solo but yet to see a Herioc 2+ give you that option unless you decide to do it by yourself and seek no help...

[DarthEnrique]

I have to ask since you're throwing around the word Fact a lot with what Bioware are and aren't doing. Are you a Bioware employee? You seem to speak a lot in explaining what Eric really means by his posts.

 

I second this...

[Gorrdan]

I have to ask since you're throwing around the word Fact a lot with what Bioware are and aren't doing. Are you a Bioware employee? You seem to speak a lot in explaining what Eric really means by his posts.

 

I too wonder when he really plays the game considering he is always on forum writing paragraphs upon paragraphs about so called 'FACTS'.

[DarthEnrique]

I mean if someone wants to talk about facts let's talk about facts.

 

FACT: People have threatened to or have stopped their subscriptions.

FACT: Those who have canceled their subscriptions means that Bioware has lost money because of the patch.

FACT: Patch caused money loss.

FACT: Some people are okay with the nerfing of companions some are not.

 

Out of these four facts which of them sounds good to your ears if you ran a business or game that relies on money to help it run and keep going?

Edited November 22, 2015 by DarthEnrique

[DarthEnrique]

I too wonder when he really plays the game considering he is always on forum writing paragraphs upon paragraphs about so called 'FACTS'.

 

Haha! Nice one!

[Ghisallo]

And there are people who have complained. You're not going to convince me or others who are unhappy with the nerfing to change or minds nor are you going to convince the ones Bioware is losing to come back and play because they nerfed the comps...

 

You don't understand. Once you have a concept coded and launched you can only tweek it so much. Whether you agree or not they have this game, both content and financial model, set up as an MMO. So they have 2 options at this point.

 

1. if they make it 100% what it was at the beginning they crush themselves in a month or two when people have crushed the content and said "I won the expac". people even annoyed by the change were saying they would leave soon and wait till spring to come back and binge chapters. A lot of money lost.

 

2. Change nothing: a lot of money lost.

 

3. Change it half way in the middle, hopefully minimize either loss.

 

Trust me #3 is what they are doing... there are sources.

 

So whatever you may be calling FACT from your own opinion... BW can't meet it 100%. So DO NOT get your hopes up.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Akeashar]

Well if you are saying that they are reverting companions back to original strength... yeah... not happening, fact. They are going to try and minimize loss while maintaining their original vision as much as possible as well... it is a compromise decision on their part.

 

I'm not saying that at all actually. I'm saying that those that are hardcore pro-Nerf have the wrong end of the stick about rebalancing from this point if you look at it from a business perspective.

 

Lets talk hypothetical numbers, just based on what I've seen said on forums:

 

Lets say that 4.0 caused you to lose 5 subscribers, but you brought in an extra 100 subscribers with the changes.

 

In 4.0.2 you then moved to a point that was worse than pre-4.0, at which point you gained back the 5 subscribers, but you lose 50 subscribers, both existing and new.

 

With balance modifications, before additonal throttling changes would you start at?

 

a) 4.0

b) 4.2

c) Somewhere in the middle

d) 25% buff above 4.2 levels

e) 25% debuff below 4.0 levels

 

Clearly, the answers would be either c) or e). Either start in the middle and see whether that wins back enough people and is workable in a gameplay manner, or start closer to the high point in numbers, and then maybe throttle it down a little. I think we can agree that the answer would not be A) or B) . D) would just prove to those that had chosen to unsubscribe that they had made the right decision and wouldn't be likely to lure too many back because 'they're not taking our complaints seriously'. At which point simple maths tells us that 50 is more than 5.

 

The 10% buff on 4.2 that the hardcore Pro-Nerf individuals have been offering as a 'compromise' is pretty ludicrous from any viewpoint. If a system is considered that broken, dialing it up a slight notch really won't make anyone change their mind. Instead of HoTs ticking at 311, they'll tick at 342?

 

Simple business sense.

 

Despite the hyperbolic complaints that Companions were OP, they still didn't induce a God Mode in squishier DPS when it came to high damage output enemies, otherwise I would have had the Midnight Rakling already on my main, and I would have had the Crimson Rakling on him rather than my tank alt.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Akeashar

[Ghisallo]

I have yet to see a Herioc that anyone who is just lvl 60+ can play I've seen a lot of low lvls playing Heriocs been helping a few of them with them. I have yet to go to a console and get the option to play a Herioc in solo mode so I have no idea what you are talking about. I've seen FLASHPOINTS you can do solo but yet to see a Herioc 2+ give you that option unless you decide to do it by yourself and seek no help...

 

nvm... you clearly are focused on your personal perceptions and not on what I am... what the devs have said and done. You are focused on what you want and your own experience within that desire. there is simply only so far they can go with changes because of how they chose to design the expac. It's how games work.,

Edited November 22, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Ghisallo]

And, unfortunately, everything you just said likely means absolutely zero to Bioware. It doesn't matter if the majority of players are lazy, entitled, etc....

 

...let me demonstrate what likely matters.

 

Take a look. True story.

 

I will be sending you a PM.... it's a nice one no fear just some additional info.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Fallensouls]

Here is a nice fact. People who complained the companions were to op and needed to be nerfed could have just deselected the op skills or turned off the companion to create a harder challenge, but instead cried on the forums for 3 weeks. Basically they fooled the bioware development team into thinking they were the voice for the majority of the players and they nerfed the companions ( that and we were finishing the new content too fast). Instead the truth is revealed in our friends and guild mates unsubbing in droves and now bioware see's that they were duped by a few entitled wanna be's. They did not want casual players to be able to do the same content as so called elite players. Other wise they would have just turned off the skills or companions like I suggested day one of their complaining threads. Pvp players dont even use companions yet that is what most of these complainers were. So you be the judge as to why would warzone players feel the need to complain about companions being too OP, and be too lazy to just deselect the OP skills if they wanted more of a challenge. Edited November 22, 2015 by Fallensouls

[Ghisallo]

I'm not saying that at all actually. I'm saying from a business perspective, that those that are hardcore pro-Nerf have the wrong end of the stick about rebalancing from this point if you look at it from a business perspective.

 

Lets talk hypothetical numbers, just based on what I've seen said on forums:

 

Lets say that 4.0 caused you to lose 5 subscribers, but you brought in an extra 100 subscribers with the changes.

 

In 4.0.2 you then moved to a point that was worse than pre-4.0, at which point you gained back the 5 subscribers, but you lose 50 subscribers, both existing and new.

 

With balance modifications, before additonal throttling changes would you start at?

 

a) 4.0

b) 4.2

c) Somewhere in the middle

d) 25% buff above 4.2 levels

e) 25% debuff below 4.0 levels

 

Clearly, the answers would be either c) or e). Either start in the middle and see whether that wins back enough people and is workable in a gameplay manner, or start closer to the high point in numbers, and then maybe throttle it down a little. I think we can agree that the answer would not be A) or B) . D) would just prove to those that had chosen to unsubscribe that they had made the right decision and wouldn't be likely to lure too many back because 'they're not taking our complaints seriously'. At which point simple maths tells us that 50 is more than 5.

 

The 10% buff on 4.2 that the hardcore Pro-Nerf individuals have been offering as a 'compromise' is pretty ludicrous from any viewpoint. If a system is considered that broken, dialing it up a slight notch really won't make anyone change their mind. Instead of HoTs ticking at 311, they'll tick at 342?

 

Simple business sense.

 

Despite the hyperbolic complaints that Companions were OP, they still didn't induce a God Mode in squishier DPS when it came to high damage output enemies, otherwise I would have had the Midnight Rakling already on my main, and I would have had the Crimson Rakling on him rather than my tank alt.

 

I explained the business perspective trap they are currently in directly above your post here. At least as I see it.

 

The trap would have been avoided however IF they had launched with the current companions. Yeah some people would have left but we would not have the "I miss my old power" issue... which really is the cause of this drama FAR MORE than the current power of them.

[canuckly]

I mean if someone wants to talk about facts let's talk about facts.

 

FACT: People have threatened to or have stopped their subscriptions.

FACT: Those who have canceled their subscriptions means that Bioware has lost money because of the patch.

FACT: Patch caused money loss.

FACT: Some people are okay with the nerfing of companions some are not.

 

Out of these four facts which of them sounds good to your ears if you ran a business or game that relies on money to help it run and keep going?

how about some proof like how many actually cancelled subs because of this patch which guess what you got zero proof and you will never have that proof

 

so all those facts aren't facts

[Ghisallo]

Here is a nice fact. People who complained the companions were to op and needed to be nerfed could have just deselected the op skills or turned off the companion to create a harder challenge, but instead cried on the forums for 3 weeks. Basically they fooled the bioware development team into thinking they were the voice for the majority of the players and they nerfed the companions ( that and we were finishing the new content too fast). Instead the truth is revealed in our friends and guild mates unsubbing in droves and now bioware see's that they were duped by a few entitled wanna be's. They did want casual players to be able to do the same content as so called elite players. Other wise they would have just turned off the skills or companions like I suggested day one of their complaining threads. Pvp players dont even use companions yet that is what most of these complainers were. So you be the judge as to why would warzone players feel the need to complain about companions being too OP, and be too lazy to just deselect the OP skills if they wanted more of a challenge.

 

And this completely ignores the entire dynamic of an MMO between it's financial model. People have to remember that these games do not work like single player games for a reason. Optional difficulty in the persistent world would make development of a persistent world MMO almost impossible, if you want it to be financially successful.

 

I have detailed the facts behind this elsewhere on this thread. Go check em out because that is how MMOs work.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Lunafox]

I suppose the decision has been made on what to do, but I just had the chance to test things out with the heroics tonight, and honestly, for the higher planets, it's turned into a painful unpleasant grindy experience. It takes so long to get things done, that it ceases being fun. It would be better if the companions for dps and heals could do more...they're pretty much useless now.

 

I like a challenge, but not so much that I have to have eagle eyes and pay attention every second on a lowbie planet I've been on millions of times before, or get dead. I can't believe my sentinel died on Hoth. To robots. That's just sad.

 

So, I'm thinking it needs to be set a bit higher for the companions, so they're more involved and useful in what amounts to grindy stuff that stopped being fun 3 years ago.

 

Maybe next time, start low, and work the companions strengths up...rather than give us the world and then take it away, people hate that. It's better to do a whole bunch of buffing up tweaks to make it better until it's perfect than to do something OP and then take it away by reducing it to practically nil.

 

Noobie planets are fine, they progressed fast enough. Just don't want to spend forever doing stuff on the higher lvl planets.

 

Thanks for everything, been enjoying for the most part, just not this nerf thing for the daily heroics on the higher planets.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Lunafox

[AngFour]

how about some proof like how many actually cancelled subs because of this patch which guess what you got zero proof and you will never have that proof

 

so all those facts aren't facts

 

No proof but after a month of people screaming that they were going to unsub because companions were OP, BW waited a month.

 

A month of people screaming that they were going to unsub because of "forced PvP" and Bioware has done nothing.

 

Less than TWO DAYS after the 4.0.2 patch and people screaming that they're going to unsub, BW responds with a post saying they're coming up with action plans and such.

 

So, no, I don't have numbers, but based off BW's actions, it's a pretty safe BET that people actually DID unsub in droves within this last week because of the patch.

[Ghisallo]

No proof but after a month of people screaming that they were going to unsub because companions were OP, BW waited a month.

 

A month of people screaming that they were going to unsub because of "forced PvP" and Bioware has done nothing.

 

Less than TWO DAYS after the 4.0.2 patch and people screaming that they're going to unsub, BW responds with a post saying they're coming up with action plans and such.

 

So, no, I don't have numbers, but based off BW's actions, it's a pretty safe BET that people actually DID unsub in droves within this last week because of the patch.

 

It is also just as likely that they said "oh crap people are going through the content too quick"... over nerf... "okay we have enough data to see that we over nerfed so lets make some changes and kiss babies while we are at it."

 

Why? is that more likely? because right now there is no "forced PvP" so kinda thinking you are confused. You have to remember giving players EXACTLY what they want is the way to kill your MMO. The trick is to keep em annoyed and not pissed off. based on that and some other things... yeah the people wanting this switch turned completey off... not gonna happen and that alone kinda undercuts your argument.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Fallensouls]

And this completely ignores the entire dynamic of an MMO between it's financial model. People have to remember that these games do not work like single player games for a reason. Optional difficulty in the persistent world would make development of a persistent world MMO almost impossible, if you want it to be financially successful.

 

I have detailed the facts behind this elsewhere on this thread. Go check em out because that is how MMOs work.

well your totally wrong, Fallout is one you can select the difficulty level and we know that game is going to be very successful. So spare us your thoughts on the matter because your wrong. There are many more MMO's that do this as well. What about the heroics , you can choose the difficulty level there as well solo, or heroic? Oh yea forgot about that didn't you? So why is it so difficult for you to understand that Companions could be the same? When we geared them like that before 4.0, the skill level was optional depending on the level of the mods you put in the armor. Oh yea didn't think of that did you?

Edited November 22, 2015 by Fallensouls

[Ghisallo]

well your totally wrong, Fallout is one you can select the difficulty level and we know that game is going to be very successful. So spare us your thoughts on the matter because your wrong. There are many more MMO's that do this as well. What about the heroics , you can choose the difficulty level there as well solo, or heroic? Oh yea forgot about that didn't you? So why is it so difficult for you to understand that Companions could be the same? When we geared them like that before 4.0, the skill level was optional depending on the level of the mods you put in the armor. Oh yea didn't think of that did you?

 

Fallout is not an MMORPG with a persistent world. What the heck are you talking about? There were plans for a Fallout MMORPG which FAILED when Bethesda sued the pants off of Interplay. Fallout is a SP game. I really think you do not know the difference between and MMORPG with a persistent world and a SP:RPG or a SP:RPG with a Co-opt option and the difference between the persistent world and Instances. And btw there is no "difficulty slider" with the instances. You have Solo and H2 SF (as an example.) yes you have tacticals, and HM FPS, SM, HM and NiM Ops.... BUT they also provide DRASTICALLY different rewards, which is something that in the persistent world would be impossible.

 

Sorry but it is hard to take serious the opinion of a person that can't even tell the difference between an MMORPG and a SP game or the difference between the persistent world and the instances and such.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Ghisallo

[AngFour]

It is also just as likely that they said "oh crap people are going through the content too quick"... over nerf... "okay we have enough data to see that we over nerfed so lets make some changes and kiss babies while we are at it."

 

Why? is that more likely? because right now there is no "forced PvP" so kinda thinking you are confused. You have to remember giving players EXACTLY what they want is the way to kill your MMO. The trick is to keep em annoyed and not pissed off. based on that and some other things... yeah the people wanting this switch turned completey off... not gonna happen and that alone kinda undercuts your argument.

 

Please note I put "Forced PvP" in quotations as I'm not making a comment, yay or nay, about it. Merely repeating the threads that have been cropping up on the forums this past month about it.

 

And, by your logic of "we got our data" then why did it take a month for them to nerf the companions to begin with? It took them a month to gather that data, but it took them TWO DAYS to get the appropriate data to find out they over nerfed? Again, I don't have numbers, but I do have an uncanny ability to notice trends and habits. And BW's habit has usually been "stay silent mostly forever." And they broke that trend. That smells of panic.

 

FWIW, I didn't notice the healers being OP because I didn't use them. I think the Tanks/DPS got messed up along the way, but I've been able to manage. Annoying, but I managed.

 

Do I think they should completely roll back 4.0.2? Meh, don't care because, again, I didn't use healing comps. I know they won't and I'm not, nor have I ever been, one of the people screaming that they should. I think the Tanks and DPS comps need to be fixed, given that they have no mitigation.

 

So, you know, you might want to step off your little soap box there. Or, to quote another BW game, "Can I get you a ladder so you can get off my back?"

Edited November 22, 2015 by AngFour

[Blurch]

No proof but after a month of people screaming that they were going to unsub because companions were OP, BW waited a month.

 

A month of people screaming that they were going to unsub because of "forced PvP" and Bioware has done nothing.

 

Less than TWO DAYS after the 4.0.2 patch and people screaming that they're going to unsub, BW responds with a post saying they're coming up with action plans and such.

 

So, no, I don't have numbers, but based off BW's actions, it's a pretty safe BET that people actually DID unsub in droves within this last week because of the patch.

 

So true. This is the fastest I've seen them move trying to damage control.