Hello,
Basically, when it comes to class reworks, our main goal is always to improve the class gameplay and add a bigger variety of viable playstyles.
I don't agree that the player gears become obsolete. It is more adequate to say they become suboptimal, as you say. Even so, gears can become suboptimal as soon as we add new items, new sublimations, new monsters.
Even in PVP, the meta and the builds for the other classes can change if we rework, say, the Sadida.
We don't disregard player investments, but from our point of view, it's something we cannot do anything about. Even if we did no update for 10 years, the players's patrimony would still have a fluctuating value every now and then.
We're okay with things as they stand since players can always sell their items and buy new ones in the marketplace at a small loss. Even so, we still try to rework classes and keep the main roles existing and viable.
I insist, suboptimal does not mean obsolete.
How do you determine what needs to be changed in terms of "balancing"? What metrics are used to measure this?
Of course, we strongly believe in our analysises and our vision, but a vision alone can be dangerous.
We use data to support our analysises. It's not totally data-driven, but we get a rough idea of the micro problems in a class once we see the statistics for spell picks / usages. For the macro issues, they tend to be transparent to us after a while.
We also support our work with surveys, especially satisfaction surveys. One was conducted right after the 1.79 patch and gave us basic rankings for classes.
We cross-check the survey's data with the number of players that play each class. We also cross-check everything with the victory rates for each bracket, to see if a class is performing way better, in group or in solo.
Data can be fine-tuned as we want. Checking "what is the victory rate of rubilax earth/fire rear iops that use motivation and rock fighting Magmog ?" is possible, even though we don't really want to know that answer. We tend to use the data with more practical, broad cases, and we try not to let it govern our minds.
It definitely helps solving some cases.
Of course, with this kind of move, we tend to dissatisfy the ten people that were actually using and enjoying the spell. We also force a spell upon the 0.1% players that weren't using the spell. But with this kind of change, we can design two new spells that will be picked by more players, and as a result, they will stop using other spells, creating more variety between classes. That's basically it. The reality of our work is a lot more complex, but I think you get a rough idea of our processes.
"Additionally, in the broader context of "balance," I am curious about the intended goal. What do you want players to enjoy? Is fine-tuning the experience of investing in and strengthening characters for a sense of progression an important priority? If so, it is crucial to preserve the systems that allow players to build around and express their unique playstyles."
I think strengthening a character doesn't necessarily mean being able to express a unique playstyle. On Sacrier, we wanted more viable playstyle possibilities. There was a design flaw on passives : if passives actually strengthen the damage potential at a cost, the players will want to take these passives to have a better DD character.
And they would be frustrated because of the downsides of said passives.
To be optimal, players were required to equip these passives. But it really was an illusion of a choice.
We want players to be able to create their own build, with as many passives as they want - from 0 to 6, and still be somewhat viable / performing.
In our vision, passives are not a necessary step, but a way to change and adapt your gameplay. They are all designed with an intent, a purpose, and they are all supposed to be decisive game-changers. We buffed the core mechanics of the Sacrier a LOT to compensate for the changes on passives. It is still a great and viable class, although not as abusive as it used to be in its most extreme playstyles.
Sacriers are supposed to be more free and have more viable playstyles now. I might be wrong, but I feel like part of the dissatisfaction comes from the habit of players to pick the "right passives". But there are no righter passives now.
A lot of players would argue that they lost the feeling of upgrading and progressing through the "rewards" the passive brought, and it's true that it is something that we removed along the way. But we feel that the progression feeling is still in a good spot in the game, and the good sides that the new passive direction brought are worth more to us.
Anyway, I hope these answers helped you understand a bit of our work. It's totally okay to disagree and express it, but I hope everyone will remain calm and objective about this.
Have a great weekend everyone,
Siu.
See message in context
Basically, when it comes to class reworks, our main goal is always to improve the class gameplay and add a bigger variety of viable playstyles.
I don't agree that the player gears become obsolete. It is more adequate to say they become suboptimal, as you say. Even so, gears can become suboptimal as soon as we add new items, new sublimations, new monsters.
Even in PVP, the meta and the builds for the other classes can change if we rework, say, the Sadida.
We don't disregard player investments, but from our point of view, it's something we cannot do anything about. Even if we did no update for 10 years, the players's patrimony would still have a fluctuating value every now and then.
We're okay with things as they stand since players can always sell their items and buy new ones in the marketplace at a small loss. Even so, we still try to rework classes and keep the main roles existing and viable.
I insist, suboptimal does not mean obsolete.
How do you determine what needs to be changed in terms of "balancing"? What metrics are used to measure this?
Of course, we strongly believe in our analysises and our vision, but a vision alone can be dangerous.
We use data to support our analysises. It's not totally data-driven, but we get a rough idea of the micro problems in a class once we see the statistics for spell picks / usages. For the macro issues, they tend to be transparent to us after a while.
We also support our work with surveys, especially satisfaction surveys. One was conducted right after the 1.79 patch and gave us basic rankings for classes.
- Which classes are perceived as strong ?
- Which classes are perceived as diverse ?
- Which classes are perceived as simple, easy to understand ?
- Which classes are perceived as more satisfying to play ?
We cross-check the survey's data with the number of players that play each class. We also cross-check everything with the victory rates for each bracket, to see if a class is performing way better, in group or in solo.
Data can be fine-tuned as we want. Checking "what is the victory rate of rubilax earth/fire rear iops that use motivation and rock fighting Magmog ?" is possible, even though we don't really want to know that answer. We tend to use the data with more practical, broad cases, and we try not to let it govern our minds.
It definitely helps solving some cases.
- We've seen some spells that were used 99.9% of the time -> time to go in the 3rd bar.
- We've seen some spells that were in like ten decks out of hundreds of thousands -> time to think about a completely new spell.
Of course, with this kind of move, we tend to dissatisfy the ten people that were actually using and enjoying the spell. We also force a spell upon the 0.1% players that weren't using the spell. But with this kind of change, we can design two new spells that will be picked by more players, and as a result, they will stop using other spells, creating more variety between classes. That's basically it. The reality of our work is a lot more complex, but I think you get a rough idea of our processes.
"Additionally, in the broader context of "balance," I am curious about the intended goal. What do you want players to enjoy? Is fine-tuning the experience of investing in and strengthening characters for a sense of progression an important priority? If so, it is crucial to preserve the systems that allow players to build around and express their unique playstyles."
I think strengthening a character doesn't necessarily mean being able to express a unique playstyle. On Sacrier, we wanted more viable playstyle possibilities. There was a design flaw on passives : if passives actually strengthen the damage potential at a cost, the players will want to take these passives to have a better DD character.
And they would be frustrated because of the downsides of said passives.
To be optimal, players were required to equip these passives. But it really was an illusion of a choice.
We want players to be able to create their own build, with as many passives as they want - from 0 to 6, and still be somewhat viable / performing.
In our vision, passives are not a necessary step, but a way to change and adapt your gameplay. They are all designed with an intent, a purpose, and they are all supposed to be decisive game-changers. We buffed the core mechanics of the Sacrier a LOT to compensate for the changes on passives. It is still a great and viable class, although not as abusive as it used to be in its most extreme playstyles.
Sacriers are supposed to be more free and have more viable playstyles now. I might be wrong, but I feel like part of the dissatisfaction comes from the habit of players to pick the "right passives". But there are no righter passives now.
A lot of players would argue that they lost the feeling of upgrading and progressing through the "rewards" the passive brought, and it's true that it is something that we removed along the way. But we feel that the progression feeling is still in a good spot in the game, and the good sides that the new passive direction brought are worth more to us.
Anyway, I hope these answers helped you understand a bit of our work. It's totally okay to disagree and express it, but I hope everyone will remain calm and objective about this.
Have a great weekend everyone,
Siu.
There are many veteran players who are very knowledgeable about this game and their take on balancing and anything else has much higher value because of it. It might be hard to find these players, but I think that the developers should have a closed community that would consist of them, and discuss game changes and ideas there, or look for inspiration within.
Also anyone with an ambition to have an impact on wakfu should make a english speaking YouTube channel. Big content creators tend to be heard out.
To be honest, I think a lot of veteran players have lots of things to say, but don't exactly voice their thoughts. Putting aside why exactly might be the case, I think that having better communication on the objectives/guiding principles that the developers want to reach would create really good opportunities for discussion. After all, there are many more things I personally wanted to mention in my post (that others have also asked about in the forum, such as the aspect of politics/community/pvp (and enchantment for that matter)). However, I think it would be far more productive to foster discussion for now rather than endlessly spouting one-sided critique before reaching the necessary mutual understanding.
But I digress; in any case, I agree that veteran player perspectives can be very valuable, so I hope that they're also willing to engage with the discussion to offer up whatever thoughts they might have.
Basically, when it comes to class reworks, our main goal is always to improve the class gameplay and add a bigger variety of viable playstyles.
I don't agree that the player gears become obsolete. It is more adequate to say they become suboptimal, as you say. Even so, gears can become suboptimal as soon as we add new items, new sublimations, new monsters.
Even in PVP, the meta and the builds for the other classes can change if we rework, say, the Sadida.
We don't disregard player investments, but from our point of view, it's something we cannot do anything about. Even if we did no update for 10 years, the players's patrimony would still have a fluctuating value every now and then.
We're okay with things as they stand since players can always sell their items and buy new ones in the marketplace at a small loss. Even so, we still try to rework classes and keep the main roles existing and viable.
I insist, suboptimal does not mean obsolete.
How do you determine what needs to be changed in terms of "balancing"? What metrics are used to measure this?
Of course, we strongly believe in our analysises and our vision, but a vision alone can be dangerous.
We use data to support our analysises. It's not totally data-driven, but we get a rough idea of the micro problems in a class once we see the statistics for spell picks / usages. For the macro issues, they tend to be transparent to us after a while.
We also support our work with surveys, especially satisfaction surveys. One was conducted right after the 1.79 patch and gave us basic rankings for classes.
We cross-check the survey's data with the number of players that play each class. We also cross-check everything with the victory rates for each bracket, to see if a class is performing way better, in group or in solo.
Data can be fine-tuned as we want. Checking "what is the victory rate of rubilax earth/fire rear iops that use motivation and rock fighting Magmog ?" is possible, even though we don't really want to know that answer. We tend to use the data with more practical, broad cases, and we try not to let it govern our minds.
It definitely helps solving some cases.
Of course, with this kind of move, we tend to dissatisfy the ten people that were actually using and enjoying the spell. We also force a spell upon the 0.1% players that weren't using the spell. But with this kind of change, we can design two new spells that will be picked by more players, and as a result, they will stop using other spells, creating more variety between classes. That's basically it. The reality of our work is a lot more complex, but I think you get a rough idea of our processes.
"Additionally, in the broader context of "balance," I am curious about the intended goal. What do you want players to enjoy? Is fine-tuning the experience of investing in and strengthening characters for a sense of progression an important priority? If so, it is crucial to preserve the systems that allow players to build around and express their unique playstyles."
I think strengthening a character doesn't necessarily mean being able to express a unique playstyle. On Sacrier, we wanted more viable playstyle possibilities. There was a design flaw on passives : if passives actually strengthen the damage potential at a cost, the players will want to take these passives to have a better DD character.
And they would be frustrated because of the downsides of said passives.
To be optimal, players were required to equip these passives. But it really was an illusion of a choice.
We want players to be able to create their own build, with as many passives as they want - from 0 to 6, and still be somewhat viable / performing.
In our vision, passives are not a necessary step, but a way to change and adapt your gameplay. They are all designed with an intent, a purpose, and they are all supposed to be decisive game-changers. We buffed the core mechanics of the Sacrier a LOT to compensate for the changes on passives. It is still a great and viable class, although not as abusive as it used to be in its most extreme playstyles.
Sacriers are supposed to be more free and have more viable playstyles now. I might be wrong, but I feel like part of the dissatisfaction comes from the habit of players to pick the "right passives". But there are no righter passives now.
A lot of players would argue that they lost the feeling of upgrading and progressing through the "rewards" the passive brought, and it's true that it is something that we removed along the way. But we feel that the progression feeling is still in a good spot in the game, and the good sides that the new passive direction brought are worth more to us.
Anyway, I hope these answers helped you understand a bit of our work. It's totally okay to disagree and express it, but I hope everyone will remain calm and objective about this.
Have a great weekend everyone,
Siu.
I greatly appreciate the time you took to answering my questions, and the detail of which you provided.
From my own player perspective, I can attest to the convenience and expansion of character expression that changes, such as moving commonly used spells to the third bar, can bring. For example, Sacrier's Heart active spells being moved there; it's heartening that you have the metrics to check things like spell usage frequency. I do believe that there are well-founded changes that your team has made, that are both meaningful and impactful, and move forward gameplay in directions that everyone can agree upon.
In regards to what you explained in terms of the choice of passives, I agree that there seems to be a change from the idea of having [an "optimal" combination of passives] (ie. a combination that would be min-maxing damage output for DPS) to [sets of passives that do not inherently present advantages, but rather are more situational tradeoffs]. If I'm understanding correctly, these new kind of passives are meant to be changed depending on the situation, rather than a standardized set that would be used generally for all fights (as the old passives might have functioned).
After taking this perspective, I personally can see why your team has taken this option — after all, it is provoking deeper understanding of both the class's tools and the fight mechanics. However, as you've mentioned, I also believe that the dissatisfaction that some players may feel is because this paradigm shift, moving from [seeking to optimize passives] to [customize passives 0-6 to suit the situation] ,is a rather significant change.
I also do note that recent revamps have been providing classes with the ability to be more versatile, and less extreme strengths/weaknesses (ie. Huppermage being another example). However, as I understand it, since many players come to rely on classes for their exploitation of these traits (trying to maximize and build around the specific strengths of a class), they may feel frustration when these are changed. For example, Huppermage's ability to uniquely take advantage of having low QB to easily maintain the powered up Heart of Fire state meant that -WP gear is strong. In old Sacrier's case, some maximize the conditions of high damage and low survivability to play a role of a powerful DPS. Another example could be Rogue; maximizing gameplay around Rogue's bombs is generally advantageous.
In light of all this then, I think there is sometimes a disconnect towards when this maximization is perceived as "abusive". I do think it is important that play styles that trivialize many parts of the game are adjusted. However, I believe there is some disagreement over what constitutes as trivialization of content, and what is optimization in order to clear content, and where the boundary between these two lie. (I am somewhat curious if you have some form of criteria for evaluating this?)
Again, thank you for your time, and I welcome any of your additional thoughts (and any other players') towards this matter.
In that regard, for example, if you do truly believe that adjusting the ease of obtaining gear may solve the issue, others may want to circumvent situations where they would have to re-invest in gear.
If you want my personal opinion on this matter, I think it's still important to retain the sense of achievement and a measure of difficulty/sense of investment in gear. And after all, the whole point of becoming stronger is so that you're able to use it; so making content pointlessly easy would make things like endgame suffer, unless you offer more alluring alternatives in something else, like PVP.
Again, there are probably many different views on this particular issue, but I think the best way of resolving that is achieving a greater mutual understanding between players and the design team.