Community Admin
@RockScorpion384 wrote:
@spIash_damage
What do mechs have to do with space station and oak? Thats a completely other character that doesnt play a part in balancing the game. You cant just make space station weaker because of the fact that maybe the zombies will have a mech sometimes 🤷🏼♂️
Really - Mechs just don't count toward balancing?
Word. We should employ 5 - 6 more characters on the zombies team with 250+ health to really make things interesting! Besides - it wouldn't bother Oak and Space Station.
You're right, buddy. My bad.
@RockScorpion384 wrote:
@spIash_damage
Youre failing to mention:
1. Solo oak is better than solo station as ive already mentioned. The fact that its better to run multiple oaks rather than a single oak with multiple acorns should tell you that oak by himself is too good. In comparison a full space station is godlike but a solo one is ez kill, just like how a multi-player class should be. Weak when solo, strong when together.
2. Mechs are apart of another class which shouldnt impede on the balance of other classes. If sunflower+Peashooter was a really strong synergy, for example, they wouldnt just nerf the sunflowers healing rate to fix it. That would make sunflower overall worse. Sure they could make specific changes to that pairing like not bein able to heal pea gatling but that doesnt effect her power level with anyone else. You cant just balance characters because of their potential with certain other characters. Otherwise without those certain characters they would be useless.
3. Mechs are an ability that can be used every 2 minutes for 20-30 seconds before going on cd again. While station and oak have no cd’s. So you cant compare oak/station to mech in the first place
4. Plants dont have a mech sure, but they also have classes that the zombies dont have. Zombies dont get a stealth hero for example 🤷🏼♂️
Only people complaining about oak nerfs are the oak exploiters exactly like the nightcap players.
So you're insinuating I'm complaining?
https://answers.ea.com/t5/General-Discussion/Buffs-Before-Nerfs/td-p/8187603/
I've thought (over a week now with even @Iron_Guard8 agreeing in that thread) buffs should be applied before nerfs altogether.
I try to give constructive input and not complain.
Are you on PS4? I'd love to game with you sometime.
@spIash_damageBuffs ARE being applied first the only 2 nerfs are for the extreme outlier classes that are clearly broken and wouldnt matter how many buffs you did to others, they would still be broken.
Oak doesnt fulfill his role as a multi-player class as he is so strong by himself theres no point. Buffing other characters wont weaken this fact. Sure a damage increase to others make oak easier/faster to kill but it doesnt solve the issue in that its always better to solo oak than jump into an oak as acorn.
As for nightcap, you could make every zombies 1 shot her and it wouldnt fix her problems. Fung fu is too much damage for so little skill. It doesnt matter what buffs you do fung fu would still be broken. Unless you buffed every zombie to 500hp so they dont instantly die thats the only solution that would make her balanced. It needed to be toned down no matter what buffs they did.
Also i never said u were a exploiter, i said all the people mad that these nerfs are happening are. Xbox 😔
@spIash_damage Indeed I agree with buffs over nerfs. However, as someone who works with other local amateur board game designers, both to test my own designs and theirs, the goal of balance is to find the baseline and then adjust everyone up or down to that level. If you have a game like Cthulhu Wars with asymmetrical factions, and one faction wins 66% of their games, one wins 34% of their games, and one wins 52% of their games, and the target is 50%, the first one is too good and needs to be brought down, the second is too low and needs to be brought up, the third, being only 2% of the desired target stays where it is. The people that loved the first faction may be unhappy with the changes to bring them in line, but it's for the overall good of the game.
I wanted to note to that often when Paladins (and I think Overwatch did this too, but they've added 3 characters since I played), new champions are often OP and then are brought down later as they want people to play them, and if they're weak, people generally won't so there's no data on their performance. Occasionally they miss that marker and need to buff instead, and often after nerfing they have to buff back up a little, but that's the general pattern.
Now I don't know what the baseline is here, I'm guessing that Peashooter is pretty close, but I'm not PopCap so can't say and my data is all anecdotal, but for the sake of argument, let's say the Peashooter is at the optimal balance point and everyone else needs to be near that point. If we give Peashooter a value of 5, we need everyone else to be, say 4.8-5.2 as that would be a good target range to go with. We want everything to be at 5.0 in this case, but that's really hard to do when characters are so different.
