Doctor Archive
Thread: Arguments and Comment for New Enhaced Vote
I waited like 20 hrs thinking someone must start this thread since Big Z said not to comment on the voting thread.
Guess if you want it, you gotta start it yourself.
Anyway, I am kinda niffed at that Dev for making the choice between just that two.
Kinda asking us to pick the worst of two evil.
I pick 1 but I wasn't so sure about it. Especially since 1 is big unknown.
I am sure that they will make the number around 2x the base if you are master since most of the numbers I've seen are between 1x and 3x of base. But that is just my guess. It can very well be, (and I would expect just about anything from SoE) that the number would be something like 1.1 or around 1000 max no matter what I use.
Since the choice is between a known something that I don't really like, but can live with and an unknown which may or may not turn out to be a nurf (and it never occoured to me that it might turn out to be a stealth Doc love), the choice was hard.
Well I KNOW that at the end, "theoretically" it make no difference. I will both get the same average with either choice, but it would have been nice if that Dev gave us some kind of number to base our decision on instead of blindfold us and tell us to make a decision on faith.
People who currently buff don't remember all the regular 1000's we buff for, to make a guess at what the average buff would be, most of us just remember that one 2000+ and one sub 1000's and it is like asking us do we love 2000+ more or hate sub 1000's more.
And even I would say I LOVE getting 2000+!!! nothing better in the world. And although I HATE HATE getting sub 1000's I can live with it.
Just kinda sad to see that issue being one of top 5 for so long, then now they sorta ask us to sove it under the carpet. And it is by our choice. Uggg.... 
If we get the enhancements changed to where it only buffs a set amount then I feel everything else will do the same (heals, wounds, CM poisons, etc.). Some of you people may like the fact that you don't have to think about how much you will buff for or may even heal for down the line, but I like the randomness. I get excited when I get that elusive 3000 point buff, and I also get disapointed when I get a 900 point buff right after it, but life will go on.
What I think is a better solution to fix this is to take away the xp you receive from buffing and then allow you to reapply the buffs so you are not stuck with a low number. This would fix the concern about people just farming xp on buffing people over and over. Or just set a timer on the buff xp you would receive. Like you buff someone with health and you get xp, you can't get xp by buffing health on that person for another 20 minutes or so ( or depending on the length of the buff itself).
I dunno, I am just throwing out other ideas on how to keep the devs from making buffs a set number as to me that would be one of the biggest nerfs they could do to my chosen profession.
Well, I have asked for clarification ont eh formula, as I also think folks might be remembering the highs and lows, but not really keeping good track of the averages, and as such may be disappointed with what would be percieved as a nerf (even though the average number remained absolutely the same.) I am not expecting a reply, truth be told, other than that it is likely policy not to discuss the formulas used in the game as such formula discovery is considered part of the game, as it were.
I must also express my... let's just say displeasure, as the options provided. I fully understand that Ben has many, many things on his plate and that Enhances, on the whole, are working. (With a few minor problems.) He probably cannot justify a more in-depth programming requirement for recoding the system when simply leaving it as is, or completely removing the variability would be simply changes for him. Giving the most bag for the buck, so to speak, if by making a simple change he can answer a Top 5 issue for us.
I've been mulling over an appropriate response for him on the issue. For now I'll leave it to the voting process. I may try to push that we would be willing to wait for a more in-depth coding change, however.
I must also express dissapointment that the simple response we did receive on the issue, explaining their position on why the variability is needed in the case of Stims, was not something presented months ago when the issue was first brought up. Most of our issues could stand reception of a response like that, and it's something we have been missing. That being said, however, at least the process of getting such responses has started. We never had any responses before recently.
So yes, let me just say that I am dissapointed as well. I haven;t even decided where to place my own vote on the issue yet. Likely I will vote for leaving it as is, for now. BUt I'm not too sure I am willing to let the issue rest at simply that.
Well, that would be a nerf on Doctors who actually gain xp by enhancing.
I've been seeing something like a range of 1x to 3.5x based off of my 530 range packs and my newer 690 packs. If that were indeed the range, then a static value would suggest a buff, as a Master Doc, of 225% of the basic value. So, I would consistently buff about the 1200 level with my older packs and 1500 with my newer ones. Those who make those really nice 800+ packs would be able to get up to 2000 with a buff.
The problem seems to be that many times we get that Novice Doctor feeling when a person pays you for one stat that they are interested in, like Health or Action, and you give them a 600 point job. They could have paid a lucky Novice less money for the same result. I'm sure smugglers feel the same way. At least we don't have failures to worry about.
One of my peeves about doctor buffs is that they cannot be removed without killing the patient. Since my doctor's buffs are typically fairly varied in duration, this means reapplying the buffs is generally a multi-step process over a period of an hour or two in the field. Not being able to 'refresh' buffs is very annoying, as well as potentially griefable.
I think this is an important point as, if buffs were selectively removeable, it would lead to people reapplying buffs until they get a high result. This might make buffs more powerful than intended, since few people would have the low-end results from the buffs. Since I would like to see buffs being selectively removable (or similarly, applicable before the duration of the old buff wears off) it seems like there would be fewer balance issues if the buffs were consistent, or at least more consistent.
Overall, I think consistent, reapplicable buffs (with the highest result being active) would be more useful and easier to balance than high-variance and/or unreapplicable buffs.
I voted 1).
We already have 2).
With 1), we'll get a static amount based on the unknown (undecided?)formula. If it's too low we'll complain and it'll get raised. If it's too high, smugglers and chefs will complain, and it'll get lowered. Eventually, we'll get to somethingwe all can (more or less) agree on.
If 1) doesn't work out, they can just roll the code back to the current system.
Lund: Actually the formula is know, to a certain extent. It is the exact same formula we are using at this very moment, minus the variability factor. That's all.
That's why Ben says it is so easy for him to change, he just removes the randum seed generator from the equation and, viola. We get the base figure that would, otherwise, only be the average that we heal for now.
If my buffs get nerfed I am going to raise hell.
This is a prime example of why developers should not be listening to "popular votes." Stupid people outnumber reasonably intelligent people 10 to 1.
Umm... that's a rather intersting comment. Care to back it up?
In this particular instance there is no possible way that any change enacted in this instance could be construed as a nerf, except by relatively unintelligent people.
The reason... we are talking about the exact same numbers here. Anyone who thinks they got nerfed IF the variability is completely removed (and the vote is not currently going that way anyways) was simply misleading themselves into thinking that they were buffing far better, on average, than they really were. I would not at all be surprised to see a few folks, if told their actrualy average, would say that number is way too low and they just got nerfed, when in fact that is exactly what they had been buffing for, on average, the whole time. Any suggestion to the contrary is simple denial.
A nerf implies losing something. You can't losing something that's already there, which is the average that you've been buffing for all along. *sheesh* I wish all these intelligent people would just read a bit more because I don't know how many times I have to say this.
Nobody is stupid for wanting things one way or the other. SOme folks LIKE the variability, other DON'T. It's not really a question of getting nerfed, it's a question of likes and dislikes. Neither method is inherently any better or worse than the other.
Losing the ability to buff for 2800 points with a base 875 enhance pack is most definitely a nerf.
Yes, most people are stupid for wanting some things. In this case, they are not thinking things through carefully enough. We have zero information as to how the actual calculations work. Casting a vote to change something when you don't know what the change will be is not exactly a smart thing to do. I realize most players are not old enough to vote, but when they are, I certainly hope they do not just vote for initiatives and candidates at random without knowing what they're endorsing.
Given that we have no real information, the proper thing to do is insist nothing change until there exists sufficient information to make an informed decision.
Entering subjective mode...
Basing assumptions only on the existing variances, I have to infer that a static value would end up somewhere near the middle. Perhaps ~1700 for the aforementioned D pack. Not only is this unacceptably low, but now every player will always be buffed by the same amount. The only variance in buffed player health will be an insignificant difference due to stat migration. Large variances in HAM lead to diversity of combat tactics, and thus, more fun.
The proper beneficial solution to this issue is to more heavily weight (assuming it is even weighted now, which I doubt) the chances of a great or poor buff on doctor skill and crafted medicine properties. The variance should remain, but the success rate should be tweaked in this sensible fashion.
What are the odds of getting to choose either at the time of buff?
/enhance action MedicalExperiment
Without the flag, you know you'll buff for 1200.
With the flag you get 600-1800... might not be easily doable...
vortex4 wrote:
If my buffs get nerfed I am going to raise hell.
This is a prime example of why developers should not be listening to "popular votes." Stupid people outnumber reasonably intelligent people 10 to 1.
Does that mean there is 90% chance you are one of stupid people?
Even if you think you are one of those reasonably intellegent people, you are 90% likely to be mistaken.
Thats goes for me too.
See... Numbers are so weird to work with. Thats why I don't put too much faith on statistics unless the question is very specifically defined.
This is not one of those example you are looking for.
We are pretty much voting on when we are getting our ice cream.
Choice 1) Always after dinner
Choice 2) Whenever your waitress feel like it. Some times before your meal, sometimes after, sometimes anytime during.
You are getting dang ice cream either way.