What You Want From Balance Patches

[WaifuRaccoonBL]

So with both Nintendo's view on it being competitive: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/splatoon-origins-and-esports-potential-of-nintendo/1100-6426789/

AND their views on supporting the game: http://wiiudaily.com/2015/04/nintendo-confirms-splatoon-will-have-post-launch-dlc-support/

It is no surprise there can potentially be balance patches throw in.

There are three main questions to come from this then.

1. How often will they happen.
2. What and how much are they willing to "balance."
3. What game modes will they focus on for balance.

Do you want them, for example, to be having a balance patch every couple of months? Or would you want them to only have a patch when something is just too strong/centralizing?

And what do you want them to patch? Only very op tactics? Have them constant try to make everything equal? Maybe you want them to keep advanced techniques?

 

[Neo Zero]

I imagine if balancing happened, it would focus around team build outs in 4v4 ranked, as opposed to nerfing a single weapon in the normal multiplayer mode. On that note, they'll probably attempt to even the weapons so both are perfectly viable to be used in each game mode.

 

[Lyn]

Anything that keeps obviously overpowered and underpowered weapons from being used too much / useless. I'd also like for them to balance maps and equipment if necessary. :)

 

[FunkyLobster]

obviously, balance

stuff like adjusting weapons to make them suit the philosophy behind splatoon, making sure no perks or weapons are overpowered or underpowered

hopefully they don't patch out techniques. they haven't for their other games like mario kart, and the only game they have (removing the DACUS from smash 4) is being directed by sakurai, who's sort of a freelance game designer with only vague ties to nintendo because of his previous work at HAL

 

[Undr]

Okay, wrote out an essay on the dangers of patching. Decided to amend it to this: Patch what is severely broken. Leave the rest to the community to work around. Examples: How "OP" Fox is in Melee, Ice Climbers chaingrabs, and Peach's *****nado.

 

[Flying_Tortoise]

So with both Nintendo's view on it being competitive: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/splatoon-origins-and-esports-potential-of-nintendo/1100-6426789/

AND their views on supporting the game: http://wiiudaily.com/2015/04/nintendo-confirms-splatoon-will-have-post-launch-dlc-support/

It is no surprise there can potentially be balance patches throw in.

There are three main questions to come from this then.

1. How often will they happen.
2. What and how much are they willing to "balance."
3. What game modes will they focus on for balance.

Do you want them, for example, to be having a balance patch every couple of months? Or would you want them to only have a patch when something is just too strong/centralizing?

And what do you want them to patch? Only very op tactics? Have them constant try to make everything equal? Maybe you want them to keep advanced techniques?

I want no patches. only patch out glitches. Most likely they have already thought through the weapon sets. No need to mess with them. No one probably has that opinion

 

[Regiruler]

Balancing is for the benefit of the game's longevity. No-one likes facing the same nonsense on a consistent basis.

And it's not like Nintendo are balance gods or anything. There's going to be a power discrepancy somewhere when the game launches.

 

[Lyn]

Balancing is for the benefit of the game's longevity. No-one likes facing the same nonsense on a consistent basis.

And it's not like Nintendo are balance gods or anything. There's going to be a power discrepancy somewhere when the game launches.

That is true. There's always imbalance somewhere. I'm sure it will be minor coming from Nintendo, though.

 

[Undr]

This is where I tend to disagree with everyone. I can promise you no one would be playing Melee today if it were being patched like Sm4sh is now. That said, I understand the benefits to patching the game. Take Project M for example. The developers understand competitive gaming. I doubt anyone at Nintendo even compares to the Project M staff.

 

[Lyn]

This is where I tend to disagree with everyone. I can promise you no one would be playing Melee today if it were being patched like Sm4sh is now. That said, I understand the benefits to patching the game. Take Project M for example. The developers understand competitive gaming. I doubt anyone at Nintendo even compares to the Project M staff.

I'm sure Melee wouldn't be as popular competitively balanced.. but it would be arguably better. If the roster were actually fair a lot more people would like Melee.

 

[Icedise]

The "current" (the game is not even out yet lol) weapon balance seems to revolve around the kits. They stated that each weapon come with a set of primary, sub and special weapon. That's so players cannot build really overpowered kits and just faceroll in certain situations. Based on that I assume that the weapons are quite well balanced right when the game starts. The possible balance patches would mainly include tweaks towards the perks in equipment, because that's where the player specific customisation is.

There can be really strong combinations of equipment and trying to find those with internal testing only (because its Nintendo, huehue) can be really difficult given that there is squidic inkload of equipment in the game.

 

[Trieste Sp]

Patch the jank stuff whatever that will be.

 

[Mr. Squidward Tennisballs]

It's really too early to think about what needs to be patched.

I trust weapons will have good stats, while having a specific setup, so you can't have a bazooka and a sniper rifle. or whatever.

Maps? If there's glitches that make you get OoM, then of course I want it patched.

I'd hope there's no ghost glitching either, not possible, but it could happen.

 

[FunkyLobster]

I'm sure Melee wouldn't be as popular competitively balanced.. but it would be arguably better. If the roster were actually fair a lot more people would like Melee.

as a competitive melee player, a lot of the appeal is in the how short the list of viable characters are, actually. there's only 8 or 9 viable characters out of the 26 in melee, but the matchups between them are deeper than the mariana trench, and a lot of the campier, boring characters are in the bottom tier (with the exclusion of sheik,) helping melee's image as a game so fast it gives you whiplash

one of the biggest reasons people say they don't like melee is because it's imbalanced. while that's definitely true, i think it's a healthy imbalance that presents more advantages to the game than problems

 

[FunkyLobster]

anyway, ideally only problematic weapons would get patches that change how they work. stuff that hurts the pace of the game or goes against the philosophy of it, etc. i think good balance stems from good design, so if you make sure the weapon serves an overall purpose to the game that fits its themes, it'll probably find a healthy niche

 

[Undr]

Patch the jank stuff whatever that will be.

But... I like jank stuff. Non OP jank stuff mind you.

 

[Lyn]

But... I like jank stuff. Non OP jank stuff mind you.

Jank stuff is the best kind of stuff, obviously.

 

[Xon Suprimes]

I like jank stuff ;-;

 

[WaifuRaccoonBL]

Jank stuff should be left in, (unless it is so glitchy looking that it makes the game look horribly programmed no matter how good it is), and I agree that weapon power should be as close to power as possible. I hope we can also avoid over-centralization.