Content Releases should also have some live design changes
BHVR has posted on here that content releases are no longer going to have live design changes so that feedback can be focused on new content and I do not think this is necessary.
I suspect the reason for this is because during the PTB for the release the Krasue had very large massive design changes included that ended up being scrapped as a result there was very little good feedback for Krasue as many of the problems were either swept under the rug or not as evident due to the changes.
I believe this is a massive over reaction in the other direction. There is a big difference between not releasing new content along side very large changes with reaching consequences across the entire game like the scrapped anti tunnel/anti slug system featured in the Krasue PTB and balance updates to underused and weak perks.
Buffing 4-8 weak perks with number changes wouldn't have detracted from Jason feedback in any significant way and the workload required to do it is small, literally anyone who knows how to use an IDE and git without even a lick of programming knowledge could do it since they just have to change the values in the existing code. We're not asking for major reworks of perks here, just a simple look at underutilized and under-powered perks and just increasing the numbers on them. Even if a buff ends up being too much and needs to be scaled back, it wont detract from new content feedback in a meaningful way and even if something overpowered makes it into the game it can always be scaled back later, and in the meantime it will at least shake things up for experienced players.
Diminishing returns reducing the effects of synergy builds makes these small changes more needed than ever because it reduces the odds that a weak perk can find a potential niche to shine in and the current pace is not fast enough.
I do not know why these changes occur so slowly, The only reason I can think of is that these simple changes have massive amounts of bureaucratic red tape associated with them that are making something that should be simple and doable by 2 or 3 people in a few hours instead require hours of meetings, approvals, and discussions resulting in a lack of progress, and if this is the case I hope this process can be improved to be more efficient and focused on making more rapid and "risky" changes (from a balance perspective) than trying to spend hours upon hours on a small number "safe" changes.
Comments