59 minutes ago, ORCA1911 said:
where you’re only as good as long as the latest stuff is mildly to greatly unfair.
i agree to all you said, however i do want to switch sides for a moment and admit, that overpowering certain stuff is an accepted approach of balancing. if you know where it’s overpowered, you can nerf it better to a good amount. so it’s not wrong to do it per se. in a way you overshoot, undershoot and then finetune between the limits.
the problem is, using this technique, it should be done faster, more actively, and if available, in a test environment, and only to one aspect of the game at once. and in case of the front blaster, it got a buff, while also enabling aim assist, while i found it was just fine as it was right at release, but being underused mostly because of the deconstructor.
i also found the phase suppressor to be fine as it was, but it probably got used more due to the debate around deconstructor. there are lots of people looking at the forum read only, and telling others what they read, …
i have no idea if using more hotfixes affects e.g. costs, that multiple things are done at once, after all i dunno how you pay steam and other content delivery systems, but all we would need is in fact just more active hotfixes maybe.
i know however, all projects slow down on delivery, while the more automated the delivery systems get, the more they actually also increase in complexity. that’s a philosophical question i debate over with other devs, you spend time creating automatisation of patch workflows, and in the end do less patches over time than in the early phase, where the patch is done with some hacked bash scripts…
38 minutes ago, _terrorblade said:
Is this in another dimension? platform 9 3/4?
games in us timezone can be like that
as well as afternoon games, or early evening