HiRezAjax

HiRezAjax



18 Sep

Comment

Originally posted by Draco9990

Hey, thanks for the response.

I have checked and I've been wrong about Zenko, my bad, I really thought it had a lighter tail before the change but I was wrong.

Also, thanks for confirming its indeed intended for the hair and other details on his anime skins - it looked off to me at first but I can see why it would be this way, it does give him a unique flair.

Also on the last one its a shame there are some tech limitations, but its understandable.

GG otherwise on the work put in from the whole team, it really looks amazing.

EDIT: Also, another bug is suggested builds not recommending an acorn upgrade at all. Maybe just a look into that for new players

Thanks! we do have more plans for recommended items! will make sure rat acorn is an included test case.

Comment

Originally posted by Draco9990

Hey, could Rat's acorns visuals be looked at? There's some problems:

  • His anime skins aren't consistent in coloring, some skins color all of the color they have, some don't color hair and feet etc. its a bug

  • A bigger bug is also where Zenko rat now has his base blue skin instead of the light blue one when not having an acorn and it's really out of place

  • Floating acorns do not change their color based on the acorn purchased, but the acorn in the backing animation does

Cheers!

  • anime skins hair color is not a bug - before the color-from-acorn tech was applied to them - only Zenko had hair that did not match his glow color, so we kept that mismatch. The other skins hair all matches their ears and tail.

  • Lobby presentation for all rat skins shows their "tail glow active" at T2 acorn - so people can see it active, you only see the base when in game with T1 acorn. Zenko blue was designed to look like this when we added the tail glow. And i don think it changed, so maybe this is just more of you noticing the color change and disliking it?

  • This one is known and had some tech limitations, ill look into if we have made progress on it.

Comment

I'd say we actually are leaning towards keeping all reworks unbanned in ranked. for 2 main reasons

  1. People want to play them. Its a realy big dissapointment for our ranked players where they cannot even play the new updated characters without switching to casuals, and this actually has a very noticeable effect on pros and streamers, who tend to get better metrics when playing ranked.

  2. "Rework" is vague - there is a lot of gray area between balance and rework, and we explore lots of different levels of change on these gods. Banning reworks would still need some case by case evaluation, and we don't want to be banning "heavy balance" gods as a side effect of this.

To comment on some other things ive seen in here

  • Pro play has specific constraints placed on it all the time. I guess most of this was not visible to the community, but gods like Persephone and Heimdallr were banned for months due to very rare bugs with ve...

Read more
Comment

Originally posted by Tryphaa

Allow me to preface this with me being a 2800mmr adc player, have been playing the game/adc for 7+ years.

Wanted to ask, why not target nerf the power gained from silverbranch overcap instead of the base attack speed of atalantas and silverbranch itself? With those two changes, it kills the viability of the build on non stim hunters, rather than nerfing those who have stims and gain ridiculous power from it (Rama). What do you/hi-rez think the hunter build should be on non stim gods? Right now I feel they are in a substantially worse spot, other than say cupid who has passive AS gain.

Also, how do you feel about how core qins is? Personally, I feel as though it being a near necessity to buy qins third is in itself unhealthy for the game and clear negative if the hunter is behind/significantly behind by the 15 minute mark. If you don't have qins for the first solo rotation, in an even fight your team will lose almost every time do to your lack of relevant dps.

Silverbranch should be for Stim hunters really. When the power was lower, even those hunters werent picking it up. Crit was still considered very strong until recently, and seems like a reasonable option on many other hunters. If we see a scenario where "only hunters who can abuse silverbranch are playable" we will look more into it, but as this time we dont think thats going to be strictly the case.

Qins being core is likelyt because of more health-heavy builds on guardians and warriors. We dont want to nerf it because it was a "victim" of the other meta changes - Qins was considered weak for a long time, and its stats diddnt directly change. Generally, we get a lot of negative feedback from players when we nerf items that were indirectly brought into the meta. We are likely to adjust the bow tree more in the future before we consider making changes to Qins.

Comment

This will be fixed in the Loki Update

Comment

Originally posted by Godman873

Thanks so much for the second response!

That cleared up alot now! Sorry if i sounded impatient in my OP. I was just typing fast on my phone at work. Thanks for taking the time out of your day!

This beta player thanks you!

VVGR - VER

Comment

Originally posted by Godman873

Thanks for the insight ajax!

I do find it interesting that tanks are actually surviving more and like hearing the stats but i do question...

Why was atalantas picked to be the hunter pen item and not executioner? Sure giving that item a new makeover wouldnt be bad considering it was meta for so long...

I am a bit suspicious that some of the "i have no tankiness" might be coming from high damage ultimates or max %hp damage thats been mixed with pen (I.E. heartseeker + titans bane). I know ive been able to do silly things like chunk tanks with thana's 1 or go through nearly all of a tanks prots with scylla...

I just think putting the %pen on newer items might have had smoother impact than jamming it on items which already had identities like atalanta or things like warlock that feel odd to have 10% pen on when it should be built early

We wanted to treat %pen like any other stat, probably the closest comparison is CDR.

In order to have a good variety of build choices to meet the 40% cap, you need a significant number of options at 10% and a rare few at 20%. This requires more items to have the stat, more than we were planning to add as new items.

We also chose the items to gain percent pen quite carefully, looking for underwhelming options or ones that needed shifts.

As for executioner, we felt it was necessary to keep its current identity even in the new pen world. Reducing enemy prots is NOT the same thing as pen, because the 2 can stack, and exe can provide more damage to other physical gods on your team, not just yourself. We felt that putting more %pen as a stat on exe would make it even more of a must have catch-all item than it was before, which is pretty insane because it was already a 99% bought item.

So: putting pen on exe would do the exact opposite of our goals: whic...

Read more
Comment

This decision was made to specifically nerf penetration, and it statistically has. What we are currently trying to figure out is how to connect the perception vs reality.

In Reality:

  • A single item used to provide 60% Penetration against tanks - now its capped at 40%, requires more items, and only rarer conditions can go over 40%. It is factually harder to achieve a full penetration build than it was before.

  • Warriors and Guardians are both dying statistically less now than they did Pre-S7 Mid Season (when running stat querys for "average deaths per god by class for 7.6 vs 7.7 conquest")

  • Mages did noticeably less damage after 7.1 than they did before (when running stat querys for "total player damage dealt by god for 6.12 vs 7.1 conquest")

  • Hunters are doing more damage than they did before mid-season, which is why we implemented the recent hunter nerfs to Atalanta's and Silverbranch. However, we have only seen...

Read more

16 Sep

Comment

specific bug with using the enter button, you can still access keyboard chat in other ways like through VGS

will be fixed in Loki patch


11 Sep

Comment

Can confirm this is a bug and not intended. Reading the design myself and it looks like however it was written does not clearly specifiy for UI or QA how owned vs unowned skins should be handled. Likely the creator assumed people would understand to keep the current "show owned first then show unowned" - but in this new order being asked for.

Just a small miscommunication, not a monetization tactic. Skins are intended to be shown in all owned first, grouped together, then unowned.

Will be fixed next patch. Thanks!


09 Sep

Comment

Originally posted by nemestrinus44

Do we know if the 6 planned gods next season includes the 6th god that was supposed to show up this season?

Also, Danzabouro is gonna be a hunter? As a tanuki he’s gonna either be Ratatoskr/Cupid sized or Zhong sized right? Those are gonna be odd dimensions for a hunter if so.

Next year will be exactly 6 gods in total.

Currently planned to be (always subject to change)


06 Sep

Comment

Originally posted by Foxy-Fill

If your ideal win rate for a new god is middle of the pack does that mean the gods true overall win rate or just factoring in matches where only one team has the new god.

Using Tsukuyomi as an example he was on both teams in nearly every casual match for a long time. That would dilute the win rate for a new god correct?

A second point is just that it SEEMS like the new gods are just inherently better than the old ones. Now obviously you have all of the data and like you addressed in the post their design is influenced by thematic ideas. The thing for me and I’m sure a lot of avid players like myself is that we’ve seen the same gods be dominant for a long long time.

I watch the spl every week constantly. There’s a reason why for weeks and even up to months - possibly over a year in some cases - gods like Persephone, Cthulhu, and Yemoja have been top picks and bans. Merlin, Heim, and Arthur FINALLY god put in a decent place.

The consistent theme seems...

Read more

We ignore mirror matches in all official stat gathering. Including mirror matches pushes everyone closer to 50% with a larger effect on popular gods.

The new god vs old god viability thing is definitely perception. Top win% charts or SPL pick/ban tends to have a good mix of gods launched from all seasons.

Comment

Originally posted by NathairFaen

I do not know if you are still responding to this stuff, but if you have the time, I have a quick question. Is his ult supposed to act like a DoT? Because functionally that is the only reason I can think of that his ult follows banishes, and untargetable ults. Is that intended? Gods that normally would counter his ult and just trade them like arachne or freya, just die anyway

As a long time smite player his ability to break what has been constants in the game for years is where the majority of the frustration in his kit comes from. It follows untargetable enemies while doing damage, it does similar damage to single target/ high skillshot ults, while being extremely safe (in comparision), aoe, and fast to activate/not extremely hard to hit.

yes it is intended to work like a dot in that way.

Comment

Originally posted by 13-Snakes

You do realize you say that teams in play test worked together to counter him, but then make him playable in a game when 50% of players can’t see him prior to locking in their champ.

we certainly did not pick gods to counter him and judge his balance that way. im referring specifically to "playstyle" sort of decisions.

also mentioned that this was just a small component or possible factor in the outcome...


05 Sep

Comment

Originally posted by jbeast99x

Ajax you are the man. Thank you for everything you do!

<3

Comment

Originally posted by [deleted]

thats a lot of comments when it comes to how gods should be changed and stuff, see a lot of questionable balance ideas on this sub lol. think i at least mentioned most of what your longer comment says in my own reply to it. long posts and replies really arent my thing, have the attention span of a goldfish.

this aint meant to sound to dickish but when i first saw sol's kit back when she was revealed i remember saying to myself and whoever i was in a skype call with "theres no way this god doesnt make casuals suck for at least 2 patches" and well the rest is history lol.

might even be a designer vs just player type thing, i know all of you play yourselves but theres still a different look at the game from both sides.

All of us on the design and balance team are also players.

The community tends to WAY over-value a god's kit "on paper" when in reality its their level of "skill shot" that makes a bigger difference.

Making an ability easier to hit through a size increase or a faster animation time tends to have a larger statistical impact on the god than BIG damage number buffs.

So people read the kit, but then do not even consider that an ability or combo might be hard to hit, and immediately over value it. We spend a lot of time trying to make sure timing and skill factor for abilities feel right, yet its virtually impossible to express that on paper. It needs to be played.

Comment

Originally posted by Drict

The team clearly need to assess your method of testing with NON - TEAM organized groups.

Most games of Smite the average player is partnering with 1-2 players at most, if not queuing solo. Tsukuyomi is an amazing solo queue pick, because you have so many abilities to mess with your opponents; being able to stun, disarm, move around, slow, etc. is sooo punishing if you are even if you aren't vaguely aware of your teammates.

I would suggest forcing people in your testing environment to be muted (including party chat) to each other, and completely random teams (pros, and casual mixed together) and randomly assign the new god with everyone else getting to pick a god of their choice sometimes and randomly assigning (like assault) other matches.

Mix it up

We do both already, It seems my one reply has led people to believe otherwise. See my other reponses here for more info.

Comment

Originally posted by AkiyoSSJ

In the end this is just a clear view to the fact that Smite is a team based game. In my opinion, playing solo in casual matches where everyone does whatever they want(with many people not even cooperating) should not bring you any expectations. Those solo queues in casual should be defintely not the main metric in deciding the nerfs for a god.

This is a good point. In more disorganized matches, lots of gods can carry. Someone whose personal skill is slightly better is going to have a bigger impact than the god they chose (at least within a class/role comparison)

Comment

Originally posted by epiphopotamus

Would it be worth looking at your testing conventions? If you have the same groups as your testers are you only getting the perspective of coordinated teams at a higher level of play, and that is not what the majority of the community has the privilege to experience.

PTS could be amplified in the live client, or reward people to encourage a larger sample set? Make a specific queue in the live client for it? Obviously I'm not qualified to present actionable ideas, but I feel like you've had to regularly defend God releases lately, so something must not be working.

We do a wide variety of testing with a wide variety of people in the company.

We have tried to bribe people to play PTS before, it was not very successful.

Comment

Originally posted by [deleted]

do you guys do like tests and matches with comms vs no comms constant vgs as far as info and then less vgs going to more so simulate actual games? ive done my fair share of solo Qing and full premades and honestly playing with people you know vs playing with randoms its damn near like playing a different game lol.

Yes we do a variety of both. I might even say that we do a majority of "unorganized" tests.

I feel like a lot of responses are missing all my other points and going right to internal testing. A large takeaway i wanted people to learn from my response is:

No amount of internal testing can perfectly solve this problem. (sure it can improve, though)

Riot or Blizzard have similar issues, even with much larger teams. This is the nature of making subjective, creative products. People are different from eachother.