Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5751377" data-attributes="member: 54877">Yes. Macro balance is often important. Micro balance often isn't, and the means to attempt it cause more trouble than they solve.&nbsp;I look at this a bit like software quality assurance and user interface design. If you've got a &quot;problem&quot; that keeps coming up for most of your users, and really getting in the way of their work--then you need to fix it. But you need to really fix it right, even if that means digging into the core of the design and getting at the core problem. But if you've got something like a few people complaining about the arrangement of a few buttons and text boxes, it isn't worth the time to even evaluate a change, much less do it. And if a bunch of users start complaining about the arrangment, there is a good chance the problem is not, &quot;change X to Y&quot; but &quot;change X to be more flexible so that each user can set it however they want.&quot; And thus you are back to macro changes.&nbsp; (And this isn't about the amount of work required to fix it.&nbsp; It may take five minutes to make the correct macro change, once you've properly evaluated the problem.&nbsp; And people may waste days and weeks on cosmetic, largely useless trivia.)&nbsp;In both 3E and 4E, WotC has gotten into the habit of making micro changes--trying to tweak balance to satisfy the latest complaints from the char ops types. This never works. And when char ops comes to a consensus on a real problem (math issue), then micro changes don't solve it well. The zillion trivial changes to spells in 3.5 are another example. &nbsp;Or put another way, &quot;issues&quot; are either symptoms of important problems that need to be addressed, or they aren't worth fooling with. When you start making micro changes, you hide the symptoms, and thus make it harder to deal with the core problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5751377, member: 54877"] Yes. Macro balance is often important. Micro balance often isn't, and the means to attempt it cause more trouble than they solve. I look at this a bit like software quality assurance and user interface design. If you've got a "problem" that keeps coming up for most of your users, and really getting in the way of their work--then you need to fix it. But you need to really fix it right, even if that means digging into the core of the design and getting at the core problem. But if you've got something like a few people complaining about the arrangement of a few buttons and text boxes, it isn't worth the time to even evaluate a change, much less do it. And if a bunch of users start complaining about the arrangment, there is a good chance the problem is not, "change X to Y" but "change X to be more flexible so that each user can set it however they want." And thus you are back to macro changes. (And this isn't about the amount of work required to fix it. It may take five minutes to make the correct macro change, once you've properly evaluated the problem. And people may waste days and weeks on cosmetic, largely useless trivia.) In both 3E and 4E, WotC has gotten into the habit of making micro changes--trying to tweak balance to satisfy the latest complaints from the char ops types. [B]This never works[/B]. And when char ops comes to a consensus on a real problem (math issue), then micro changes don't solve it well. The zillion trivial changes to spells in 3.5 are another example. Or put another way, "issues" are either symptoms of important problems that need to be addressed, or they aren't worth fooling with. When you start making micro changes, you hide the symptoms, and thus make it harder to deal with the core problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification