dagger and sledgehammer

[neeco]

The problem is that it doesn't matter how big variety of the stuff game gives You, people will always find either optimal or most efficient "meta" deck, the only way to counter that is to make changes just for the sake of change. Very annoying.

Yes, but I think good design and balance adjustments can make a system with viable counter-play and natural variety. A big step was already made in this direction with the introduction of the cutblade which gives MC users a heavy-hitting weapon which at least starts to approach the B12 in combat viability.

[MagicManICT]

Variety for the sake of diversity and counter-play though, is something I would very much like. it would be nice to have more deck variants to run rather than everyone running basically the same core moves that are acknowledged as "best".

This is what I love about Magic and other TCG/CCGs. The variety of things people can put together.

The problem is that it doesn't matter how big variety of the stuff game gives You, people will always find either optimal or most efficient "meta" deck,

Maybe, but then you balance that shit if you're the developer. Take any big game with a lot of options. You get periods when a certain build for a character, team, whatever becomes strong and it's "what everyone is playing" if they want to compete for the top spot. Then the devs come in, nerfbat something, and time is spent looking for the new meta. My question is: can a two man development keep up with that? I don't think they can... they might if they're dedicated to work 16 hour days 7 days a week so they can maintain the current and work on adding new, too.

[neeco]

Then the devs come in, nerfbat something, and time is spent looking for the new meta. My question is: can a two man development keep up with that? I don't think they can... they might if they're dedicated to work 16 hour days 7 days a week so they can maintain the current and work on adding new, too.

Once sufficient variety or weapons and moves been implemented to allow for a diverse meta then nerfs/buffs just become a matter of gently tweaking the numbers up or down and could easily be incorporated into the weekly updates. I think the hard and time-consuming part is figuring out what the meta actually is so the right things can be adjusted. This would probably require player input, unless Jorb & Loftar code something up to track people's combat decks.

[MagicManICT]

This would probably require player input, unless Jorb & Loftar code something up to track people's combat decks.

This is absolutely mandatory. It's how we have gone from the old models in gaming where nerfs were out of nowhere and based on player complaints to the current models of successful esports games like DOTA, LoL, CS, PUBG, etc. Automated data collection on what players use, how they use it, and win/loss rates is the road to proper balance. It takes a good driver to navigate that, road, though.

[neeco]

This would probably require player input, unless Jorb & Loftar code something up to track people's combat decks.

This is absolutely mandatory. It's how we have gone from the old models in gaming where nerfs were out of nowhere and based on player complaints to the current models of successful esports games like DOTA, LoL, CS, PUBG, etc. Automated data collection on what players use, how they use it, and win/loss rates is the road to proper balance. It takes a good driver to navigate that, road, though.

It would also require tracking fighters specifically and probably would need a larger data sample size than haven has to offer. Additionally its hard to judge the win/loss conditions in haven compared to all the other games you mentioned because haven fights are not set matches, nor are they even fights.
These are both reasons why player input might be necessary.

[MagicManICT]

I pulled a few popular examples. Blizzard has become very good at analytics for their games--all of them. It started with Starcraft, moved through D2 and WoW, and it's how they balance numbers for Heroes and Overwatch. It's not a perfect tool for everything, but it does a good job at exposing flaws and weaknesses (if you know how to read the data).

[neeco]

I pulled a few popular examples. Blizzard has become very good at analytics for their games--all of them. It started with Starcraft, moved through D2 and WoW, and it's how they balance numbers for Heroes and Overwatch. It's not a perfect tool for everything, but it does a good job at exposing flaws and weaknesses (if you know how to read the data).

Its not your specific examples but rather the fact that they all fall under a very specific set of criteria that haven doesn't have. They all start out with both sides on equal footing, have have a set match with clear win/lose condition. Haven doesn't really have any of these criteria. I'm not saying such data analyzing techniques would be completely useless but the data won't be as clear due to varying conditions.
Haven fights can and frequently do have uneven numbers of players on each side, uneven stats and gear, and unclear win conditions.
Its a lot harder to see the flaws and weaknesses when you have to contend with all these other variables that are not constant.

[MagicManICT]

Its not your specific examples but rather the fact that they all fall under a very specific set of criteria that haven doesn't have. They all start out with both sides on equal footing,

Sure, and I didn't mention CCP? I must be slipping. They've been using analytics for EVE balancing for a decade now.

My point still stands that you have to have the people to develop the analytics and then people that are capable of sifting through the amount of data generated to get useful results.

My question is: can a two man development keep up with that? I don't think they can...