Nerfs are bad game design.

[peq42]

and at this point, I thought that was universally understood... but DE is a slow learner.

 

>You don't nerf things. Ever. Unless there's a bug, or exploit, you never nerf anything. It's bad game design. No one likes it. 

>To balance things, you BUFF what's weak.

 

Someone at DE please print this and put on every door on the company, please and thanks <3

[Leqesai]

3 minutes ago, elpeleq42 said:

>You don't nerf things. Ever. Unless there's a bug, or exploit, you never nerf anything. It's bad game design. No one likes it. 

>To balance things, you BUFF what's weak.

If something is performing at a higher level than expected you don't bring the whole game up to match that thing... that is completely bass-ackwards thinking...

[----Legacy----]

Nerfs are a way to address and correct bad decisions, such as removing self damage from AoE intead of fixing it (especially now that Shield Gating exists) or creating a cheap summon that requires no player input other than pressing 1 once and becomes pretty much a 5th player in the squad, sometimes even better at the game than players themselves.

[NinthAria]

9 minutes ago, elpeleq42 said:

and at this point, I thought that was universally understood... but DE is a slow learner.

 

>You don't nerf things. Ever. Unless there's a bug, or exploit, you never nerf anything. It's bad game design. No one likes it. 

>To balance things, you BUFF what's weak.

 

Someone at DE please print this and put on every door on the company, please and thanks <3

Tell me you don't know anything about game design without telling me you don't know anything about game design.

[mac10smg--Toa_of_Green]

I feel like most people who are against nerfs only remember when stuff was nerfed into uselessness and conveniently forget all the times that either things were buffed or when things were nerfed and were ultimately fine.

Poor balancing of certain nerfs is no excuse to dismiss the possibility of nerfs altogether.

[PublikDomain]

Nerfs and buffs are two sides of the same coin, there is no practical difference between them. The only question is which of the two options is the easiest way to achieve the desired outcome.

[Kokokojo]

21 minutes ago, elpeleq42 said:

and at this point, I thought that was universally understood... but DE is a slow learner.

 

>You don't nerf things. Ever. Unless there's a bug, or exploit, you never nerf anything. It's bad game design. No one likes it. 

>To balance things, you BUFF what's weak.

 

Someone at DE please print this and put on every door on the company, please and thanks <3

Spot the child

[SDGDen]

6 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Nerfs and buffs are two sides of the same coin, there is no practical difference between them. The only question is which of the two options is the easiest way to achieve the desired outcome.

this.

 

balance is quite simple in theory:

take a pivot, a point that you consider perfectly balanced. lets say we take the vectis, it's strong but it's not overpowered, it's fun to use and satisfying to shoot.

 

now take everything that's significantly more powerful than the vectis, and nerf it so it's within the same power range as the vectis.

 

now take everything that's significantly less powerful than the vectis, and buff it so its within the same power range as the vectis.

 

 

of course, that's a VERY simple overview, games like warframe with power progression have multiple pivots and where in the game you are determine what pivot is used to scale that weapons (many low-MR weapons have a lower pivots because duh) 

[Raqiya]

Maaaan, you're just wrong.

[Yamazuki]

Reducing the power of outliers is fine, and isn't the issue. The issue is DE hardly does anything in regards to increasing the power of outliers on the opposite side or making adjustments along the way when the increases aren't enough or the reduction was overkill. The changes that are made are purely for the purpose of adjusting usage statistics.

DE will nerf weapons that aren't even optimal if they share anything or are part of the same weapon 'class' as an outlier and there is zero compensation changes being another issue.

[peq42]

Ah yes, because everyone loves and compliments the game when their favorite warframe/weapon/combo gets nerfed. It's not like the newest weapons are what becomes popular for a time because they are good on release then when some get nerfed they die out.

 

Problems such as AOE forced meta or even some weapons being used by over 30% of the player base totally couldn't be better fixed by, idk, buffing other weapons and/or designing new enemies or areas instead of nerfing those weapons into non-existance. After all, who likes new content or having their weapons buffed right?

 

EDIT: also yes, while BUFF and NERF are two sides of the same coin, if you NERF you're taking away, if you BUFF you're giving to the player. And what do you think makes the players happier? 

>again, not against nerfing to fix exploits, bugs, or non-intended absurd power. But BUFFING alternatives is better than NERFING what players like.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

44 minutes ago, elpeleq42 said:

and at this point, I thought that was universally understood... but DE is a slow learner.

 

>You don't nerf things. Ever. Unless there's a bug, or exploit, you never nerf anything. It's bad game design. No one likes it. 

>To balance things, you BUFF what's weak.

 

Someone at DE please print this and put on every door on the company, please and thanks <3

You just made this up. We don't have to actually believe you or lend any credence to your made up rules.

The original bramma literally lowered people's frame rates. 

[peq42]

5 minutes ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

 

The original bramma literally lowered people's frame rates. 

So a BUG or un-intended thing that happened. Still, didnt need a nerf, but a fix for the lag and/or crashing.

[PublikDomain]

8 minutes ago, elpeleq42 said:

EDIT: also yes, while BUFF and NERF are two sides of the same coin, if you NERF you're taking away, if you BUFF you're giving to the player. And what do you think makes the players happier? 

Sugar makes people happy, too, doesn't mean you should consist solely on sugar water. Eat your vegetables. I know they're bitter but they're good for you.

[peq42]

8 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Sugar makes people happy, too, doesn't mean you should consist solely on sugar water. Eat your vegetables. I know they're bitter but they're good for you.

Sugar is bad for your health, but good tasting. Buffs make the player feel stronger and as if they got something new, and... no down sides? Because if now that thing is strong and too many people use it, you can just buff something else, and make other players also feel happier, while not making the previous one feel angry that their favorite weapon got worse. Enemies are too easy to kill? Make new enemies/missions or make enemies stronger against certain things and boom, still won't piss people off as much as nerfing.

 

 

The difference between Nerf as a way to balance things and Buff as the same thing is quite subtle, but can be simplified to: Everyone likes when things get better, no one likes when things get worse. If you make things worse more often than you make things better, then you will probably gradually lose your player base.

 

[quxier]

24 minutes ago, elpeleq42 said:

 

Problems such as AOE forced meta or even some weapons being used by over 30% of the player base totally couldn't be better fixed by, idk, buffing other weapons and/or designing new enemies or areas instead of nerfing those weapons into non-existance. After all, who likes new content or having their weapons buffed right?

You cannot just buff single target weapons because no matter what damage it does it stills won't kill many enemies like AoE.

[peq42]

2 minutes ago, quxier said:

You cannot just buff single target weapons because no matter what damage it does it stills won't kill many enemies like AoE.

"and/or designing new enemies or areas instead of nerfing those weapons into non-existance."

How about, a buff AND a new area/mission where single target is better?

[PublikDomain]

4 minutes ago, elpeleq42 said:

Because if now that thing is strong and too many people use it, you can just buff something else, and make other players also feel happier, while not making the previous one feel angry that their favorite weapon got worse. Enemies are too easy to kill? Make new enemies/missions or make enemies stronger against certain things and boom, still won't piss people off as much as nerfing.

And that's the downside of endlessly buffing things: there is no end. Buff melee, buff guns, buff single target, buff abilities, buff enemies, buff guns again, buff this, buff that. One thing powercreeps and now thousands of other things become underperforming in comparison and need to be buffed again. Constantly churning over content buffing and buffing and buffing with no end in sight. And buffs aren't universal to everyone, buffs like Galvanized Mods and Archon Mods/Shards and Rivens and Primed Mods and this and that only do anything when players actually use them. And many players don't. That's why

2 hours ago, [DE]Rebecca said:

there is a chasm between people who find [Archons] too easy and those who find them impossible

And that's why we get stuck with enemy buffs like Attenuation that just nerfs you anyways.

[quxier]

7 minutes ago, elpeleq42 said:

"and/or designing new enemies or areas instead of nerfing those weapons into non-existance."

How about, a buff AND a new area/mission where single target is better?

It's much harder than just balance AoE.

[(XBOX)Lord ChibiVR]

People before this update: "haha ammo nerf is going to do nothing; de is silly if they think this is going to change the meta." 

People after the update: "AHHH AOE IS RUINED WHAT DID THEY DO?!!!!!!!?!"

[Ethorin]

I doubt it's the same people though.

I know a bunch of the content creators were like "ok, it might shift the needle a little" before the update and at least some of them think it's at least killed the "spam at wall" playstyle.

[Turritopsis_Dohrnii]

It’s kind of funny actually.

[Tiltskillet]

2 hours ago, elpeleq42 said:

>You don't nerf things. Ever.

...

1 hour ago, elpeleq42 said:

>again, not against nerfing to fix exploits, bugs, or non-intended absurd power.  But BUFFING alternatives is better than NERFING what players like.

Second quote is way more reasonable.  

What constitutes "non-intended absurd power" though? I think differing definitions of that are the root of a lot of trouble here.

[trst]

Bad game design is anything that's allowed to remain in one that's an active detriment to the game's health. Which is exactly what AOE and the general ongoing powercreep is.

Nerfs are absolutely required to achieve any semblance of game balance especially when it's been allowed to go off the rains as bad as it has here. And even if it wasn't that bad it's still an incredibly bad idea to even consider changing 95% of anything just to match the top 5%.

 

But on top of it all, there were no nerfs. The ability to endlessly spam AOE weapons is still perfectly alive and well. The only actual change is that you're punished for shooting at literally nothing and you may need to switch to occasionally a second AOE weapon. And the ability to afk through missions still lives on through Xaku and Octavia who saw zero changes.

[Venus-Venera]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb elpeleq42:

and at this point, I thought that was universally understood... but DE is a slow learner.

 

>You don't nerf things. Ever. Unless there's a bug, or exploit, you never nerf anything. It's bad game design. No one likes it. 

>To balance things, you BUFF what's weak.

 

Someone at DE please print this and put on every door on the company, please and thanks <3

people invest a lot of money in virtual (lol...) items. and then it becomes completely useless.
if you can't see what's going on, you urgently need professional help.