Why Nerfs Are Better Than Buffs

[KvotheTheArcane1]

I am not saying Xini is end game. It was simply an example of one of the more difficult missions available. Lets say as of now T3 runs are end-game, and I can solo them easily . the point is things need to be toned back in order for a challenge to exist. 

Eh, the enemies aren't exactly brilliant, or have much in the way of "gimmicks"/mechanics in T3, they're bullet sponges, put enough into them, and they die, ESPECIALLY with AP/AI innate weapons.

 

(Side note, a better way to balance weapons would be make most of them mastery ranked locked, and each rank balanced to each other (and something like MR1 means it should be able to deal with level 10 and below decently enough, while MR10 means it should be able to hold it's own vs level 100 enemies, or something similar to that.

 

This way unless they want a weapon to be rank 2, they can simply assign it to a higher MR. The biggest problem with this would be that they need to add more weapons really before they can really implement this.

 

Another sidenote: Any weapon with innate AP/AI will ALWAYS be really strong because of the fact that the increase in armor per level means nothing. It's one reason the kunai are so good. They'd be MUCH worse if they didn't innately ignore armor. What that type of power says to me, is that it needs a higher mastery rank requirement as it looks like it's meant to be for endgame content)

Edited June 16, 2013 by KvotheTheArcane1

[w1lyumz]

@fatfree

 

Yes that argument invalidates your idea of continually buffing to a certain level. This simply does not work when the content you have does not support inflated numbers on the weapons. Lets say they pick (insert most overpowered weapon here) to buff everything up to. Then we end up with a full arsenal of weapons that make the game to easy to play. There is no point in playing a game with no challenge. In a PvE game where skill is not a real factor in level of play, you have to base everything off of the stats offered to you. If these stats are to high the game becomes just as unplayable as if all stats were to low. And your idea of this being a "lazy" method is just ridiculous. You mean spending the least amount of time on a simple problem so they can focus on new content is bad? That is just idiotic. They do not have to use the most complex, time consuming, and wasteful method of balancing simply because you think it is "lazy" to do otherwise. 

 

You try to criticize me saying I do not understand the concept you are trying to get across, when you yourself do not understand what I am trying to say. You ignore anything that does not agree with you simply because you don't want to compromise. 

 

You may not be able to walk away from a discussion, But i can sure as hell walk away from an idiot. I'm done here. 

[fatfree]

@fatfree

 

Yes that argument invalidates your idea of continually buffing to a certain level. This simply does not work when the content you have does not support inflated numbers on the weapons. Lets say they pick (insert most overpowered weapon here) to buff everything up to. Then we end up with a full arsenal of weapons that make the game to easy to play. There is no point in playing a game with no challenge. In a PvE game where skill is not a real factor in level of play, you have to base everything off of the stats offered to you. If these stats are to high the game becomes just as unplayable as if all stats were to low.

 

What part of BALANCE TOWARD THIS LEVEL do you not understand? I mean, seriously. It's a simple concept. There should be a reasonable level that the game is balanced towards (by this I mean: level of enemies, damage that the enemies deal, how much health/armor the enemies have, perhaps even numbers of enemies spawned, proportion of elite enemies to "grunts, etc. vs. the the level of power that you set for your weapons. You need to balance both sides of the equation, you can't just address the issue of weapons by nerfing everything, and keeping the enemies constant). I will concede Krisp's point that if a gun completely breaks the game, a different balancing method should be considered. However, up until this point, I haven't seen a single weapon that so completely breaks that balance that it needs this treatment.

 

 

They do not have to use the most complex, time consuming, and wasteful method of balancing simply because you think it is "lazy" to do otherwise.

 

It is marginally more complex than your method. You propose changing values on the guns, I propose changing values on the enemies as well as the guns. What's the difference? There are certainly more enemies than there are guns, but it's not an exorbitant amount. I'm arguing that it is worth it to take a little bit of extra time to balance the game this way in order to better appease your user-base.

 

Resorting to name calling is real mature, but really, what can I expect from a 17 year old?

Edited June 16, 2013 by fatfree

[w1lyumz]

You yourself just said there is virtually no difference between our two methods, and that yours is marginally more complex. It would take less time for them to implement. The extra time you say is worth taking to adjust enemies could instead be spent working on the new content you so desperately want. You have just invalidated your own argument with that post. 

 

Secondly, adjusting the enemies still does not fix the imbalances that exist within the weapons.

 

And as for me calling you an idiot, that has nothing to do with maturity. An idiot is an idiot no matter how mature/immature I am. You argument consists of simply ignoring differing opinions and restating yourself constantly. Bringing the age into this only makes you look like an &#! as you try to appear superior by seeming older than me. Congrats. 

[3XT3RM1NATUS]

Complaining about the game being too easy, meanwhile there is no end-game content. Stupidity at its finest.

[w1lyumz]

Complaining about the game being too easy, meanwhile there is no end-game content. Stupidity at its finest.

There is always end-game content. The end of the content you are offered is the end-game. Stupidity at its finest. 

[KvotheTheArcane1]

Complaining about the game being too easy, meanwhile there is no end-game content. Stupidity at its finest.

+1, balance can't really be done on any meaningful level until all levels of difficulty are in game.

 

 

 

There is always end-game content. The end of the content you are offered is the end-game. Stupidity at its finest. 

No, if the only enemies we had to fight were level 10, would you say that's "end game"? If you take it as people mean, it' meant as something to do after you finish the "story" content/unlocking all planets/etc. Look at WoW, you wouldn't say the highest level leveling area is endgame would you (i.e. xini, kappa, kiste, pluto)?

Edited June 16, 2013 by KvotheTheArcane1

[3XT3RM1NATUS]

There is always end-game content. The end of the content you are offered is the end-game. Stupidity at its finest. 

 

Too bad this game has lack of it. Nor Pluto or Void III are even close to endgame content. But I see you mentoned that Xini is "one of the most challenging runs". Do I really have to say more?

Edited June 16, 2013 by 3XT3RM1NATUS

[fatfree]

You yourself just said there is virtually no difference between our two methods, and that yours is marginally more complex. It would take less time for them to implement. The extra time you say is worth taking to adjust enemies could instead be spent working on the new content you so desperately want. You have just invalidated your own argument with that post. 

 

Secondly, adjusting the enemies still does not fix the imbalances that exist within the weapons.

 

And as for me calling you an idiot, that has nothing to do with maturity. An idiot is an idiot no matter how mature/immature I am. You argument consists of simply ignoring differing opinions and restating yourself constantly. Bringing the age into this only makes you look like an &#! as you try to appear superior by seeming older than me. Congrats. 

 

Still resorting to name calling, still as immature as ever.

 

I've said why my method is worth the extra effort: because of the effect that it has on the users. You're completely ignoring that variable. You're assuming that people will react the same exact way, and I am arguing that the loss of user faith in your product by going about your method of balancing makes your method more "expensive" than it seems. It's not as simple as considering which method takes longer to implement, because there are other costs associated.

 

What I just said is not unique, I've been saying it throughout this thread over and over, and it clearly counters your point, but you're ignoring it. Funny that you accuse me of ignoring opposing viewpoints when you are guilty of that exact same thing. Monkey see, monkey do?

[w1lyumz]

+1, balance can't really be done on any meaningful level until all levels of difficulty are in game.

 

 

 

No, if the only enemies we had to fight were level 10, would you say that's "end game"? If you take it as people mean, it' meant as something to do after you finish the "story" content/unlocking all planets/etc. Look at WoW, you wouldn't say the highest level leveling area is endgame would you (i.e. xini, kappa, kiste, pluto)?

Yes that is the current end-game. It is the end of the content you have available, there may be plans for more content to be released, but at that specific time your end-game could very well be level 10. The developers would then have to balance things to that end-game in order for it to be fun and worth playing. In games like Warframe, WoW, etc. with no true ending, the end-game is the highest level area. 

[w1lyumz]

Still resorting to name calling, still as immature as ever.

 

I've said why my method is worth the extra effort: because of the effect that it has on the users. You're completely ignoring that variable. You're assuming that people will react the same exact way, and I am arguing that the loss of user faith in your product by going about your method of balancing makes your method more "expensive" than it seems. It's not as simple as considering which method takes longer to implement, because there are other costs associated.

 

What I just said is not unique, I've been saying it throughout this thread over and over, and it clearly counters your point, but you're ignoring it. Funny that you accuse me of ignoring opposing viewpoints when you are guilty of that exact same thing. Monkey see, monkey do?

It counters my point in no way shape or form. You're assuming they will react differently. We are both technically basing our evidence on assumptions and therefore neither of us could technically be correct as our arguments are nothing more than opinions at that point. I have ignored nothing in you posts, they counter my arguments in no way. You have not proved otherwise, you have just restated the same thing repeatedly and raised this above your head as some trophy saying "Look it counters you :D" when in reality it does not. 

[3XT3RM1NATUS]

Yes that is the current end-game. It is the end of the content you have available, there may be plans for more content to be released, but at that specific time your end-game could very well be level 10. The developers would then have to balance things to that end-game in order for it to be fun and worth playing. In games like Warframe, WoW, etc. with no true ending, the end-game is the highest level area. 

 

Despite being obvious that the current end-game is awful and it is being said by Devs that they are adding more difficult stuff in the future, your are continuing to "balance" the game around its current state. Are you serious?

 

Also this thread reminds me of generic BSN thread: people took lvl 30 Destroyer/Ghost with level 10 Harrier to Bronze/Silver match, destroyed everything and then went to forums asking for nerfs. The same thing is happening right now.

[TennoSkoom]

And yes, numbers will get higher and higher, as content becomes more and more difficult, that is how games work. Are you new to this?

This is called power creep, and can cause problems with longevity. While newer and more difficult areas are a good thing- many games have suffered as a result of power-creep. Imagine you for whatever reason stop playing for a while- then when you pick the game up again you come back to find that all of your maxed warframes and weapons that you spent hundreds of hours obtaining leveling and modding are suddenly completely ineffective against what has become standard content. This will drive off returning players- sure it won't be all of them- but it's a very big problem. Balancing weapons and warframes as well as abilities against content is extremely important. Especially if every new weapon that comes out is better than the existing content in every way. This is why nerfs and buffs happen, generally it's not a bad thing. The problem that comes into play is when things are over-nerf'd or over-buffed.  For example, the hek was OP- was then overnerf'd to compensate- then finally buffed to compensate for the over-nerf- and is now still among the best weapons in the game but you can no longer snipe with it- and it's effective range is still quite reasonable (before it's last buff the damage falloff was too extreme.) many weapons and warframes have been buffed and nerf'd and will continue to be to improve balance and reduce the negative effects of power creep.

 

Personally I don't have a problem with appropriate buffs and nerfs. DE however, has a habit of over-nerfing the first-time around, which causes frustration for the user-base. To be quite honest- i haven't played rhino since it's nerf- and really don't see the point in bringing him to higher-level content with the 'buff' that made iron skin scale poorly to high-level content. I'm hoping for a rework of rhino's abilities- but probably won't see that for some time yet.

 

Anyway, i'm rambling- hopefully this provides you some level of insight.

[OoKeNnEtHoO]

This was from an old post.

 

 

Whether something is easy or hard is decided through comparison.

 

By balancing our frames and weapons by using current enemies, which do not require any strategy to kill, as comparison,

 

we are making it more difficult but not more challenging to deal with these easy enemies.

 

Effectively, we have increased the enemies health or survivability and dragged the fight's duration longer.

 

The dominant strategy still is a set supercharged modded weapons modded for high damage output and a supercharged frame modded for high damage.

 

The harder content people should be asking for isn't a boost to existing enemies' stats (things like "let's have a lvl 200 enemies missions") but rather improvements to the AI and mechanics of the current existing enemies.

 

Once that is done then we can start looking at what is OP and what is not.

 

If there were an enemy that has the ability to debuff players and remove whatever buffs they had on them, Iron Skin wouldn't have needed to be nerfed and Rhino Players will eventually know to fear it and kill it as priority.

 

If there were an enemy that takes highly reduced damage and can pick up players and throw them, immediately putting a stop to their spells, Banshee's immunity during sound quake wouldn't need to be removed. Banshee players would have to first be certain that this enemy is not around before they use their spell unless they want to waste it before it does it full impact.

 

 

 

So, did the enemies become more challenging after the current balances were made or have they become more difficult but still making us do the same (outlast them with redirection, vitality and steel fiber + outdamage them with damage mods) strategy?

 

If they are, why bother to introduce any more new enemies or improve on their AI?

 

 

 

To make it easier to understand:

 

Current Situation:

 

Country A (Us): We have nukes, rocket launchers and machine guns.

 

Country B (Them): We only have pistols.

 

Country A (Us): This is not challenging, let's make our weapons like their pistols. Yeah!!

 

Future Inhabitants of Country A: Wow. we fight pistols with pistols that look like machine guns and nukes. LAME....

 

 

What should be done:

 

Country A (Us): We have nukes, rocket launchers and machine guns.

 

Country B (Them): We only have pistols.

 

Country A (Us): This is not challenging, we should give them something that can counter our weapons. hey, how about a laser cannon that can detonate our nukes before they hit if we are not careful?

 

Future Inhabitants of Country A (SITUATION 1): Wow. The enemies' tough and we even got nukes. We need to find a way to beat them.

 

Future Inhabitants of Country A (SITUATION 2): The enemies still sucks after we gave them ways to counter us? Hmm..maybe we should look into balancing the field since we are out of ideas on how they can counter us.

[CharlesSnippy]

Nerfing OR buffing shouldn't be "The Answer" or "The Best Way".

You should set specific tiers, in this case our Mastery requirements would do nicely, and balance weapons around those tiers. Nerfs/buffs/endgame content may turn out to be necessary, but none exclusively makes for "The Answer".

Tiers is a horrible idea. That essentially makes 90% of content useless once you pass a certain arbitraty point. I consider it the "S#&$ty fighting game" style of development.

[Volt_Cruelerz]

I'm just gonna quote myself....

 

 

Nerfs should be applied when

1. When something is outstandingly powerful

2. When something makes the game too easy

3. When the excessive potency of something negatively impacts gameplay

4. When power creep is threatening the game

5. When resources become inflated

6. When content is being expended too quickly

 

Buffs should be applied when

1. When something is outstandingly weak

2. When something makes the game too hard

3. When the unsatisfactorily low potency of something negatively impacts gameplay

4. When resources become deflated

5. When content is being expended too slowly

 

Reworks should be applied when

1. Something is both outstandingly strong and weak

2. When something is excessively rock-paper-scissors

3. When something has pros or cons that are vastly outweighed by the other in almost all cases

4. When nerfing and/or buffing have cannot rectify the situation

 

Categorical Reworks should be applied when

1. A system is too unbalanced to fix one component without horribly destabilizing the entire system

2. When gameplay is in general too easy or too hard

3. A system develops an undesired meta that goes against the evolving goals of the development team

 

 

This is more directed at the community, but also at the devs, hence its location.  There are things that need nerfs and there are things that need buffs.  Saying that we should only buff is just silly.  There is a time for each and I really hope the devs understand this given the "Don't nerf X, make Y as good as X."

 

[Inberun]

Too bad this game has lack of it. Nor Pluto or Void III are even close to endgame content. But I see you mentoned that Xini is "one of the most challenging runs". Do I really have to say more?

Some1 need a lesson of how to solo Xini up to 20+

[MyXmaN]

Some1 need a lesson of how to solo Xini up to 20+

Its not challenging. Its tiring, but requires little skill.

 

 

I seem to be the only one that agrees with OP.

Edited June 16, 2013 by MyXmaN

[Volt_Cruelerz]

I agree nerfs need to happen to some things, but not to the extent the OP wants.

[KvotheTheArcane1]

Yes that is the current end-game. It is the end of the content you have available, there may be plans for more content to be released, but at that specific time your end-game could very well be level 10. The developers would then have to balance things to that end-game in order for it to be fun and worth playing. In games like Warframe, WoW, etc. with no true ending, the end-game is the highest level area. 

No. That's stupid, balancing it NOW around the "endgame content" means they simply have to rework it later. And with WoW, they don't balance things around the highest level area (roughly 90 or something) they balance it around the REAL endgame content, the raids and whatnot. Don't pull this BS of "oh, well this is the CURRENT endgame content." No. It's not. It's all fairly easy. On the matter of xini being endgame again, people are going to wave 100+, that type of stuff is "endgame content", it's challenging and takes a good while to get to.

Edited June 16, 2013 by KvotheTheArcane1

[Pro3Display]

Yes that is the current end-game. It is the end of the content you have available, there may be plans for more content to be released, but at that specific time your end-game could very well be level 10. The developers would then have to balance things to that end-game in order for it to be fun and worth playing. In games like Warframe, WoW, etc. with no true ending, the end-game is the highest level area. 

what current end-game? the game is in beta - it not even started yet, thus - no end-game

end-game is where the game reaches its max potential and stops to prevent going down to S#&$-pit

its where the mario finaly gets to the right castle

Edited June 16, 2013 by Pro3Display

[PulseNeon]

Whether something is easy or hard is decided through comparison.

 

By balancing our frames and weapons by using current enemies, which do not require any strategy to kill, as comparison,

 

we are making it more difficult but not more challenging to deal with these easy enemies.

 

Effectively, we have increased the enemies health or survivability and dragged the fight's duration longer.

 

The dominant strategy still is a set supercharged modded weapons modded for high damage output and a supercharged frame modded for high damage.

 

The harder content people should be asking for isn't a boost to existing enemies' stats (things like "let's have a lvl 200 enemies missions") but rather improvements to the AI and mechanics of the current existing enemies.

 

Once that is done then we can start looking at what is OP and what is not.

 

If there were an enemy that has the ability to debuff players and remove whatever buffs they had on them, Iron Skin wouldn't have needed to be nerfed and Rhino Players will eventually know to fear it and kill it as priority.

 

If there were an enemy that takes highly reduced damage and can pick up players and throw them, immediately putting a stop to their spells, Banshee's immunity during sound quake wouldn't need to be removed. Banshee players would have to first be certain that this enemy is not around before they use their spell unless they want to waste it before it does it full impact.

 

 

 

So, did the enemies become more challenging after the current balances were made or have they become more difficult but still making us do the same (outlast them with redirection, vitality and steel fiber + outdamage them with damage mods) strategy?

 

If they are, why bother to introduce any more new enemies or improve on their AI?

 

 

 

To make it easier to understand:

 

Current Situation:

 

Country A (Us): We have nukes, rocket launchers and machine guns.

 

Country B (Them): We only have pistols.

 

Country A (Us): This is not challenging, let's make our weapons like their pistols. Yeah!!

 

Future Inhabitants of Country A: Wow. we fight pistols with pistols that look like machine guns and nukes. LAME....

 

 

What should be done:

 

Country A (Us): We have nukes, rocket launchers and machine guns.

 

Country B (Them): We only have pistols.

 

Country A (Us): This is not challenging, we should give them something that can counter our weapons. hey, how about a laser cannon that can detonate our nukes before they hit if we are not careful?

 

Future Inhabitants of Country A (SITUATION 1): Wow. The enemies' tough and we even got nukes. We need to find a way to beat them.

 

Future Inhabitants of Country A (SITUATION 2): The enemies still sucks after we gave them ways to counter us? Hmm..maybe we should look into balancing the field since we are out of ideas on how they can counter us.

Yes. Just. Yes.

I always hammer on things like "Zelda Mechanics to fights" Simply because they make a game MORE ENJOYABLE rather than making weapons do 400% more damage and have enemies have scaling resistance while increasing health. It makes them bullet sponges. This same issues happens in World of Tank Tiers. Lower tier tank vs higher tier? You have less armor but -also- less health. Cannot be a fair fight.

I actually agree with both OoKeNnEtHoO and w1lyumz simply because it makes sense.

Instead of making enemies scale 400% and the weapons as well, make the mechanics and health -small- increases. A good example of this is Dark Souls. You still grow. You can -still- wipe the floor with lower level enemies, but mostly because you've learned the -skill- to do so. New Players ot Warframe are nowhere near as mobile as long time players simply because we know how to move. Except the only reason our guns are better is because we piled tons of mods into it.

Wilyumz just wants to reduce the power creep and make -every- enemy a challenging fight, while Ookennethoo wants to make the game more -interesting- to do so. Both are very good ideas when it comes to improving Warframe to be more enjoyable.

[TheDoctah]

Nerfing weapons to make the game harder is one of (I'm sorry but it's true) the most $&*&*#(%& things I've heard so far on these forums when it comes to nerf related things. De needs to get more creative than that, it's bad enough that most of players from what I see cry nerf at the sight of a new weapon. Don't make it worse with this.