Curse

Crom The Pale · Nov 16, 2007, 06:02 PM // 18:02

True, there is a limit to how much skills can be tested before release.

However one would think that for every offensive skill added an equal and oppisite defensive one would as well.

Given the large number of total skills this would mean that not every possible counter could be brought by a single team this would mean that any team could be defeated if it hit the correct counter to thier build. This has never been the case as some builds have no counters or counters that will only work vs that one build and be subjected to defeat by any other.

As long as offense and deffence are equal the game is about skill of the player.

While the nerfs and buffs attempt to find this balance I believe the innitial skill creation is where Anet is failing to find balance.

Str0b0 · Nov 16, 2007, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanman.be

I'll keep it short.

Nerfs are good.

They "renew" the game. For free. How is that bad?
I enjoy GW because having the best 8 skills + best usage == win. I don't care if I have to change those 8 skills every month or so.
They force me to puzzle with skills. I enjoy this. Free enjoyment. How is that bad?

Flame me.

Disclaimer: My favourite class, the assassin, got "nerfed" today. So don't start with "Yeah but you didn't get hit by the nerf bat". This nerf didn't make me sad. Instead, I can make a new, perhaps better "best" build, and prove my worth as best assassin ( and best assassin builder ) once again.

Not everyone enjoys them. Even saying that is borderline trolling in my opinion, but the point is just because you like it doesn't mean everyone else does. Some people like a stable static experience. They aren't better or worse players just different players. then again by your own rationale, outlined in your post, buffs would be just as good yes? they would change the game for free and make you come up with new skill combinations to counter the buffed skills right?

gerg-nad · Nov 16, 2007, 06:22 PM // 18:22

You can disagree with me, but I find nerfs to skills are driving people from the game. I also think most of the nerfs are motivated by PvP, and being a member of a mostly PvE guild most of them do not like skill nerfs. In some cases folks have given up on whole classes, since the key skills were diminished.

I for one mostly see the skills go down in performance after a nerf, not always, but generally. Good players are not dumb and gravitate to the best skills or combinations, and when a nerf happens, more often than not it is targeted for those skills, so folks get miffed.

There are so many skills out there I am not sure people say it good for variety. I think the game would be better off with less skills. The number of combination of skills for the typical primary/secondary (assuming about 40 skills in each class) and 7 slots, reserving one for a rez, is astronomical so skill variety and variation is not an issue, 80!/(7!)(80-7)! = 3.2X10^9 combinations. You want skill variety you have it in spades.

I play 9 out of the 10 classes, so talk about variety, GW has all kinds of variety. Nerfing skills and the frequency of them being nerfed is not necessary and is hurting more than it is helping the PvE game, imo.

Stormlord Alex · Nov 16, 2007, 06:26 PM // 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerg-nad

I play all 9 class

9 classes?

So... they finally removed the Paragon from the game? *gets party hat on*
Uuhm... train of thought... uhmm...
Ok, right. Basically, I'm in a PvE alliance too.
And I laugh when skill updates come out, everyone's so freakin' clueless

Just.nl · Nov 16, 2007, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Sometimes i hate nerfs but sometimes i like it

coz you know LoD that is nerfd hard...Why you should take LoD when Heal Party is better?
Then im hating it

but the other side of the story is:
Healers boon, first it was <1 energy same as mending and that sort of skills.
But now its the sameway as Elemental Attunement but now they got one for the Monk.Then i like the nerf.

Karmaniac · Dec 07, 2007, 01:27 PM // 13:27

Nerfs are good because they help preserving the old stagnant meta and quicken the transition to GW2

Nerfs are good because sometimes you're too lazy to fix the problem but want to say you actually did something.

Now hows that for a troll?

EDIT: crap, thread necromancy ftl

Wildi · Dec 07, 2007, 02:37 PM // 14:37

nerfs are good/bad generalization is retarded

Takuna · Dec 14, 2007, 07:30 PM // 19:30

I'd rather not say 'nerfs are good' or 'nerfs are bad' and leave it at that. Sure, I know that nerfs can be very good, like when a profession is overlooked because something else simply outstrips it every way. You can't buff forever. That would be stupid. Nerfind has to be done.
But I'm not going to say they're always good. Sometimes, 'for the good of PvP', there have been annoyances that killed something in PvE. Fortunately, nothing seems to be down for long as there will be other buffs and such.

EDIT: Oh, revival...

Jessyi · Dec 14, 2007, 07:45 PM // 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildi

generalization is retarded

quoted for lulz

Chicken Ftw · Dec 14, 2007, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessyi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildi

generalization is retarded

quoted for lulz

ahahaha. nice catch

phan · Dec 16, 2007, 02:24 PM // 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanman.be

I'll keep it short.

Nerfs are good.

They "renew" the game. For free. How is that bad?
I enjoy GW because having the best 8 skills + best usage == win. I don't care if I have to change those 8 skills every month or so.
They force me to puzzle with skills. I enjoy this. Free enjoyment. How is that bad?

Flame me.

Disclaimer: My favourite class, the assassin, got "nerfed" today. So don't start with "Yeah but you didn't get hit by the nerf bat". This nerf didn't make me sad. Instead, I can make a new, perhaps better "best" build, and prove my worth as best assassin ( and best assassin builder ) once again.

I'm embaressed that you are a fellow belgian player . I cannot see how there is enough room in Belgium for your ego ..

ensoriki · Dec 16, 2007, 02:30 PM // 14:30

Belgium bakes part of Yan's ego into every chocolate they make.
Thats why fat people who eat chocolate think they are awesome =P

Nerfs are freaking awesome when they are needed.

I like nerfs when something is overpowered
Or when a certain skill has seen to much play time in order to keep things new.
Of course in that last one, that means it would need to be buffed again later of course.

Absolute Destiny · Dec 16, 2007, 05:49 PM // 17:49

I can understand the need to balance skills in PvP, but why the hell does that automatically mean that the change has to carry over to PvE?

The "metagame" shouldn't EXIST in PvE, and PvErs shouldn't have our skills nerfed because players we will never encounter (because they're PvP only) have found ways to exploit skill combinations.

Nerf skills for PvP-only characters, and skills used by PvE characters ONLY whenever they go to the Battle Isles or the Hall of Heroes.

ensoriki · Dec 16, 2007, 06:47 PM // 18:47

Quote:

The "metagame" shouldn't EXIST in PvE, and PvErs shouldn't have our skills nerfed because players we will never encounter (because they're PvP only) have found ways to exploit skill combinations.

PVE nerfs lolz.
Many games change skills for their pve side (which is also integrated with their pvp)
when a certain skill is far to powerful.
I like gw because many skills change, in fact many of those buffs pvp skills have gotten have allowed pve to farm or have an easier time playing part of the game.
If buffs made for pvp also help pve.
Why shouldn't Nerfs to pvp also nerf pve?

PvE will never be destroyed because A-net will not allow, it so do not worry.
There are also many more skills in PVE that are useful , that are garbage in pvp.
Thus PvE has a lot more choices and has less to worry about unless they are bent on running one build, and one build only.

Also, you should be integrating not being biased.
You should accept both PvE and PvP.
Thats one of the reasons Alliance battles,Fort aspenwood, and Jade quarry exists.
So PVE players would come and casually play pvp.

Also if you want your idea to happen.
Then I want that PvE never receives any buffs to skills that pvp does since you refuse to integrate.

Clarissa F · Dec 16, 2007, 08:00 PM // 20:00

PVE nerfs.....funny.

I don't see any PvP-only skills.

ensoriki · Dec 16, 2007, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa F

PVE nerfs.....funny.

I don't see any PvP-only skills.

Deep freeze might as well be >.>

lishi · Dec 16, 2007, 09:12 PM // 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensoriki

Deep freeze might as well be >.>

you chosed the wrong skill for your example, deep freeze is a very good way to snare some mob so they can take the full pounding of aoe

lishi · Dec 16, 2007, 09:12 PM // 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Destiny

I can understand the need to balance skills in PvP, but why the hell does that automatically mean that the change has to carry over to PvE?

The "metagame" shouldn't EXIST in PvE, and PvErs shouldn't have our skills nerfed because players we will never encounter (because they're PvP only) have found ways to exploit skill combinations.

Nerf skills for PvP-only characters, and skills used by PvE characters ONLY whenever they go to the Battle Isles or the Hall of Heroes.

PvE need balance too, many people dont realize that.

ensoriki · Dec 16, 2007, 09:19 PM // 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by lishi

PvE need balance too, many people dont realize that.

Your going to make his head explode...

Quote:

you chosed the wrong skill for your example, deep freeze is a very good way to snare some mob so they can take the full pounding of aoe

Perhaps...... Well then uh... uh...
uh......Armor of mist T_T

makosi · Dec 16, 2007, 09:25 PM // 21:25

Nerfs don't happen enough which makes me wonder what Izzy does during his day at work.

Magebane, Augury, Shattering Assault, Toxic Shock need looking at but nothing seems to happen.