Curse

DreamWind · Mar 24, 2008, 10:25 PM // 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

If you nerf everything, the game slows down continuously, forever and ever, and you'll still have broken shit, it'll just be very very very slow broken shit.

I don't see it. You simply nerf what is overpowered at any given time, even if it is defensive, until you get to a point of equilibrium between offense and defense (or until a point where relatively few are complaining).

Currently, offense is overpowered, hence the idea that the game would somehow slow down. That doesn't mean defense hasn't been overpowered in the past.

erk · Mar 24, 2008, 11:14 PM // 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by langola

The losing pts for a first round forfeit is a HORRIBLE implementation. It basically admits they are too lazy to actually fix the at system. Sometimes things actually go wrong, such as an err7 right before time. It should NEVER be implemented in this game to take away points for a match that is not even played.

If they need ideas to actually fix the system properly i can give some, but apparently they dont want to waste the time to fix it.

I have been in several AT's where an error 7 has happened, it's usually after the game has started though when it cuts to the match server, so the forfeit rule does not apply after the match has started, if you all /resign that's just a normal loss. If you get an error 7 just before you go in they usually have enough time to reconnect before the gate opens unless you are really unlucky. It only takes me a minute to reboot the PC and get back in. Two tips, reboot your PC before an important game so any memory leaks in graphics drivers etc. are cleared out, secondly run GW in windowed mode so you can still just see the task bar, then you can force quit GW if it hangs instead of wasting time on a full reboot.

I am all for a forfeit penalty, I have seen the old forfeit system deliberately exploited time and time again.

Relambrien · Mar 25, 2008, 05:35 AM // 05:35

The main argument against a philosophy of "nerf, don't buff" is that when things get overnerfed, you still have something that's broken in relation to everything else. Then it gets nerfed, and something else pops up that's broken, etc., until eventually you've nerfed everything down to obliteration.

By taking this stance, you have to have faith in your balancing department that overnerfs won't occur, and that things will merely be brought back into balance rather than being ether renewaled.

Here's an example. Say you have three skills, A, B, and C. Skill B is at 140 points of effectiveness, A is at 120 and C is at 80. Skill B is overpowered, therefore it is nerfed, but nerfed to 60 points. Now A is overpowered, and it's nerfed down to 50. Now C is overpowered, and nerfed to 30. B is overpowered again, and nerfed to 20. A is now overpowered and nerfed to 10. C is then nerfed to 0, followed by B, followed by A. That's the scenario that will occur if things get repeatedly overnerfed and buffing is ignored.

However, if balances are done properly, then you can get this.

B is nerfed to 80 points. A is then overpowered, and nerfed down to 80 points. Now A B and C are all at 80, and all equal.

Because of these possible scenarios, having a balancing style where things are -only- nerfed is very risky, due to the possibility of overnerfs resulting in everything becoming so weak that the game is unplayable. Will this happen? Who knows, it's only a possibility. However, it -is- a possibility, and one that needs to be guarded against if you take this stance.

DarkNecrid · Mar 25, 2008, 05:42 AM // 05:42

"I don't see it. You simply nerf what is overpowered at any given time, even if it is defensive, until you get to a point of equilibrium between offense and defense (or until a point where relatively few are complaining). "

I am sorry I don't want Izzy to Grenth's Aura everything, ok?

DreamWind · Mar 25, 2008, 06:45 AM // 06:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Because of these possible scenarios, having a balancing style where things are -only- nerfed is very risky, due to the possibility of overnerfs resulting in everything becoming so weak that the game is unplayable. Will this happen? Who knows, it's only a possibility. However, it -is- a possibility, and one that needs to be guarded against if you take this stance.

The only problem I see with this argument is the idea that "everything will become so weak the game will be unplayable". If we are judging the power level of skills as how they compare with other skills, then eventually you end up with a lot of equally powered skills regardless of how weak they would seem to us now (assuming you didn't buff anything).

The major problem with buffing skills is that ANet has a long history of overbuffing something to the point of brokenness, which then must be renerfed to a state usually worse than it was before the buff. I would much rather see only nerfs, because overnerfing something has far less effect than overbuffing. The only problem with overnerfing is people complaining that their favorite skills don't see play anymore.

Of course this is all theoretical. I'd much rather go back to Prophecies only, but that is never going to happen, and neither is my nerfing suggestion.

Byron · Mar 25, 2008, 05:57 PM // 17:57

Most players will want skills that promote skill and execution, not passivity and spamming. How that is accopmlished is a skill-by-skill basis. Trying to lump all circumstances into either a "buff" or "nerf" mindset is fruitless.

erk · Mar 25, 2008, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

eh... you guys missed the point on the turret ranger skills. they need aftercast, not lower damage.

The insane damage is what everyone was complaining about, and that has been lowered.

Boogz · Mar 25, 2008, 11:35 PM // 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

The main argument against a philosophy of "nerf, don't buff" is that when things get overnerfed, you still have something that's broken in relation to everything else. Then it gets nerfed, and something else pops up that's broken, etc., until eventually you've nerfed everything down to obliteration.

By taking this stance, you have to have faith in your balancing department that overnerfs won't occur, and that things will merely be brought back into balance rather than being ether renewaled.

Here's an example. Say you have three skills, A, B, and C. Skill B is at 140 points of effectiveness, A is at 120 and C is at 80. Skill B is overpowered, therefore it is nerfed, but nerfed to 60 points. Now A is overpowered, and it's nerfed down to 50. Now C is overpowered, and nerfed to 30. B is overpowered again, and nerfed to 20. A is now overpowered and nerfed to 10. C is then nerfed to 0, followed by B, followed by A. That's the scenario that will occur if things get repeatedly overnerfed and buffing is ignored.

However, if balances are done properly, then you can get this.

B is nerfed to 80 points. A is then overpowered, and nerfed down to 80 points. Now A B and C are all at 80, and all equal.

Because of these possible scenarios, having a balancing style where things are -only- nerfed is very risky, due to the possibility of overnerfs resulting in everything becoming so weak that the game is unplayable. Will this happen? Who knows, it's only a possibility. However, it -is- a possibility, and one that needs to be guarded against if you take this stance.

congratulations to another one that understands the problem of GW.

But, since this is harder then nerf into oblivion, and izzy apparently only listen to the "nerf into oblivion plz" people, this will probably never happen

erk · Mar 26, 2008, 01:48 AM // 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogz

congratulations to another one that understands the problem of GW.

But, since this is harder then nerf into oblivion, and izzy apparently only listen to the "nerf into oblivion plz" people, this will probably never happen

Alas it's a rather one dimensional analogy. eg. You could have a nice balanced blood skill, but when 8 players all fire it at the one target that dies instantly, the GvG community calls for a nerf on that skill, ruining it for all other forms of PvP that don't rely on 8 copies of the same skill. My point being that looking at the efficiency of a skill in isolation often does not represent how it's actually used in a team game. If many players carry the same skill it's vastly different to one player carrying it. Consider a single Aegis vs an Aegis chain, three RaO thumpers vs a single one. A.net can only balance, in a style like was suggested by Relambrien, when they factor in how a skill is going to be used in the current meta, they can't just balance it with respect to other skills on a spreadsheet in isolation.

Riotgear · Mar 26, 2008, 06:30 AM // 06:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Because of these possible scenarios, having a balancing style where things are -only- nerfed is very risky, due to the possibility of overnerfs resulting in everything becoming so weak that the game is unplayable.

Of course, but overpowered stuff tends to, in general, cause more problems than underpowered stuff. One underpowered skill, unless it is a really important one, removes one skill from playability. One overpowered skill removes most things that are worse than it from playability.

This is largely what has happened too. Most players can point to places in time where the game was clearly quite balanced, and just about everything that was run then has lost popularity not due to nerfs, but to introductions of and buffs to other things that have forced them out of play. This is called "power creep", and the way power creep is dealt with really comes down to nerfs more than buffs.

Kyp Jade · Mar 26, 2008, 01:49 PM // 13:49

Good-ol Mid factions days. Gotta love it.

Regulus X · Mar 31, 2008, 12:11 AM // 00:11

I just hate how skills get blasted out of the viability pool so easily and carelessly. It shows a lack of thought given to skill-updating. Skills like "Incoming", Shroud of Silence, Shadow Prison/Black Lotus Strike, and many, many more serve absolutely no purpose nowadays. I guess ya'll developers are too caught up with GW2 that you fail to pay any attention to GW1. I know we aren't paying a monthly fee, but that doesn't mean ya'll should just drop the ball & be like w/e. How do ya'll expect us to feel if that becomes the approach ya'll take with the game? Give skill updates alot of thought next time around; they need a massive overhaul! Hope to see some positives vs. negatives and alot of functionality-changes to overpowered skills instead of just nerfing into oblivion like Shroud of Silence! Pffft... 3 second elite hex with 30 second cooldown FTL. Even with 15e Deadly Paradox, SoS's still horrible!