Nerfing: is it a good thing?!

13»

Comments

  • Trisul
    Trisul Posts: 887 Critical Contributor
    Jaylah1 wrote:
    I think that Teno actually hit the nail right on the head. Sure there are going to be changes that we do not agree with as players (or change that we would like to see be made) but that does not necessarily mean that you cannot work around it.
    Everyone is working around it already. But it's still stupid.

    Trivializing defense is bad for the game overall, no matter how awesome it feels.

    (On that note, I am not a fan of boosts at all, as it exacerbates the problem.)
  • NorthernPolarity
    NorthernPolarity Posts: 3,531 Chairperson of the Boards
    Jaylah1 wrote:
    I think that Teno actually hit the nail right on the head. Sure there are going to be changes that we do not agree with as players (or change that we would like to see be made) but that does not necessarily mean that you cannot work around it.

    This line of thinking makes no sense at all, because you can "work around" almost anything. Lets say we had a character called galactus that has a single ability: 3 red ap: win the game. Can you work around this charater? Yes. Go in fully boosted, stun lock him, deny red. Does it mean that he should never be changed because people are going to cry when he does? No! Hes obviously terrible for the health of the game, and not changing something for the overall health of the game just because you're a tough guy and can handle anything is incredibly naive and shortsighted. There is enough evidence to indicate that this is an actual issue and not something that a bunch of forum whiners are complaining about just because they can.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    There is no use trying to make a person understand of the meaning of competitive gaming.now I will return to focusing on trying to get as much covers for colossus unless you guys want him nerfed too. so I will leave this debate a loser but leave all you with a last quote.

    There will always be two sides of the story, but only one will have a hard time sleeping. With that said good night!
  • SunCrusher
    SunCrusher Posts: 278 Mover and Shaker
    On a whole, I don't like nerfs BUT that is because I truly and sincerely believe that there IS a way to present the whole mechanic-and-effects picture involved with buffing and nerfing in a more transparent manner.

    If a character is unaccountably and unpredictably too strong' or 'too weak' or 'whooops, we didn't see that', then a on-the-fly patched nerf or buff or CHANGE in general just simply might be called for.

    But for newer characters, personally, I feel like D3 might have actually intentionally released some of them (Sentry, Daken) extra buffed... with the intention of nerfing them later on and THAT possible mechanic is what I don't like because THAT is what feels dishonest to me.

    If a new character were released with a notation that they are temporarily buffed for X period of time before they will be reverted to their normal ABC statistics, I could swallow that a lot easier than I could swallow the possibility of building a character thinking that they will be who they are in a few months only to have them nerfed to hell. This possibility, by the way, is exactly why I have never bought covers or paid to pull covers from any of the packs.

    There are other online mobile TCG/CCG games that utilize this sort of mechanic - temporarily and transparently buffed for a period of time with their normal non-buffed stats and abilities available for viewing - for their newly released cards/characters and it has worked decently well and if nothing else, at least people aren't upset because they feel 'deceived'.

    The Ferrari comparison is a bit of a molehill becoming a mountain, but the sentiment to me still rings true; it really doesn't feel very fair to purchase something and buy into it thinking you're getting ABC... only to learn that it's becoming ZYZ and to have this be the 'pattern/trend' for the future.
  • NorthernPolarity
    NorthernPolarity Posts: 3,531 Chairperson of the Boards
    Teno1 wrote:
    There is no use trying to make a person understand of the meaning of competitive gaming.now I will return to focusing on trying to get as much covers for colossus unless you guys want him nerfed too. so I will leave this debate a loser but leave all you with a last quote.

    There will always be two sides of the story, but only one will have a hard time sleeping. With that said good night!

    You know nothing about competitive gaming if you don't understand why developers nerf things. Good night Mr. Tough Guy.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    _RiO_ wrote:
    Teno1 wrote:
    Yes I can, even four or five. I can get up to 500 points with out health packs,

    That says absolutely nothing about your ability to 'speed kill'.

    Sentry is broken because, when played well and backed by lots of cash, his time-to-kill is faster than anything else in the game. While you're busy playing your match, a player using Sentry speed killing will have finished upwards of 3. While you're gaining 10 points, they're gaining 30 points. Let's pull shield hopping into the equation; Sentry kills fast enough to run a lot more lined up matches each hop. So in effect, the exploitative nature lowers the shield hopping cost as well and in turn makes shield hopping more exploitable as well. (Or it trades off some of the cost on boosting/healing your team, that's a matter of perspective.)

    Sentry is an all-round P2W express-elevator to the top of the rankings.

    Kind of wish I could up-vote from the start as this post perfectly sums up my own opinions about Sentry and speed kills. Whilst I'm not a shield hopper myself I do find it frustrating to just see Sentry all over the place.

    Nerfs are a necessary evil I'm afraid. No-one likes having their favourite toy tampered with but for the greater good of the game sometimes it needs to be done.

    'The needs of the many over the needs of the few'


    Edit: I appear to have failed at quoting on my first post : icon_cry.gif
  • HairyDave
    HairyDave Posts: 1,574
    Rhythm wrote:
    Edit: I appear to have failed at quoting on my first post : icon_cry.gif
    Looks okay to me. Must be to do with the anti-spam five post thing.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    HairyDave wrote:
    Rhythm wrote:
    Edit: I appear to have failed at quoting on my first post : icon_cry.gif
    Looks okay to me. Must be to do with the anti-spam five post thing.

    Ah-ha! Thanks for the info.

    I totally read all the terms and conditions... >.>
  • _RiO_
    _RiO_ Posts: 1,047 Chairperson of the Boards
    Teno1 wrote:
    There is no use trying to make a person understand of the meaning of competitive gaming.now I will return to focusing on trying to get as much covers for colossus unless you guys want him nerfed too. so I will leave this debate a loser but leave all you with a last quote.

    There will always be two sides of the story, but only one will have a hard time sleeping. With that said good night!

    Competition, real competition, demands a fair base to work off of.

    If you are OK with people winning by burning cash to set-up insanely overpowered, unmatchable tactics, then perhaps you are also OK with athletes doping themselves up.
    If not, then you are a hypocrite.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Nerfing is a good idea to make the game more balanced. As long as it is carried out after it has been thought through. It is easy to change a character from OP to UP if the nerf is rushed.

    I personaly don't like the idea of everybody using 3 OP characters in order to stand a chance to get top prizes. Diversity of teams is interesting and may stop people from being bored and abandoning the game.
  • Kelbris
    Kelbris Posts: 1,051
    Spoit wrote:
    Kelbris wrote:
    BozKoh wrote:
    Can Ragnarok counter Sentry = I think yes too
    :P

    Do you remember Patch Mags?

    Imagine that, except Mags red does 600 damage pre-cascade and instead of destroying five tiles, GENERATES FIVE GREEN.

    Did you even tinykitty use broken Ragnarok? I would only use Rags/Patch/Daken and I would beat you in a minute with you using ANYONE.

    You could use three sentries and I would still run through you like a loose hooker.

    Use TWELVE sentries. The fight still won't go past turn 3
    Of course, turn 3 could be a good 5 minutes in at that rate, if you were relying on godlike power as your green dump

    Clap, clap, berserker rage, 2k damage clap, berserker rage

    Repeat
  • Kelbris
    Kelbris Posts: 1,051
    Teno1 wrote:
    There is no use trying to make a person understand of the meaning of competitive gaming.now I will return to focusing on trying to get as much covers for colossus unless you guys want him nerfed too. so I will leave this debate a loser but leave all you with a last quote.

    There will always be two sides of the story, but only one will have a hard time sleeping. With that said good night!


    Play me in PQ1.

    Play me in ANYTHING.

    competitive gamer my ****. C'mon, play me in fight night champion; I'll make you cry like an obese kid who dropped his ice cream. I'll even let you use the most broken character in the game who has a one punch KO chance with EVERY punch.

    No FPS's unless they're good FPS's, which pretty much eliminates everything except PD and Doom.
  • Kelbris
    Kelbris Posts: 1,051
    Teno1 wrote:
    Oh my god I don't know why people complain so much? Leave the game as it is, I can beat sentry, oaken, and hood l166 with im40, lazy Thor, and HT. I've done it before it's not imposible.

    Leave the game as it is!!!!

    Adapt and conquer


    Post a video of you beating them in less than two minutes.

    You talk a lot of ****. Back it up.

    You'll probably respond with some weak **** **** like "I don't have to justify myself to you!!!!11!! Just appect it IM SO MLG OKAY OKAY COD4LIEF"

    This forum has sucked since 2013. Ugh. I miss all the chill people like Misguided.

Categories