ButterPeanut.9746

> @"WillPaharu.4837" said: > > @"ButterPeanut.9746" said: > > Here are the problems with the arguments being made. > > 1) It assumes metabattle is a source of truth for what is strong and therefore deserves nerfs. This is a false assumption to make as many others have already described. > > 2) It assumes that the only reason you nerf skills is due to it being meta. This is also a false assumption to make. For instance, decap builds could very well just be nerfed because they are insanely unfun to play against, regardless of their effectiveness. Effectiveness of a build is not the only reason to buff/nerf something. > > I don't think any one has been able to say that the builds listed as meta on metabattle aren't meta....cuz they are. So yes, it's a source of truth. Taking the nerfes as a target to decap druid, I feel the changes were completely unnecessary and low priority. We can all agree that DH and Rev needed more nerfing. However the changes to GS aren't bad any way. I've gotten over it hhaaha XD it was actually a buff if you wanna do damage. I still wish they did something more productive so there would be more variety in plat games, but meh. You feel they are low priority, but that is just your opinion. 1) Maybe these changes were way quicker to make. So maybe it wasn't a choice between "nerf druid now vs nerf DH now". It was a "nerf druid now, or nerf neither of them now because we don't have time for DH" nerfs. You are assuming they are "prioritized over eachother" which isn't necessarily true. 2) You are referring to metabattle and using the phrase "meta", but then also referring to ranked. Which one is it? Is metabattle the source for meta builds at the highest level? (i.e. monthly ATs), or is it for strong ranked builds? Is it both? Which ones get balancing priorities if it is both? 3) You are also prioritizing effectiveness as the primary reason for balance, when one huge factor for balance in any game is "fun". Decap knockback builds are the absolute kings of the "unfun builds to play against" category. They very well could have prioritized those nerfs over something else that might be "more effective" simply because the druid was so unfun to play against. None of my points could end up being true, but I'm not claiming they are. I'm just claiming that we don't know, so we shouldn't' be assuming and suggesting a fan made site with questionable credibility at best as the holy grail for balance.

> @"WillPaharu.4837" said: > > @"Tharan.9085" said: > > > @"WillPaharu.4837" said: > > > Why would you nerf a build that is only ranked "good" (decap druid)? please refer to metabattle.com before nerfing anything. The only classes and builds that should be nerfed are the ones ranked "Meta". Meta means over powered. "Good" means it's not very effective unless played very well. Please undo the nerfs on Decap druid. It is the only druid build and one of the few ranger builds viable in conquest. > > > > > > Were people actually complaining about decap druid or something??? If so that is hilarious, feel free to ignore them. Play decap druid yourself and see how not overpowered it is. > > > > > > Again, please undo these nerfs to decap druid. Nerf Dragon hunters instead. > > > > > > Ideally there would be no meta builds. Just all good and great, so that it comes down to skill and knowing your class and role. When there are meta builds, people flock to them because they are easier to win with. Which is cheap. I digress, as there will always be meta builds I reckon. But pls leave the "good" builds alone. They aren't the imbalance. > > > > imagine thinking metabattle is a good source for anything > > yah lets just pretend they don't have all the current meta builds. okay. > > Its not about having the meta builds. It's assuming that because a handful of builds listed on metabattle are actually "meta", that means that everything else listed on the site that isn't "meta" deserves to be prioritized less in regards to nerfs than the "meta" builds. That is the false assumption that you are making. Just because something is accurately listed as meta, doesn't mean that something else listed lower doesn't deserve nerfs. Take fire weaver for example, that is listed much lower than DH but it is much more prevalent in ATs. But you mentioned in other posts that it might not be "taking over ranked"...but then I'd argue that ranked is never meta anyway, so the entire ranking system is useless under that assumption.

Here are the problems with the arguments being made. 1) It assumes metabattle is a source of truth for what is strong and therefore deserves nerfs. This is a false assumption to make as many others have already described. 2) It assumes that the only reason you nerf skills is due to it being meta. This is also a false assumption to make. For instance, decap builds could very well just be nerfed because they are insanely unfun to play against, regardless of their effectiveness. Effectiveness of a build is not the only reason to buff/nerf something.