Make Buffs, Not Nerfs! Or Who Cares Really... The Game Should Be Fun, Not Perfectly Balanced

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

**The goal in balancing any game should be to make buffs and not nerfs.**

 

Rather than whine about any specific class or playstyle, i'm just going to throw it out there that removing options for how people can play always **feels worse** and less fun to play with, instead of getting newly viable options through buffing weaker skills, and/or changing how skills function entirely, and then being forced to adapt to said buffs, even if it's to something that you wouldn't want to play yourself.

 

And In any case, balance should always come second to having an actual fun and functional game. People like to say "wow this patch was awful, I quit!" but it's usually disingenuous because if people are so concerned about balance to begin with, they're usually too invested in the game to outright preemptively quit over it.

 

While sure, balance patches do bring people back; they do little for, and can even be detrimental when it comes to actual player retention. It's essentially a few hours of theory crafting and testing builds and then it's back to the same thing with maybe a different build/class. How much enjoyment/hours everyone gets out of a balance patch is really up to how invested they are in the game, and how bothered they are with profession balance. Someone who makes a post here about X being op because X killed them is ironically; a lot more likely to put in more time after a patch. Whereas someone who couldn't be bothered either way might quit after just a few hours because there's no actual new content.

 

That's why actual content updates like 2v2 are so amazing, because it introduces actual new ways to play the game. That's how you bring people back **and** get them to stay and try their hand at the new content. Objective patching is; in my opinion, way better than subjective patching, and balance is subjective no matter how you look at it.

 

I get that balance is still and important facet still; in changing up the meta, and in bringing people in like I say. I just think both could still be accomplished via giving rather than taking away.

There's a video that talks about this much more sophisticatedamally than I could that i'm sure everyone has seen, but it rings true for just about every game. Talks about why buffs are better than nerfs. I'll link that in the off-chance that anyone that actually posts here hasn't seen it:

 

 

 

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

This patch was only meant to reduce power creep (which is largely a design issue), not address class balance. Anet had the philosophy of "rework, dont nerf" for a very long time, which is probably due to gw2 being focused around horizontal progression. After years of power creep accumulating in patches and xpacs, it turned combat into a bloated mess of spamming aoe, passive procs, 1 shot combos, and abilities with a ridiculous number of effects. Generally, this allowed for playstyles with little room for counterplay, and often made the outcome of a fight determined by the class matchup, not player skill. It was not fun for a lot of people, and it created a huge barrier for new players learning the game.

 

The game is still no where near being balanced, and that is to be expected after such a large update. The idea is that once everything is evened out over the next several updates, the game will be in a better, more stable place than it was before.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

i agree, buffs are better but nerf =/= remove. this is usually the first thing ppl say that don't want to get nerfed.

[Tayga.3192]

Buff health pool

[Lonami.2987]

> @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said:

> **The goal in balancing any game should be to make buffs and not nerfs.**

>

> Rather than whine about any specific class or playstyle, i'm just going to throw it out there that removing options for how people can play always **feels worse** and less fun to play with, instead of getting newly viable options through buffing weaker skills, and/or changing how skills function entirely, and then being forced to adapt to said buffs, even if it's to something that you wouldn't want to play yourself.

>

> And In any case, balance should always come second to having an actual fun and functional game. People like to say "wow this patch was awful, I quit!" but it's usually disingenuous because if people are so concerned about balance to begin with, they're usually too invested in the game to outright preemptively quit over it.

>

> While sure, balance patches do bring people back; they do little for, and can even be detrimental when it comes to actual player retention. It's essentially a few hours of theory crafting and testing builds and then it's back to the same thing with maybe a different build/class. How much enjoyment/hours everyone gets out of a balance patch is really up to how invested they are in the game, and how bothered they are with profession balance. Someone who makes a post here about X being op because X killed them is ironically; a lot more likely to put in more time after a patch. Whereas someone who couldn't be bothered either way might quit after just a few hours because there's no actual new content.

>

> That's why actual content updates like 2v2 are so amazing, because it introduces actual new ways to play the game. That's how you bring people back **and** get them to stay and try their hand at the new content. Objective patching is; in my opinion, way better than subjective patching, and balance is subjective no matter how you look at it.

>

> I get that balance is still and important facet still; in changing up the meta, and in bringing people in like I say. I just think both could still be accomplished via giving rather than taking away.

> There's a video that talks about this much more sophisticatedamally than I could that i'm sure everyone has seen, but it rings true for just about every game. Talks about why buffs are better than nerfs. I'll link that in the off-chance that anyone that actually posts here hasn't seen it:

>

>

>

>

 

Great video, and great channel.

 

Bad balance is why I stopped caring about both PvP and raids, and why I've been playing the game less and less.

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said:

> **The goal in balancing any game should be to make buffs and not nerfs.**

>

> Rather than whine about any specific class or playstyle, i'm just going to throw it out there that removing options for how people can play always **feels worse** and less fun to play with, instead of getting newly viable options through buffing weaker skills, and/or changing how skills function entirely, and then being forced to adapt to said buffs, even if it's to something that you wouldn't want to play yourself.

>

> And In any case, balance should always come second to having an actual fun and functional game. People like to say "wow this patch was awful, I quit!" but it's usually disingenuous because if people are so concerned about balance to begin with, they're usually too invested in the game to outright preemptively quit over it.

>

> While sure, balance patches do bring people back; they do little for, and can even be detrimental when it comes to actual player retention. It's essentially a few hours of theory crafting and testing builds and then it's back to the same thing with maybe a different build/class. How much enjoyment/hours everyone gets out of a balance patch is really up to how invested they are in the game, and how bothered they are with profession balance. Someone who makes a post here about X being op because X killed them is ironically; a lot more likely to put in more time after a patch. Whereas someone who couldn't be bothered either way might quit after just a few hours because there's no actual new content.

>

> That's why actual content updates like 2v2 are so amazing, because it introduces actual new ways to play the game. That's how you bring people back **and** get them to stay and try their hand at the new content. Objective patching is; in my opinion, way better than subjective patching, and balance is subjective no matter how you look at it.

>

> I get that balance is still and important facet still; in changing up the meta, and in bringing people in like I say. I just think both could still be accomplished via giving rather than taking away.

> There's a video that talks about this much more sophisticatedamally than I could that i'm sure everyone has seen, but it rings true for just about every game. Talks about why buffs are better than nerfs. I'll link that in the off-chance that anyone that actually posts here hasn't seen it:

>

>

>

>

 

Did you actually watch the video you cited?

 

He specifically says it's **not** about buffing numbers = good, nerfing numbers = bad. It's about adding options = good, removing options = bad.

 

Also, just because you can find a video on youtube of someone who agrees with you, doesn't mean you're right. Take a stroll through the comments section of that video and see if there is unanimous agreement or not. The premise of that video is fundamentally stupid. There are situations where buffing is better, and there are situations where nerfing is better. Saying blanket that buffs > nerfs is insane.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> Did you actually watch the video you cited?

>

> He specifically says it's **not** about buffing numbers = good, nerfing numbers = bad. It's about adding options = good, removing options = bad.

>

 

That's what I said in my post too. You don't add options through nerfs is the thing, like he said. In almost every game, nerfs and an emphasis on game balance usually leads to the game being more barebones, and everything feeling samey.

 

On the opposite end, buffing what is generally considered weaker to be on par with what is already strong forces adaption and adds in new viable counterplay without ruining what's already there. Which is **the** actual solution to power creep if you see this, @"Paradoxoglanis.1904" Whether or not you consider that a good or bad thing is entirely up to you because balance is subjective, which...

 

> Also, just because you can find a video on youtube of someone who agrees with you, doesn't mean you're right. Take a stroll through the comments section of that video and see if there is unanimous agreement or not. The premise of that video is fundamentally stupid. There are situations where buffing is better, and there are situations where nerfing is better. Saying blanket that buffs > nerfs is insane.

 

Yeah, I know. Balance and how to go about it is and always will be subjective and personal. Just because I linked an analysis, doesn't mean I necessarily look at it at the only truth. It's just some video on Youtube. I think a lot of the points make sense! And I mean... The like to dislike ratio is like 47k:1.6k. I doubt that means much other than that he stated his opinion pretty concisely, and that it isn't such a polarizing opinion.

 

He does go on to say there's a time where he believes nerfs are necessary, but such instances should only be reserved for the ultra-extreme. That sounds pretty smart to me because nobody is ever going to be able to agree on what qualifies as ultra-extremely broken. To give buffs and not nerfs removes that contention, because instead of arguing on what needs to be taken away, it becomes more about what can be changed to raise everyone else to that level instead of bringing any one single person down.

 

> @"Paradoxoglanis.1904" said:

> This patch was only meant to reduce power creep (which is largely a design issue), not address class balance. Anet had the philosophy of "rework, dont nerf" for a very long time, which is probably due to gw2 being focused around horizontal progression. After years of power creep accumulating in patches and xpacs, it turned combat into a bloated mess of spamming aoe, passive procs, 1 shot combos, and abilities with a ridiculous number of effects. Generally, this allowed for playstyles with little room for counterplay, and often made the outcome of a fight determined by the class matchup, not player skill. It was not fun for a lot of people, and it created a huge barrier for new players learning the game.

>

> The game is still no where near being balanced, and that is to be expected after such a large update. The idea is that once everything is evened out over the next several updates, the game will be in a better, more stable place than it was before.

 

I hear that word power creep used a lot on here. I don't know if Gw2 players changed the definition or something, but in the games i've played power creep refers to new content being so strong and amazing that it makes older content/builds irrelevant and boring by comparison, and becomes the new sort of standard for power level when planning builds.

 

When it comes to actually fighting power creep, nerfing that standard, or lowering the power curve to then bring the power crept outliers to that new lower-standard in the future is a sound strategy, yes.

All i'm saying, is the same thing could be accomplish in the opposite direction, through buffs and raising the power curve rather than lowering it.

 

Like the dude in the video says, buffs just feel better anyway. I think his points on loss-aversion and how losing options feels twice as bad as gaining options would feel good just resonates very strongly.

[Khalisto.5780]

i dont feel they removed options

 

it's completely the other way around in my experience, i can play builds like dd cele ele again and other less optimal builds and don't feel completely useless like before

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

> @"Khalisto.5780" said:

> i dont feel they removed options

>

> it's completely the other way around in my experience, i can play builds like dd cele ele again and other less optimal builds and don't feel completely useless like before

 

Are you saying a straight buff to DD cele ele wouldn't have accomplished the same thing? The very premise of a nerf is to take away, to remove, to make weaker.

 

DD cele ele might have been made better, but that's only because power creep has gotten better by everything being brought back in line. Instead of nerfing everything else to be on the same perceived power curve, they could have easily just buffed it to be on the existing power curve.

 

Personally that sounds much more appealing to me than anxiously waiting for the rigged nerf lottery to crown winners only after everyone else loses.

[avey.4201]

> @"Paradoxoglanis.1904" said:

> This patch was only meant to reduce power creep (which is largely a design issue), not address class balance. Anet had the philosophy of "rework, dont nerf" for a very long time, which is probably due to gw2 being focused around horizontal progression. After years of power creep accumulating in patches and xpacs, it turned combat into a bloated mess of spamming aoe, passive procs, 1 shot combos, and abilities with a ridiculous number of effects. Generally, this allowed for playstyles with little room for counterplay, and often made the outcome of a fight determined by the class matchup, not player skill. It was not fun for a lot of people, and it created a huge barrier for new players learning the game.

>

> The game is still no where near being balanced, and that is to be expected after such a large update. The idea is that once everything is evened out over the next several updates, the game will be in a better, more stable place than it was before.

 

Some classes can one shot still, others can't, that creates balance issue.

It's not the balance issue, they simply lowered damage too far, cleave is so weak people sit in cleave to revive their friends without being punished, they don't use blocks/dodges/heals or even care someone full glass is beating on them.

When you 2v1, and one of those 2 is running a build almost identical to yours, but as you down each person their friend revives them, it don't matter if you out play them unless you can out play them so hard they die from downed penalty before you down a single time.

The game is a broken mess since the patch.

Anet could've skipped the patch and laid out a few simple guide lines, all classes should have 2 dodge rolls, no more, no less, and no evade should exist outside dodge rolling.

The real problem with competitive/balance/game play was non mechanically counter able mechanics (evade/invuln spam)both easily replaceable with aegis/channel casting.

[Khalisto.5780]

> @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said:

> > @"Khalisto.5780" said:

> > i dont feel they removed options

> >

> > it's completely the other way around in my experience, i can play builds like dd cele ele again and other less optimal builds and don't feel completely useless like before

>

> Are you saying a straight buff to DD cele ele wouldn't have accomplished the same thing? The very premise of a nerf is to take away, to remove, to make weaker.

>

> DD cele ele might have been made better, but that's only because power creep has gotten better by everything being brought back in line. Instead of nerfing everything else to be on the same perceived power curve, they could have easily just buffed it to be on the existing power curve.

>

> Personally that sounds much more appealing to me than anxiously waiting for the rigged nerf lottery to crown winners only after everyone else loses.

 

and then you risk to make the already overperforming weaver even stronger

 

and after that what, buff every single build to weaver current power level?

 

and now you have another new stronger build that all the other builds have to be buffed to be in line with

 

that seems to be the way we got to the older power creep

 

 

[JTGuevara.9018]

oh no....you posted THAT video....

 

sigh...the nonsense that people pick up sometimes...We _ know_ that perfect balance doesn't exist. That does not mean that balance is unimportant! You still need to buff and nerf as necessary. Saying that buffs > nerfs as this video does misses the point entirely about balance. Balance goes both ways. Although players may beg on their knees for more options...don't give it to them. If you just buff and buff and constantly give people more options, you just have powercreep! Simple as that! We've seen it with the expansions, for crying out loud.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

> @"Khalisto.5780" said:

> and then you risk to make the already overperforming weaver even stronger

>

> and after that what, buff every single build to weaver current power level?

>

> and now you have another new stronger build that all the other builds have to be buffed to be in line with

>

> that seems to be the way we got to the older power creep

>

>

 

Balance is subjective, like I say. Whether you buff or nerf to achieve "balance" that isn't going to stop anyone from considering something to be an outlier. Power creep occurs when a class or ability goes well beyond the power curve which can happen regardless of how high or low it is.

 

Again, the only real difference comes the attitude you as a person have towards balance. Personally, I feel like the dude from the video hit the nail right on top of the head. Getting buffs all across the board _feels_ better than getting nerfs to me because I like getting and interacting with new things.

 

A nerf is a reduction, which is a loss, a removal.

A buff is an increase, which is a gain, an addition.

 

That's the only bit of fact in the matter because thems the definitions gamers established. I read it on Urban Dictionary, so it must be true.

Whichever(nerfs or buffs) is more important is entirely up to you, just like this is all just my opinion. As is me agreeing with the dude in the video. Balance is always subjective and personal.

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

Removing "options" is the sole solution when something becomes/is so fundamentally broken they have the tools to deal with everything in every situation - with little-to-no trade-offs.

 

Blindly saying "things should never get dumbed down!" is narrow-minded, and skips an entire section of good game design.

[Axl.8924]

I have a feeling most MMOS with pvp go through something similar.

 

I think it might be worse at WOW, because you can actually go 1 year without a update to a class for pve and pvp. I'd hate to be one of the classes on the receiving end YIKES.

 

I heard in wow there is a favoritism towards melee, and especially the newer dog Demon hunter.

 

I do agree that taking out option does feel worse, and i don't like it generally when there are less options of playstyles to try out. There is a reason why i try out ranger for SPVP mesmer thief etc, and its because we don't want to be stuck with just 1 build for 1 class we love.

 

Take thief for instance, if we nerf them into the ground no more S/P no more S/D no more condi DD no more P/P no rifle thief in SPVP. You have to admit its really cool to have so many stuff, then they have daredevil acro staff which is a different playstyle and real cool.

 

How many does warr have viable atm? just curious.

WHat about rev? I've seen herald and a bit of core in arena in mist.

What about ele atm?

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

> @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said:

> > @"Paradoxoglanis.1904" said:

> > This patch was only meant to reduce power creep (which is largely a design issue), not address class balance. Anet had the philosophy of "rework, dont nerf" for a very long time, which is probably due to gw2 being focused around horizontal progression. After years of power creep accumulating in patches and xpacs, it turned combat into a bloated mess of spamming aoe, passive procs, 1 shot combos, and abilities with a ridiculous number of effects. Generally, this allowed for playstyles with little room for counterplay, and often made the outcome of a fight determined by the class matchup, not player skill. It was not fun for a lot of people, and it created a huge barrier for new players learning the game.

> >

> > The game is still no where near being balanced, and that is to be expected after such a large update. The idea is that once everything is evened out over the next several updates, the game will be in a better, more stable place than it was before.

>

> I hear that word power creep used a lot on here. I don't know if Gw2 players changed the definition or something, but in the games i've played power creep refers to new content being so strong and amazing that it makes older content/builds irrelevant and boring by comparison, and becomes the new sort of standard for power level when planning builds.

>

> When it comes to actually fighting power creep, nerfing that standard, or lowering the power curve to then bring the power crept outliers to that new lower-standard in the future is a sound strategy, yes.

> All i'm saying, is the same thing could be accomplish in the opposite direction, through buffs and raising the power curve rather than lowering it.

>

> Like the dude in the video says, buffs just feel better anyway. I think his points on loss-aversion and how losing options feels twice as bad as gaining options would feel good just resonates very strongly.

 

Power creep is definitely becoming a buzz word on the gw2 forums, but generally it refers to the increase in power of existing skills through buffing or adding additional effects, or the introduction of new, more powerful mechanics such as in elite specs.

 

In gw2, its really just a huge mess at this point. I get that buffs or reworks can add new options and playstyles, but there is always the question of whether those kinds of changes are actually good for the game. Things like: easier access to stealth for DE, more aoe for FB and scourge, new dodge mechanics for mirage and daredevil, or more stats/skills for soulbeast and holosmith. These all add new playstyles to the game, and create a lot of fun content with more potential build diversity, but at the same time they make older specs obsolete and can remove the potential for skillful counterplay. Ideally each individual skill and trait would be looked at and reworked to fit the flow of the game, but that would require an insane amount of work. The flat nerfs to damage coefficients was likely the best solution the devs had.

 

In the end it does come down to personal preference. Some people like the chaotic style of gameplay created by buffing everything, which is why games like overwatch or halo had a lot of people playing custom games. However for gw2 I think most people agreed that too much power was only hurting the game.

[crepuscular.9047]

had 7.5 years of buffs, clearly it did not work

[vesica tempestas.1563]

Op is wrong. Buffs/power creep is not better than nerfs because it empowers 1 shot skills, something that is allways bad for pvp gameplay. Same applies at other end of spectrum where everything is too tanky. What you need is not surprisingly BALANCE. To achieve that balance you need regular patching.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

> @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> Removing "options" is the sole solution when something becomes/is so fundamentally broken they have the tools to deal with everything in every situation - with little-to-no trade-offs.

>

> Blindly saying "things should never get dumbed down!" is narrow-minded, and skips an entire section of good game design.

 

Right, balance is still important.

 

I tend to think like the guy in the video and think that nerfs should best be reserved for the extreme cases; where a community of otherwise oppositional people can, for the most part come together and say "yes, this is broken."

 

I also like his idea of creative nerfs. In that instead of just straight up nerfing a number or a coefficient on an ability, the nerf comes in the form of something that can be made weaker with ingame counterplay. The example he used was in SF5, Ryu's shoryuken at first did high damage and could be canceled. It was changed to have a version that was still cancelable, but did less damage, and was given a heavy version which did more damage, but couldn't be canceled. It's sort of like a buff and nerf at once, and I think that's pretty genius. Same with the advent of 3-point lines in basketball, that was revolutionary.

 

Those kinds of nerfs i'm all for because it's either very needed, or an actual creative change. Otherwise a straight multiplicative damage reduction or CD increase is probably one of the most boring and uninspired ways to nerf things in a dynamic game like Gw2.

 

> @"Axl.8924" said:

> I do agree that taking out option does feel worse, and i don't like it generally when there are less options of playstyles to try out. There is a reason why i try out ranger for SPVP mesmer thief etc, and its because we don't want to be stuck with just 1 build for 1 class we love.

>

> Take thief for instance, if we nerf them into the ground no more S/P no more S/D no more condi DD no more P/P no rifle thief in SPVP. You have to admit its really cool to have so many stuff, then they have daredevil acro staff which is a different playstyle and real cool.

 

That's exactly why I want a patch like the latest that buffs everything rather than nerfing, so there's more options for every class rather than fewer. If there's more than one powerful weapon set and utilities for each class, isn't that still a successful way to combat power creep? If power creep discourages build diversity, wouldn't encouraging build diversity be fighting against power creep then?

 

@"Paradoxoglanis.1904" ?

 

I'm just going to pull a random example out of nowhere... The last line in the Spellbreaker Specialization.

 

Between those options people are usually always compelled to take Magebane Tether. It just does show much more than the other two, I mean... Revealed, Damage multiplier, tether + pull, might stacks. That's like 5 things in one.

Compare that to Enchantment collapse which only has only situational effect.

Or Revenge counter, which does three things! But a 20% multiplier on a 0.01 coefficient is still pretty much nothing, so 2 things basically.

 

Now what if Revenge Counter had added buffed effects, like maybe changing Full-Counter entirely to do damage based on incoming damage? The 20% multiplier would be useful again, on top of the other effects.

 

Buffs introduce new counterplay and really open up build diversity. I don't think they're any more or less guilty of facilitating power creep than nerfs are.

[Bazsi.2734]

> @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said:

> **The goal in balancing any game should be to make buffs and not nerfs.**

 

This is how we ended up with the degenerate powercrept meta that lasted almost a year. Buffing that abomination even further would have just made everything worse.

So no, the goal of balancing shouldn't be to always buff, thats a really really REALLY bad idea.

 

> Rather than whine about any specific class or playstyle, i'm just going to throw it out there that removing options for how people can play always **feels worse** and less fun to play with, instead of getting newly viable options through buffing weaker skills, and/or changing how skills function entirely, and then being forced to adapt to said buffs, even if it's to something that you wouldn't want to play yourself.

 

You get new viable options if the relative power of the metabuilds and the unused builds get closer to each other. Whether its due to a nerf or a buff, the end result is almost the same.

 

> And In any case, balance should always come second to having an actual fun and functional game. People like to say "wow this patch was awful, I quit!" but it's usually disingenuous because if people are so concerned about balance to begin with, they're usually too invested in the game to outright preemptively quit over it.

 

I had crazy fun oneshotting people with 2*30K DJ-s on the old deadeye(before the rework). The damage was so big, it bypassed passive lifesavers(getting hit below X health to trigger). Was fun for me, nightmare for everyone else. Who's fun are we prioritizing? How about going for proper balance instead?

 

> While sure, balance patches do bring people back; they do little for, and can even be detrimental when it comes to actual player retention. It's essentially a few hours of theory crafting and testing builds and then it's back to the same thing with maybe a different build/class. How much enjoyment/hours everyone gets out of a balance patch is really up to how invested they are in the game, and how bothered they are with profession balance. Someone who makes a post here about X being op because X killed them is ironically; a lot more likely to put in more time after a patch. Whereas someone who couldn't be bothered either way might quit after just a few hours because there's no actual new content.

>

> That's why actual content updates like 2v2 are so amazing, because it introduces actual new ways to play the game. That's how you bring people back **and** get them to stay and try their hand at the new content. Objective patching is; in my opinion, way better than subjective patching, and balance is subjective no matter how you look at it.

 

Balance can be made quite objective by increasing sample size from just you to everyone. Statistics. If something is overplayed and still has high winrates, you know what to nerf. Developers have access to proper statistics, they can see if the actual whining on the forums is justified or not.

 

> I get that balance is still and important facet still; in changing up the meta, and in bringing people in like I say. I just think both could still be accomplished via giving rather than taking away.

 

No. This game became so much better after the nerfpatch, and now there are only a few outliers in need of toning down. If we kept buffing everything just because 2-3 builds are overperforming, we'd inflate the powerlevel right past the oneshot meta within 3 patches.

 

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

> @"Bazsi.2734" said:

> Balance can be made quite objective by increasing sample size from just you to everyone. Statistics. If something is overplayed and still has high winrates, you know what to nerf. Developers have access to proper statistics, they can see if the actual whining on the forums is justified or not.

>

> > I get that balance is still and important facet still; in changing up the meta, and in bringing people in like I say. I just think both could still be accomplished via giving rather than taking away.

>

> No. This game became so much better after the nerfpatch, and now there are only a few outliers in need of toning down. If we kept buffing everything just because 2-3 builds are overperforming, we'd inflate the powerlevel right past the oneshot meta within 3 patches.

>

 

disagree

 

It's still an opinion and its still subjective. What some people have fun with, others might not. It was said with others in mind to begin with, as I got the idea from that video anyway.

 

Even if a class is over-represented with a high winrate, there's still going to be people who actually enjoy playing those builds, and those classes.

Rather than get hyperfocused on statistics and what's perceived to be overpowered; unless it's urgent and seriously game breaking, you could prefer the focus should be on what's under represented, and how to buff those to be level with the meta without creating an overpowered mess that needs hot-fixing.

 

Not to mention those stats are usually terribly inaccurate and not representative, especially in a game like this with total build freedom. A lot of people from every skill level play the 'meta' in any game, and more people playing it usually means a fairly even or even below-average winrate for that class.

 

Balance is and always will be subjective, and at that; I think post-patch is boring and slow overall. :p

 

 

 

[otto.5684]

> @"Khalisto.5780" said:

> i dont feel they removed options

>

> it's completely the other way around in my experience, i can play builds like dd cele ele again and other less optimal builds and don't feel completely useless like before

 

I strongly disagree. It is very one sided towards specific builds. Beside condi spam/bunker or CC not much is viable. And people are still testing things out. But the meta already is starting to be locked. And it surely is less diverse than it ever was.

 

As for the patch being reduction to power creep. Yes, but it is more of redesign. One that is poorly thought out and highly unbalanced.

[Kuma.1503]

I would love to see PvE buffs to:

 

Scrapper - Outclassed as a dps by holo and core engi, both of which are sub-par options to begin with. Outclassed as a support by tempest, rev, fb, and druid. Even scourge is more desirable in some scenarios. I don't believe in locking certain specs to only be good in competetive modes. Sometimes you really love the playstyle, theme, or flavor of an elite spec, but do not enjoy PvP or WvW. Personally, I love scrapper, but detest WvW and it saddens me that it's not desirable anywhere else. (Anything is good in open world so that does not count)

 

Reaper - It's only really useful as an easy dps for newer players. Outside of that, it brings little to the table. Perhaps the literal embodiment of death should offer a bit more to the group, even if all it offers is really good selfish dps with little reliance on perma boon uptime.

 

General buffs to:

 

Druid - Undo the pet nerf. Druid is already signifiantly weaker than core as a dps. When you give up a core traitline to go druid, you feel it. CA is difficult to build up if you don't have allies near you to heal. Additionally, it requires that you invest additional resources buffing your healing/sustain, which further nerfs your dps. All of this together means Druid is going to perform worse than core in scenarios where it does not have allies to buff. A trade-off does not have to be an explicit nerf. So long as there is an opportunity cost for traiting into an elite spec (which there certainly is for druid) that should be sufficient.

 

Additionally, consider reworking spirits so that druid isn't the undisputed king of raids.

 

PvP buffs to:

 

Core Guard - Symbols were not an issue on core guard. It was a firebrand specific issue. I do not like it when Anet nerfs core due to elites overperforming. Ironically, this goes against their philosophy of creating trade-offs in the first place. If you nerf a mediocre spec (core) because a en elite spec (firebrand) is too strong, all you're doing making core trait lines less desirable and elite specs more desirable by comparison, thereby making elites seem more like straight upgrades. Consider undoing the nerf to symbols and nerfing firebrand directly. For example, the daze trait on axe could be replaced with additional burning.

 

Core Engi - Kits are so integral to the class that Anet thought it fitting to deny the class a weapon swap. If kits are to be integral to the class, then kits should be more functional than they are. Consider making the velocity increase from grenadier baseline.

 

Bombs need a rework. Delayed fuses make these skills easy to walk out of. Firebomb (your biggest damage skill) requires the target to stand in it for it to deal any meaningful damage. Skills 4 and 5 feel out of place. Perhaps consider putting utility oriented skills like these onto tool-kit. Consider replacing skill 5 with the magnet bomb trait which pulls enemies in. Big-ol-bomb dealing 0 damage makes little sense for such a difficult to land spell. Consider reworking it.

 

Core Ele - For starters, can we fix the bugs on scepter, and for the love of Melandru, un-nerf lava font.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

The reason people disagree with each other here is because both sides are wrong.

 

Nerfs aren’t better than buffs and buffs aren’t better than nerfs...both things are not good and both are conceptually non-realistic.

 

Think about what the implication of balance really means. In order for 2 or more things to be PERFECTLY balanced they must all be exactly the same....the moment you introduce any sort of difference, they will by definition become unbalanced.

 

As an example, if you have 10 things that you want to balance. Any difference you add to improve one of them will effectively remove all other choices. Likewise any difference you make to weaken one will effectively remove that choice. As all choices approach perfect balance, they effectively become THE SAME CHOICE, so irregardless of what you do, trying to go for balance in this way will result in less overall choices.

 

There is a different way to attain balance though, and that is through the introduction of adaptive competition...IE the balance that all other systems in the world use, including evolutionary biology.

 

When two different agents compete with each other to achieve the same goal, and these agents have the ability to adapt, then as the you introduce more choices that can achieve the goals, than each agent can find more and more ways to adapt to more and more situations. Unlike the definition of balance provided above, this version of balance, rather than converging to a single choice, diverges to an infinite amount of choices...(sounds familiar right? It’s Evolutionary Biology)

 

and thus balance can be attained simply by adding more and more choices that can achieve goals. In the case of guild wars 2, builds are the choices. The less builds there are that can achieve a certain goal, the less diversity there will be and the stronger the imbalance.

 

That’s also why this balance patch effectively did nothing but hurt diversity and thus made the game more unbalanced...many builds that were able to achieve a certain goal before have now, effectively been eliminated. Just a good example is P/P thief..I mean this build was barely performing before and it’s now so far down that I don’t see it ever seeing the light of day ever again. And this is just one of many builds effected by the patch.

[bravan.3876]

Is it fun that almost everything can facetank for ages? In 2v2 there are still some comps clearly favored and braindead facetanky playable (FB nerfed but still good in 2v2 comps). In conquest i haven't had time out wins/loses that often since HoT release. It is one of the noobfriendliest facetank meta since a longer time i would say. Sustain still needs nerfs (Ele/ Necro and some more, incl Ele cc spam needs to be reduced), also boonspam still pretty high. We don't want dmg buffs to compensate that otherwise power creep starts right now again. We want bad players to die fast, means no mistake cover facetank sustain.

On the dmg side i only see one little outliner atm and that is Ranger (and his pets) and maybe Lichform autoattack (maybe Necro fear dmg too). On Holo the quickness uptime is still pretty high and quickness autoattackspam still a little bit too rewarding in my view (otherwise see no problem with Holo dmg wise atm). The unkillable Scrapper perma stabi build i have not met so far on EU, means no clue about that. The retargeting kitten on Mesmer is as annoying as expected but who you want to blame when you kill skillful active defense and push them into toxic active defense mechanics instead just nerfing the real issues on Condimirage. Same mistake they did with Soulbeast.

 

Ress ability compared to the lower dmg is still too strong and some classes have too powerful ress/ revive mechanics on top of that.