Fhrek
One Badge of Honor achieved
^^^That^^^
100%
I don't understand the nerfing paradigm
- Thread starter cocopufff
- Start date
100%
The buff to arcane archer is basically that arcane archer is now okay for like a ~10 sp dip, which doesn't feel like a buff to the playstyle at all.
The draconic strike nerf was insane, they cut the damage by like 70% and added a maximum caster level nerf on top of that. It feels similarly to the FVS nerf, where they nerfed one of their main leveling spells and then also nerfed the tree itself. And what gamebreaking problem was found in bards have an early level AOE?
Like, it feels like the effort here isn't to balance, it's to kill.
Thanks, i knew something was off when i was typing it, i literally spend as little thought as possible when typing things on these forums, as for the most part they are a joke anyways.
1Th13rteen3
I'm on meds.. Leaf me alone!
this times eleventy-billion. Path of Exile 1 had this issue. Streamer finds a well performing build and every other word out of their mouth is "overpowered this, overpowered that.." and it would get nerfed like a cpl weeks later after everyone jumped on the fun train, including myself. Well those nerfs earned that game at least 1 less player and 1 less paying customer so... yeah.
Smokewolf
Frequently banned member.
Far as the Dev's are concerned, Crossbows are just melee weapons that are used at range.
1Th13rteen3
I'm on meds.. Leaf me alone!
Blizzard did exactly that with Deathknight when Wrath of the Lich King rolled out in 2008/2009-ish. Very over-performing, and then when sales started slumping, the nerfing began. You can almost look at the dev cycle where the sales of expacs and signups for new players and see where the downward curve happened and it probably will coincide with when the class was nerfed. Unholy was the build to play when it released. Then it was blood, then it was frost.
Btw pretty much all game devs do this all the time, it's a marketing strategy and unfortunately it works.
1Th13rteen3
I'm on meds.. Leaf me alone!
If everything is nerfed into the ground to do 1 point of damage and every ability is the same cause "balance", then is that what makes the game more interesting and fun to play?
I don't think so. I think build diversity and some builds performing better AT SOME THINGS over others, which is kinda what D&D was meant to be... Is what makes games fun. Not everyone whining how "this class is overpowered at 'X thing' but I am not".
People need to get over themselves. I get that balance needs to be a thing, for instance with caster DC and melees not having to deal with that, thus they are 'overperforming COMPARED TO CASTERS' in high reaper right now, but nerfing AN ENTIRE BUILD because it overperforms BETTER THAN OTHER BUILDS is just silly and you are a dog chasing your tail because in a game with builds the entire idea behind that is to have well-performing builds and not-so-well performing ones. THAT'S what makes this game interesting and I dare someone to argue me on this, but I am 100% sure someone will.
Way I see it. Being an MMO enjoyer of 26 years (since EQ 1999), There's basically two types of players in this paradigm. One type wants all builds, classes, abilities to be the same across the board in power, the other does not. Which player are you? (Speaking to the entire community here). There are going to be some outliers who don't fit into this paradigm, but they are going to be a minority compared to the 2 groups/examples.
They have tried really hard to stop my mostly utilized build, with it seeing about a dozen nerfs over the past 5 years.
I still use it and even play naked permadeath with it, i was angry at earlier nerfs in the game that had nothing to do with this build, i swore then to get the last laugh. We all know the saying he who laughs last laughs longest!! I also stopped spending any extra money beyond my VIP when those early nerfs came out.
So I created a build that incorporated a bunch of game mechanics into one, in their attempt to slow that build they have nerfed a dozen things. In order to slow that build and nerf my created genius they would have to nerf many others fun playstyles, this cost them soooo many players.
Pure evil genuis, when someone messes with you always play the long game its way more fun.
I couldn't care less about build peaks and top-level performance, I just want builds to feel good to play. And it feels pretty bad that you basically have to gimp your character to play certain things.
Then revert the nerfs?
Like, genuinely, what you're saying proves my point.
Also, as long as they nerf things, there is a nerfing paradigm. You can have a nerfing paradigm and a buffing paradigm at the same time. Paradigm is just a fancy way of saying "Model or system for doing something."
Shear-buckler
Master of reactions
Well the nerfs were generally justified and good, so the nerf paradigm is fine. The problem is the buffs that came after the nerfs.
So the nerfs are both justified and good, but also, reverting them wouldn't affect the meta at all?
This logic makes 0 sense. If reverting nerfs would not make any of these classes overperform (or even perform as high as top-meta threats) then what on earth is the point of keeping these classes nerfed?
Shear-buckler
Master of reactions
Yes, the universe has this strange property called "time". It allows one event to precede another event. What it means is that when the nerfs happen they were fine and made the game better but after the nerfs they kept buffing other things so much that reverting the nerfs would not make them catch up with the new top builds. That does not mean that reverting the nerfs is the correct choice. The correct choice is to revert the buffs.
Nerf has a very negative connotation.
Balance adjustment is better and more accurate.
To those who learned to overpower content using unbalanced abilities, change is hard as it forces a re-learning and new time to be spent finding the newest inefficiency, which some players simply do not like to do.
Balance adjustment is better and more accurate.
To those who learned to overpower content using unbalanced abilities, change is hard as it forces a re-learning and new time to be spent finding the newest inefficiency, which some players simply do not like to do.
If you nerf the OP ability today, everyone will just to the OP ability of tomorrow, etc, etc, etc. People that like more flavor/fun builds will continue to use those and the world will keep turning. Will people be unhappy about having to TR/LTR and sentient/jewel swap for the new build, of course as that costs us real money and the devs are too discourteous to give out those things when they make significant changes.
Enoach
Well-known member
There are different ways corrections are made.
1. Tune down efficiency - Less powerful or more costly
2. Remove ability or reduce how often it can be used
3. Indirect such as improving the defenses of enemies or more extreme making the power not work.
1 & 2 are direct changes often seen as nurfs as they directly affect the ability.
3 will have the most effect as it also affects anyone using similar abilities - Such as an entire dungeon where mobs are immune to fire damage or raising the DC for landing an ability.
These changes are not always bad but they are also not always good. I like variety in builds, but when every build contains the same feature or everyone runs the same build that diversity gets lost.
I agree with you I don't always agree with 'nurfs'
- I didn't like the change to Stat Damage where death didn't occur on 0 for Constitution which made DPS king to melee combat.
- I didn't like it when DCs got raised to counter act abilities that were added to melee effects making the effect more powerful from swinging faster vs being cast for spell points.
But then I think the Stat Squish was a good idea - in fact I think it was needed years before.
1. Tune down efficiency - Less powerful or more costly
2. Remove ability or reduce how often it can be used
3. Indirect such as improving the defenses of enemies or more extreme making the power not work.
1 & 2 are direct changes often seen as nurfs as they directly affect the ability.
3 will have the most effect as it also affects anyone using similar abilities - Such as an entire dungeon where mobs are immune to fire damage or raising the DC for landing an ability.
These changes are not always bad but they are also not always good. I like variety in builds, but when every build contains the same feature or everyone runs the same build that diversity gets lost.
I agree with you I don't always agree with 'nurfs'
- I didn't like the change to Stat Damage where death didn't occur on 0 for Constitution which made DPS king to melee combat.
- I didn't like it when DCs got raised to counter act abilities that were added to melee effects making the effect more powerful from swinging faster vs being cast for spell points.
But then I think the Stat Squish was a good idea - in fact I think it was needed years before.
If that were true than r10 raid composition wouldn't be 95% ranged...your math aint mathing.
-The nerfs were either excessive or targetting builds that didn't need them. Did sonic blast need to be nerfed? Were those low-level bards just REALLY needing to be reigned in?
-Did Arcane Archer need to be nerfed? Because it's literally always been worse than DS
-Favored souls didn't need their class AND nuking spell nerfed at the same time.
-No matter how good Draconic was, nerfing it by more than 70% was WAY too excessive, especially since mages deal 70% less damage at high reaper in the first place.