How can we decide if or when something needs to be buffed or nerfed?

[Wild.1705]

I have followed discussions on GW2's balancing for quite some time now. Certain players such as my gal, JusticeRetroHunter.7684, have gone in depth talking about how balance shouldn't be nerfs and buffs, but should be about creating variety. I have loved reading those walls of text and learning a bit about complex system theory. This however, is a quite different philosophy than many players seem to bring to the table. While overall I agree with what is said regarding the complex system nature of GW2 and how the developers could play better into it's strengths, I also feel that there is a line that can be crossed. Once that line is crossed a buff or nerf is needed.

 

Example: Necromancer's Lich goes too far.

Imagine that when you get hit by deathly claws the game auto quits and starts uninstalling. Players would quickly have to cancel the uninstall, relaunch the game, and then get back to their match hoping that the haven't lost the game for their team.

Most players will feel that in this example the lich's deathly claws have "crossed the line" that I mentioned above.

 

Or maybe there is a move that needs a buff considering how crippling the drawbacks are.

 

Example: The 300second cooldown traits get an evil twin!

A trait is given to warriors that lets them instantly revive with full health once in a match. After that match however, you get  4 days worth of dishonor.

 

Where is this line? When should something be nerfed or buffed?

For most players the 300second passives need a buff/redesign. 

Many players feel that necromancer's lich's deathly claws have crossed that line in damage and need a nerf/redesign.

Does everything just need a redesign? Should we just completely forgo buffing and nerfing altogether?

 

My gal had this to say in response to the possibility of a necro and lich nerf in the current meta

On 12/24/2021 at 7:19 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Truth is that once you nerf reaper and/or lich, i'm probably quitting the game for good...because that's the only thing that's able to move a teamfight (and also it's the counter to core necro/scourge). If you get rid of lich you won't see less necro's, you will see more of them...and it will be a lot more tanky meta.

 

She is not wrong here. But... necro and lich still feel...

They feel bad.

Deathly claws from shadow refuge or mass invisibility etc. feel extra bad.

As mentioned before, most players feel that the line has been crossed. With 300s traits needing a buff and lich needing a nerf. So, do all these tings that have crossed the line need to be completely redesigned? Or can some of them be tweaked with buffs or nerfs?

Most importantly, how can we decide if or when something needs to be buffed or nerfed?

Edited February 3, 2022 by Wild.1705
Spelling & gamer

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

Its not just about buffs or nerfs, its about the whole mechanics of some skills which make them frustrating for both parties. For example, Lich being an elite transform, is frustrating for the user due to the high cooldown and frustrating for the target because the auto hits easily delete players with very little counterplay (objects).

 

A better design wouldn't be to buff or nerf it, but to normalise it. Lower cooldown, lower damage, longer duration.

 

This is how changes should always be made. Not just buffing or nerfing, but both at the same time. Equalising skills and traits until they feel good to use for everyone involved. That's real balance.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Hannelore.8153

[ArthurDent.9538]

One personal preference I have would for all skills in the game be balanced around a cooldown of 60 seconds maximum. On the micro scale, longer cds tend to just make fight results more based on what cooldowns are available at the start of the engagement. For example a reaper with lich on cd is an easy target but they are a major threat with lich available, mechanical skill doesn't matter much in this situation. There is an argument for having big cd's that can swing games in seconds adding hype and testing how the enemy team manages to play around the infrequently available win button but I'm not a fan.

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

1 hour ago, Wild.1705 said:

Most importantly, how can we decide if or when something needs to be buffed or nerfed?

Just ask me

[Shao.7236]

Let's take it seriously here.

 

300CDs are the best example of this, did they deserve a nerf? Yes. That much of a nerf? No. Can they be game changing? Yes. In a good or bad way? Depends.

 

Warrior Last Stand is one of those traits that is sort of good and minor skill within was too good as you'd typically find for a while before for things like Lesser Muddy Terrain which carried Ranger builds on sidenodding.

 

Should the CD be long on Last Stand? Yes. Should it be this long? No. 180 is about where I draw the line personally but to be more objective that is because it has the ability to turn the fight around at the peak of a situation that could mean losing (Being CC'd which will give Stability automatically on top of taking less damage) and seeing it more than twice in a fight was the reason why it was busted, 180 is long but does not make it unlikely to be seen later again in the same game. There is nothing lesser about the skill other than it's CD, it acts on instant for the player and will be a good thing no matter what in the situation.

 

This is unlike the non lesser utility, Balanced Stance requires player input and comparatively to all professions in the game right now 60CD is a lot to ask from a Warrior, a profession that should be able to frontline. Stomp is the only short CD stunbreak and it sucks in most situation because Stability doesn't last and can be countered with blind, however because everything else has such a long CD, you're better off with it anyway because stunbreak. 

 

So what makes 60CD valid on Balanced Stance? Nothing, it was overnerfed in the context of 2020 Feb. Given that Warrior on average always have 1 stunbreak utility rather than 2, they have to because otherwise they have nothing to be offensive with. 60 seconds (Knowing that the effects last for a bit which otherwise be 56 seconds) of having nothing to keep yourself out of trouble is just wrong for a Warrior, 45 would be more like it as it doesn't overshadow everything if you run scenario's with core and the elites, it makes it a viable and different alternative to play because now the skill is accessible.

 

Much of the same can be said for the related trait, 180 would be accessible.

 

I do know that most use Shake It Off and in regards to it, Balanced Stance is still not better than Stomp in terms of being able to escape danger. If it was not balanced, we'd know from that already, nobody uses that combination and that does add up to the evidence the skill CD was overnerfed because the concept of having many stunbreaks is already possible and proven to not break the game.

 

All of this can also be applied to Defy Pain and Dolyak Signet as well.

 

Defy Pain compared to Last Stance triggers at a certain treshold and therefor not as easily controlled, with those facts established we know that 120CD wouldn't be busted because it'll take a long 2 minutes before a Warrior can be immune to one shot again and that's if their health is kept above 50%.

 

Dolyak Signet being set at a comparative 45CD is equally good because of the trait available to it as well, except again no better than Stomp which can stunbreak more often.

 

After all that in the balance context you've made more skills viable without overshadowing the others, as things should be.

[oscuro.9720]

I think one of the ways (the best way imo) to balance things, or at least individual skills, is to use an Investment vs Reward model. This is basically to ask the question;

Is the investment of using this skill (cast time, animation lock, cool down, etc. would all be things invested) worth the payoff?
If it’s an instant cast skill, the reward for skill use should be exceedingly low (something like core guard f1 is a good example. Blind and burn is a relatively small payoff but can be used in a versatile manner). 

Likewise, a long cast time should result in a larger effect. This is where I think a lot of skill imbalance is missing. For example: Rapid Fire can reach fairly high numbers, but is locked over a long cast time, giving a variety of counters to the skill.

Meanwhile, something like 100blades has a larger investment (melee, rooted, longer cast time) for similar damage numbers. This would imply that either 100 blades is underpowered, Rapid Fire is overpowered, or a bit of both (imo it’s mostly the first). 

Balancing the investment against the reward so all classes have similar requirements to achieve a set ouput is how damage can be properly balanced across classes imo. Some classes may not have the same long-cast high-effect things, and can instead make up for it with numerous moderate-impact skills (think the old shatter Mesmer combo). 

Imo, there’s is presently a large number of skills that are underperforming their investment due to the Feb 2020 patch, and this is where a lot of the imbalance occurs. Increasing damage/impact isn’t necessarily the solution though, the investment can also be lowered to create an equilibrium. 

That’s just my opinion though, and it gets a lot more complex when you start taking into account traits, utilities, etc. I’m not smart enough to do that though, so I end it here 🙂 

Edited February 4, 2022 by oscuro.9720

[Crab Fear.1624]

PvP can have no passives.

Roles must be defined and selected must be confined.

Heal is no dps.

Dps is no heal.

Tank is no dps.

DPS is no tank.

Mobility must sacrifice sustain.

Sustain must sacrifice mobility.

Stealth should not blind.

Blind must be limited duration.

Projectile block must be reduced.

Pets should not do 7k, 6k, 5k damage.

Pets should use their own stats for everything, including the poison app, not the rangers.

Stealth trapper runes need to go.

FTP should not be in ranked.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Crab Fear.1624

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

I’m glad you tagged me in the post.

 

The truth is that there is no line. Even if we want there to be one there just isn’t one. It’s this belief that there is a line, that has to be broken. It’s hard to get the idea for why there isn’t a line, but when you think about it from the perspective of physics it’s easier to understand.

 

For example, Take the following analogy:

 It was long believed that time and space was a linear concrete thing…that things happen in a definite time and at a definite place in space. But general relativity came along and said that time and space warp based on our relation (relative speed) to each other…that there is no definite sense of “time and space” it’s relative (hence the name)…the same relation exists here in the balance discussion. There is no definite place where we can say that the game is balanced, everything (the strength of things) are relative to each other.

 

it takes a fundamental shift in perspective to understand that the problem is deep…very deep and with that shift, it’s going to give us answers that we don’t like. One of those answers being…that buffs and nerfs are effectively meaningless. 
 

it’s hard to understand why these operations are meaningless but in thinking about it through the above analog of general relativity, we know that if we accept that balance in the game is a relative concept, then those operations being meaningless must be true. 

 

Another user by the name of Hogwarts Zebra said it very well in a recent post, that when you nerf one thing, the next busted thing becomes meta…and you nerf that the next busted thing becomes meta…and this happens over and over until everything is nerfed to the point where everything must be the same exact thing. This happens also but in reverse when things are buffed…buff one thing and that thing becomes meta…buff some other thing and now that thing becomes meta…and so on and so forth…until in order for the game to be balanced requires that everyone does the same exact things. Instead of everyone doing 1 damage, 1 health and 1 armor, everything is doing infinite damage, infinite health and has infinite armor.

 

This also happens to be the reason why nobody likes or agrees with me. I argue against both nerfs and buffs, and this makes me a pretty easy target from both sides. I’ve grown pretty bitter over it…but my views on the topic have not changed.
 

cheers,

[FarmBotXD.1430]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684
nope, nerfing something makes the next OP something pop out only when you are incompetent and cant balance for kitten.
Holo is a very good example of making small changes until it landed on a somewhat good spot
the only reason we have this massive shifting meta is because 
1 we get real patch notes once every 6 months
2 when we get patch notes they overnerf things to kitten and NEVER admit mistakes when they do over-nerf something
Also If you want to reply to me I wont even bother reading what you have to say if you write a wall of text, please leave something compact if any.

[cyberzombie.7348]

From what I've noticed throughout the game, the issue lies in the general idea of just dialing down numbers will make 'x' builds balanced while overlooking the mechanical issues.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

6 hours ago, Wild.1705 said:

Most importantly, how can we decide if or when something needs to be buffed or nerfed?

* Look at the thing in question. Specify which sphere you want to balance for, and look at the instance of the thing in that context. Your aim is ideally to balance in a way that does not affect the spheres you are not focused on (So, numbers changes, mechanical if you need to.). If you find that you need to make a mechanical change, you will need to perform this entire sequence again.

* Gather metrics. Are people using this thing a lot, or not?

Usually, people tend to use things when they are good, although there are other factors that would lead to the same outcome. In order of importance, people use things when:

• 1.) They work
• 2.) They have no other option
• 3.) The thing in question is pretty/satisfying to use. 

If the thing is not used at all/very little, it is either

• 1.) Actually bad/not practical to use.
• 2.) Not very bad, but outclassed by something else.

*  Look at what people are saying in public forums.

• If the thing is used a lot, are people upset enough to comment on this thing en masse?
• If the thing is not used at all, are people upset enough to comment on this thing en masse?

* Gather more information, to determine if the thing in question is indeed too weak or too strong.

1.) Cross reference your metrics before balancing. Items may be too weak when facing one scenario, but may be very strong when facing another. This is acceptable if the scenarios in question both occur equally frequently, but other balancing issues may hide this data.

* Try to replicate the issue/the nature of the imbalance.

1.) Pick the broken/useless trait/class/skill and go use it in game. Spectate matches between high level players that are using the focus of the balancing effort. Make note of the things the subject is completely countered by, and the things that have a hard time responding to the subject in question. These should be reasonably equal, but slight deviances into more or less effective are also acceptable. Buffing/Nerfing efforts should be relegated specifically to things that lead to winning interactions in most scenarios, or losing interactions in most scenarios.

* Buff unused items before nerfing overused items. 

Consider buffing extremely underused items first.  A class, skill, or traitline may be overperforming because a class, skill or traitline meant to counter it is too heavily oppressed, or because one skill or traitline works, while the others do not. 

* Buff (and nerf) incrementally, but frequently. 

Your buffing / nerfing efforts should not be wild or radical unless you are setting a foundation for future balancing, and if you are setting a foundation for future balancing your intent for balancing should be well communicated beforehand, and well monitored afterward, with frequent changes along the way and follow through on aforementioned intent. 

* Consider pushing proposed balance changes temporarily,  and acquire feedback before committing. 

Consider balancing temporarily using a Public Test Build of the game, or enabling changes publicly for a short period of time. Gather metrics during this time frame, acquire and read feedback about the changes afterward, and when the test period is over revert the changes. If the changes are well received, commit them in the next major build. 

 

TL;DR

• examine community feedback, the pushback to that feedback, then examine the items being commented on in-game (both personally and via observation of high level players using the items) to determine if the feedback is logical and pointing to an actual over or underperformance.
• If possible, buff underperforming things first before nerfing overperforming things.  
• Buff and nerf incrementally instead of introducing a bunch of interaction changes at once.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[CutesySylveon.8290]

7 hours ago, Hannelore.8153 said:

Its not just about buffs or nerfs, its about the whole mechanics of some skills which make them frustrating for both parties. For example, Lich being an elite transform, is frustrating for the user due to the high cooldown and frustrating for the target because the auto hits easily delete players with very little counterplay (objects).

 

A better design wouldn't be to buff or nerf it, but to normalise it. Lower cooldown, lower damage, longer duration.

 

This is how changes should always be made. Not just buffing or nerfing, but both at the same time. Equalising skills and traits until they feel good to use for everyone involved. That's real balance.

This is called homogenization and it NOT what we should be striving for.

Lich is a problem for 2 big reasons:

1. It deals way too much power damage while running bulk because of its scaling.

2. It's too simple; either projectile blocks shut it down completely or just die because it 3 taps everything at worst without projectile blocks. 

 

Things can be powerful in their own right, but the interactions they have with other classes needs to be fair. 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by CutesySylveon.8290

[CalmTheStorm.2364]

55 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

* Look at the thing in question. Specify which sphere you want to balance for, and look at the instance of the thing in that context. Your aim is ideally to balance in a way that does not affect the spheres you are not focused on (So, numbers changes, mechanical if you need to.). If you find that you need to make a mechanical change, you will need to perform this entire sequence again.

* Gather metrics. Are people using this thing a lot, or not?

Usually, people tend to use things when they are good, although there are other factors that would lead to the same outcome. In order of importance, people use things when:

• 1.) They work
• 2.) They have no other option
• 3.) The thing in question is pretty/satisfying to use. 

If the thing is not used at all/very little, it is either

• 1.) Actually bad/not practical to use.
• 2.) Not very bad, but outclassed by something else.

*  Look at what people are saying in public forums.

• If the thing is used a lot, are people upset enough to comment on this thing en masse?
• If the thing is not used at all, are people upset enough to comment on this thing en masse?

* Gather more information, to determine if the thing in question is indeed too weak or too strong.

1.) Cross reference your metrics before balancing. Items may be too weak when facing one scenario, but may be very strong when facing another. This is acceptable if the scenarios in question both occur equally frequently, but other balancing issues may hide this data.

* Try to replicate the issue/the nature of the imbalance.

1.) Pick the broken/useless trait/class/skill and go use it in game. Spectate matches between high level players that are using the focus of the balancing effort. Make note of the things the subject is completely countered by, and the things that have a hard time responding to the subject in question. These should be reasonably equal, but slight deviances into more or less effective are also acceptable. Buffing/Nerfing efforts should be relegated specifically to things that lead to winning interactions in most scenarios, or losing interactions in most scenarios.

* Buff unused items before nerfing overused items. 

Consider buffing extremely underused items first.  A class, skill, or traitline may be overperforming because a class, skill or traitline meant to counter it is too heavily oppressed, or because one skill or traitline works, while the others do not. 

* Buff (and nerf) incrementally, but frequently. 

Your buffing / nerfing efforts should not be wild or radical unless you are setting a foundation for future balancing, and if you are setting a foundation for future balancing your intent for balancing should be well communicated beforehand, and well monitored afterward, with frequent changes along the way and follow through on aforementioned intent. 

* Consider pushing proposed balance changes temporarily,  and acquire feedback before committing. 

Consider balancing temporarily using a Public Test Build of the game, or enabling changes publicly for a short period of time. Gather metrics during this time frame, acquire and read feedback about the changes afterward, and when the test period is over revert the changes. If the changes are well received, commit them in the next major build. 

 

TL;DR

• examine community feedback, the pushback to that feedback, then examine the items being commented on in-game (both personally and via observation of high level players using the items) to determine if the feedback is logical and pointing to an actual over or underperformance.
• If possible, buff underperforming things first before nerfing overperforming things.  
• Buff and nerf incrementally instead of introducing a bunch of interaction changes at once.

Brilliant, Azure. Well said.

 

@Cal Cohen.2358 some great suggestions here. I especially like the idea of soliciting community feedback regarding proposed balance changes. I think this would go a long way toward increasing transparency and fostering a sense of community ownership and engagement in the game. 

[Justine.6351]

Its not like balancing is hard in a mathematical sense. Its just when you let players decide what to play they end up choosing to cheese the game. Its not really surprising why anet removed so many gearing options in spvp and why players want stat sets removed from both pvp and lolWvW. The more stuff removed the easier it is to box players out of cheese builds and thus the easier it is to balance.

tl;dr

give everyone sticks

[Ashgar.3024]

In short : effort to result ratio.

 

If a build is very very easy to play but can still outperform most other builds in the game., its probably overtuned.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

I agree with no buffs or nerfs but rather a design towards balance.  The problem of GW2 is it flies in the face of any role-based game, because any class can fill mostly any role.  If a class can fill a role better it is because they have been given a skill or trait, not because of the actual class mechanic in most cases.  

Not sure this is a fixable issue without redesigning the game.  From my experience I've noticed most 'balance' issues are L2P issues--standing in red circles, standing by lich form and getting nuked, blowing dodges randomly to get hit by CC, ignoring learning about all five pets that people use, not knowing what kiting is, etc. etc. 

Any remaining issues can be boiled down to the balance team being stretched thin.  Having 300s CD for years on some skills plainly shows this.  Not even targeted either, just a broad stroke of 'every passive'.  So, as example you get things like the Rangers passive that transferred a disable to the pet being 300s CD when it wasn't really egregious or even worked properly in most cases.  Really these passives need reworked, but time and finances say make them unusable is the quickest way to fix them.

In short, we can talk about the cosmos all we want but GW2's flow is way different than most games where it is much more about tactics than it is skill usage.  A player that knows tactics and terrain can win a vast majority of time without paying any attention to the opposing skills being used, because skills aren't countering skills in almost all cases.  Rather it's tactics countering tactics.  

Edited February 4, 2022 by Gotejjeken.1267

[Math.5123]

36 minutes ago, Ashgar.3024 said:

In short : effort to result ratio.

 

If a build is very very easy to play but can still outperform most other builds in the game., its probably overtuned.

This is a common misconception actually. Because at the high level, which should be what you mainly balance for. Skill floor is irrelevant. 

 

Let's say hypothetically that warrior is the easiest class in the game to pick up for the sidenode role. Does this mean it shouldn't be able to compete with something like mesmer, and ele which both have a higher skill floor? I would argue that warrior have one of the highest skill ceilings in the game. 

To this day, you can really distinguish a good warrior from a decent one. Same with necro, same with every class (I think SA thief and fire weaver are the hardest to notice a difference with atm).

 

Tldr; skill floor should not make the class weaker. 

[grx.8714]

Nerfs and buffs are part of every single mmo.

If you don't want them, mmos are not your type of game, consider something like fps, chess or games where there aren't builds and different classes to play.

Balance patches are needed, but they should be more frequent, consistent and with an appropriate pvp team to make them.

 

Lich is around for too many times already, they gutted to the ground a lot of skills with crazy high power coefficient, and I still don't know why they still haven't touched that ape elite transformation.

I think putting a 3 seconds cd on the autos is enough if they wanna maintain the power coefficient. Doing 20k damage in 2 seconds pressing autos 3-4 times is disgusting not interactive gameplay which promotes spam over skillful tactic.

And whoever defends it, it's just a bad player carried by it, simple as that.

 

So yeah, for me nerfs and buffs and balances are so needed in an mmo, but what's more needed it's a dedicated pvp team who knows what they are doing, because currently they seem they don't, because they don't even play pvp.

[Tescao.3042]

Revolver (2005film)  good quote about mind games and their part - ego.

"The greatest con, that he ever pulled... was making you believe... that he is you".

Funny paradox - balance existed before the advent of evaluation and reasoning. It can only be observed without inference about it. Most likely in order to see the true balance, we first need to win over yourself. Every time we draw a conclusion about something (whether it's good or bad, right or wrong, like or dislike, past or future, etc), we lose the opportunity to testify (be in the flow).

.

Edited February 4, 2022 by DomHemingway.8436

[Downstate.4697]

Treat the game like LoL or Smite. Look at what profession/elite spec is being played most and which is played the least and adjust from there. Create 3 month seasons that rotate amulet/rune/sigil choices.

[Sahne.6950]

49 minutes ago, FrownyClown.8402 said:

Treat the game like LoL or Smite. Look at what profession/elite spec is being played most and which is played the least and adjust from there.

Well that sounds weird at first but i think it is actually not a bad idea... Adjusting the least played class to perform slightly better (very small buffs to not overshoot;example 20 more base vitality or something) on every patch until it is no longer the least played class. SOUNDS VERY STRANGE.... but overall the goal should be build variety... right? Small buffs in Lol always had the effect that you see that champion(aka profession) ALOT in the following days because people want to find out if it is good now. So i dont think that is a bad thing actually. problematic could be that some professions are less played then others despite them being good... so the data could be misleading... But a trend should be visible and they could go from there. Another problem would be that you need Balancing patches to happen every 2-3 weeks then, because they could possibly create more problems with these buffs. But if they would balance more frequently they could finetune it rather fast

In other words: that will never happen unfortunately. =(

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 hours ago, grx.8714 said:

Nerfs and buffs are part of every single mmo.

If you don't want them, mmos are not your type of game, consider something like fps, chess or games where there aren't builds and different classes to play.

Balance patches are needed, but they should be more frequent, consistent and with an appropriate pvp team to make them.

 

I'm gonna re-quote what Dom said cause i like it and i think it addresses this:

 

"Funny paradox - balance existed before the advent of evaluation and reasoning. It can only be observed without inference about it"

 

Balance and diversity has existed prior to MMO's...Given what I said about requiring a shift in perspective, who's to say that we haven't been doing it wrong this whole time? We've yet to actually see an MMO that is "balanced" and "diverse"...and the only thing that really is truly balanced (and diverse) is nature. Games like gw2 are struggling so that points to the fact that we are doing something wrong...not nature.

 

Does nature do nerfs and buffs? Does nature have updates every 3 months? What is it that makes nature so special...why can't we program into this game, what it does where its both balanced and diverse...the answer I think is obvious...we aren't doing it right and clearly we don't understand how it works...so whatever we are doing right now needs to be looked at... from the perspective of what the thing that does it best does. This also means confronting our own ignorance about the problem.

Honestly just thinking about it for a few, it is just so naïve to believe that a nerf here and a buff there will fix anything...when has that ever really been the case? It seems like if we had this right, the game would have been fixed by now...it's been 9 years. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Sahne.6950]

2 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

I'm gonna re-quote what Dom said cause i like it and i think it addresses this:

 

"Funny paradox - balance existed before the advent of evaluation and reasoning. It can only be observed without inference about it"

 

Balance and diversity has existed prior to MMO's...Given what I said about requiring a shift in perspective, who's to say that we haven't been doing it wrong this whole time? We've yet to actually see an MMO that is "balanced" and "diverse"...and the only thing that really is truly balanced (and diverse) is nature. Games like gw2 are struggling so that points to the fact that we are doing something wrong...not nature.

 

Does nature do nerfs and buffs? Does nature have updates every 3 months? What is it that makes nature so special...why can't we program into this game, what it does where its both balanced and diverse...the answer I think is obvious...we aren't doing it right and clearly we don't understand how it works...so whatever we are doing right now needs to be looked at... from the perspective of what the thing that does it best does. This also means confronting our own ignorance about the problem.

Honestly just thinking about it for a few, it is just so naïve to believe that a nerf here and a buff there will fix anything...when has that ever really been the case? It seems like if we had this right, the game would have been fixed by now...it's been 9 years. 

dont get me wrong. what you are saying makes sense big time.

But are you really suggesting to leave everything as is? Because any Change wont matter in the longrun?

is that really it? If yes, i think you are the person in charge for NewWorld Balancing. 😄 And people are abandoning that game at lightningspeed.

[Axl.8924]

10 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

dont get me wrong. what you are saying makes sense big time.

But are you really suggesting to leave everything as is? Because any Change wont matter in the longrun?

is that really it? If yes, i think you are the person in charge for NewWorld Balancing. 😄 And people are abandoning that game at lightningspeed.

Personally i think we need changes to happen more often as said before in this chat and we need maybe PTR realm and testing to see if the changes are good/Bad for class.

 

Anet needs to have more folks testing out and playing classes each and everyone because some classes go for long periods of time neglected more than others. One could argue some bits of warrior need to be improved and there is some stuff about mirage that i'm unsure about when they nerfed it that hard. I also think balance is something of an illusion i see the grass is always greener quote as something that applies at times because a person thinks a class has lower skill floor until he/she tries it out or OP and they get murdered because they don't know what they are doing.
 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

36 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

But are you really suggesting to leave everything as is?

No.

I can’t remember who said this…but it’s like we are fixing a leaky roof by putting more and more buckets on the ground…we are simply approaching the entire thing from the wrong direction.
 

There is a way to solve the issues of the game…but those solutions require an understanding of some theories (complexity theory) and with that understanding changes the way we model and approach problems and creating solutions to those problems. There is no exact procedure to follow either…but the procedure one chooses needs to follow those theories in order to work because without that understanding you get behaviors that you don’t want. 
 

it’s hard to really explain without a few pages of text as to why such a fundamental thing doesn’t have an exact procedure but it’s this property that’s actually integral to why it works the way that it does.

Edited February 4, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684