Which is better, buffing or nerfing?

[Poelala.2830]

Would you prefer all classes were buffed to make them all viable, or all classes were nerfed to make them all viable?

[Menyus.4610]

Nerfing ofc, but if thief gets another nerf it will proly die out

[derd.6413]

combo of the 2 with mostly nerfs.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

You forgot to add "both" (and "neither") to the poll, which is very disappointing. The right answer is that there should be a performance target, and classes and class abilities should be buffed, nerfed, or left alone depending how they perform toward it. That way lies balance; only moving in one direction always converges to either zero or infinity because every inaccuracy leads further and further down that path for every single class.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

god only knows how op the next specs will be.

[Arcaedus.7290]

Currently, it would be beneficial to see nerfs across the board, but if we're talking in general over time, buffing is generally better than nerfing.

[PaRaPhReNiA.8763]

@"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:You forgot to add "both" (and "neither") to the poll, which is very disappointing. The right answer is that there should be a performance target, and classes and class abilities should be buffed, nerfed, or left alone depending how they perform toward it. That way lies balance; only moving in one direction always converges to either zero or infinity because every inaccuracy leads further and further down that path for every single class.

You are right in a balanced environment. But we are so far away from that, that the only way is to nerf every over performing build/class across the board and then, when we have a somewhat decent state, buffs should happen and not ever before!! I wouldn't even be mad if the next 3 balance patches would only consist of nerfs. This makes other builds automatically stronger which are out of the meta or even, to reference metabattle here, only considered "good" . 3 Patches only consisting of nerfs might upset ppl, but I truly believe that is the only way to save balance in this game. How often did we have "balance patches" nerfing stuff and then buffing other stuff (same class or different one) and all of a sudden we had a new broken beyond build...Pls nerf first, then monitor, then buff ....

[Sereath.1428]

Bring almost everything down to current Revenant's level.Risk/Reward wise

[Artemis Thuras.8795]

The problem with blanket nerfs is that has implications on difficulty of content.For competitive game modes I understand the desire to revert power creep.

I don't think it is as objectively simple as "is it better to buff everything or nerf everything".Equally - there is a 3rd option: not blanket buffing or nerfing.

[Josif.2015]

@Poelala.2830 said:Would you prefer all classes were buffed to make them all viable, or all classes were nerfed to make them all viable?

Just nerf some of the elite specializations and buff some of the core specializations, especially core engineer.

[Eddbopkins.2630]

This is a good question....im a need some time to think about it.....you can buff everything so that they are equal and all have 1 hit kill potenials or outstanding team healing support, or nerf it all and have control over what will be powerful each week or month...mmm i a need to think for a bit.

[Poelala.2830]

A ‘both’ option was ignored with intention and not by accident. A combination of buffs and nerfs is balance by definition. Why would I ask “Do you want everything balanced?” Of course you do. The core of the question was how do you think balance would be achieved in pvp’s current state? Generally by seeing a bunch of nerfs or by generally seeing a bunch of buffs? Most people agreed with me in thinking that classes need nerfs at the moment, not buffs. And through these nerfs would we find balance.

[reikken.4961]

burst, healing, damage avoidance, conditions, and anti-condi, are all way over the top and makes gameplay feel very spammy and haphazard instead of as skill-focused as it could be. Also isn't terribly fun to watch.

[mortrialus.3062]

Every class has aspects that should be nerfed and aspects that should be buffed. Nerfs and buffs should be handled on a case by case basis.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

Loaded question. Didn't vote.

[Arheundel.6451]

The only class that needs hard nerfs is mesmer and the one needing buffs is ele

[MrForz.1953]

It's painfully obvious to find out which one will cause major and possibly irreversible damage.

[Cyninja.2954]

@"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:You forgot to add "both" (and "neither") to the poll, which is very disappointing. The right answer is that there should be a performance target, and classes and class abilities should be buffed, nerfed, or left alone depending how they perform toward it. That way lies balance; only moving in one direction always converges to either zero or infinity because every inaccuracy leads further and further down that path for every single class.

This.

BuffingTo break it down, from a acceptance perspective buffing classes is always more appreciated by the community and is usually a lot easier to do since most of the time all you have to do is increase performance.

This unfortunately leads to power creep which can be unhealthy to a game overall as well as unbalance in competitive game modes (high end fractals, raids, spvp, wvw) which in turn leads to more buffs being required on other classes which in turn leads to more power creep, etc.

NerfingHarder to do than buffing. In general not very accepted by the community.

Usually does not lead to a nerf spiral since developers often try to not over do the nerfing due to the negative acceptance it receives from the player base.

Both are needed to keep a game balanced especially in case of a game like GW2 where all content is meant to remain interesting at least somewhat. While games like WoW or ESO which are based around a gear treadmill can better get away with a power creep spiral of buffing because this can be somewhat offset with new future gear.

[Chorazin.4107]

Nerfing, nerfing can bring classes that have not been buffed back into contention without them being touched.

[Huskyboy.1053]

@Poelala.2830 said:A ‘both’ option was ignored with intention and not by accident. A combination of buffs and nerfs is balance by definition. Why would I ask “Do you want everything balanced?” Of course you do. The core of the question was how do you think balance would be achieved in pvp’s current state? Generally by seeing a bunch of nerfs or by generally seeing a bunch of buffs? Most people agreed with me in thinking that classes need nerfs at the moment, not buffs. And through these nerfs would we find balance.

According to the poll, the VAST majority of people agree with you. People saying it needs to be both are being too literal, I understand that you meant that the balanced team needs to change their perspective on balancing to be more focused on nerfing.

[MithranArkanere.8957]

When you nerf, fights get longer. The longer a fight it, the more time for skill to show.

When you buff, they get too short. Whoever hits first wins, so people with less skill can get lucky and win without deserving it more often.

Too far towards either side is always bad, but it's generally better to err on the safe side.

[phokus.8934]

When in doubt, nerf.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

@Huskyboy.1053 said:

@"Poelala.2830" said:A ‘both’ option was ignored with intention and not by accident. A combination of buffs and nerfs is balance by definition. Why would I ask “Do you want everything balanced?” Of course you do. The core of the question was how do you think balance would be achieved in pvp’s current state? Generally by seeing a bunch of nerfs or by generally seeing a bunch of buffs? Most people agreed with me in thinking that classes need nerfs at the moment, not buffs. And through these nerfs would we find balance.

According to the poll, the

VAST

majority of people agree with you. People saying it needs to be both are being too literal, I understand that you meant that the balanced team needs to change their perspective on balancing to be more focused on nerfing.

FWIW, I think it is entirely possible to hold the "both" opinion, and that the way @"Poelala.2830" puts it isn't actually the right way to think about this, without being over-literal in reading the question. (Though, of course, it is their post, and I accept that they are empowered to judge my comments any way they want.)

I think that, right now, most classes sit in a reasonable position in GW2. If you drew a graph of their DPS over time, most would be clustered fairly closely in the center, with a few distinct outliers above and below that single line, across the population.

When I say both are needed, I mean that center line is actually, IMO, a reasonable position: not too strong, and not too weak, but rather, pretty good. So, bringing those outliers closer to the center is the best way to deliver overall a good result. If you just focus on bringing everything down to the lowest line, or raising them up to the highest line, you end up with a game where damage etc are either too low (and slow, and feel bad) or too high (and fast, and feel bad, because really it isn't much fun after the first time you one-shot everyone else.)

I completely agree that most of what needs to happen is probably power reductions on a few specs. The number that are low seem, subjectively, to be smaller than the number that are high right now. I just don't think a good result is either "everyone is now at the level of the lowest", or "everyone is at the center, except the ones at the lowest".

[Poelala.2830]

@SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

@Huskyboy.1053 said:

@"Poelala.2830" said:A ‘both’ option was ignored with intention and not by accident. A combination of buffs and nerfs is balance by definition. Why would I ask “Do you want everything balanced?” Of course you do. The core of the question was how do you think balance would be achieved in pvp’s current state? Generally by seeing a bunch of nerfs or by generally seeing a bunch of buffs? Most people agreed with me in thinking that classes need nerfs at the moment, not buffs. And through these nerfs would we find balance.

According to the poll, the

VAST

majority of people agree with you. People saying it needs to be both are being too literal, I understand that you meant that the balanced team needs to change their perspective on balancing to be more focused on nerfing.

FWIW, I think it is entirely possible to hold the "both" opinion, and that the way @"Poelala.2830" puts it isn't actually the right way to think about this, without being over-literal in reading the question. (Though, of course, it is their post, and I accept that they are empowered to judge my comments any way they want.)

I think that, right now, most classes sit in a reasonable position in GW2. If you drew a graph of their DPS over time,

most

would be clustered fairly closely in the center, with a few distinct outliers above and below that single line, across the population.

When I say both are needed, I mean that center line is actually, IMO, a reasonable position: not too strong, and not too weak, but rather, pretty good. So, bringing those outliers closer to the center is the best way to deliver overall a good result. If you just focus on bringing everything down to the lowest line, or raising them up to the highest line, you end up with a game where damage etc are either too low (and slow, and feel bad) or too high (and fast, and feel bad, because really it isn't much fun after the first time you one-shot everyone else.)

I completely agree that most of what needs to happen is probably power reductions on a few specs. The number that are low seem, subjectively, to be smaller than the number that are high right now. I just don't think a good result is either "everyone is now at the level of the lowest", or "everyone is at the center, except the ones at the lowest".

It was an either or question. Which is better, buffing or nerfing? You don’t respond with caramel when I ask if you like vanilla or chocolate more.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

@Poelala.2830 said:

@SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

@Huskyboy.1053 said:

@Poelala.2830 said:A ‘both’ option was ignored with intention and not by accident. A combination of buffs and nerfs is balance by definition. Why would I ask “Do you want everything balanced?” Of course you do. The core of the question was how do you think balance would be achieved in pvp’s current state? Generally by seeing a bunch of nerfs or by generally seeing a bunch of buffs? Most people agreed with me in thinking that classes need nerfs at the moment, not buffs. And through these nerfs would we find balance.

According to the poll, the

VAST

majority of people agree with you. People saying it needs to be both are being too literal, I understand that you meant that the balanced team needs to change their perspective on balancing to be more focused on nerfing.

FWIW, I think it is entirely possible to hold the "both" opinion, and that the way @Poelala.2830 puts it isn't actually the right way to think about this, without being over-literal in reading the question. (Though, of course, it is their post, and I accept that they are empowered to judge my comments any way they want.)

I think that, right now, most classes sit in a reasonable position in GW2. If you drew a graph of their DPS over time,

most

would be clustered fairly closely in the center, with a few distinct outliers above and below that single line, across the population.

When I say both are needed, I mean that center line is actually, IMO, a reasonable position: not too strong, and not too weak, but rather, pretty good. So, bringing those outliers closer to the center is the best way to deliver overall a good result. If you just focus on bringing everything down to the lowest line, or raising them up to the highest line, you end up with a game where damage etc are either too low (and slow, and feel bad) or too high (and fast, and feel bad, because really it isn't much fun after the first time you one-shot everyone else.)

I completely agree that most of what needs to happen is probably power reductions on a few specs. The number that are low seem, subjectively, to be smaller than the number that are high right now. I just don't think a good result is either "everyone is now at the level of the lowest", or "everyone is at the center, except the ones at the lowest".

It was an either or question. Which is better, buffing or nerfing? You don’t respond with caramel when I ask if you like vanilla or chocolate more.

OK, I'm sorry. Here is a response that matches the question asked: Your question is impossible to answer, because the real world is more complicated than that, and I can't reduce it to a simple "A or B" when the real answer is neither of them.

I added the rest -- the "caramel" recommendation -- because I felt that simply saying "your question is incomplete and so unanswerable" and not adding anything more is unhelpful.

I appreciate you can ask any question you like, in any framing you like, with any arbitrary restrictions you like, but ... I don't believe you get to have, how to put it... consequence-free speech here. Your post is public, and open to public comment, which means that you are subject to people who don't believe it is answerable telling you so.