DUST Search - More buffing less nerfing

Borne Velvalor wrote:

Oswald Rehnquist wrote:

Borne Velvalor wrote:

Oswald Rehnquist wrote:

I've always wondered about the intelligence of people who make this claim.

Since everything is relative, nerfing or buffing have the exact same effect with relative gameplay.

It is easier to make less changes than more

So if one weapon is much weaker and useless compared to the many, buff that weapon, if one weapon is godly compared to all the others, nerf that weapon

its not a difficult concept to understand

You should read the post above. Even if only two weapons existed in the game, nerfing and buffing would not be equal. Nerfing raises average TTKs while buffing lowers average TTKs when everything is made to be on an equal level, for example. Plus, the weapons need to be rebalanced against each other as well.

You can't just say "my gun lost to an AR, nerf the AR," because then you're trying to remove the symptoms without tackling the disease. It's like giving morphine to a guy with a headache when he needs a cup of coffee.

That makes two who I question their rational thinking abilities,

1) Nerfing and or buffing outliers that deviate from the average to bring it up/down into the average keeps TTK stable, buffing or nerfing everything else to the outlier radically changes TTK

2) "You can't just say "my gun lost to an AR, nerf the AR," where the hell did this red herring come from? We are talking about statistical averages and stability when it comes to the idea of balance.

1) When you have a choice between nerfing and buffing "outliers," both will stablize the TTK, but one will end up with a higher TTK and one will end up with a lower TTK. This was mostly irrelvant, but the simplest example of change.

2) You think that making a weapon that feels good to use and does its role well much worse at its role is better than making weapons that are cumbersome to use easier and more effective to use. Also, please tell me what changes you can make to balance the AR. Oh, wait, you can only change the DPS, when its interactions with every other weapon type are more complicated than that.

The simplest gun has the least options for balancing to bring it in line with everything else. It may be easier to nerf it, but the end product will not be as good. Feel free to actually tackle any of the points I posted in the post above the one you quoted, rather than the relatively flimsy examples I put forth as an initial example. I'm waiting for your rationally minded response.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Oswald Rehnquist Abandoned Privilege General Tso's Alliance 313	Posted - 2013.10.19 14:07:00 - [1] - Quote I've always wondered about the intelligence of people who make this claim. Since everything is relative, nerfing or buffing have the exact same effect with relative gameplay. It is easier to make less changes than more So if one weapon is much weaker and useless compared to the many, buff that weapon, if one weapon is godly compared to all the others, nerf that weapon its not a difficult concept to understand
Oswald Rehnquist Abandoned Privilege General Tso's Alliance 315	Posted - 2013.10.19 22:39:00 - [2] - Quote Borne Velvalor wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: I've always wondered about the intelligence of people who make this claim. Since everything is relative, nerfing or buffing have the exact same effect with relative gameplay. It is easier to make less changes than more So if one weapon is much weaker and useless compared to the many, buff that weapon, if one weapon is godly compared to all the others, nerf that weapon its not a difficult concept to understand You should read the post above. Even if only two weapons existed in the game, nerfing and buffing would not be equal. Nerfing raises average TTKs while buffing lowers average TTKs when everything is made to be on an equal level, for example. Plus, the weapons need to be rebalanced against each other as well. You can't just say "my gun lost to an AR, nerf the AR," because then you're trying to remove the symptoms without tackling the disease. It's like giving morphine to a guy with a headache when he needs a cup of coffee. That makes two who I question their rational thinking abilities, 1) Nerfing and or buffing outliers that deviate from the average to bring it up/down into the average keeps TTK stable, buffing or nerfing everything else to the outlier radically changes TTK 2) "You can't just say "my gun lost to an AR, nerf the AR," where the hell did this red herring come from? We are talking about statistical averages and stability when it comes to the idea of balance.
Oswald Rehnquist Abandoned Privilege General Tso's Alliance 315	Posted - 2013.10.19 23:27:00 - [3] - Quote Borne Velvalor wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Borne Velvalor wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: I've always wondered about the intelligence of people who make this claim. Since everything is relative, nerfing or buffing have the exact same effect with relative gameplay. It is easier to make less changes than more So if one weapon is much weaker and useless compared to the many, buff that weapon, if one weapon is godly compared to all the others, nerf that weapon its not a difficult concept to understand You should read the post above. Even if only two weapons existed in the game, nerfing and buffing would not be equal. Nerfing raises average TTKs while buffing lowers average TTKs when everything is made to be on an equal level, for example. Plus, the weapons need to be rebalanced against each other as well. You can't just say "my gun lost to an AR, nerf the AR," because then you're trying to remove the symptoms without tackling the disease. It's like giving morphine to a guy with a headache when he needs a cup of coffee. That makes two who I question their rational thinking abilities, 1) Nerfing and or buffing outliers that deviate from the average to bring it up/down into the average keeps TTK stable, buffing or nerfing everything else to the outlier radically changes TTK 2) "You can't just say "my gun lost to an AR, nerf the AR," where the hell did this red herring come from? We are talking about statistical averages and stability when it comes to the idea of balance. 1) When you have a choice between nerfing and buffing "outliers," both will stablize the TTK, but one will end up with a higher TTK and one will end up with a lower TTK. This was mostly irrelvant, but the simplest example of change. 2) You think that making a weapon that feels good to use and does its role well much worse at its role is better than making weapons that are cumbersome to use easier and more effective to use. Also, please tell me what changes you can make to balance the AR. Oh, wait, you can only change the DPS, when its interactions with every other weapon type are more complicated than that. The simplest gun has the least options for balancing to bring it in line with everything else. It may be easier to nerf it, but the end product will not be as good. Feel free to actually tackle any of the points I posted in the post above the one you quoted, rather than the relatively flimsy examples I put forth as an initial example. I'm waiting for your rationally minded response. 1) I'll help you out here, I'll give you numbers that say represent power (the higher the better) A) 10, 12, 9, 6, 15, 8, 11, 14, 50 Gets you a medium of 11, a mean of 15 Bring that 50 down gets you this B) 10, 12, 9, 6, 15, 8, 11, 14, 12 Medium 11, mean 10.77, Now lets say we balanced it the way you suggest C) 56, 48, 59, 41, 52, 59, 45, 49, 50 Now we have a medium of 50 and a mean of 51 Now, A) to B) goes from 11/15 to 11/10.77 And, A) to C) goes from 11/15 to 50/51 Now tell me which one preserves TKK fidelity? You would have to re-balance armor again based on your suggestion 2) It only feels good because of the vast discrepancy, even if you went with your idea to buff everything else, the AR wouldn't feel so good anymore because it lost its advantage the "feel good" is entirely due to its opness relative to other weapons.