DUST Search - ARs are OP, why nerfing everything is not the right way to balance

Meeko Fent wrote:

D legendary hero wrote:

it boils down to TTK or time to kill. When all guns had low damage people complained that it took to long to kill.
so every weapon was buffed. the HMG got a decent buf to 18 damage plus the 10% everyone else got. its still weaker but ok, a buff is a buff....

The factor of the matter is a nerf makes something weaker, where as a buff makes something else stronger. instead of nerfing a gun to make it ineffective you should buff the gun people are using against it to make their more effective.

why does this work? if i complain that shotguns are OP, for example (they are not but just an example). instead of nerfing shotguns, the devs should look at who is the demographic asking to nerf shotguns and why.

Are they asking his because they are losing in CQC or mid range combat? what weapon is this demographic using?
if the demographic is a population of AR users, and complaints are about CQC combat, no nerf or buff is required, but the AR users would need to be reminded to engage shotguns in midrange combat.
if the population of AR users are losing to shotguns out side of the shotguns effective range, then a buff to ARs would be necessary to discourage shotgunners from to engaging in midrange combat.

so the formula for balance is:

1. identify the complaining group and their weaponry
2. identify the circumstances under which they deem the weapon OP. generally classified by range
3. identify the purposes of the weaponry involved
4. when the complaining group is found correct buff their advantages but leave the disadvantages (i.e. if advantage is fast reload, make it reload faster, etc)
5. double check that the weaponry of all groups involved still accmplish and are inline with their purpose.

I agree with this, however I find that Buffing weapons would be a bad things in the range department.

SG says the AR has too long of range.

Buff shotgun range.

ARs say SG has too long range.

Buff AR range.

SnR say ARs have too long range.

Buff SnR range.

And due to map design, the SGs, or whatever gun could then just run the map due to the ARs having such a Useful range through Map Design that the SnR would be pointless, and the SGs would have such a good range that they could ru....

I'm getting long winded.

I Agree with your idea.

But some aspects shouldn't be outright buffed, such as Range, or RoF (RoF can dictate very much about how a weapon feels to use), or if they are to be buffed, make it very slight, as to not change how the gun behaves.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
D legendary hero THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND 509	Posted - 2013.08.02 18:11:00 - [1] - Quote it boils down to TTK or time to kill. When all guns had low damage people complained that it took to long to kill. so every weapon was buffed. the HMG got a decent buf to 18 damage plus the 10% everyone else got. its still weaker but ok, a buff is a buff.... The factor of the matter is a nerf makes something weaker, where as a buff makes something else stronger. instead of nerfing a gun to make it ineffective you should buff the gun people are using against it to make their more effective. why does this work? if i complain that shotguns are OP, for example (they are not but just an example). instead of nerfing shotguns, the devs should look at who is the demographic asking to nerf shotguns and why. Are they asking his because they are losing in CQC or mid range combat? what weapon is this demographic using? if the demographic is a population of AR users, and complaints are about CQC combat, no nerf or buff is required, but the AR users would need to be reminded to engage shotguns in midrange combat. if the population of AR users are losing to shotguns out side of the shotguns effective range, then a buff to ARs would be necessary to discourage shotgunners from to engaging in midrange combat. so the formula for balance is: 1. identify the complaining group and their weaponry 2. identify the circumstances under which they deem the weapon OP. generally classified by range 3. identify the purposes of the weaponry involved 4. when the complaining group is found correct buff them 5. double check that the weaponry of all groups involved still accmplish and are inline with their purpose.
D legendary hero THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND 515	Posted - 2013.08.02 22:17:00 - [2] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: D legendary hero wrote: it boils down to TTK or time to kill. When all guns had low damage people complained that it took to long to kill. so every weapon was buffed. the HMG got a decent buf to 18 damage plus the 10% everyone else got. its still weaker but ok, a buff is a buff.... The factor of the matter is a nerf makes something weaker, where as a buff makes something else stronger. instead of nerfing a gun to make it ineffective you should buff the gun people are using against it to make their more effective. why does this work? if i complain that shotguns are OP, for example (they are not but just an example). instead of nerfing shotguns, the devs should look at who is the demographic asking to nerf shotguns and why. Are they asking his because they are losing in CQC or mid range combat? what weapon is this demographic using? if the demographic is a population of AR users, and complaints are about CQC combat, no nerf or buff is required, but the AR users would need to be reminded to engage shotguns in midrange combat. if the population of AR users are losing to shotguns out side of the shotguns effective range, then a buff to ARs would be necessary to discourage shotgunners from to engaging in midrange combat. so the formula for balance is: 1. identify the complaining group and their weaponry 2. identify the circumstances under which they deem the weapon OP. generally classified by range 3. identify the purposes of the weaponry involved 4. when the complaining group is found correct buff their advantages but leave the disadvantages (i.e. if advantage is fast reload, make it reload faster, etc) 5. double check that the weaponry of all groups involved still accmplish and are inline with their purpose. I agree with this, however I find that Buffing weapons would be a bad things in the range department. SG says the AR has too long of range. Buff shotgun range. ARs say SG has too long range. Buff AR range. SnR say ARs have too long range. Buff SnR range. And due to map design, the SGs, or whatever gun could then just run the map due to the ARs having such a Useful range through Map Design that the SnR would be pointless, and the SGs would have such a good range that they could ru.... I'm getting long winded. I Agree with your idea. But some aspects shouldn't be outright buffed, such as Range, or RoF (RoF can dictate very much about how a weapon feels to use), or if they are to be buffed, make it very slight, as to not change how the gun behaves. please review steps 4 and 5. buffs only should be used to increase the weapons strengths and shou;d only balance against its purpose. this is a fail safe, so if i say that i want my HMG to fire DM driver rounds, well step 4 would ensure any buff to the HMG is only to its already nonexistent advantages... and that when buffed inline with its purpose (suppression) i won't end up with being OP. because my HMGs purpose is not area denial and its not a mass driver it won't fire grenades. almost all the nerfs that we have seen happened to weapons working withint their optimal save for the tac AR.
D legendary hero THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND 515	Posted - 2013.08.02 22:20:00 - [3] - Quote Oso Peresoso wrote: no. Balance requires buffs and nerfs together. Buffing everything continuously is as destructive as nerfing everything continuously. I'm wary of anything that starts with "identify the complaining group." step 1 identify the complaining group is the most important. if AR noobs are complaining that Shotguns are killing them. now you know where to start. the next step asks where the problem occurs. if it occurs in close range, no buff is needed, nor nerf the gun is operating as programed. problem solved. remeber the third step is identifying the purpose of the gun in question or that one is complaining about. if AR noobs are comlaining about shotguns having too much range, well it depends on how many meters, but if those meters fall with in the CQC to close-mid range category then the gun is balanced and no buff nor nerf is nessesary as the PURPOSE of a shotgun is CQB. step 4 in this case would be skipped as no buffs are nessesary. step 5 is simply a double check. for example, lets say purhaps that the shotgun was perfectly balanced but the AR noobs perhaps use breach ARs were found ineffective at mid range, then those guns perhaps would need a slight buff. (of course we know tat AR need no buffs, in fact they would need a nerf, but i would be happy with buffing everything else except ARs.) 1. identify the complaining group and their weaponry 2. identify the circumstances under which they deem the weapon OP. generally classified by range 3. identify the purposes of the weaponry involved 4. when the complaining group is found correct buff their advantages but leave the disadvantages (i.e. if advantage is fast reload, make it reload faster, etc) 5. double check that the weaponry of all groups involved still accmplish and are inline with their purpose.
D legendary hero THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND 515	Posted - 2013.08.02 22:25:00 - [4] - Quote the idea is that if for example everything but the AR was buffed, AR noobs couldnt complain tat they were nerfed because they are still just as effective, but now there are other guns that are just as effective in their areas of expertise.
D legendary hero THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND 518	Posted - 2013.08.02 22:48:00 - [5] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: D legendary hero wrote: the idea is that if for example everything but the AR was buffed, AR noobs couldnt complain tat they were nerfed because they are still just as effective, but now there are other guns that are just as effective in their areas of expertise. So you're saying that everything but the ARs (and its variants) should get a 10% or 15% increase to damage? I really like that idea, but I doubt it would really happen and the Scrubstick users would cry just as much as if they had been nerfed. well, the AR isn't really getting nerfed. they still do 425 DPS. but everything else now will do 10%-15% more damage so the DPS will be where is is supposed to.
D legendary hero THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND 522	Posted - 2013.08.03 05:57:00 - [6] - Quote Malkai Inos wrote: good points howeer, i must contend. the 5 step process ensures that any buffs are not given arbitarily. buffing as you mentioned for psycological and practical reasons i beelve is superior to nerfing. THE ONLY CONDITION FOR NERFING IS THE UPPER THRESHHOLD. namely when a weapon is so OP that buffing other guns would render everything pointless (i.e. if an Ar could blow up tanks in one shot; buffing everything to that would make the game pointless... there for a nerf would be nessesary) that said, following the 5 steps listed in the OP will ensure that all grounds are covered. like i said if group A using weapon A, thinks group B using weapon B is OP the situation must be reviewed. If group Bs weapon is doing its job then no buffs are needed. group A simplly needs to be informed. RL example. (my example in the game actually), altough the caldari logi was infact OP, i thought it was invincible, then after being informed on the forums here learned of the power of flux grenades and militia suits. I desinged a milita suit with shield extenders, flux grenades, a flaylock and a milita Ar and whenever i am being proto stomped i used it, and still use it to great effect. in fact my entire corp uses this strategy to combat proto stomping and we earn tons of money. now, if group As complaint is infact valid against group B, then onces the weapon Bs purpose has been reviewed, weapon A may need to be buffed in order to assist weapon A in fighting weapon B. if the upper threashold of weapon B is being surpassed then and only then would a nerf be utilized on weapon B. otherwise weapon A will simply b buffed.
D legendary hero THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND 522	Posted - 2013.08.03 06:04:00 - [7] - Quote Delenne Arran wrote: Now, as for the OP: It's not a one or the other kind of thing. Both buffs and nerfs should be employed when balancing. Weapons or suits that are just flat-out too effective outside their niches need to be nerfed to bring them back down to where they're meant to be, while something that's not doing its job effectively needs to be enough buffed to fulfill its role. In addition, it is possible for a weapon to be too good even in its own intended role. The flaylock was intended to be devastating at close range, and it was, but it wasn't meant to instantly obliterate anything that wandered into its range. Buffing say, another weapon or armor plates would have created more problems than just weakening the flaylock. Not that Armor Plates don't still need a buff regardless. Both buffing an OP weapon's natural counters and flat out nerfing an OP weapon can be overdone. Personally, I think it's better to overshoot a nerf than overshoot a buff. The former breaks one weapon. The latter breaks anything that weapon is used against. but thats the thing careful analysis of the situation proves that the flaylocks were never really OP, but scout suits, and armor tankers were UP. in which case they needed a buff. scouts still instant drop to anything... in fact scouts benefited from using the flaylock. armor takes additional damage from explosives and is slowed down too much by tanking it. therefore a skilled flaylocker could finish them with ease IN CLOSE RANGE. shotguns and flaylocks both had hit detection issues, but proto shotguns were more effective than proto flaylocks in CQC. ARs can;t complain about losing to flaylocks in CQC because the AR is not a CQC weapon therefore, using the aforementioed method stated in the OP. buffs would be given to armor and scout suits. and the problem would be solved. if the flaylock still out performed other guns its disadvantages would need an increase.
D legendary hero THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND 559	Posted - 2013.08.04 09:26:00 - [8] - Quote The Tac really just needed a hip fire nerf and a ROF nerf. the clip size thing was abit much. but i could see how decreasing the clip size (while increasing the total ammo capacity) could lead to better balancing. remember its a formalized approach. what is the purpose of the TAC AR? what role does it fulfill on the battle field? is it doing something similar to another gun? what range is it supposed to be most effective? is it supposed to be a versitile gun? What are supposed to be its advantages? what are supposed to be its disadvantages? since the tac was supposed to be a mid range - long range weapon its strengths were supposed to be high damage, high accuracy, low dispersion, low recoil. therefore, its disadvantages should be ROF, ammo capacity, clip size and hip fire dispersion (if you keep hip fire disperion super accurate you'll end up with the .50 cal from halo with people hip firing snipers and beating CQB guns) the flaylocks advantages are supposed to be high damage, average splash radius, fast reload, disadvantages are the limited effective range, small magazine size, and tactical positioning (useless uphills). CCP nerfed its splash damage and direct hit damage and splash radius. although its still quite usable the damage should have stayed the same at 190-220. the radius nerf was ok though. using a systemized approach weapons are balanced so that they are good at doing what they are meant to do. and at the same time using this approach we can understand the true roots of a problem and not just the surface problems, yes the underlying issues will come to light.