Nerfs are good.

After reading the skill balancing article on Gw.com, I can honestly say that I understand why some of the changes occur. However, I don't PvP often enough to understand the metagame etc. Some things don't make since to me, but we have no choice but to adapt.

Mr Nerf is never seen without Mrs Buff

Nerfs are generally bad. They're generally a negative change, a weakening of some mechanic and usually reducing in some capacity the options that you have with a particular combination.

What is good is balance. Some nerfs with some buffs. That better creates the need and ability to rifle through skills and find previously unused or out of favor combinations.

Too often this game simply falls back on nerfs to knock a certain meta off track without actually really balancing. The end result has been disgruntled players, some pretty useless skills and a continual weakening of abilities. Just my opinion though. I agree with the OPs outlook in general, that change is good. I just disagree with a matter of fact statement that nerfs in and of themselves, by themselves, are good.

Im just reiterating Aera Lure, but whatever.

Nerfs = Suck
Buff = Suck
Balance Adjustment = Good

The way Anet has handled balance in general is to weaken the prevalent strong skills in Meta, and buff a few skills that will later become the new meta, and need nerfing again.

You come up with a cycle of builds that isn't at all naturally evolving and reacting dynamically, but rather artificially controlled by Anet.

The IDEAL situation, is that overly powerful skills become adjusted, so that its in line with the rest of the skill lines, and theres many alternative skills and players have a huge variety to choose from. But i really doubt thats gonna happen.

Nerfs are a necessity, neither bad nor good.


The very same can be said for buffs and for any change to the game that introduces some new factor, ie PvE skills/consumables/elite zones.


People are far to often trying to put blame or insults on PvP or PvE players due to some change in the game.

The simple truth of the matter is that PvP and PvE are two very different games. In PvE your foe is static, never changing and the goal is for the player to find new and fun ways to defeat that same foe over and over again.

In PvP your foe is constantly changing and your goal is to find a constant means of dealing with a variable foe that never does the same thing twice. In a sense PvP players want to be that monster that keeps crushing the varied player builds sent at them.

There are exceptions to these, people that run the same build over and over in PvE and those in PvP that change builds and proff for almost every battle.

Only a very small minority from all groups come to these forums to complain about a nerf. For the most part people see the change, try the skill then either keep it or swap it for some other skill.


FYI - I am one of those few PvE players that gets a little over attached to certain skills and whines a bit when it gets nerfed. I still tear up a bit when scrolling past my War/Ranger templates and see Feral Aggression in my skill bar.

Ja nerfs are good.

this is last friday

this is yesterday

Theoretical idea of nerfs being good for game is kinda good.

However practical implementation is usually lacking. It kinda should not feel like "wtf, do they have no idea that XYZ is used in ABC context"

Nerfs are only good if they guarantee balance + variety.

The total destruction of a skill and/or a build is an inherently bad thing!


While balance still has not been achieved, more and more skills get neutered, while a new gimmick arises, leading to further nerfs and re-balancings.


Constant rebalancing is often just annoying, not the way to make people continue playing GW by changing skills and builds around. This makes me always wonder if it is really cool to poke a game in its final stage of development.

/agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed

Another PvE player who agrees with the OP here, but then I like games that make you think.

me:

my message to A-net: Leave my game alone.

Nerfs are good.

At the very least, the crying that fills up Riverside brightens my day.

I can't believe I am going to says this....

/agree with Yanman.

I need to learn to derive amusement, rather than a catastrophically depressed outlook on the future of humanity, from all the bratty whining that goes on on internet gaming boards. Any tips?

I'm inclined to agree today, as ranger got a nice little buff I'm always annoyed when theres a nerf I don't like, but I can see why its necessary.
However, while I can see Izzy's point that small changes are easier to track, I would love to see them, in Ensign's words, "shake it all up" once in a while. As with these small updates, people generally adapt pretty quickly, so its not really a new game every now and then.

Plus, I would like to see PvP and PvE balancing separated. Each has a negative impact on the other. However, we're unlikely to see that. *crosses fingers for gw2*

Humanity is doomed. Accept this. Accept that there is nothing you can do about it.
When you realise that everything that you'll ever manage to accomplish is nothing more than a mote of dust in the grand scheme of eternal failure, then you can learn to truly enjoy life. Starting with laughing at the QQing in Riverside

nerfs/buffs/balancing is all good in my book.

sure i don't like it when a build or two i make get hit due to some FotM builds but it forces me to think of new syngergies and builds which is fun =)

plus i get to laugh at those uncapable of original thought that whine about the nerfs.

although some are very questionable, ie pets not leaving corpses, alas the b/p team will have to change, i'll get over it.

Is anyone else concerned with the rapidity these changes have been implemented?

As in, we had a whole bunch of changes just last week: you'd think it'd be wise to spend more than a week evaluating the relative success of such changes before muddying the waters with yet another batch of changes, right?

I mean, if I'm running an experiment to discover the effects of varying the concentration of a drug on some laboratory mice, is it wise for me to suddenly add another drug halfway through the trial "so I can check that one, too"?


I worry. :$

Sorry but i lol'ed..