Nerf - as part of design

When looking up information on a very old yet fun pen and paper rpg, stumbled across this article, it's still old but seems to be very valid.

Something to think about when you want to cry Nerf

Part of the article - Source
http://www.mu.ranter.net/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why Nerfing is Good

"Nerf! Nerf!" is the eternal cry on dev boards whenever something is perceived as being weakened by the game's designers. Let us suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that for once the implementors of patches are not making a horrible mistake based on skewed misinformation about the way the game works, and that this "nerf" is being used correctly: as a balancing technique. Something in the game has been identified as being too powerful, and a nerf is required to bring it in line.

Used in this way, the nerf is an excellent and vital method of maintaining a sense of balance. If you choose to not nerf the offending object, a universal (and much misbegotten) policy in Asheron's Call, there are only two other options open to you:

* Buff everything else until it seems like everything is in line
* Leave it broken

Neither of these "solutions" works. The first option, the common solution for power problems in Asheron's Call, leads to unstoppable and never-ending inflation of player power. It also tends to lead to more problems than you initially had. If element 4 of a weapon set including 1 through 9 is considered overpowered and you subsequently buff weapons 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to compensate, you run a tremendous risk that one of these weapons is now overpowered, which leads to another cycle of buffing, etc. etc. Compare this to the nerfing cycle: element 4 is nerfed back down to a balanced level, and if you nerf too far, you can always nudge it back up slowly until it works. This, coincidentally, was the "pendulum" method of fixes during Asheron's Call beta, and it worked considerably better than the "no nerfs" nonsense they use now. (See the section above, "Too Little is Better than Too Much," for elucidation.)

The second method, leaving the game broken, is even worse, but it happens on a semiregular basis. In games that are not persistent, like Age of Kings (early), the trebuchet was horribly unrealistic and therefore could be used to devastating effect. Why bother building a mixed force if a trebuchet is as easy to maintain as a peasant levy, and far more devastating and hard to destroy? (To their credit, the publisher did eventually patch this.) In Heavy Gear, the bazooka was implemented as a guided weapon (which is incorrect from the standpoint of the original Heavy Gear tabletop system), and if you could get one, there was little reason to get anything else. This was never changed. Typically, such a game's publisher looks at a product like this as a product with built-in obsolescence, and so he leaves it broken rather than devoting company resources to fixing it, when that manpower could be steered into producing their next income-generating broken game. The buying public is gullible and stupid as a rule, and although I might never again buy a product made by that team as a result of their shortsightedness, many others will. It's easy to see where the profit lies. (NOTE: The only game to ever be successfully and persistently fixed for balance after publication is Starcraft. End result: Starcraft is one of the most popular computer games of its time, and the absolute best RTS game on the market even today.)

In a persistent subscriber-based game like an MMORPG, there is considerably more pressure on the development team to fix mistakes and address balance issues, but it doesn't always happen. In Ultima Online, lord of all buggy cesspools, bugs that allowed cheaters to loot houses and instakill other players were not fixed for a very long time, explained away as "creative uses of magic," until subscribers began cancelling in droves, at which point this sort of bug abuse suddenly became their biggest concern. In Everquest, there are character classes that have never been on par with other classes, and they have never been fixed despite subscribers leaving. In Asheron's Call, foolish mistakes like tuskers being worth an inordinate amount of XP for the risk involved in killing them should be considered game-destroying snafus, but it has been publically stated that they will not be reworking these creatures, most likely due to this "no nerfs" bullshit.

Let me digress a little more about Asheron's Call and the value of nerfing for a moment, as I have some experience with this game system and its absurd policy of not nerfing. One of the largest problems with Asheron's Call is the predominance of the 3-school archer/melee, particularly the melee. The initial buffing of these classes was due to a perceived dominance of mages in killing effectiveness. This was a correct observation, but the answer (buffing other character types) was absolutely the wrong one, and led to a nigh-infinite series of additional class problems that have only gotten worse through the game's history. The correct solution was to look at why the mage was so powerful. The answer was that the mage had an extremely powerful attack (war), but it was also nearly impervious to damage due to the overwhelming power of Life and Item protections. The correct response would have been to nerf these protections and their associated vulnerabilities, most especially Imperil. Had this been done right away, we would not be seeing the sorts of absurd class problems that fuel the fires of particularly vitriolic ranters.

Yeah, that would make sense, but that's not what a-net does. Izzy would pound #4 with the nerf hammer so hard that it become the worst of the nine, and then he would leave it there and never even think of buffing it back into line with the others.

There are very few skills this has happened for. The majority of fixes are slight numbers tweaks, or slowly bringing skills up and down over a number of updates. Take [incoming] for example. It's now completely useless, but didn't get there in one instant nerfsmack. It went through several nerfs after it continually proved it was broken. Could it be brought back up? Sure, but only by completely changing the skill.

Stuff like [ether renewal] is the exception rather than the rule.

That's because that's the definition of a nerf, regardless of the validity of the rationale behind the change...

Furthermore, most of the ranting and raving revolving around nerfing in GW is in relation to the massive flaw in the game: PvE and PvP having tied skillsets despite the hypercompetive nature of PvP in this game demanding so freaking many nerfs.

If you take a look a the bitchfests, you'll note that most PvP players don't seem to mind most nerfs. Only when they're plain, flat-out stupid (e.g. - nerfing core Warrior skills because of a profession that didn't even exist until two years after they were created) do you get any consensus on complaining.

In other words, the nerf problem in GW isn't so much that they happen (although you'll always have some people who will complain because they don't want to stop using tried and true superbuilds), it's the way they happen sometimes, and the sweeping negative effects they have on half the game most times.

But then you'd remember that there's still 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to choose from. Ether Renewal is dead, but do Eles complain about how limited their energy management is?

I can see how Anet has done this method for the most part.

Example Paragon was overpowered... and instead of raising everything up to meet it... Paragon get's nerf's over time.

Necromacer same way, between unlimited Minions, or vast never ending supply of energy, the tweaked necromancer directly.

Could change it to: For 2...12 seconds, all party members within earshot receive +5...18 armor against all bow attacks and piercing damage.

Energy Cost: 10
Recharge Time: 30
No Casting Time

Then it's a crappy [shield's up]. If they wanted to fix it, I'd say the best way is to add an attack limit, like watch yourself. That's beside my original point, though.

I think that this concept is the crux of the problem. Skill changes are not meant to be "patches" to correct a flaw in the game. They are a planned part of the game. (I realize that the article was not written specifically for GW, but this aspect of "patching" the game is exactly how players feel.) It is a complex system, and the designers can't always foresee how players will combine skills to make something more powerful than intended. So they need to make course corrections. They knew it. But how did they ever communicate the dynamic nature of skills to us?

Personally, I have always understood that this game system was dynamic, even from the earliest days of playing, and that changes, or balancing, of skills have always been part of the plan, keeping the meta game fair and balanced for all.

The real flaw, in my opinion, is in the marketing and positioning of the game. This dynamic nature should always be stressed and pushed and reinforced by ANet, so that players know that changes are always coming, and can more easily take them in stride when they do happen. Granted, players may still not like skill changes, but they at least wouldn't feel blindsided when it happens.

Many (most!) players don't track the PvP meta game, and have no clue about the exploits, trends, and directions in competitive play. So one day their whole game changes, and they feel cheated. Some rage-quit. Others whine like there's no tomorrow! Few actually feel good about it, because it's always a surprise.

Me, I'm a pure PvE player. And when a skill balance comes, I can take it in stride, because I know that *something* is bound to change. Sure, it affects my builds, but hey, that's the game! Adapt, and play on!!

Gruntar, you do have a point.

Heads up ahead of time, or explanation as to why it changed after the fact would lesson the heated debate, or at least shift it to the real reason for it, not the fact it was changed and people guessing or assuming as to why.

Not entirely true. Izzy has given small buffs to skills he blasted before, such as LoD, Pleak, Cripshot to name a few.

This is Guild Wars, not Asheron's Call,

Guild Wars have none-fix skill bar and adjustable attributes, mix and match primary and secondary profession that you can play around with. if skill bar 1 cannot counter monsters A in pve or team A in pvp, you make skill bar 2.

but it is not the case, when skill bar 1 failed to counter team A's skill bar, instead of re-do your skill bar, players run crying to Anet and demand a nerf. .... that's how I see it and still cannot understand why.

In truth, what happens is that Team A's skill bar is so horridly overpowered that not only are team A playing it, but team B, C, D E, F and G as well. And no PvPer wants to fight the same battle over and over again.

Compounding this problem is that, oftentimes, team A through G's build can be countered, but the counters are so horridly niche that you weaken your team bringing them, and team H running balanced will steamroll you - Guild Wars becomes rock-paper-scissors but with flashier animation; rather than the skill-based game we were promised.