test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Why are nerfs considered bad?
sophlogimo
Member Posts: 6,507 Arc User
I would really like to know why there is always such an outcry even at the slightest chance of some numbers that are in favor of players in the game might be decreasing, not increasing when a change occurs? I mean, suppose they tuned down some stat for everybody. So what? It would be a change for everybody, and everybody would adapt. Why would one whine about it?
Imagine they tuned down damage, for instance - weapon damage in general. For everyone. Wouldn't that be equivalent to increasing the hitpoints to the NPC's (and players, if NPC's are just as affected)? Yet, the latter is usually getting less flak than even mentioining the former. I don't understand this. Can someone explain?
Imagine they tuned down damage, for instance - weapon damage in general. For everyone. Wouldn't that be equivalent to increasing the hitpoints to the NPC's (and players, if NPC's are just as affected)? Yet, the latter is usually getting less flak than even mentioining the former. I don't understand this. Can someone explain?
Remember, STO is nothing but a cosmetics game, where only the rule of cool matters. The game mechanics are intentionally out of balance, don't try to "optimize" anything, as it would just frustrate you.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
Sometimes nerfs are necessary. Kemocite was racking up big numbers for those players who can actually afford it, but it ruins the game for others. when the Kemo-torp-spread hits, other peoples' computers freeze or crash out of the game. That is not right. Then the devs finally did take a few steps to correct the situation, reducing the DPS for the Kemo-players, but stabilizing the game well enough to be able to play again. There are people to this day who squeal like pigs over this much needed correction as a way-over-the-top-nerf. To that I say they had their fun. Now it's time for the rest of us to be able to play again.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
When I play I play to become good and not to be nerfed the moment I am.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
I am not a top end player but I am enjoying that it is possible for players to be able to do so much damage. I especially enjoy the short amount of time it took for the players to adapt to the new skill system, and increase thier capability (especially when some of the system was designed to cut it down).
I find it amusing that there is a continuum of players that want just about everything in the game to be "capped", from DPS, to rank, to EC a person can have, to prices on the exchange, to dil/Zen exchange rates, its just so SJW-like.
It's an emotional reaction, but chances are there is a good rational reason to do it anyway. As long as it done with care.
The term then evolved. To devs making corrections or changes to things players did that were deemed too powerful. Getting hit with the "nerf bat" became a term and it just went from there.
In Everquest, Abashi's Rod of Disempowerment ... is the Nerf Bat made real.
Anyways, more to the point, players do not like their status and power levels changed for the negative. So the general reaction to adjustments is to call them nerfs and to complain about them.
Be it Enhancement Diversification or Skill Revamp or whatever. Nerfs incur wrath and ire and complaint. It's just the way these things go.
Because having something taken away is not fun. Having something improved, boosted or given for free is fun.
Having something you've put effort into to get to a certain level of power, adjusted in the negative, feels punitive. People feel punished. People do not like that.
That's as general and basic as I can get. We can discuss this further with actual examples of famous MMO "nerfs" if you'd like. Since this is a cryptic game, Enhancement Diversification would be my choice. But we could focus on Star Wars Galaxies' big nerf, or some of Everquest's most famous nerfs if you'd prefer. Heck I'd even talk about the first World of Warcrft update that undid Stun Lock for Rogues in PvP and the absolute fury that incited among the community on both sides of that debate. Those are the ones I remember most vividly. But there's a ton of other examples in every MMO I've ever played.
We strive to have more, to get better, to improve. Taking things away goes counter that goal.
And the only reason some people like or agree to nerfs is because they believe it actually makes the game overall better. Because they can frame it like that for themselves, it works for them. But not everyone does that.
Ultimately, it's the job of the game designer (or the hobby of the armchair game designer) to think about what is good for the overall game. It doesn't matter if any given individual player can see it like that.
Nerf away. Just make sure, as with any change, you're doing something that's a net improvement to the game as a whole. Individuals might need to be "sacrificed".
Think of it like having a car with 1000 horsepowers. Let's say you wish to downtune the car to 700 horsepower because you realize it has too much torque and you lose too much time on the track (driver fatigue) because you experience more of the heavy acceleration (on straights) and deaccelerations (when entering corners) but prefer more of a steady pace (that lesser horsepower might provide). So you begin to nerf the car of its engine power in hopes to achieve this.
Having reduced the turbo boost you suddenly realize that you lose significant speed because the turbo you have installed is too large for its given boost and lacks enough spool-up time. You are therefore forced to adjust the car again by replacing the turbo for a smaller, more efficient and faster one. Oh no, suddenly you realize that you feed that small turbo with too much cool air, choking it. You are now forced to change the intercooler for a more compatible airflow into the turbo. Oh wait, we also forgot the massive dump valve that was designed for the huge turbo. We also get a massive drop after releasing the gas pedal. We must replace that too. Now we might be done... or are we?
Oh wait, the smaller turbo has yielded us with a more steady pace but now what? We have come to realize that the massive braking rotors and calipers in the front and rear are no longer needed for the excessive hard braking we formally performed. They are now an added weight and we do not want that. So we replace them. Are we done? Oh for heaven's sake, the extremely stiff suspension was designed to handle extreme acceleration and deacceleration as well as cornering during these harsh conditions. They now hold us back and they cannot be adjusted to our needs so we need to replace them. Noooo... we also forgot the tires that are now wrong for this condition of driving. The current tires were designed to heat up under the harsh conditions we put them through but our new laxed driving style causes them to remain cool. We lose grip so they have to be replaced too.
What else? Oh freaking car! We have excessive drag with the massive front and rear spoilers designed for higher top speeds right before deacceleration at cornering. We currently hold a more steady pace resulting in less peak speed. The current aerodynamics cannot be adjusted to our needs so we are forced to replace them for a smaller wing in the rear and more open diffuser. We also replace the wide front wing for one with less surface area. How about now? It is starting to look very good but we could adjust the gear ratio a little bit to shorten the top speed and the differential response for easier cornering and then we might be more or less settled.
But heck, what a hell of adjustments we had to go through for our initial nerf of 300 horsepowers. But we also gained a balanced and optimized car that drives with harmony on the track. Luckily we achieved what we were looking for but it could have been all for nothing and it could have cost us the championship where restrictions are more open.
That way the majority will not even notice the changes.
But I think the real problem is that some things cannot be easily nerfed by 1-5 %, because they are more complex than that.
It is for this reason that many players would never accept a reduction in player damage, not even after many players have seen their DPS increased by sometimes over 50%.
Nerfing things after earning money from the power creep you sold yourself can be considered somewhat unethical. Even if it's much needed.
Nah, that won't work either. You do that and other people will complain just as loudly. There's no real way to avoid the forum rage and the complaints and the jibba jabba.
When that gets diminished or removed people cry salty rivers because a developer took their big bad feeling away from them. It's a sad fact of life, but it is what it is.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Not necessarily since a parse also depends on the team and simply how the random number generator rolls. Make the changes gradually enough and nobody will notice.
Beside that, the real issue is not necessarily a single power but stacking and even more stacking. Readjusting that cascade is something which cannot be done silently because it will cause a relatively large change 10-30% or even more.
“Imagine they tuned down damage, for instance - weapon damage in general. For everyone. Wouldn't that be equivalent to increasing the hitpoints to the NPC's”
It’s not that simple. Turning down damage for everyone wouldn’t affect everyone in the same way. Some players would be hit much harder than others. That’s why players get more upset over changes like that. Its not the equivalent to increasing the hitpoints by a long shot.
Let make this more personal for you since you are not grasping the fact that some players will really, really get pissed off if their DPS gets nerfed.
Let's say the company that you are working is going through some financial trouble due to the economy (this is actually based on real experience I had). The company had two options to continue to remain in business while still keep shareholders happy.
#1 - Lay off people to reduce the workforce and cut expense, then spreading the remaining work around so that everyone works later, or
#2 - Keep everyone on the payroll, but people there will be no raises and bonuses for people earning a certain income. However, people earning above a certain salary all take a pay cut including the CEO.
Say you have an annual salary of $150,000. Not only will you not receive a bonus for the year, but your salary gets cut to $140,000 permanently, until the company decides to start handing out raises again to those people who have earned it.
You do not know if you were going to be one of those people that would have been laid off, but you do know your salary has been reduced by $10,000.
That pay cut can be analogous to a player getting his / her DPS nerfed. Yes, one "nerf" is real money while the other nerf is a fictitious number. But human emotional reactions can vary between mildly annoyed to extreme rage.
The only person the OP is fooling when he/she says he/she doesn't understand why players don't like things to be nerfed is him or herself, and if he/she truely doesnt understand it, there "no power in the 'verse" that can help him/her.
I really wish the "nerf-DPS/rank/dil' exchange/ec exhange/etc." threads would be banned, just like T6 Connie' threads are.
Maybe well get lucky and @jodarkrider will shut them/this down.
A lot of the outcry happens when power creep is sold, and then nerfed later. People feel like it is planned, release something that is OP, wait until everyone buys it, nerf it to oblivion. Kemocite is a good example of that.