Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Buffs > Nerfs

I LOVE the rock paper scissors class design.

If every class has a direct counter than every class is relevant. But my hope is that when a class turns out to be OP (which they will) that instead of nerfing a class, they instead buff the class that counters it.

Magic casters are a problem? More silences and mana drain effects for the classes that counter them.

Tanks can't be killed? More percent health damage and and armor penetration for the classes that counter them.

I think this would incentivize more class diversity and lead to more interesting gameplay.

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    While it is generally better to buff something than nerf something, there are times when both are needed.

    In your example above, if the OP class is so OP that classes that are supposed to beat it (or be a good match for it) are having trouble, you then have the option to either buff every class in the game and then also every mob to maintain PvE difficulty, or need the class in question.

    It needs to be a case by case thing, with the understanding that buffing is a better option if available.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    While it is generally better to buff something than nerf something, there are times when both are needed.

    In your example above, if the OP class is so OP that classes that are supposed to beat it (or be a good match for it) are having trouble, you then have the option to either buff every class in the game and then also every mob to maintain PvE difficulty, or need the class in question.

    It needs to be a case by case thing, with the understanding that buffing is a better option if available.

    I'm more so talking about mechanics. Like if a class is so OP that the class that counters it is having trouble, give them more tools like silences and stuff.

    If the actual numbers are just ridiculous to the point they're a PVE issue than yeah a nerf would make sense. I just don't want to see mages get weaker teleports or casters get smaller AOE heals.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    worddog wrote: »
    I'm more so talking about mechanics. Like if a class is so OP that the class that counters it is having trouble, give them more tools like silences and stuff.
    This brings more rebalancing for other classes though. What if the class that you gave an additional silence to is now stronger against the class that was meant to counter it? Do you now buff the latter one too? And if you do it might become stronger against its own counter, and so on and so on.

    I personally prefer giving people non-class tools to counter an OP class. L2 had a problem with a class that had a mass stun ability on super short cd. In the next few patches the devs introduced an upgrade to the most popular gear set that gave 50% res against stun. The classes themselves weren't really changed (outside of other balance changes), but that OP stunning class become a fair bit weaker against the people that he demolished previously.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    nerfing is usually better than buffing. we dont wanna end up like that street fighter mod whever every character has every skill and hits for a lot
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Hard disagree here.

    After many years of watching the outcomes of this philosophy, I believe that nerfs are better than buffs in complex games almost all of the time.

    What I want is 'reaction to outliers'.

    If the outlier is too strong, nerf, too weak, buff, as one would expect.

    There's also the 'scattershot rebalance everything' approach which tends to upset EVERYONE but only for a short period of time.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    nerfing or buffing is totally relative to what you're nerfing or buffing. The argument of whether nerfing in and of itself is better or worse than buffing in and of itself, is inane.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    worddog wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    While it is generally better to buff something than nerf something, there are times when both are needed.

    In your example above, if the OP class is so OP that classes that are supposed to beat it (or be a good match for it) are having trouble, you then have the option to either buff every class in the game and then also every mob to maintain PvE difficulty, or need the class in question.

    It needs to be a case by case thing, with the understanding that buffing is a better option if available.

    I'm more so talking about mechanics. Like if a class is so OP that the class that counters it is having trouble, give them more tools like silences and stuff.

    If the actual numbers are just ridiculous to the point they're a PVE issue than yeah a nerf would make sense. I just don't want to see mages get weaker teleports or casters get smaller AOE heals.

    I mean, "silences and stuff" work in PvE as well.

    If a mages teleport is OP due to it being strong, then weakening it is probably the best option.
  • CROW3 wrote: »
    nerfing or buffing is totally relative to what you're nerfing or buffing. The argument of whether nerfing in and of itself is better or worse than buffing in and of itself, is inane.

    To some degree sure like if someone can instantly kill 100 players with a single ability than yeah you'd have to nerf that.

    But I think if the power is more nuanced it's better to allow players to deal with the threat rather than remove the threat.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    Superficial difference...
    The devs should appoint important employees to adopt a class each and PLAY THE GAME. Between themselves they should make fair adjustments.
    The player feedback (post launch) should play little role as it's 100% of the time just QQing.
  • SongRuneSongRune Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    worddog wrote: »
    CROW3 wrote: »
    nerfing or buffing is totally relative to what you're nerfing or buffing. The argument of whether nerfing in and of itself is better or worse than buffing in and of itself, is inane.

    To some degree sure like if someone can instantly kill 100 players with a single ability than yeah you'd have to nerf that.

    But I think if the power is more nuanced it's better to allow players to deal with the threat rather than remove the threat.

    The reason this is done is because it produces the least disruption possible. The more you change, the more likely you are to mess up other parts of the balance, or forget to change things without realizing it. The best answer from the perspective of a single player of a class might feel like "buff instead of nerf", but the best answer from the perspective of the health of the game is always to make the smallest possible change that will resolve the problem. "Mage Teleport now has +2 second cooldown and covers 5% less distance" is far healthier for the game as a whole than "rebalanced all movement abilities", "adjusted AoE ranges for all bosses", "adjusted CC cooldowns for all mobs". Small changes have massive impacts. It's a lot easier to adjust one ability than to recalculate everything in the game. This isn't an exception, it's the rule. Things can only be "unbalanced" in comparison to other things. Everything's normally connected.
  • Honestly, classes shouldn't be balanced within the 5% margin of each other. Every class should be stupid OP but in it's own unique way. That's what makes a class feel good to play. That's what makes classes unique. And if everyone is stupid OP in their own way that you shouldn't feel bad if a class has to use every friggin 30min+ CD to kill you.
  • SummpwnerSummpwner Member, Alpha Two
    Taaku wrote: »
    Honestly, classes shouldn't be balanced within the 5% margin of each other. Every class should be stupid OP but in it's own unique way. That's what makes a class feel good to play. That's what makes classes unique. And if everyone is stupid OP in their own way that you shouldn't feel bad if a class has to use every friggin 30min+ CD to kill you.

    I think the real sweet spot that ur describing is when you can impact your own success through skill *usually*, and you can live the ultimate fantasy *sometimes*. Things are bad when you play perfectly but it's not enough, or you don't even have to try. It's ok if you have bad matchups that are harder than others or even 9-1 matchups, but they shouldn't be frequent.
  • ariatrasariatras Member, Founder, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I'll take nerfs. If you buff in response to balancing based on rock paper scissors, you'll most likely end up with a lot of CC (silence, stun, root, fear etc)
    And CCs are anti-fun.
    l8im8pj8upjq.gif


  • ariatras wrote: »
    I'll take nerfs. If you buff in response to balancing based on rock paper scissors, you'll most likely end up with a lot of CC (silence, stun, root, fear etc)
    And CCs are anti-fun.

    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    worddog wrote: »
    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.
    We'll have a limited amount of points to put into abilities and limited slots on the skillbar. Having super specific utility abilities might not get used often enough to justify their existence. Even archetype-based counters would probably be overlooked, unless some archetypes are way too OP.
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    you need both nerf and buffs. if you only ever buff things PvE become irrelevantly underpowered when you buff thing to far which means you also then need 2 buff every type of mob so yeah dont do that :D

    They basicly need to pick a skill/class that is the anchor and the goal is to get everything on the level of this anchor skill/class/item if it to good compared to this anchor it needs nerfed if it to weak it needs buffed to be on these level of the anchor item/skill
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    worddog wrote: »
    ariatras wrote: »
    I'll take nerfs. If you buff in response to balancing based on rock paper scissors, you'll most likely end up with a lot of CC (silence, stun, root, fear etc)
    And CCs are anti-fun.

    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.

    tbh DPS shouldnt get hard CC or limited CC (like rogues stun from stealth) but they shouldnt get any stuns/knockdown skil that completly lock out opponents, hard CC skills should go to the tanks/support rolls.

    Dps can still get roots/slows/silence but not thing that completly lockout a character unless very specific requirments met that can also be counter like rogue cheapshot from WoW stun when attackign from stealth.
  • NiKr wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.
    We'll have a limited amount of points to put into abilities and limited slots on the skillbar. Having super specific utility abilities might not get used often enough to justify their existence. Even archetype-based counters would probably be overlooked, unless some archetypes are way too OP.

    More so like normal abilities just have added CC against some classes, but work normally otherwise.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    worddog wrote: »
    NiKr wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.
    We'll have a limited amount of points to put into abilities and limited slots on the skillbar. Having super specific utility abilities might not get used often enough to justify their existence. Even archetype-based counters would probably be overlooked, unless some archetypes are way too OP.

    More so like normal abilities just have added CC against some classes, but work normally otherwise.

    I can't tell if this is worse than the BDO 'do different multipliers of damage against different classes' or not.

    It makes my head hurt either way though.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    worddog wrote: »
    NiKr wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.
    We'll have a limited amount of points to put into abilities and limited slots on the skillbar. Having super specific utility abilities might not get used often enough to justify their existence. Even archetype-based counters would probably be overlooked, unless some archetypes are way too OP.

    More so like normal abilities just have added CC against some classes, but work normally otherwise.

    About that... no.

    Let's all just hope Intrepid are better developers and are able to balance classes without needing to explicitly make abilities do different things to different classes.

    I mean, I think many of us would agree that if this is the way Intrepid need to go to find balance, there will be better games out there.
  • ariatrasariatras Member, Founder, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Veeshan wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    ariatras wrote: »
    I'll take nerfs. If you buff in response to balancing based on rock paper scissors, you'll most likely end up with a lot of CC (silence, stun, root, fear etc)
    And CCs are anti-fun.

    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.

    tbh DPS shouldnt get hard CC or limited CC (like rogues stun from stealth) but they shouldnt get any stuns/knockdown skil that completly lock out opponents, hard CC skills should go to the tanks/support rolls.

    Dps can still get roots/slows/silence but not thing that completly lockout a character unless very specific requirments met that can also be counter like rogue cheapshot from WoW stun when attackign from stealth.

    The less CC, the better. Roots are essentially a complete lockout for melee classes. I remember Blizzard trying to fix that on the Rogue for example, giving them a ranged finisher. Deadly Throw or some such. It didn't work.
    If you want to stay within the realm of Blizzard, you need but look at the latest release of Overwatch 2. Overwatch 1 was pretty much dead. You got endless CC'd. The second iteration that released recently. Whilst there are still some balance issues (as to be expected given the nature of the game in question) the vastly decreased amount of CC makes the game a lot more fun. (Launch problems aside of course.)
    l8im8pj8upjq.gif


  • ariatrasariatras Member, Founder, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    worddog wrote: »
    NiKr wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.
    We'll have a limited amount of points to put into abilities and limited slots on the skillbar. Having super specific utility abilities might not get used often enough to justify their existence. Even archetype-based counters would probably be overlooked, unless some archetypes are way too OP.

    More so like normal abilities just have added CC against some classes, but work normally otherwise.

    Not too big a fan of this idea, to be perfectly honest.
    If you need CC in order to make class balance work, you've got bigger problems imho.
    l8im8pj8upjq.gif


  • prymortalprymortal Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Class counting classes. This is where "Looking for X class Only" come into play.
    ariatras wrote: »
    Veeshan wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    ariatras wrote: »
    I'll take nerfs. If you buff in response to balancing based on rock paper scissors, you'll most likely end up with a lot of CC (silence, stun, root, fear etc)
    And CCs are anti-fun.

    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.

    tbh DPS shouldnt get hard CC or limited CC (like rogues stun from stealth) but they shouldnt get any stuns/knockdown skil that completly lock out opponents, hard CC skills should go to the tanks/support rolls.

    Dps can still get roots/slows/silence but not thing that completly lockout a character unless very specific requirments met that can also be counter like rogue cheapshot from WoW stun when attackign from stealth.

    The less CC, the better. Roots are essentially a complete lockout for melee classes. I remember Blizzard trying to fix that on the Rogue for example, giving them a ranged finisher. Deadly Throw or some such. It didn't work.
    If you want to stay within the realm of Blizzard, you need but look at the latest release of Overwatch 2. Overwatch 1 was pretty much dead. You got endless CC'd. The second iteration that released recently. Whilst there are still some balance issues (as to be expected given the nature of the game in question) the vastly decreased amount of CC makes the game a lot more fun. (Launch problems aside of course.)

    BDO is/was another good example of why overuse of CC's in combat & endless CC are bad. Also frontal block (Lol every skill goes through it if on the slightest angle/Skills that go through/over e.t.c.) & why things like super armor skills are OP AF.
    As you can see I prefer Dots over CC's & i'll get to why at the end.
    Tanks = Short stun.
    Ranger = Short root if equal movement speed to other classes, if faster then nothing.
    Mages = Short bind (*cough root).
    Healers = no - just Cleanse. Play your class properly!
    Support = Ideally not, but does depend on class & support type.
    Melee = Wouldn't you rather have a engage than a CC?

    If a class has a heap of CC's, its not fun & only Shi**ers who like to be Shi**ers & play like Shi**ers play them. As seen in every MMO to date without fail.
  • There was a class/build in swtor, that was so OP, that they had to rebuild the talent system
  • WarRathWarRath Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I trust the Ashes of Creation team to make the right decision when it comes to class balance.
    ivpyvbbwcuwd.png
  • Summpwner wrote: »
    Taaku wrote: »
    Honestly, classes shouldn't be balanced within the 5% margin of each other. Every class should be stupid OP but in it's own unique way. That's what makes a class feel good to play. That's what makes classes unique. And if everyone is stupid OP in their own way that you shouldn't feel bad if a class has to use every friggin 30min+ CD to kill you.

    I think the real sweet spot that ur describing is when you can impact your own success through skill *usually*, and you can live the ultimate fantasy *sometimes*. Things are bad when you play perfectly but it's not enough, or you don't even have to try. It's ok if you have bad matchups that are harder than others or even 9-1 matchups, but they shouldn't be frequent.

    Yeah I think we are roughly talking about the same thing. I just hate seeing patch notes with graphs of all the classes all lined up just all roughly the same. It's hard to capture "feeling" of a class fantasy over just "this is the optimal class dps and they are all roughly the same, so thus balanced"
    To me that does not mean balanced. That means boring...
  • SummpwnerSummpwner Member, Alpha Two
    Taaku wrote: »
    Yeah I think we are roughly talking about the same thing. I just hate seeing patch notes with graphs of all the classes all lined up just all roughly the same. It's hard to capture "feeling" of a class fantasy over just "this is the optimal class dps and they are all roughly the same, so thus balanced"
    To me that does not mean balanced. That means boring...

    Exactly. They should want to capture a particular feeling in each primary/secondary combo, and for it to feel rewarding when you get your "Time to shine." It can't happen ALL the time cuz then it'll be standard and boring. It should require some skill or setup, but it also should pay off when it works. If it doesn't pay off, it needs a buff. If it happens too often or is too flexible and you ALWAYS have your time to shine, it probably needs a nerf.
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    ariatras wrote: »
    Veeshan wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    ariatras wrote: »
    I'll take nerfs. If you buff in response to balancing based on rock paper scissors, you'll most likely end up with a lot of CC (silence, stun, root, fear etc)
    And CCs are anti-fun.

    That's fair, but maybe CC should be restricted to class counters.

    Like CC that only works against certain classes that you're meant to directly counter.

    tbh DPS shouldnt get hard CC or limited CC (like rogues stun from stealth) but they shouldnt get any stuns/knockdown skil that completly lock out opponents, hard CC skills should go to the tanks/support rolls.

    Dps can still get roots/slows/silence but not thing that completly lockout a character unless very specific requirments met that can also be counter like rogue cheapshot from WoW stun when attackign from stealth.

    The less CC, the better. Roots are essentially a complete lockout for melee classes. I remember Blizzard trying to fix that on the Rogue for example, giving them a ranged finisher. Deadly Throw or some such. It didn't work.
    If you want to stay within the realm of Blizzard, you need but look at the latest release of Overwatch 2. Overwatch 1 was pretty much dead. You got endless CC'd. The second iteration that released recently. Whilst there are still some balance issues (as to be expected given the nature of the game in question) the vastly decreased amount of CC makes the game a lot more fun. (Launch problems aside of course.)

    roots are not a complete lockout for melee, there are skills that can be used while rooted, defensive buff range skills such as javalin throw which pull targets to you and so on. you still have control of your character.

    And overwatch 2 just moved hard CC skills to tank classes which is what i suggested anyway sooo yeah, Short TTK time also play a roll in the reduction in Hard CC since you can delete somone in less than 2 seconds when they cant negate attacks when ur CCed where in MMO TTK is usualy much longer than 2 seconds so CC isnt as impactful.
Sign In or Register to comment.