PATCH TIME BOYZ!...2.0

[Second Saint]

@Second Saint I think is on to the right track, but I would argue it slightly differently.

@Thundergodd I would also like to hear you further defend a 'never nerf' policy further. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe all that you've offered on that front so far is that it doesn't feel good to have your main nerfed. I can certainly agree with that sentiment, but from a balance perspective I feel like nerfs are more often your best option for two reasons:

Is my reasoning not sound, or do you simply mean you'd use different examples? I accidentally hit post before I proofread/edited. I know I tend to lose focus when I don't do that.

 

[Mr_Aladdin_Sir]

Is my reasoning not sound, or do you simply mean you'd use different examples? I accidentally hit post before I proofread/edited. I know I tend to lose focus when I don't do that.

@Second Saint I don't think your reasoning is unsound, but I do think there is a stronger argument to be made. I believe we agree rather strongly, but I hit post before I meant to. I've edited my previous with what I meant it to say

 

[SnowboardRX]

..... Sadly, I don't follow Twiiter and don't have an account (too damn busy with life in general). If you could get me few quotes of the top players' thoughts on nerfing these characters, that would be greatly appreciated....

...I like to follow the top people in any genre and get their insights on things whether it's good or bad. Always follow the best is my motto.....

Um...

1. You don't need a Twitter account to look up tweets from people. Look up their Twitter feeds through a Google search and enjoy.
2. You said you like to follow the top people...well then Twitter is where you will find that information you are seeking, as most, if not all, use that platform. If you really follow top people, then I have no idea where you're following them as that's where they make most of their thoughts known.

 

[Vengeance135]

Um...

1. You don't need a Twitter account to look up tweets from people. Look up their Twitter feeds through a Google search and enjoy.
2. You said you like to follow the top people...well then Twitter is where you will find that information you are seeking, as most, if not all, use that platform. If you really follow top people, then I have no idea where you're following them as that's where they make most of their thoughts known.

lol

 

[Mr_Aladdin_Sir]

If you really follow top people

 

[Vengeance135]

This shit is hilarious af lol

 

[chores]

 

[JTC]

Every fighting game I've played wasn't perfectly balanced HOWEVER even in games like sf, Tekken and KOF i always felt i could level up in someway and improve. Even in bad MU's I felt ideas able to overcome it. In this game if you are a low tier user, you are literally grasping at straws. You have to make the best reads, calculate your strikes and hope for the best because if you mess up once, IT IS OVER.

Agreed.

Those games have much more depth, characters are given enough tools and also the freedom of movement to play the neutral. I dont want to say Inj2 is a shallow game but its a much more shallow than its competitors. The game doesn't allow variety, and if your character has variety then its most likely a shitter.

Only in this game where you can pick up a character for an hour and pretty much learn everything. There's Superman with his f23 autopilot string which does EVERYTHING and shits on more than half the cast. Aquaman's b123 is another example.

 

[Vengeance135]

Agreed.

Those games have much more depth, characters are given enough tools and also the freedom of movement to play the neutral. I dont want to say Inj2 is a shallow game but its a much more shallow than its competitors. The game doesn't allow variety, and if your character has variety then its most likely a shitter.

Only in this game where you can pick up a character for an hour and pretty much learn everything. There's Superman with his f23 autopilot string which does EVERYTHING and shits on more than half the cast. Aquaman's b123 is another example.

The last time I felt I was playing auto pilot was when kazuya had the spinning demon infinite in street fighter cross Tekken lol and even that game had more depth imo lpl

 

[Vengeance135]

Agreed.

Those games have much more depth, characters are given enough tools and also the freedom of movement to play the neutral. I dont want to say Inj2 is a shallow game but its a much more shallow than its competitors. The game doesn't allow variety, and if your character has variety then its most likely a shitter.

Only in this game where you can pick up a character for an hour and pretty much learn everything. There's Superman with his f23 autopilot string which does EVERYTHING and shits on more than half the cast. Aquaman's b123 is another example.

Lmfao

 

[HanSolo]

Buff Catwoman

 

[Thundergodd]

I did say that. But I never said that someone that doesn't play in tournaments doesn't have a stake in how good they are, which is what you implied I said. That's what was taken out of context.

It was HEAVILY inferred, otherwise if all players had an equal say, there would be NO REASON whatsoever to bring up that line--- "play them in tournaments with money on the line, I'd say that qualifies as me having a stake in how good they are."

Sorry, nothing was brought out of context here, especially when you're quoted verbatim.

I've already explained while the no nerfs mentality never works and is never done. It's just not feasible.

Okay. Whether I agree with this philosophy or not, I still respect it and appreciate your input.

 

[Thundergodd]

Well absolutely no fighting game is perfectly balanced of course. But every fighter does have balance patches and the dynamic of other fighters don't quite fit this one. This fighter in my personal opinion is very unbalanced. The gap between top and low is absolutely noticeable and in a lot of cases these low tier characters cannot compete whatsoever.

Fair enough. I appreciate your response on this matter and look forward to hearing your advice in the future.

 

[Thundergodd]

Would you nerf Ivan Ooze, @Thundergodd ? He was arguably the single most broken character to ever exist, and had literally no reason to lose against any character in his game.

Ummm, I have no idea who he is so I don't have any reference to go on and give an honest assessment.

Is he the villian that was in a Power Rangers movie?

I'd like to address your philosophy of never nerfing, and why it simply isn't feasible in a game like this.

Awesome. Please do.....

You keep bringing up the idea that every other character should recieve significant buffs to the level of the rest of the top tiers. Now, I'm of the opinion that some buffs and nerfs need to happen, but every single change that is made can and often does carry with it unintended consequences that in turn require more rebalancing to address.

Therefore, it is wisest to make as few changes as possible. Nerfing 3-5 problem characters slightly is going to make much fewer waves than significantly buffing ~25.

While true balance is unattainable, it does not devalue the effort or the fruits of striving towards it. Perfection is impossible, but we can go from good enough to actually well balanced overall. Also, the balance we have at this time will only get worse. People once thought vanilla Mk X was pretty balanced, myself included. Hindsight makes that an utterly laughable statement. It certainly can get better.

Also, if you're worried specifically about Black Adam, don't be. They've got some experience nerfing him this time. He ended up a decent mid tier, and I expect the same or less of a fall.

So you're saying it's a numbers game? That balancing a few on the top is easier than many on the bottom?

And it's not just Adam but any character that people love (Supes, Deadshot, etc.). I just think people should be allowed to enjoy their character without the crowd chanting nerf with pitchforks.

Hmmmm, nevertheless, looking at it from THIS perspective makes more sense to me, as opposed to just saying character X should be gutted because of yada yada yada. Thank you for taking the time to type this well-thought out explanation. Kudos.

I would definitely gut Aquaman if I had the choice though. The game as a whole would widely benefit. He's far too polarizing. All it would really take is making him punishable on mb trident rush. I say this as a Venomous main in MK X, this chip is cancer. There's utterly no risk, and the slight negative frames, combined with the pushback and his normals often mean it's still his turn.

Heh. I'm sure Arthur Curry fans don't wanna hear this.

There's crying for nerfs as you put it, and there's a measured response to what has been proven with evidence to be a negative factor on the game as a whole. The two can actually coincide, but many of the people in this thread fall more into the latter category.

Fair enough. My small gripe on things is that although people cry for "balance", they don't address the negatives of these characters getting fixed as well. If they're not addressed, where pray tell is the balance?

Thanks for giving me a different perspective on things since I'm new to the FGC.

 

[Thundergodd]

@Second Saint I think is on to the right track, but I would argue it slightly differently.

@Thundergodd I would also like to hear you further defend a 'never nerf' policy further. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe all that you've offered on that front so far is that it doesn't feel good to have your main nerfed. I can certainly agree with that sentiment, but from a balance perspective I feel like nerfs are more often your best option for two reasons:
EDIT: (hit tab then enter like a dumby)
A) You create an escalation environment previously described - stuff in the game generally moves toward reducing the number of options the opponent has to deal with things, be it reaction time or plus frames. At its core, this is what buffing a character in a fighter does, leaves opponents with fewer options.
B) Buffing characters homogenizes the cast. Being the character loyalist that you are and following your line of argumentation I feel safe saying that you like Black Adam for the way that he plays as well as the way that he looks (animations and flow included). One of the hallmarks of fighting games is that they allow two players to bring different sets of tools into a round and apply them in the context of one another. If you solve the problem of one character having too many tools by giving the rest of the cast a similar set of tools - eventually you make the selection of a character meaningless. Characters should have incomparable strengths.

League of Legends is a great example of how imperfect balance in a game can still result in a healthy competitive scene. They achieve this by limiting buffs and relying heavily on nerfs. I don't exactly wish their balance cycle on this genre, they knee jerk too often for my tastes, but it seems like a good relevant example to this discussion

Interesting take on things. This one line here tends to (relatively) sum up on how I feel about nerfs---"I don't exactly wish their balance cycle on this genre, they knee jerk too often for my tastes."

I've seen in other games just this where they nerfed characters (not even ones I play like in Marvel Heroes; I HATE the Hulk but felt sorry for Hulk players at one point) and became low-tier characters. Someone HAS to be top-tier, it's the nature of the beast.

That being said, you bring valid and concise points which can't be ignored on this subject.

Well done.

 

[Thundergodd]

A lot of top players don't talk about I'm balances because most of them are playing top tier characters.

You keep repeating this Play the Player mantra over and over again, but what happens when the player plays you, and his character is bigger and badder than yours?

Honestly? For me, I just give props to said player and ask for their advice while trying to get better with whatever character I'm playing.

Now, I agree with you in principle.. I'd rather the lowbies get buffed than some huge culling of the top tiers.. but fun and dynamic balance, IMO, happens just below the absurd, and we have a few characters that are are absurd. I favor balancing for a powerful cast full of fun, strong, interesting shit, but there is a tipping point where character power leads to a stagnant and boring game that can be more frustrating than fun at times.. I feel like we see that in a few characters right now.

I totally agree with you in principle. I just don't think the gap in this game is so great that people are crying for nerfs. Like I said many pages ago, I was one of those calling for Deadshot's head. I freely admit I was wrong thinking that way.

I favor very minimal nerfs to the tops that keep their tools in place and not just viable but powerful, but I DO favor nerfs. For Adam I'd like to see no more + on block dive kicks and less damage. That's about it. Batman shouldn't have infini-pressure and a never ending turn, so adjust his trait some and I'd like to see a small adjustment to his zoning ability.. but that's it. Deadshot, I dunno. Make his OH easily reactable? He's annoying as all fuck to fight but I dunno what else he needs done. Other characters, other very minor things.

I'd like to see everyone brought down or up to somewhere in power just under the current top 5's power level. Just a smidge. I feel like characters like Harley and ALMOST Catwoman occupy an excellent power space for example.

Okey-dokey. But don't you think if people are asking to nerf for balance sake, that they should also give advice on shoring up their weaknesses as well?

That would be true and proper balance imho.

Thanks man for this well thought-out post.

 

[The chosen puddle]

A few months from now after a few patches we can all look back at this and call each other idiots.

 

[Zoidberg747]

It was HEAVILY inferred, otherwise if all players had an equal say, there would be NO REASON whatsoever to bring up that line--- "play them in tournaments with money on the line, I'd say that qualifies as me having a stake in how good they are."

Sorry, nothing was brought out of context here, especially when your quoted verbatim.



Okay. Whether I agree with this philosophy or not, I still respect it and appreciate your input.

It wasn't heavily inferred lol. You initially responded saying simply playing a character is not the same as maining and "loving" a character and wanting them to be good. I then said that I played these characters in tournaments for money, so I also obviously want them to be good. Unlike most people though I am willing to admit when my characters are too strong and need to be nerfed for the sake of balancing the game. Nowhere in there is it implied that non-tournament players opinion's are lesser, you just assumed that's what I meant.

 

[Thundergodd]

Um...

1. You don't need a Twitter account to look up tweets from people. Look up their Twitter feeds through a Google search and enjoy.

Didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[Badboy Takuma]

LMFAO this thread, a keyboard-warrior KOTH

 

[Second Saint]

Ummm, I have no idea who he is so I don't have any reference to go on and give an honest assessment.

Is he the villian that was in a Power Rangers movie?



Awesome. Please do.....



So you're saying it's a numbers game? That balancing a few on the top is easier than many on the bottom?

And it's not just Adam but any character that people love (Supes, Deadshot, etc.). I just think people should be allowed to enjoy their character without the crowd chanting nerf with pitchforks.

Hmmmm, nevertheless, looking at it from THIS perspective makes more sense to me, as opposed to just saying character X should be gutted because of yada yada yada. Thank you for taking the time to type this well-thought out explanation. Kudos.


QUOTE="Second Saint, post: 2310107, member: 35484"]I would definitely gut Aquaman if I had the choice though. The game as a whole would widely benefit. He's far too polarizing. All it would really take is making him punishable on mb trident rush. I say this as a Venomous main in MK X, this chip is cancer. There's utterly no risk, and the slight negative frames, combined with the pushback and his normals often mean it's still his turn.

Heh. I'm sure Arthur Curry fans don't wanna hear this.

QUOTE="Second Saint, post: 2310107, member: 35484"]There's crying for nerfs as you put it, and there's a measured response to what has been proven with evidence to be a negative factor on the game as a whole. The two can actually coincide, but many of the people in this thread fall more into the latter category.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. My small gripe on things is that although people cry for "balance", they don't address the negatives of these characters getting fixed as well. If they're not addressed, where pray tell is the balance?

Thanks for giving me a different perspective on things since I'm new to the FGC.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is the exact Ivan Ooze I speak of. See, back in the day, that movie (or at least that era of PR) had a fighting game. Ooze was a boss/secret character that is regarded by many as the most broken character in any game, as he was designed more with cool boss moves in mind above fairness. To try and balance his absurd strength, he is unable to block. That's a serious weakness for anyone who doesn't have an invulnerable, spammable move that starts infinites, lol. And he was always flying. Lows literally didn't work on him and a lot of the cast couldn't touch him if he flew away. Basically, his worst matchup was 5-5...against himself. The rest were literal 10-0's. He had no reason to lose.

My point was to see what your line is. Are you going to stick to the no nerfs ever philosophy, even in the face of utter insanity?

You keep bringing up the feelings of the nerfed character mains. This isn't about them, it's about being as near to parity as possible. Why do the feelings of people who like a character matter so much more than the people forced to play against that character in uphill struggles at basically every turn because power=prevalance.

There's really only been one time when my main has been significantly nerfed. I liked Boneshaper Shinnok a lot, he got buffed to S-tier, and then they nerfed him. I dropped him because I honestly thought he wasn't nerfed nearly hard enough. I felt like he was just a crutch for my own inadequacies, getting me wins over players that I wasn't quite on the same level as.

Your attitude of self improvement and rising above the obstacles and challenges a game has to offer is admirable, but I'd also wager you aren't experienced enough to recognize the difference between something that's actually a problem and you getting outplayed. The goal of balance is to have the players be able to say they rose above another player, not the game mechanics themselves.

Just because a character has a weakness, in BA's case he can't wakeup, doesn't mean they can't have strengths that are too strong, and if their strengths get toned down, their weaknesses shouldn't necessarily be addressed in return. If you just knocked 15% damage off adam and gave him more invincibility on wakeup, he'd probably end up better than he is now.

 

[Thundergodd]

It wasn't heavily inferred lol. You initially responded saying simply playing a character is not the same as maining and "loving" a character and wanting them to be good. I then said that I played these characters in tournaments for money, so I also obviously want them to be good. Unlike most people though I am willing to admit when my characters are too strong and need to be nerfed for the sake of balancing the game. Nowhere in there is it implied that non-tournament players opinion's are lesser, you just assumed that's what I meant.

Dude, this is NOT what you said. You're slightly altering things. Here is your EXACT quote verbatim......

I play them in tournaments with money on the line, I'd say that qualifies as me having a stake in how good they are. And I still say all three of them are too strong.

Let's break this down----

You said that you are "qualified". This is the term YOU used!! QUALIFIED!
Definition of qualified
1a : fitted (as by training or experience) for a given purpose : competentb : having complied with the specific requirements or precedent conditions.
b : having complied with the specific requirements or precedent conditions


And why did you think you were qualified? Notice the underlined sentence: because you play them with money on the line.

You being a tournament player really has nothing to do with this subject but YOU brought it up. No one else; just YOU!

@Second Saint, @Mr_Aladdin_Sir and @EntropicByDesign replied with excellent post pointing out why nerfs are good without mentioning if they play professional or not.


Many here are not tournament players but I'm sure they're as qualified as you are in giving their opinion.

NOTHING was brought out of context since I've quoted you TWICE verbatim.

 

[Thundergodd]

Yes, that is the exact Ivan Ooze I speak of. See, back in the day, that movie (or at least that era of PR) had a fighting game. Ooze was a boss/secret character that is regarded by many as the most broken character in any game, as he was designed more with cool boss moves in mind above fairness. To try and balance his absurd strength, he is unable to block. That's a serious weakness for anyone who doesn't have an invulnerable, spammable move that starts infinites, lol. And he was always flying. Lows literally didn't work on him and a lot of the cast couldn't touch him if he flew away. Basically, his worst matchup was 5-5...against himself. The rest were literal 10-0's. He had no reason to lose..

Ahhh, okay. I remember that dude. My daughter used to like Power Rangers and he used to crack me up in that movie.

My point was to see what your line is. Are you going to stick to the no nerfs ever philosophy, even in the face of utter insanity?

Of course not. If the IJ2 was that bad, I'd be at the head of the crowd with my pitchfork.

You keep bringing up the feelings of the nerfed character mains. This isn't about them, it's about being as near to parity as possible. Why do the feelings of people who like a character matter so much more than the people forced to play against that character in uphill struggles at basically every turn because power=prevalance.

There's really only been one time when my main has been significantly nerfed. I liked Boneshaper Shinnok a lot, he got buffed to S-tier, and then they nerfed him. I dropped him because I honestly thought he wasn't nerfed nearly hard enough. I felt like he was just a crutch for my own inadequacies, getting me wins over players that I wasn't quite on the same level as.

Okay, I feel you. Understand I don't play Adam because he's powerful, I play him because I'm a fan of his in comics. I bought the game because I knew Adam was going to be in it and I greatly enjoy his playstyle.

Your attitude of self improvement and rising above the obstacles and challenges a game has to offer is admirable, but I'd also wager you aren't experienced enough to recognize the difference between something that's actually a problem and you getting outplayed.

In this you're probably right. I just tend to admire people using low-tier characters and beating the crap out of people. Akromaniac's Wonder Woman is nothing short of phenomenal.

Just because a character has a weakness, in BA's case he can't wakeup, doesn't mean they can't have strengths that are too strong, and if their strengths get toned down, their weaknesses shouldn't necessarily be addressed in return. If you just knocked 15% damage off adam and gave him more invincibility on wakeup, he'd probably end up better than he is now.

Do you really think this?? Really?

Thanks man, for your input on this.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

Are we absolutely certain that made of metal / esg jagged / dr innuendo doesn't have another hidey?

 

[Zoidberg747]

Dude, this is NOT what you said. You're slightly altering things. Here is your EXACT quote verbatim......



Let's break this down----

You said that you are "qualified". This is the term YOU used!! QUALIFIED!
Definition of qualified
1a : fitted (as by training or experience) for a given purpose : competentb : having complied with the specific requirements or precedent conditions.
b : having complied with the specific requirements or precedent conditions


And why did you think you were qualified? Notice the underlined sentence: because you play them with money on the line.

You being a tournament player really has nothing to do with this subject but YOU brought it up. No one else; just YOU!

@Second Saint, @Mr_Aladdin_Sir and @EntropicByDesign replied with excellent post pointing out why nerfs are good without mentioning if they play professional or not.


Many here are not tournament players but I'm sure they're as qualified as you are in giving their opinion.

NOTHING was brought out of context since I've quoted you TWICE verbatim.

It has everything to do with the subject. I play these characters with money on the line. That means that I have a vested interest in their viability. Nowhere did I say that people who don't enter tournaments aren't qualified to speak on the subject or that they also don't have a vested interest in character viability. All of that is you assuming that's what I meant.

I'm sorry you got butthurt about someone saying they compete in tournaments on a competitive NRS website.