Why we should buff more than nerf?

[Eddy Wang]

 

[x TeeJay o]

I linked this in my status when he uploaded that. Thanks for making a thread maybe people will see this now it's a great video

 

[SaltShaker]

Eddy this video was really good man. Gonna share it. I mostly agree.

 

[Fred Marvel]

i agree but still nerf Superman into the fucking ground

 

[DC4-3]

Just watched this earlier today. Really informative and a great vid overall. It must be hard trying to make a game balanced, fun to play, and fun to watch as a spectator.

 

[Protagonist_1]

Been watching CoreAgaming for the past couple of months. I love his vids on fighting game philosophy, and this one is no exception.

 

[buyacushun]

Dope video. But I think it only applies to games like BB/GG marvel (Emphasis on crazy offense plus open system) or a game like tekken and sf (pretty balanced on release but more refined system). Could you imagine if MKx went with a buff first philosophy? Everyone plus 20 on everything. That would cross the fun line right into irritating chore to play.

Games like marvel and hokuto no ken can get away with being broken or near broken because the base system allows you to play with it/around it. Systems like MKX, SFV, T7 can't get away with as many things.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

My theory had always been that you Do Whatever Needs to Be Done. The key is that this is *different for every game* and depends on the state in which it launches. This means you cannot:

-Advocate for a set number or interval or patches. How much you need to patch depends on how big each patch is (small or sweeping), how many bugs there are to fix and how severe they are, and how successful each patch has been.

-Advocate for either a mostly-nerf or mostly-buff approach before you know the meta. Whether you nerf or buff depends completely on how the characters' tools are functioning in game. If characters are dominant with 1-note tools that make them incredibly boring and easy to play, you nerf them in order to require a more calculated approach. If characters are weak because their tools don't play well in the meta or they are lacking in key areas, you buff them so that they fit.

There isn't one right approach -- and if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that it's pointless to tell a developer how they should be balancing their game before the game even launches. Observe first, learn, and then react accordingly.

 

[KHTC Takgillo]

Core-A gaming is the goat literally make the best FGC videos

 

[JDM]

Very good video. I went in thinking he was gonna be way off base but his argument is fantastic and presents it well.

 

[Altaire]

"The ultimate goal of nerfing and buffing isn't to balance, but to make a game that's fun to play and watch."

Probably one of the smartest generalizations I've heard about fighting games, or really any game for that matter. I mean, yeah, it's probably worth noting that better balance usually means more fun (or, more accurately, that less balance usually amounts to more frustration), but just because there's a relation between the two doesn't mean that they're mutually exclusive. It also really gets it right in the sense that there are "good" and "bad" ways to achieve what is essentially the same level of balance, which is where the real test of a game designer is. Think about it, some nerfs do "feel" worse than others. For instance, I can see how the Superman nerfs didn't "feel" that bad in IGAU; he still played more or less the same, the nerfs just made him more honest. In contrast, the Killer Frost nerfs obviously made her feel so much weaker. This doesn't necessarily mean she shouldn't have been nerfed, but it's a good example of the distinction between a nerf that really hurts you, and a nerf that doesn't.

First time I've heard of this channel. Subbing just because of this video.

 

[Evil Canadian]

Yeah I get it, but follow me on this one here
how about instead of buffing characters

we just nerf them
maybe tiny buff people who are really bad

but if those really bad characters become even decent, nerf them too.

 

[I.z.u.n.a.]

You don't want to make things too fun or overpowered though. Cause then it becomes like MKX where whoever gets their offense going just runs a train on their opponent until they die. It just becomes so derpy that you give more credit to the character than the player, and that's when people stop playing.

There is a balance to be struck.

 

[Altaire]

You don't want to make things too fun or overpowered though. Cause then it becomes like MKX where whoever gets their offense going just runs a train on their opponent until they die. It just becomes so derpy that you give more credit to the character than the player, and that's when people stop playing.

There is a balance to be struck.

MKX? I think I've heard of that. Isn't that the game where most blockstrings are at least slightly negative, meaning that you can counterpoke them with any decent D1 or D3 to beat out any further attempts at pressure, including the other guy's D1 or D3?

And then like, once you start doing that, he has to start doing things like jumping/back dashing/spending meter on armor whenever he anticipates your counterpoke, all of which force him to interrupt his offense in some way?

And then, even if all else fails, you have the option of delayed recovery after you're knocked down, meaning you always at least have a chance to keep the other guy guessing?

I'm asking, in all honesty: What is your basis for the offense in MKX being so good that there's no way to defend against it?

And for that matter, if you really feel like that's the case, why don't you just play a character like Sub, who has a relatively safe armored reversal that launches for full combos? Damn dude, sounds like a pretty good deal to me if you're having issues with defense.

 

[I.z.u.n.a.]

MKX? I think I've heard of that. Isn't that the game where most blockstrings are at least slightly negative, meaning that you can counterpoke them with any decent D1 or D3 to beat out any further attempts at pressure, including the other guy's D1 or D3?

And then like, once you start doing that, he has to start doing things like jumping/back dashing/spending meter on armor whenever he anticipates your counterpoke, all of which force him to interrupt his offense in some way?

And then, even if all else fails, you have the option of delayed recovery after you're knocked down, meaning you always at least have a chance to keep the other guy guessing?

I'm asking, in all honesty: What is your basis for the offense in MKX being so good that there's no way to defend against it?

And for that matter, if you really feel like that's the case, why don't you just play a character like Sub, who has a relatively safe armored reversal that launches for full combos? Damn dude, sounds like a pretty good deal to me if you're having issues with defense.

The latest version of MKX is more balanced and it's not as bad as when it started. It's fine now.

Upon release though, throughout the patches, and some of the DLC there were characters that just got silly once they got started. Kung Lao with the +20 ex orbital hat, Shinnok with the +20 hell sparks, Quan with the looping 50/50's for days, Tremor with the + frame launching armor and over half life combos, Raiden with the mid hitting f2 and safe vortexes in the corner, D'Vorah and the constant + frame bug cancels and puddles, Tanya and Alien with the rekkas, and the list goes on.

All these characters were super strong to the point where it was just silly and you couldn't take losing seriously. That's why it's dangerous just to say, "buff all the weak characters to be as good as the best ones" because the game becomes too derpy to take seriously then.

 

[Aramonde]

I love Core A gaming i recommend all their videos. This video made me think how NRS will just totally take out things either for "Paulo's vision" or because everyone doesn't like it. Like removing almost all armored launchers to make it "more" balanced and doing so screws up variations that depend on them like Warlock Quan Chi.

 

[LiangHuBBB]

good stuff by core A gaming as usual

 

[GLoRToR]

I've been saying this very same thing for how many years now?

 

[Altaire]

The latest version of MKX is more balanced and it's not as bad as when it started. It's fine now.

Upon release though, throughout the patches, and some of the DLC there were characters that just got silly once they got started. Kung Lao with the +20 ex orbital hat, Shinnok with the +20 hell sparks, Quan with the looping 50/50's for days, Tremor with the + frame launching armor and over half life combos, Raiden with the mid hitting f2 and safe vortexes in the corner, D'Vorah and the constant + frame bug cancels and puddles, Tanya and Alien with the rekkas, and the list goes on.

All these characters were super strong to the point where it was just silly and you couldn't take losing seriously. That's why it's dangerous just to say, "buff all the weak characters to be as good as the best ones" because the game becomes too derpy to take seriously then.

I see your point, somewhat, but most of these are pretty tame examples of heavy-handed buffing (aside from Summoner being really dumb, and Tanya/Alien just having overloaded numbers all across the board). Realistically, it's going to happen to some extent. If a fighting game I like is even MOSTLY balanced, I consider that a blessing. Relative to other fighting games, I don't think Lao or Shinnok were ever really "broken". When a character is genuinely broken, they're so out of control that the entire metagame revolves around them (Kabal and Kenshi come to mind). Even Summoner probably never got to that point. Alien and Tanya probably came the closest, but nothing was ever as obnoxious as the ugliest that MK9 or IGAU ever got.

I think you can agree that there's a difference between a character being too good, and a character being broken. A character being too good elicits a reaction of "okay, this guy should probably be toned down." A character being broken elicits a reaction of "yo dude can we pause this set for like two minutes? I need to finish tweeting this death threat to @pakostevens".

 

[I.z.u.n.a.]

I see your point, somewhat, but most of these are pretty tame examples of heavy-handed buffing (aside from Summoner being pants-on-head (soap bar in my mouth), and Tanya/Alien just having overloaded numbers all across the board). Realistically, it's going to happen to some extent. If a fighting game I like is even MOSTLY balanced, I consider that a blessing. Relative to other fighting games, I don't think Lao or Shinnok were ever really "broken". When a character is genuinely broken, they're so out of control that the entire metagame revolves around them (Kabal and Kenshi come to mind). Even Summoner probably never got to that point. Alien and Tanya probably came the closest, but nothing was ever as obnoxious as the ugliest that MK9 or IGAU ever got.

I think you can agree that there's a difference between a character being too good, and a character being broken. A character being too good elicits a reaction of "okay, this guy should probably be toned down." A character being broken elicits a reaction of "yo dude can we pause this set for like two minutes? I need to finish tweeting this death threat to @pakostevens".

No you are right I don't think those characters were broken. They were doing exactly as they were designed to do, but it was just too much. I used the words silly and derpy, not broken.

 

[Komatose]

SFV almost had this approach. But I agree.