Balance patch nerfs the top tier characters instead of buffing the low tier characters

>Balance patch nerfs the top tier characters instead of buffing the low tier characters
Why do so many games do this shit? Instead of balancing the game by making everyone good they make everyone suck instead so it can be as boring as possible.

Attached: 1538081911232.png (258x228, 146.44K)

>wanting perpetual powercreep

Attached: Adachi.jpg (208x242, 8.18K)

That's not power creep though.

Attached: 1509330964555.png (211x244, 72.16K)

You must love mugen

>NOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST NERF MY BROKEN CHARACTER THIS ISN"T FAIR

Attached: 1567467030650.png (434x327, 54.61K)

It requires less ressources

the effect of these two things is the same. I think you might be retarded and possibly gay

>A is too strong, gotta buff B, C, D
>Aw shit, now B is too strong, gotta buff A, C, and D
>Aw shit, now C is too strong, gotta buff A, B, and D
>Aw shit, now D is too strong, gotta buff A, B, and C
>Aw shit, now A is too strong, gotta buff B, C, and D
>repeat

You buff B C and D to the same level as A not making them even stronger.

>devs ever balancing anything perfectly

If things were that easy we'd never need balance patches to begin with.

>DUDE BUFFS GOOD NERFS BAD

End this meme.

There are times when buffing lower tier characters is a good idea and can solve the problem, but there's also times where top tier characters do legitmately need nerfs.

This is an extreme, obvious example, but if a character in a fighting game has a move that's super plus on block, has a big as fuck hitbox, does great damage, and leads into a full combo, tyhen yeah, that shit probablyt needs a nerf and buffing other characters to have similar moves will just cause everybody to have one broken move they can brainlessly throw out whenever.

Because if you make every character strong you end up with the absolute mess that is League of Legends.

Listen up fagface. Your opinion is shit. The only reason you have this opinion is because you're too retarded to evaluate anything objectively. The only thing you see is that your feelings were hurt by your character's power being reduced, so it must be bad. You're unable to see past your emotions and you will probably never have the mental capacity to do so, as a result you should stop sharing your room-temperature IQ thoughts.

Attached: jagsfan.jpg (341x500, 44.83K)

Both should happen at once instead of it being an either or decision

don't talk about gran lance and katalina that way user

Attached: 123434568679.png (728x726, 748.34K)

>Balance patch nerfs the low tier character instead of nerfing the high tier character

Attached: MOMPJjG.png (700x777, 240.92K)

nerfs are quick and easy

nah
games like melty or unist have the whole cast with huge, disjointed hitboxes and retarded OP moves and they're better for it. there is beauty in everyone being stupidly strong.
you just gotta be a big boy game designer and do it well :^)

>last balance patch of the game buffs the S+ top tier
Fucking ASW man. Now the last version of GGXrd will forever have that johnny.

Attached: Smug Leo.png (937x841, 709.95K)

>unist
>doing it well
They fucking BUFFED VATISTA AND SETH

ASW legit just dicerolls for their balance decisions.

Probably because the game was build around a given resource or tempo and by buffing characters it's more likely they would break those characteristics and end in a buff/nerf loop.

Notice how the
>NERFS BAD BUFFS GOOD
crowd ALWAYS mains top tiers. Those niggers refuse to admit that their main is overtuned and that the meta of their game would be healthier if they got toned down a bit.

Buffing the weak characters is how you get Brawl Minus.

>not wanting your game to be better
>thinking X is bad because you labeled it with a buzzworld

Attached: mei_1000pi_by_omar_dogan-da80i30.jpg (651x1000, 679.29K)

no I dont
and nerfs are bad because they make you feel bad and depending on how it's done, actually ruin how a character players
for example I think you should be very, very careful to nerf moves by touching active frame if at all. because that shit just feels awful to play afterwards.

>nerfs suck if they're not implemented correctly
No shit. Now tell me why nerfing an obviously broken character/move is a bad thing.

If I were a game dev, I would simply balance the game perfectly

Attached: 1582276143768.gif (461x346, 148.55K)

This is the true gigachad play. Specifically, it shouldn't be a comical, massive nerf of a mediocre character or class, it has to be juuuuuust enough to convey the message "yup, we pored over months of gameplay data and had a team holistically examining the entire game's meta, and we came to the conclusion that the one burning issue we had to fix was that Kirby's back aerial had 5% too much knockback".

Attached: i came here to mya at you.png (1123x1080, 736.96K)

lol

Just have one character in your fighting game. Boom, perfect balance.

underage get out

Often time, a strong character is too “complete” with no weakness and every single tool is strong. Buffing other weaker to that level would need to give those weak characters the same advantage, but doing so, would homogenize the whole cast. By giving nerfing the strong characters and giving them flaws and risks for using their tools, the cast remains more diverse in playstyle

>NERFS GOOD BUFFS BAD
>t. Blizzard employee
why do you faggots hate fun?

Attached: mugi_masennus.jpg (1024x1024, 113.83K)

because balance is a golden calf and none of the best games were perfectly balanced. it's more important for a game to be interesting than balanced and as long as that's the case, there's no need to shake things up. all the games striving for perfect balanced slowly turn into boring shit where nobody is allowed to be capable of anything interesting lest it upsets the balance

sounds like team fortress 2

is there a particular game is OP talking about? My first thought was a fighting game but it's probably like league or some shit

>They fucking BUFFED VATISTA AND SETH

Attached: soy121.jpg (491x625, 150.85K)

Buffing everyone isn’t always plausible. Imagine a game like Dota 2 or Smash Ultimate where you have near hundred or over hundred characters, then they end up changing something on one character that ends up being unexpectedly powerful and getting ridiculously high pickrates. Which is the easier solution?
>buffing all of the rest, meaning that you need to rethink the balance of 100 characters
>nerfing the one outlier to better match the average level of performance

Obviously same goes the other way, if someone ends up underperforming super hard, it’s better to buff that one character than to try to nerf others to match that performance level. Personally, I see game balancing like a series of pegs: if one peg in a long row is up too high or too low, just go hammer it to better match the others.

But I like fun, user. Do you think there being no character variation because one character dominates the meta is fun?