A look at balancing. Are nerfs really needed?

[Hylian]

Just sparking up some discussion here.

I don't know how familiar any of you are with fighting games in general, or balancing but something a lot of gamers strive for when balancing is not nerfing anything unless absolutly needed.

This is because of a little thing we like to call options. More options generally = more depth. Depth is good. When several situations that arise in competitve gameplay only have 1 or 2 best options, then trends start to form. Having several paths to go down rather then a "best" option tends to make games more exciting/competitve.

I'm kind of dragging this on but I think you guys get the general point of what I'm trying to say. Let's see some discussion on the prospect of focusing on buffing rather then nerfing characters. Pros, cons etc..

 

[Blank Mauser]

I generally agree that more options = more depth, and that an option being good is not a bad thing. I also think with the tools available there are ways to buff all characters to a respectable level without ruining diversity.

A lot of people tell me they wouldn't like a "Game full of metaknights" and want a challenge, but I feel in the best games the challenge should come from the opposite player not your character.

 

[GHNeko]

I'm looking into trying to give character options that are only so effective, but are still proportionate to the rest of the cast. Even if a character has options, if there are 2-3 options out of a dozen that shine consistantly, would would be the point of using those other options?

I want options to be proportionately effective to the rest of a characters moveset, or at least a nice portion of the character's options.

 

[CT Chia]

I agree to a point where sometimes (which has happened from side effects of other codes) when some techniques become too overpowered like the few overused techniques like you said. However instead of buffing other options to that level, sometimes the top ones need to be toned down. If we continue to buff everything to such levels, we might start to end up with a game like 64, where any hits can practically lead to 0-deaths. While interesting on the surface, it's overall unpreferred for a game we are in control of.

The problem with this is that this kind of game just isn't naturally suited for Brawl. If we get too many overused techniques that people try to rely on, people will put more work into avoiding being hit by these combo starters in matches leading to more camping with the extreme defense oriented nature of Brawl with air dodges, side dodges, shields, rolling, and ledge camping.

 

[Team Giza]

Just sparking up some discussion here.

I don't know how familiar any of you are with fighting games in general, or balancing but something a lot of gamers strive for when balancing is not nerfing anything unless absolutly needed.

This is because of a little thing we like to call options. More options generally = more depth. Depth is good. When several situations that arise in competitve gameplay only have 1 or 2 best options, then trends start to form. Having several paths to go down rather then a "best" option tends to make games more exciting/competitve.

Your post is a huge simplification of everything a designer has to go through when doing balancing. The way you explain things however seems to give off the vibe to me that you have never done much game balancing or have closely worked or talked to people who have done game balancing in the past.

First of all, more options do not generally equal more depth unless the options are well thought out. Yes, its good for you to be able to go down several paths instead of just having one "best" option after another. However, if you don't have nerfs as an option to be used unless its absolutely needed you run the risk of having a move be the 'better' option in way too many situations. When this happens it makes the game boring for new comers to get into it and it makes the game less enjoyable long term which is bad if you are working for a competitive base like we are. Usually I go for the buffing of other options and other characters first but nerfing is still a very valuable tool. It helps with both with making a game more balanced and more fun for both the player using the nerfed character and the person playing again.

So even though I sort of agree with some of the concepts you point out, I still believe it is an outrageous over simplification.

 

[GHNeko]

Your post is a huge simplification of everything a designer has to go through when doing balancing. The way you explain things however seems to give off the vibe to me that you have never done much game balancing or have closely worked or talked to people who have done game balancing in the past.

First of all, more options do not generally equal more depth unless the options are well thought out. Yes, its good for you to be able to go down several paths instead of just having one "best" option after another. However, if you don't have nerfs as an option to be used unless its absolutely needed you run the risk of having a move be the 'better' option in way too many situations. When this happens it makes the game boring for new comers to get into it and it makes the game less enjoyable long term which is bad if you are working for a competitive base like we are. Usually I go for the buffing of other options and other characters first but nerfing is still a very valuable tool. It helps with both with making a game more balanced and more fun for both the player using the nerfed character and the person playing again.

So even though I sort of agree with some of the concepts you point out, I still believe it is an outrageous over simplification.

...Didn't I just say that in waaay less words. xD

What we should be looking into is balancing options to a comfortable range within a character, then balancing the options in comparision to the cast.

 

[Hylian]

Um, I didn't go in depth at all in my post and was giving general points to stir discussion on the matter.

Devils advocate if you will.

 

[JCaesar]

I agree to a point. People already complain enough about how many "inescapable" combos B+ has.

We have to be careful not to overbuff individual moves though. Let's take Wolf's shine as an example (when we gave it Melee Falco shine properties for a few sets). It turned out that, just by the properties of the move itself (high priority, invincibility frames, fast startup, set knockback, perfect setup into fair, bair, and even dair against some characters), it was the best option in most situations and actually reduced Wolf's depth imo. Are they approaching with an aerial? Shine. Are they rolling behind you? Shine. Are they comboing you and trying to follow up? Shine. Are they getting up from the ledge? Shine. And it always set up into one of his best kill moves at any %. His game devolved into timing the shine to beat whatever your opponent did, and then follow up with whatever you want.

A few adjustments could have made it a balanced move (no invincibility, KBG, but they weren't possible at the time), but that's just an example of a move that had to be nerfed (yes, due to an overbuff, but that doesn't really matter) to maintain balance.

Another one that's self-explanatory: Marth's side-B.

 

[Revven]

I think that there are some moves that are worth nerfing if they prove to be too potent. MK's tornado is a great example of something we nerfed that was one of MK's best options to rack up damage on a majority of the cast. It shield pokes, it does a lot of shield damage, it can go through shields if you're not careful (or if you're DK), it racked up crazy amounts of damage (about 20%+ or so if you got all the hits in), it went crazy high, and was lagless if you measured your height from the ground and timed when the animation would barely end.

The move is still good, however, the nerfs given to it don't make it nearly as what it was before. In fact, it is rarely used now by MK (at least in my experience) because characters can now actually punish it, whereas before they couldn't ever punish it either because they had no moves that broke through it or MK would be lagless and continue to poke and peck away at your shield with his other various ranged moves.

I feel that was a needed nerf because it completely distorted match-ups where the character(s) were more worried about the tornado than MK himself. Being a DK main, this was one of my fears as well, since I have a horrible shield and can take the most damage right below Bowser who probably takes even more.

It was needed because it caused characters to focus on that one move and the move was also very good, too good in fact. Something of the same option was Marth's Side B, but perhaps much worse than MK's tornado because you could actually get away with spamming it or 'maining' it if you will (although MK's tornado could be spammed just as well but, I don't believe you could do it as good as you could for Marth's Side B). But anyway, I'm rambling on, nerfing the tornado doesn't ruin MK's depth because now he actually has to work on doing damage another way instead of pressing B to rack up 20% or so at the beginning of every stock or at any %. Yes it tones down an option, no it doesn't completely get rid of it (it's still good, just not AS good before). If anything, it brings MK depth rather than losing it. (Because again, pressing B to rack up damage isn't depth, finding a different way to rack up that same damage is though).

Overall, we haven't given nerfs to many characters yet, only like 3-4 and the nerfs have been either minimal or impact the character in some way (Marth's Up B was overnerfed). I feel that looking at MK's tornado, it's a good example of an option that needed nerfing simply because it was too good in a lot of situations, against a lot of characters and made MK easy to learn and require not as much work to main (plus, nerfing the tornado actually gives SOME depth to MK, instead of relying on tornado to rack up that 20% you need for the kill or just for easy damage).

Dunno if that really answers the question... Just felt like bringing MK's tornado to the table as an example (aside from Marth's Side B).

 

[ZodiakLucien]

I agree buffing should be looked into more closely then nerfing. It is easier to adjust to a buff then to a nerf. The thing is though I believe nerfs should be used when a move basically is good at too many things at once. For instance marths side B, his side B basically gets rid of use out of all his other ground moves. His side B is just better and safer in almost any situation on the ground. That however does not create depth.

 

[teh_spamerer]

I 100% agree with the general idea that having more options is better than having less options for the most part.

 

[Blank Mauser]

I think from reading this thread a lot of people are looking out for that tipping point, where the offense is too grand, too easy, happens too fast to see any viable refute against it. While this is a respectable outlook, we also have to really look at what we encourage with our changes.

When providing the most natural guidance then we see how the top tiers begin to emerge. Characters that are safe and hard to combo, have disjointed hard to approach hitboxes, are unpunishable with most of their moves. You could easily rest blame on their movesets, its just the way they are, however you could also attribute it to the fact that many characters do not have the tools to handle such things. I really think this is a legit concern that is showing itself already.

A lot of people are admitting that Brawl+ is going to require CP's, more then one main will be required to win tourneys. One CP that is all too common is all it takes to clean up a lot of the cast's viability though. By not buffing their combos or offensive capabilities in general simply because their relative ease of use, or comparable advantage over similar purpose moves, you are inherently buffing other characters who have all that and more, or simply don't need it to win. I think we need to buff with the mindset that all characters will get what they deserve, buff in comparison to the big picture. There is nothing wrong with a character having a better move. A good, scary move. A threatening one with uses we have never seen before, uses that may deny the characteristics of other similar moves. That is how we can keep diversity and balance.