Project M Social Thread

[bubbaking]

If a character happens to be viable but not as effective as the rest of the cast, we may still leave him/her alone.

Then just leave everyone alone, 'cause that's exactly G&W and Wario are.

 

[Rikana]

Not a lot of people are playing as GaW and wario so we don't know if they're as bad as you think they are. And notice I said the word "may". That doesn't imply we won't do something about it.



Also, using the terms "buff" and "nerf" is kind of incorrect in this context regarding the mod when it's not even done. We all know it's an ongoing project and many things can still be altered with varying degrees.

 

[GaretHax]

Not a lot of people are playing as GaW and wario so we don't know if they're as bad as you think they are. And notice I said the word "may". That doesn't imply we won't do something about it.



Also, using the terms "buff" and "nerf" is kind of incorrect in this context regarding the mod when it's not even done. We all know it's an ongoing project and many things can still be altered with varying degrees.

Buff and nerf are terms for games like WOW, in which the dev's are constantly making dramitic, knee-jerk, changes without any real tangible knowledge of necessity, impact, or even what to change 99% of the time.

PMBR hones, tones, and perfects =p

 

[`dazrin]

^ Pretty much.

I've said it once in here, and I'll say it again. In 2.5, many of the changes to characters were mainly changes to design, and how things work. "Buffing" and "Nerfing" are terms you use when you simply limit the effectiveness of a certain function. What we have been doing, is mostly changing the core function altogether, and whether it is more effective or not is merely a bi-product on how the function was reworked. Not to say that we don't have control over balance, because reworks definitely influence it, but you get the idea.

The character spotlight updates are pretty much a testament to this.

We have a bunch of playtesters constantly playing, uploading videos, and giving feedback on certain characters in the backroom. Worry not!

 

[bubbaking]

"Buffing" and "Nerfing" are terms you use when you simply limit the effectiveness of a certain function.

So going by this, Ike's QD and Eruption were definitely "nerfed" because their core functions are the same; they're just slower/smaller.

/JustSayin'...

 

[metroid1117]

Make your Ike recover ABNORMALLY FAR!!!

 

[standardtoaster]

definitely not as spectacular as I thought it would be metroid :<

 

[metroid1117]

definitely not as spectacular as I thought it would be metroid :<

Sadface. It's hard to compare to SS's walljump recovery on FoD though.

 

[Shadic]

So going by this, Ike's QD and Eruption were definitely "nerfed" because their core functions are the same; they're just slower/smaller.

/JustSayin'...

If you narrow your scope enough, you could see everything as a buff or a nerf. I wouldn't advise it though, as it's a shallow way of looking at things.

Characters aren't single moves. (Or they shouldn't be.)

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Buff and nerf are terms for games like WOW, in which the dev's are constantly making dramitic, knee-jerk, changes without any real tangible knowledge of necessity, impact, or even what to change 99% of the time.

PMBR hones, tones, and perfects =p

It's not even comparable. I'm not meat-riding WoW devs or anything (believe me, they do goof up quite a bit), but it's extremely difficult to pin down all of the variables in a game like that.

Smooth Criminal

 

[JOE!]

Well, if he's losing power on many hitboxes (sealing Roy's fate in the process), lost range on QD, lost range and power on eruption... How isn't it a nerf compared to a tweak?

@rikana: I'm not sayin that, what I was responding to was the notion of a better character over a "bad match up". As impossible as it is to make a perfectly balanced roster, shouldnt there be a focus on making gaps between characters as small as possible?

 

[UltiMario]

Because it is a nerf but they don't want to rile people up about nerfing Ike when they said 2.5 wouldn't nerf Ike.

 

[GaretHax]

It's not even comparable. I'm not meat-riding WoW devs or anything (believe me, they do goof up quite a bit), but it's extremely difficult to pin down all of the variables in a game like that.

Smooth Criminal

I disagree to the point that I am having legitamite difficulty finding words for it. I played that damnable game for far longer than I should have (from pre aq vanilla all the way to 80) until I was finally so sick of the assanine homogenization and simplification that I finally wizened up and left for good. I think they are perfectly comparable, current WoW has less moves-per-class that are readily, and commonly, utilized by players, and far fewer classes than PM has characters. Now I could go on for a long time about how I was always a paladin and made that **** work before they were good, or meander down into all the little things I felt ruined the game for myself and anyone else who enjoyed a somewhat stimulating or challenging game. Hell I could probably just ramble about how I was able to make a Ret-Marksman hunter team work in BC (freaking BC get at that seal of casino, also the hunter was and is ungodly good to be fair). But I'm going to leave it at this, imo Smash is definitely comparable to WOW concerning balance, except honestly I think the WOW dev team had it easier. However since neither of us have any tangible experience in balancing either kind of game we are, after all, working with imaginary, and arbitrary, "difficulty" standards.

 

[Strong Badam]

Nerfing implies that we thought the character or aspects of the character were too good. Rather, there were aspects of his moveset we felt weren't conducive to good character design. "Make Ike worse" was not the goal of the changes, so going "They went and nerfed Ike," doesn't tell you the whole picture, especially when you consider the fact that some of his changes are also buffs. You see what I'm getting at?

 

[bubbaking]

Strong Bad never struck me as a brony.....

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I disagree to the point that I am having legitamite difficulty finding words for it. I played that damnable game for far longer than I should have (from LV. 40 cap all the way to 80) when I was finally so sick of the assanine homogenization and simplification that I finally wizened up and left for good. I think it is perfectly comparable, current WoW has less moves-per-class that are readily, and commonly, utilized by players and far fewer classes than PM has characters. Now I could go on for a long time about how I was always a paladin and made that **** work before they were good, or meander down into all the little things I felt ruined the game for me and anyone else who enjoyed a somewhat stimulating or challenging game. Hell I could probably just ramble about how I was able to make a Ret-Marksman hunter team work in BC (freaking BC get at that seal of casino, also the hunter is ungodly good to be fair). But I'm going to leave it at this, imo Smash is definitely comparable to WOW concerning balances, except honestly I think the WOW dev team had it easier. However since neither of us have any tangible experience in balancing either kind of game we are, after all, working with imaginary, and arbitrary, "difficulty" standards.

The P:M team isn't working with an engine that's all about RNGs and its interaction with other elements of the game (Player versus Player, Player versus Environment) which, of course, are constantly changing and shifting around. That in and of itself is of a much broader scope. Not to mention gear, stats, racials, et cetera.

So, I still disagree. You can't compare the two. I'm not saying it's any easier to tweak P:M, but the concept of balance in a MMO is a helluva lot more nebulous and difficult than what you're making it out to be.

Smooth Criminal

 

[rjgbadger]

if a character's move(s) get slower, weaker, or smaller that is definitely a nerf of those moves. you 'tweaked' them to be worse, a la nerfed moves on character.

that doesnt mean i care to much because i still believe devs are doing their jobs to a very high degree, so im not afraid of any rediculous changes

 

[GaretHax]

The P:M team isn't working with an engine that's all about RNGs and its interaction with other elements of the game (Player versus Player, Player versus Environment) which, of course, are constantly changing and shifting around. That in and of itself is of a much broader scope. Not to mention gear, stats, racials, et cetera.

So, I still disagree. You can't compare the two. I'm not saying it's any easier to tweak P:M, but the concept of balance in a MMO is a helluva lot more nebulous and difficult than what you're making it out to be.

Smooth Criminal

I really don't feel like flooding the thread with this, if you want to take this to PM's I wouldn't mind rambling about my ideals of game theory, however it simply doesn't belong in this thread. I will however state that I have yet to experience or hear of these fable days of yore, in which wow achieved some semblence of balance using their "techniques"

 

[McNinja]

Honestly I think you can really look at the "Nerf" thing in two different lights. In one light, it IS technically a nerf, but then in another light, it IS technically a design change.

Its a nerf to the original Ike playstyle if you continue to use him the same way as you do in 2.1. Although he can still be just as good if you play him the way he is suppost to be played according to the changes.


*supposed to

 

[bubbaking]

There's a "supposed to" now?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I will however state that I have yet to experience or hear of these fable days of yore, in which wow achieved some semblence of balance using their "techniques"

I didn't even posit that Blizzard was perfect. I was pointing out that it's extremely difficult for a developer to fix things without affecting some other part of the game if it's in a state of constant flux, even when the finished product goes gold. MMORPGs generally are.

Or do I need to quote myself, and embolden my font to reiterate?

Point out which MMORPGs that have achieved some state of "consistent" balance like you'd find in a fighting game. I'll be waiting.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Stevo]

Basically, they didn't make the changes because Ike was too good and needed to be worse, they made the changes because they feel they are better design choices. That's the difference.

Like almost every person who ever played Falcon for the first time in Melee thought you could use side-b to recover and grab the ledge like fox can. In Project: M (or Brawl I guess), it is a "Buff" to Falcon, but do you think that is really the only reason for that change?

 

[cannedbread]

so i can use my ミドリ tag now?

Spoiler

please respond

 

[JOE!]

Positive design change = buff, negative = nerf.

It's like calling **** "poop", at the end of the day its the same thing.

 

[9Kplus1]

Actually, there are distinct differences between **** and poop. **** is more violent-looking and takes more effort to push out while poop is more subtle and easy to look at.

 

[Sterowent]

There's a "supposed to" now?

it's not just limited to ike. the changes are made for the sake of the style of this game, where precise control of hitboxes is important.

so, it's not so much ike as it is how every character's options are "supposed to" behave.

 

[ELI-mination]

9k stop theory-crapping

 

[McNinja]

There's a "supposed to" now?

Well every move has a way it is generally supposed to be used. Plus, the term "supposed to" isn't concrete. Like screw attacks main purpose is to recover, however it can be used OoS for a defensive option.

Basically what I was getting at was that a few moves that Ike had have had their purpose changed. And if you understand what this new purpose is and use it well, it may not be a nerf. However if you continue to use the changed move in the same way the old move functioned, it would be considered a nerf.

 

[Stevo]

Positive design change = buff, negative = nerf.

nope

a nerf can be a positive design change
and a buf can be a negative design change

 

[Vaerix]

so i can use my ミドリ tag now?

Spoiler

please respond

Seems like yesz.

 

[JOE!]

nope

a nerf can be a positive design change
and a buf can be a negative design change

While true in a global view, on the character level its always the way.

 

[`dazrin]

9k stop theory-crapping

Legitimately laughed pretty hard at this.

 

[GaretHax]

I didn't even posit that Blizzard was perfect. I was pointing out that it's extremely difficult for a developer to fix things without affecting some other part of the game if it's in a state of constant flux, even when the finished product goes gold. MMORPGs generally are.

Or do I need to quote myself, and embolden my font to reiterate?

Point out which MMORPGs that have achieved some state of "consistent" balance like you'd find in a fighting game. I'll be waiting.

Smooth Criminal

Honestly I'm still waiting for fighting games to achieve a state of consistent balance, I don't think it's entirely possible without making the game have polarizing difficulty barriers, whether too small or too high. And honestly MMO's are pretty young I can't really think of any MMO's I would call successful short of WOW and Runscape, the latter has always had a low skill cap and somewhat nice balance, while the former has recently begun to become balanced after becoming less skill oriented and more time-input/gear oriented (not to mention the homogenization of classes to the point that the hybrids are pretty much the same tools and all.) So long story-short I don't think I can honestly. However I feel that is more due to the industry approaching things the wrong way. I guess I could name Guild wars, AOC, Secret world etc but they aren't really successful or balanced per say. However the latter I rather liked because it did away with classes. But I digress, I feel the industry is old and refusing to change from tried and true techniques. I'm honestly excited for Elderscrolls online because if it doesn't suck, which it almost certainly will, the concept and pvp sound fantastic, though I hate perks as a general statement, but who knows maybe someone will finally do them right. Anyway yeah next one over PM's please, also I meant no offense towards you, just WOW lol. Also what stevo said

 

[Stevo]

While true in a global view, on the character level its always the way.

Suppose Character A has a somewhat favorable matchup with Character B and REALLY loses to Character C. Let's say Character C is the best in the game.

Character B beats Character C, which in turn, allows Character A to be viable in tournament, because Character B is used to Counter the best character in the game.

Now suppose you buff Character A in a way that allows it to beat Character B easily now, but doesn't address the issue of how to win against Character C. You could say you would start to see less of Character B, because now it loses BADLY to another character, and more of Character C, because, best in the game.

Now Character A becomes less playable, as Character C is everywhere because it's counter is much less played.

this example is not perfect (metagame shifts would continue to happen), but I just want to give you an example and something to think about.

basically, character B got "buffed", but ended up being "worse".

 

[trash?]

Easier idea to comprehend: a buff that completely negates any problem a character should have is negative character design, because while you're making a character BETTER, it's still a bad, imbalanced design. Good example is meta knight in brawl, who had enough recovery options to work with that his lightness was rendered pointless.

Anyway: stop making sensationalist assumptions off of characters you barely know the changes to. There's something absolutely laughable about someone who knows what they're doing telling you how they're trying to rebalance it, and then just hearing you say "gee that's a funny way to say NERF, NERRRRRRRF" while kicking and screaming.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

It's nerf or nothin', Scarr.

Didn't you get the memo?

Smooth Criminal

 

[Stevo]

Easier idea to comprehend: a buff that completely negates any problem a character should have is negative character design, because while you're making a character BETTER, it's still a bad, imbalanced design. Good example is meta knight in brawl, who had enough recovery options to work with that his lightness was rendered pointless.

Anyway: stop making sensationalist assumptions off of characters you barely know the changes to. There's something absolutely laughable about someone who knows what they're doing telling you how they're trying to rebalance it, and then just hearing you say "gee that's a funny way to say NERF, NERRRRRRRF" while kicking and screaming.

You have to follow our conversation. He already admitted that if you look at a game as a whole a buff may not always be a good thing, but he was trying to argue that if you just look at a specific character a buff is always good for that character, which again, I don't think is true, strictly speaking.

That's not even taking into consideration other things such as making a character less fun if they are too good etc. But I know he wasn't meaning it in that sense.
[COLLAPSE="Collapse"]

Well, if he's losing power on many hitboxes (sealing Roy's fate in the process), lost range on QD, lost range and power on eruption... How isn't it a nerf compared to a tweak?

@rikana: I'm not sayin that, what I was responding to was the notion of a better character over a "bad match up". As impossible as it is to make a perfectly balanced roster, shouldnt there be a focus on making gaps between characters as small as possible?

Basically, they didn't make the changes because Ike was too good and needed to be worse, they made the changes because they feel they are better design choices. That's the difference.

Like almost every person who ever played Falcon for the first time in Melee thought you could use side-b to recover and grab the ledge like fox can. In Project: M (or Brawl I guess), it is a "Buff" to Falcon, but do you think that is really the only reason for that change?

Positive design change = buff, negative = nerf.

It's like calling **** "poop", at the end of the day its the same thing.

nope

a nerf can be a positive design change
and a buf can be a negative design change

While true in a global view, on the character level its always the way.

Suppose Character A has a somewhat favorable matchup with Character B and REALLY loses to Character C. Let's say Character C is the best in the game.

Character B beats Character C, which in turn, allows Character A to be viable in tournament, because Character B is used to Counter the best character in the game.

Now suppose you buff Character A in a way that allows it to beat Character B easily now, but doesn't address the issue of how to win against Character C. You could say you would start to see less of Character B, because now it loses BADLY to another character, and more of Character C, because, best in the game.

Now Character A becomes less playable, as Character C is everywhere because it's counter is much less played.

this example is not perfect (metagame shifts would continue to happen), but I just want to give you an example and something to think about.

basically, character B got "buffed", but ended up being "worse".

[/COLLAPSE]

It's nerf or nothin', Scarr.

Didn't you get the memo?

Smooth Criminal

LOL

 

[Jolteon]

What's wrong with nerfs?

I mean, look at how awesome they look:

 

[cannedbread]

[COLLAPSE="buffs"]

[/COLLAPSE]

 

[Stevo]

You shouldn't look at a character in a vacuum when designing a game.

From a player perspective, you might look at Ike and proclaim he is getting nerfed. From a design perspective, they want to make the game better.

nerf has a negative connotation, and also leads you to believe that they are making a change because something was deemed as too good and needs to be turned down, which is why the PMBR are trying to tell you guys that the change is not meant to be a nerf, regardless of the fact that it technically nerfs some of Ike's moves.

It is not that complicated lol