Is this true Sup Forums?

Is this true Sup Forums?
Should there be more buffs than nerfs?

Does anyone here think I'm a giant faggot?

Why don't you just watch the video you took the video from?

Sup Forums can't discuss fighting games anyway.

Well playing a gimped character feels like shit so buffing a shit character to good is a dream come true.

IMO, yes. Unless something is obviously and disgustingly broken, it is better for the game at large if instead of the good things being nerfed, the bad things get buffed to fill out more niches.
Nerfing usually backfires, as OP character A was keeping OP character B down as a counter, and now OP character B has no solid counter in the meta.
Buffing rarely has such issues, and generally makes a meta more diverse and unpredictable.
Plus, it feels like shit to have your hard work getting gud invalidated by Patch 1.34.

Yes, a game full of overpowered characters is waaay more fun that a game full of nerfed shitters.

>1 character is overpowered
>Implement 30 buffs
>Or 1 nerf
HMMMM

If character #4 in a game of 10 characters is too strong then its easier to nerf him than it is to buff the other 9 characters with different mechanics someone of which fulfill a similar purpose.

>buff everything
>game suffers from Marvel syndrome

No. There should be buffs and nerfs in the proper amounts required to maintain the current level of power.

When you designed a game, you designed it at a certain power level. Power creeping or nerfbombing is the amateur's tool to keep from having to do their damn job.

If you want to keep a game being played, you HAVE to constantly update it, otherwise it will just naturally die out because people will just move on to the next big thing. Powercreep is necessary and natural to extend a game's life and keep people from leaving.

Melee

>Melee

this is precisely why video games will never be actual sports

Broodwar

>What if basketball had 2 balls and a bunch of spike traps!

No one plays the game.
It's just 10 or so people which are extremely good at it and everyone just watches them play each other endlessly.

bait

It's the opposite for an autistic playerbase. You're not allowed to change anything. Period.

This. It really depends if it's one character shitting on everything else or one character being extremely underwhelming.

You just can't make a stupid blanket statement like Buffs > Nerfs without proper context.

Depends on the overall power levels and the objective of the game. Giving every character an "I win" button is balanced but would make a shitty game

This is why Overwatch will never be as good as TF2 lmao

Buffs are always more enjoyable, but tend to be more work.

Melee is a weird fucking case, because it's somehow still developing. Other fighting games die because they reach a point where the meta stagnates and all playstyles become the same, hence the need for patches, or for the game to crash and burn.
Melee has managed to avoid this, probably because it plays a lot differently than traditional fighting games due to its larger emphasis on movement.

For SFV, yeah. For something like Xrd, a bit of both.

The fact that it's Nintendo nostalgia plays a huge role. You can't deny this.

Yes but a good patch would have both.

The best way to balance things is to make everyone equally broken. It'll cancel out at some point

It certainly has a role, but I wouldn't call it huge.
If Brawl or Smash 4 played similarly to Melee, the Melee scene would be dead.

fucking noobs

Not when one guy is league more broken than the other guys.

Not him but while it's true, I don't think it's as big as you think either. Brawl had the same and it died far before Smash 4 was a concept.

Then you make everyone else as broken as that one guy.

>they actually did this in cod

No that is an oversimplistic approach and balancing should be done on a case by case basis

Buffing too much can make the game a ridiculous touch of death/setplay fest where guessing wrong once or twice loses you a game and denies the other play legitimate reponses so it turns into an arcsys/marvel style 'You always want to be the one on offense' type game

enjoy your power creep

Yeah. Nerfs are no fun. Buffs are more fun.

Buffs for sure.

That is impossible unless you make everyone the same

Honestly, I'd like to see how much a game could change with just a constant stream of buffs trying to out break each other to the point where its considered normal.

This is a perfect example of Melee. Rather than asking for nerfs or buffs like capcucks, they adapted. And now it is one of the most popular fighting games today.

Why can't the game just be updated with more characters instead?Or when you win a fight you get points that can be used for buying skins you can also buy with money.

>He hasn't played the Tr4sh mod

No. Both need to applied with care and thought. Each situation requires a specific change.

>He hasn't played Brawl-

This leads to ridiculous playstyle.

A decent balance of buffs and nerfs, on a case to case basis, is the best model.

>balancing should be done on a case by case basis
while I do agree with this it's important to note that doing it this way becomes increasingly difficult the larger the roster, especially since the number one indicator of how strong a character is is how does he fare against the rest of the cast.

Adapting doesn't have shit to do with balance. Melee is imbalanced as fuck

no, because it causes power creep

And 80% of the cast is useless because no matter how much you adapt they're objectively worse at an equal skill level lmao

>buff 30 characters so they are feel viable
>nerf 1 character so none feel viable
HMMMM

Varies.

In fighting games there's a better case for nerfs because each fight is 1v1. In MOBAs, shooters, etc. I think buffs are overall better since you can buff specific counters instead of having to buff the entire cast.

If by adapting, you mean, people learned to stick with the same 5 characters out of 26 then sure

>nerf 1 character so none feel viable
what did he mean by this

I feel like nerfs are less pleasant, but it stays closer to the dev vision. Also, this topic depends on the kind of game, it's not a huge deal for a fighter to employ some buffs but on stuff like MMOs they make or break the game. A typical Korean MMORPG tend to buff the weak rather than nerf the strong, because they're pussies and can't handle threats from non core, casual audience who leaves eventually regardless anyway. As a result, the pvm/pve side of things get hilariously easy and inflation hits the games, and they still manage to fuck up balancing, all while turning the game entirely something different from what it was when it was popular.

Nerfing while adding content is the way to go for a game's longetivity.

sports rules never change

Sports rule change all the time, especially for professional ones.

There should be balance, buffs and nerfs are irrelevant. Apply whatever you need to apply less of to achieve balance.

I'm out of this shithole thread.

Characters should onl be nerfed if they are blatantly broken or their mere presence makes half the cast unviable.

>MUH DPS!
Fuck off, gook.

he's just shitposting but I suppose if you nerfed a powerful support character it might make many other characters weaker as well, and warp the balance of the game.

Everyone using exploits doesn't count as """""""""""""adapting"""""""""""""

how the fuck you gonna patch a gamecube game?

ship revised copies, it's been done in situations where there was a serious gamebreaking bug.

If everyone is overpowered and can 100% combo you, that's balanced, right?

They "adapted" because they have no other choice seeing as Melee will never have an official update.

People in this day ask for buffs and nerfs because the internet makes it possible. Back in the day people did "adapt" because the only way to nerf or buff characters was to release "Super Turbo" editions of games, which you know, unless you're Capcom or Gamefreak, won't work out in your favor very well, at least most of the time.

daily reminder

>Sup Forums
>discuss

pick one

Exactly,

Like dota even it is balanced, you still need to buff n nerf anywhere just to make those shitheads feel like they are playing something new.

>game is solved and stale
>You can't catch up to a decade of experience and muscle memory
If it's not progressing why can't you catch up?

Where should I go if I pick the 2nd one

That's like saying Photoshop or Illustrator, or Math and Science. Both need to be looked at.

Buffs can make overcreeping and that sucks major balls, everyone one shotting each other can suck badly.

Nerfs can make the game last too long being unfun.

Extremes are never good, true balance is doing it depending on the game. It depends on the situation.

If only 6 characters are good and the rest suck.

Should the 6 characters be nerfed or the rest be buffed? Should it be both? Wouldn't both be too much?

It all depends, there is no easy answer.

Yes but there should also be no drastically fucking changing a character's play style to the point it no longer resembles the character they're supposed to be.

I'M LOOKING AT JURI CAPCOM. FIX IT.

FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIX

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER

>trash bros melee
>still developing

Please don't make me laugh.

not him, I wouldn't use the word developing because it can be easily misunderstood

I think he meant to say that melee's meta is still evolving

>I think he meant to say that melee's meta is still evolving

That's how I interpreted it and that's wrong as hell.

hell no, HNK is not balanced at all. Sure everyone can 100% but toki, roah and rei have so many more tools and ways to convert into the 100% than the rest of the cast. Toki doesn't even need to 100% you, he will just knock off all your stars, pressure you until your dead and FKO you in the next round. Still a fun game though.

>That's how I interpreted it and that's wrong as hell.

and why do you say that?

competitors are still learning meta gameplay about other competitors.

>competitors are still learning meta gameplay about other competitors.

lmao yet meleefags will say Marvel shouldn't be at evo this year cause everyone is tired of it and it's figured out already.

>lmao yet meleefags

oh, I get it now, a shitposter.

(You)

Even if Melee is incredibly popular, I think it's one of those one in a thousand games that will manage to maintain a competitive scene and fanbase despite no further updates being introduced.
Its many different things that have led to it and I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, specially even harder for it to happen with modern games.

Really show how fucking stupid this board is when people can't tell what ">" means, even when the OP clearly said "should there be MORE buffs than nerfs?"

No shit you should nerf 1 broken character instead of buffing 30 bad ones you dumbfucks, so many people trying to sound smarter than an image and failing to read properly, hide this abomination

Melee and Smash along with it are both garbage and not real fighting games. Meleetards have deluded themselves into thinking their kusoge is still evolving with the excuse that competitors are still learning how to play against other competitors. What a fucking joke. You could say that about LITERALLY EVERY COMPETITIVE GAME.

Because no one at this point is going to put in a decade just to catch up.

That's not even a judgement on Melee, just an obvious truth.

>Sup Forums can't discuss fighting games anyway.
Christ is that ever the truth.

But isn't it relative, meaning the same fucking thing

She's fine and you have the best anti air jab. Fuck off.

>she's fine
>still struggling to even reach mid-tier at best
>still doesn't play anything like how Juri is supposed to play
>could have been an entirely different character based on the move set but they decided to slap Juri's model on top of it when it's clearly not fucking Juri's play style
>shit out another generic rushdown character instead of putting in the real Juri which would have been a unique and refreshing addition to SFV's roster
>crapcucks will defend this

but user there are hundreds of autists catching up right as we speak.

The paradigm is "Do you buff shitty characters to maintain balance or do you nerf 'OP' characters to maintain balance." But it doesn't matter because it's a stupid question that paints the problem as a one or the other choice.

No.
TOME tried to do this with DnD 3.5 and all it ended up doing was making everything random 1 hit deaths. Everything is so hyperpowered that you're either invincible or immediately dead

Who are you quoting?

>Something is top tier, and popular
>Instead of a precision nerf that would put it on par with everything else, every single aspect of the build/character/playstyle gets completely gutted, stomped into the earth, never to be seen again
Pro devs

Well according to that user's screencap, apparently they aren't. So I don't know if you're trying to critique the logic of one of the points made in that screencap or if you're just rejecting the entire premise wholesale. Because if it's the latter I don't see why you'd even bother asking the apparently rhetorical question "If it's not progressing why can't you catch up?"

You can't look at balance, ESPECIALLY in a fighting game, as an Either/Or type of thing. I mean yes, buffing bad characters is generally better than nerfing good characters but there has to be a give and take. I, for one, would love a Street Fighter 3: Fourth Fisting with Yun, Chun-li, and Ken being turned from all 11/10 characters into maybe 6s or 7s, but that's just sour grapes on my end as a Hugo main who plays Q and Alex on the side. I never really liked 4 but those first couple of weeks as Hugo where I could just walk in and fucking destroy people where like ambrosia to me.

Buffing everything isn't the answer because then everything becomes so massively imbalanced that everyone just goes for the character with the most consistent bullshit, a la Marvel.

At the same time, nerfing is really difficult sometimes because it's hard to envision how a nerf to one character would affect others, and then there's a chain reaction of other characters becoming troublesome to the point where they need nerfs, and so on.

Depends on if the game is 1v1 or not too.

If it's not, it's better to have some matchups that are favorable/unfavorable so each character type has its niche and use in the overall game.

For one on one though you want to make sure each matchup is feasible to win with any character as long as you play them well.

>Buffing everything isn't the answer because then everything becomes so massively imbalanced that everyone just goes for the character with the most consistent bullshit
This is why the global shieldstun buff ruined smash 4.

>power up shit character until they don't feel shitty to play anymore without taking away the fun other characters are having
>VS.
>make everybody feel equally shitty to play

GEE I WONDER

>not-overpowered = shitty to play
lmao