What's a better balancing philosophy?

What's a better balancing philosophy?

Buffing weaker things so they can compete with stronger ones?

Or nerfing stronger things so they are on the same level as weaker ones?

Either one will lead to unexpected issues but I'd say just buff everyone, never nurf.

middle ground
power creep is retarded and only parrots keep pushing for nerfing isn't fun

buffs.
Less re-learning, more fun for everyone.

Best design however would be a balanced rock-paper-scissors gameplay, where you can counter seemingly OP shit with tactics

>Best design however would be a balanced rock-paper-scissors gameplay
>rock-paper-scissors gameplay

You deserve a punch in the back of the head.

sid meier has a good heuristic: double it or halve it

Care to explain why ?

A middle ground with a slant towards nerfing to prevent power creep

This. There's a psychological phenomena called "Loss Aversion" where people are three times more naturally prone to avoid losing something as opposed to gaining something.

Meaning that if we objectify "Fun" into a point system, it would take 3 points of gain to equal 1 point of loss in terms of fun balancing out.

>Doesnt know that hard counters are the shittiest most basic "balance" that always sacrifices someone's fun

Only an idiot thinks RPS design works for anything that isnt RPS

Ice Miyamoto

Only an idiot like you would think that term "RPS" refers to actual RPS, would be limited to mere 3-way behavior, or in general would take the term literally.

RPS design is one of the most common basic principles of game design in all sorts of games. RPGs use it actively with stuff like elemental fire, and you can easily implement it to shooters as well. The "trick" is to not make the RPS overpowering and all deciding though, as in even the so called underdog actions should have a slight fighting chance against their stronger opponents.

>Talking about balance in a fucking RPG to defend RPS balancing, as though a solo player vs AI haa significant balancing requirements
>Talking about RPS balancing as though it were a system of soft counters and not the rigid hard counters that RPS actually represents

Stop changing the argument

I'm not changing jack shit.
You're the asspained basement dweller who doesn't know game design 101 and terminology.

Using just one of those will either lead to retarded power levels like God Goku or to shit like LoL where everything feels weak as fuck. Neither is a good thing. You want the power level in your game to always feel consistent which is why you need something that you think represents the perfect balance in the game.

Finding something that you consider balanced and bringing other things more in range with it by nerfing the stronger and buffing the weaker.

The best philosophy is to leave everything alone. "Balance" patches are cancer.

>X is overpowered
>everyone uses X because it's the only way to win
>the entire game revolves around X for a few months
>X gets nerfed
>now Y is overpowered
>everyone is forced to use the current flavor of the month or lose

>X is overpowered
>everyone uses X because it's the only way to win
>eventually, people realize X isn't that bad
>X just has a stupid gimmick that nobody knew how to beat
>the players get better and X stops winning all the time
>players accepts that some things will always be better than others and true balanced can never be achieved
>everyone gets to play what they want

>Best design however would be a balanced rock-paper-scissors gameplay
>rock-paper-scissors gameplay
>gameplay

The "gameplay" of RPS is a system of hard counters. You pick rock, they throw paper, you lose, 100% of the time. It's a game of hard counters and nothing but. That is the GAMEPLAY DESIGN.

Stop changing the argument to be "The system design of rock paper scissors showcases that when nuanced effects of 'Strong against' and 'Weak against' are used, it creates interesting and balanced gameplay, so long as you do not take it as a literal rigid example of what to fall on"

Because the argument is that Rock Paper Scissors' gameplay is an example of good balance philosophy. Which it isn't. It's horrible, it isn't about the game at all, it's about the metagame of understanding your opponent, because the game itself is so simple, the game is basically entirely irrelevant.

>X is overpowered
>No balance patches
>Nobody wants to play this shitty game where X is overpowered and everybody moves on because the entire system devolves into using X and everything else is literally a waste of everyone's time

>The "gameplay" of RPS is a system of hard counters. You pick rock, they throw paper, you lose, 100% of the time.
That's exactly the matter I tried my best to address earlier: in most games that DO use the "RPS" inspired (better?) design, the choices are not absolute and game-deciding.

Unless the game is super simple or devs idiotic, RPS is NOT to be implemented in such over-powering manner.

And again, I have not changed anything in my statements. You're the one getting ass-pained about the revelation of people using common terms differently than you yourself have used them.

Sure play Leblanc and tell me if she felt weak prenerf.

single player RPG's have 'hard counters' as a way to help the AI against the human player which will always have the inherent edge

shooters need soft counters because an outright hard counter means even the most skilled person will have trouble succeeding against a low skilled counter

>le epic 'I'm too pussy to take a side but I'll talk down on both of them' meme

let me guess, you're agnostic, your favorite color if given the options of white and black is grey, you are a registered independent, you say 'whatever everyone else wants' when asked where you want to eat, and think idort is master race

t. melee fag

Are you okay?

>best player in the world mains peach
>second best player in the world mains jigglypuff

The best balancing philosophy is "human" balancing, don't make things overly OP or UP by removing most fixed/static, mechanical gameplay and putting room for human skill/error.

Riot already realized this sometime ago and started removing onclick skills or nerfing their damage while making combos or skillshots more important.

Even if things aren't perfectly balanced the human skill and tactics will make everything seem possible and thus not frustrating.

And also somewhat related the player's choice must matter, no point in having multiple choices if there's one path that IS objectively better.

TL;DR: Basically by playing with these 2 simple rules should get you far in balancing design:
- no mechanical gameplay
- choices must matter

I honestly say it depends on exactly what you determine to be unbalanced. Is it unbalanced because it is too weak to be worth it? Buff it. Is it unbalanced because it is so godlike nothing can stop it? Nerf it.

On the other hand if it's just really good and not utterly godlike then try to determine if buffing other things won't create a game of rocket tag or create a rapidly unstable equilibrium. If it won't then buff other stuff to balance.

AoE2 still the greatest RTS of all time because of this you stupid inbred

>anything better than Brood War

>>>/reddit/