Buff all the characters

I noticed that all the characters on battleborn continuously gets nerfed making them useless, I mean look at Alani she was supposed to be a combat healer and now the only thing she can do is her primary damage as an attack, even her skills can’t save her in a 1v1 match against a miko a constant healer, basicly the best healer in the game that does more damage then alone (part time healer) and ambra (life absorb type healer) and I don’t get why some characters seem to fit their roles better then others then the others get nerfed bad the whole point of that character was ruined and so was Ambra. I just find it hard to use characters when they constantly get nerfed. I understand that some characters needed a nerf but continuously nerfing characters isn’t making the game fun. Most of the complaints are about people who know how to use the character for example I just read a complaint about how bolder blocks to much damage, he is a tank and his attack speed is low does ok damage has a hard time killing others and that’s all he really has and I feel like everytime someone complains about how good another character is, they should either learn how to use the character and make it more popular or just learn how to go against it. People get tired of losing to the same characters over and over again so it causes them to complain about it. the whole point of this was to buff all the characters to the point where every character is over powered that way nobody can complain how over powered a character is. it just depends on how they use it.

PS: When nerfing, gearbox (you) should also think about how good will the character be in PVE and PVP with the roles

1 Like

One of the combat designers on the game, “The Elder Scrolls Online” once said that they don’t think nerfing a class is a good solution to balance its power but rather buffing all other classes to better counteract said class. Now evidently that statement was lost amongst their staff because they’ve been buffing and nerfing classes willy nilly for the past 2 years.

I just got this game last week so I don’t have polarized views on any particular characters yet. I’m rank 50 and all characters feel pretty balanced to me right now or Maybe I haven’t run into any players that utilize a characters skill to near exploitation. I don’t know.

But if I did run into a character that felt OP, it’d be interesting to see GBX take the “buff all characters” route instead of the “Nerf this character” route and hopefully stick to it unlike the Elder Scrolls Online team over at Zenimax.

This game kinda is supposed to have high TTK… And if we just buff everyone to unnerfed Gally stats, then we are just creating Overwatch 2.0. 10 minutes matches woot woot. T_T

I say, both buff and n/f characters. Every character that has been nerfed is still fine. (I main Alani, Miko AND Ambra. All 3 have been nerfed, And they needed those.)

And Gearbox knows who to nerf and who not to nerf. They look at stats, and don’t listen to that 1 random person that wants a WF nerf. Or a Rath buff.

3 Likes

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, they can’t just buff people because that will create a situation where time-to-kill gets too low. So then we’ll be playing Overwatch or Call of Duty where someone can murder you as soon as they look at you funny. It wouldn’t be very fun and doesn’t really work for a MOBA style game anyway.

Not against buffs where needed (Whiskey probably needs one) but the idea that nerfs are somehow inherently bad and buffs are better is just foolish. To keep the game functional and fun, time-to-kill needs to remain about where it is at and if everyone starts getting buffs, it will just spiral out of control.

In the case of Alani, she desperately needed a nerf. A support that often ended matches with the most kills, most minions cleared, and highest damage dealt??? That’s not a support character, that’s a monster character. Now Alani properly fills her role. She supports her teammates and still can dish out some damage but she’s no longer murdering everyone all by her lonesome.

It’s actually a reasonably common adage among game designers, but it’s also woefully unrealistic. When developers design anything they have a specific level of overall performance that they aim for. This level of performance is important because everything else is getting designed around that level of theoretical performance.

Ideally, developers would be able to hit the mark perfectly before releasing anything, but we do not live in a perfect world. Sometimes the things they provide players are stronger than they realized; sometimes they’re weaker. This happens for a few reasons. Sometimes the math the devs used to calculate performance isn’t accurate (this gets incredibly annoying if the developers insist that the math is correct and that’s players are just doing it wrong since that generally means that devs don’t actually play it in order to know what’s going on). Sometimes the devs either over or underestimate the value of a given ability (since a lot of interesting mechanics don’t really have an easily calculable theoretical value compared to stuff like damage, accuracy, hp, and the like).

When problems do crop up, the devs have got to fix it. When something is overpowered, there are then 2 possible solutions: either the devs nerf the offending class individually (figuring out how 1 class deviates from the intended level and then reducing/increasing as appropriate) or they do what you suggest and buff everything else up (use the new class as the intended level of performance and proceed to recalculate out how every other class/character deviates from that level of performance and determine what needs to be done to increase that level). And then the cycle starts again when the players go out and find new problems with the balancing the developers have done (because, once again, the developers are flawed and not perfect).

Yes, players (and developers, generally) prefer to buff rather than nerf, but buffing everything else continually escalates the level of player performance above and beyond what the intended level of performance is (e.g. after enough time, PvE would be completely and utterly trivialized, which makes it boring; it would also upset objective oriented PvP dynamics, reducing the effectiveness of NPCs in comparison) and it involves a helluva lot more work.

Perfect world, we wouldn’t need rebalancing. Slightly less perfect world, never nerfing and only ever buffing would be amazing. Real world, both buffing and nerfing need to exist.

TL:DR
You can’t just continuously buff everything whenever there’s imabalance without eventually completely breaking the game.

5 Likes

Neither Ambra nor Alani are worthless, they simply aren’t supports and killing machines.

1 Like
  1. No character is completely useless, I still decimate pretty consistently on my team as ambra and alani. Perhaps you are just having a hard time understanding how to play these “underpowered” BB? I personally am very bad at playing Benedict but that’s because his learning curve is very high. That doesn’t mean he needs a buff to compensate for people who have a hard time playing him. This goes for quite almost all BB.

  2. Supports are not built for 1v1’s, so I don’t recommend putting yourself in those situations or ranking them based on 1v1 potential.

  3. Who is getting continuously nerfed? Alani was balanced twice and for good reason. IMO she probably could deserve another small one on her bubble. She could kill an Orendi out of her range and before the nerf it only took her damaging you in her bubble to kill you. Now she has a fair damage drop off and it takes her other teammates to focus the bubble to kill you.

  4. [quote=“trajuanj, post:1, topic:1539922”]
    and I feel like everytime someone complains about how good another character is, they should either learn how to use the character and make it more popular or just learn how to go against it
    [/quote]

  5. I’m not going to go deeply into how game mechanics work…but nerfing one character is buffing all the other characters…it is doing the same thing for much less work. To have redesigned every other character around Alani would have been very difficult and impractical.

  6. You cannot consider PvE in balancing characters for PvP.

GBX has the metrics, thats a given. But their approach to balancing has been catastrophic to the player base. The only publicly listsed stats for player activity reflect active PC players. The average active players for that particular platform have dropped by more that 70% since launch. While I’m sure the console numbers aren’t identical to those, it’s safe to assume a similar situation is effecting those platforms as well.

Maybe, just maybe, they should concider doing something different. Because their current approach has not improved the situation.

This post made my day. Yes, yes, yes, every bit of it is yes.

Alani is one of my mains. She is fine the way she is now. She was way too strong before, and now she’s a solid combat healer.

I get more assists than kills, and that’s sad, but it’s more a problem with the way they score things in the game than it is with Alani being broken.

[quote=“xxEvoLuTioNxx, post:8, topic:1539922, full:true”]But their approach to balancing has been catastrophic to the player base. The only publicly listsed stats for player activity reflect active PC players. The average active players for that particular platform have dropped by more that 70% since launch.
[/quote]

False causation. Just because an event occurs before another does not mean that it was the cause.

Pretty much all of the rebalancing that they have done has been because of public outcry (Ambra, Alani, Galilea, ISIC…). The only instance that I can think of that wasn’t caused by a massive reaction from the player base was the most recent change to Thorn (which I’m not even sure actually went live; I was playing Thorn yesterday and I’m pretty sure Blight had the full 6 and 12 second duration); it was a small change and, honestly, most people I’ve seen agree that it was pretty warranted (for PvP) and is/has a minimal effect upon PvE (since it’s her other PvE stuff that makes Thorn insane).

Honestly, I think that most of the population decline can be attributed to competition (BB doing well at release and then tanking a month later when Overwatch was released?), hype (the game was hyped up so much that it was never going to meet everyone’s expectations, especially seeing as it’s a blended genre online competitive game as opposed to a single player game), and inevitable decrease in player base as the game lost its shiny-newness (e.g. people play a game they just bought a lot and then put it down when they’re done exploring it). The PvP woes are probably a factor to, but I think that the decrease in population is actually the root cause of those PvP woes, which creates a pretty terrible negative feedback loop.

3 Likes

After each balance adjustment there is a slight up tick in player activity, a torrent of angry reactions on and off the forums, followed by a steady decline in activity.

It shows all the signs of causation. Evidence points to a horse, not an invisible Zebra.

Erroneous conclusion. Any patch or change to the game is going to cause a spike in activity as the players flock to see what happened. The torrent of angry reactions that they always espouse tend to be from the same people over and over (often who continue to play the game), since they’re the type that care enough about the game to cause problems about it, but a vast majority of people that play any game are completely uninvolved in the community discussion (people that post on forums are a very vocal minority of the population of the game as a whole). The “steady decline” that you refer to is just a return to equilibrium.

1 Like

@Kitru, Remind me never to debate with you, Ill get scraped.

To keep on topic, Gearbox is doing fine with the balancing, people need to learn to roll with the changes. Im sure it sucks when your favorite hero gets nerfed but you should take that as a challenge to get better and prove the nerf didnt matter. Take League as an example; They rarely get to keep the same champion as is for very long, especially if said champion is a common pick. That champ will then be the target of a new change in the next patch. Its to keep us on our toes, keep thegame fresh, and force us to do more than play one or two heros because we like Battleborn, not just Galilea or Marquis

Miko needs to be reworked. Nothing more annoying than seeing a Miko backpack.

The difference between buffing and nerfing is really just one of how they are perceived (people’s psychological reaction) and the amount of work involved in each. In the end it is the same thing. You are adjusting the numbers in the game to a baseline. If you set the baseline to the character that has the highest performance and buff everyone towards this new baseline it’s functionally no different than nerfing all the characters to the lowest performing character. Both involve a lot of work. The only real difference is that in one instance players feel like they are becoming more powerful. At least those not playing the strongest character. Those player will feel like their character has been nerfed, which in essence they have been. Their performance has been lowered in comparison to the other characters after all the adjustments have been made, at least relative to the other characters. Compared to their environment they will feel about the same (unless of course the AI in the environment are buffed too).

Since most characters will be around the originally set baseline it is easiest to work towards this baseline as it will involve the least amount of work. Over-performing characters will be nerfed while under-performing characters will be buffed. Nerfs for the most part tend to be easier to perform than buffs (but not always). It’s also better to nerf the over-performing characters first as players will gravitate towards them and abuse their strength often ruining the enjoyment of the game for others. You don’t really see people gravitating towards and abusing under-performing characters so they can be adjusted in due time. It’s not as urgent.

In the end it’s really just a psychological thing. One of those quirks of the human mind. Kind of like how the mind can be tricked by optical illusions. It can be a bit complicated (I could go on and discuss the narcissistic self and how it perceives the world and such) but I really don’t want to get into discussing it as I just got up and my mind is still a bit sluggish. That and I’d be opening a whole can of worms I’m not in the mood to deal with.

2 Likes

They’re messing around with 24/26 of the characters so I imagine they’ll try to work out some of the kinks. I personally would appreciate some buffs because I main story missions (PvE) and I don’t like constantly having all characters nerfed while never seeing anyone buffed.

However, I can see why people complain about PvP experiences. I’ve gotten my butt handed to me plenty by Marquis, Rath, and the dynamic due of Montana and Miko, but I recognize that it’s often not the characters themselves that has the issue.

2 Likes

So its like a damned if you do damned if you don’t kind of thing. Whether or not they buff or Nerf the game, they’ll still give flack for it.

I know, throw one to many big words and I lose integrity in my own thesis lol.

i dont know which character needs a buff? your objective team play probably needs a buff. but yeah, for every “op” accusation, there’s a legitimate counter. you hate miko hugging montana and galilea, well here maebe if 6 more heroes have wound abilities, you’ll actually use it. and alani vs miko? when does that happen? why would that happen? i bet she does lose that fight, especially if she misses geyser. miko is faster, has a slow, and poison abilities-not to mention being harder to hit. and ambra can sunspot and auto aim alani. ride like poseidon out of that to minions and a team fight where the water bender truly shines…