Ghalt’s ult sucks, I have played ghalt more then any character and I can tell you his ult is weaker then his single shotgun. It’s rare for me to get anyone with his ult.
Edit:
Agree, most characters are fine as they are from a balancing perspective but could have their helixes spiced up a bit to make them more viable. ISIC, Kelvin, Mellka, Rath to name a few.
2 Likes
Not today ISIS!
2 Likes
I’ll try to make a more detailed post here during the weekend. Emphasising try 
I did NOT see that when I was checking for spelling. Dammit, I need sleep.
4 Likes
Ha, nah! I got a good laugh 
1 Like
I agree to an extent. It could be improved, but it’s at least decent for what it is. It’s a constant barrage of shots, with a DoT/fire augmentation later on. It’s just sort of “there”. If it fired any slower than it currently does, then I’d consider it terrible. I also deeply miss his longer ranged slug shots. Forgot to mention that. Maybe it’s just a preference though.
Well, @SirWalrusCrow, I feel that Gali could have a few of her CC’s removed from her Helix tree and Kit, as well as the damage of her Corrupted Shots (TDTGA) be weaker at close range so she can’t stun you and Kill you nigh Instantly, but instead the damage grows the farther it travels, up till the damage is 2x what current is. 0-64 a shot I beleive?
As for what CC to remove/weaken, her pull on vortex, silence on vortex (duration) or purhaps her overall stun. (I don’t remember all she has off top of head, been a while since I played 
).
As for Boldur Nerfs, firstly, stun on Bulderdash duration, and How Rage activates and duration. He is very strong, mainly due to how Rage breaks the game. Or maybe weaken his sheild Size/ Damage intake, and reduce the amount of regen.
(I name these Characters, as they are S/A+ Teir.)
P.S. Heck, why not throw in Ghalt? Requested Nerf: Crit Damage lowered, and/or damage falloff more severe. Currently he can run amok and wreak people right next to him (fine by me, he has shotguns for a reason) but his Ranged dps is still pretty high. Or maybe remove his sheild strength and Sheild regen rate Helix.
Edit: Ghalt (If they reinstate slug shots, make it inverted, with weaker damage at close range, but stronger crit, and larger damage afar.)
1 Like
LOL!
1 Like
Oh, @AForestTroll One thing I like to bring up. Phoebe has 2 helix’s that make her an immune teleporter. Sheild instant recharge after Phasegate, and when aheilds break, insta cooldown on phasegate. A little Annoying.
As For S&A, I used to main them, and can say they are in a decent place now, though wish that they had some more flexibility in playstyle/helix again. Used to be a Jack of all trades, but since sheild buffs (20% dr, 600 sheild) they have removed the strength of other trades. Wish she could go get a buff to helixs to compete for other playstlyes, like release.
I feel that Kelvin should have a health cap, and said Cap should be easier to get to. Like maybe 4k health, and that the health increase on Chomp be inverted, so the fewer health he has, the more he gains, and the more he has, the less he gains. This would keep him more balenced, as he two is S-tier.
Marquis could use more Bullets, Damage, or Attack speed. One of the 3. He is the weakest sniper, and often feels slow and hard to level, even though he is hitscan. Oh, and Ghost bullets need to be fixed.
And give Pendals those ninja buffs back. Ok, not the slow. Make that 3 seconds, but the rest where pretty nice. (For reference, he gained post WU secretly 4 second slow, Flurry of blows activated correctly, and one other thing. Can’t remember.)
Mellka: Visit one of my other posts. Could talk for hours on her.
Rant out.
1 Like
I get there are balancing difficulties, this mainly comes from the fact that game balance probably means different things to different people. For example; the more casual players would probably rather play against Boldur than Orendi since Boldur is more difficult to play well while Orendi quite easily dishes out heavy damage. BUT the competitive players will maintain that Orendi is fine due to being squishy and an easy target for coordinated attacks, while Boldur is overpowered due to his POTENTIAL in the hands of skilled players.
So balance changes might not please all the people all of the time. This might be the reason that people comes across unclear with what they want.
Having said that, there are many things that are quite clearly NOT balanced that don’t get addressed.
Galilea shouldn’t have an AoE pull that silences, wounds, slows and amplifies damage with one skill, especially not when the other ability is also a stun.
Bolas target finder is powerful enough as it is, the fact it stacks is broken. A whole team using one would mean kills could be achieved much faster than they should be able to in this game.
Beatrix’s silence isn’t too bad as a 3 second silence, but the fact that it ends up spreading to multiple targets and lasting longer due to the time between the first and last projectile landing probably wasn’t intended and definitely is too powerful for level one. Also arguably her wound being on a primary attack gives her a lot of utility over other characters with a wound mechanic.
Certain abilities benefit from both skill damage and attack damage, this might be intentional? But doubt it. It’s what makes Boldurdash too powerful late game. There are also issues with how certain pieces of gear provide game breaking benefits to certain characters. E.g. Kelvin with Firmware update + his legendary means that missed chomps lower the CD on his stun, probably not intended, this is broken in the same way as Toby’s stun + his legendary.
This I’m afraid I totally disagree with. People are quite vocal about what they want to see, I listed a few examples. The problem is the fixes are often totally confusing and unnecessary. My examples above about Galilea have been long standing, their response a while back was to reduce her max health. Another example from this week was the Orendi nerf to her primary attack; nobody asked for this. Her lv10 helix is what people have pointed out for months.
Phew! I’ve only really scratched the surface! Read my comments in the battleplan and those other complaints there for a better understanding of balancing issues.
1 Like
You should check the comments too.
There is a very good analysis why this analysis isn’t good.
And long comment goes like this:
"AlonditeMX2
wrote this piece-by-piece as I watched, so some topics are in response to individual portions of the video and are not representative of the video as a whole. Also, it’s a long one.
Your opening argument undermines your entire point. Nerfs and buffs are absolutely not meant to make a video game more fun to watch. Professional sports is primarily for spectators. In fact, the leagues only even exist because of revenue from spectators. However, video games are meant to be played by the masses, rather than by a handful of elite players like professional sports leagues.
Changing rules to make basketball more interesting to watch is vastly different than changing the properties of attacks and characters to make a game more balanced and more fair. A game that is more fair is more fun, but fun is such a subjective topic that it’s not even worth discussing. NBA basketball needs to be entertaining to maintain revenue, and thus maintain its existence. Video games do not rely no spectators (barring professional leagues, but that’s a different story), they rely on players.
You’re conflating a lot of very different ideas and overlooking a lot of important details. For one, Street Fighter 1 isn’t boring because it’s perfectly balanced, it’s boring because of a lack of variety. Variety and balance, however, are not mutually exclusive. A ton of feathers weighs just as much as a ton of bricks, even though the two objects are vastly different.
You’re also looking at nerfs or buffs across the entire cast, but buffing or nerfing the entire cast is vastly different than nerfs or buffs applied to an individual character. When the whole cast is affected, it still maintains uniformity and balance, and instead of changing how one character or matchup is played, it fundamentally changes how the entire game is played. Whether or not this is for better or for worse has nothing to do with whether or not the characters were nerfed or buffed, and is entirely dependent on the design of the game itself. Therein lies the brick that, once taken, causes your entire argument to fall flat.
Whether or not nerfs or buffs should be applied to a game depends on how the game is played, or how the developers want to shape the gameplay. This is an incredibly complex design topic that I’m not going to get into here, because frankly, I could write thousands of words on that topic alone.
Your tangent on loss aversion is more about the psychology of fun than it is about game design. There is no universal “fun” design, there is only design which promotes depth, nuance, strategy, and all of the things that make video games more intellectually stimulating and engaging to play, and those that do the opposite. Talking about fun in video games is an invariably dead end that is neither constructive nor interesting.
You also are looking at nerfs and buffs from a strictly numeric perspective, i.e. damage done, frames, etc. What you need to look at is how it influences gameplay as a whole. If a character in Super Smash Bros has the KBG of an uptilt reduced, is it a nerf if it opens up more combo potential with that move? Is your SF4 Ryu example actually a nerf if it opens up more mix-ups and strategic potential? That sounds like a buff to me, albeit a well-designed one.
Your SF5 example alludes to what I was talking about earlier, with cast-wide changes shaping how the game is played as a whole. Whether or not the nerf was bad has nothing to do with the fact that it was a nerf, but instead how the game played as a result. A buff could just have easily done the same thing.
Now that I’ve seen the whole video, I don’t believe you’ve made a strong case at all. This is not a topic of buffs and nerfs, it’s a much broader topic of game design as a whole, only it doesn’t consider all of the many nuances of game design, and wrongfully attributes these changes to nerfs and buffs exclusively. You also talk way too much about fun and excitement, which are not topics of game design at all, despite being the reason people play video games.
Nerfing is actually the better approach to balance for one main reason: linearity. A buff creates linearity. It potentially elevates one move or character above the rest and encourages the use of fewer game elements. The worst a nerf does is make one character or attack non-viable, while the rest of the game’s content stays relatively the same.
The other reason is interplay, or the interaction of game elements. Interplay has two phases: push and pull. The push is the “approach,” so to speak, and the “pull” is the opening or the vulnerability. Both of these elements are essential to game depth and interesting gameplay. Buffing increases the force of the “push,” and nerfing the force of the “pull.” When a game has too much of either, it becomes less interesting.
However, this is also dependent on the game’s design as a whole, which as I mentioned before is an incredibly complex topic. Whether or not to nerf or buff is not a decision that can ever be made in a vacuum. You need to consider how it changes the game as a whole. Nerfs and buffs are equally capable of negatively shaping gameplay, though nerfs are typically far safer due to how they shift engagement away from one element and toward all of the others, rather than toward a single element."
4 Likes
Poor wording from my side, apologies. What I primarily meant was how they’d get resolved.
If you remove a helix - what should replace it?
If you move a helix - which helix should it swap places with?
What aspect of the ability should be altered?
So in the case of Galilea; which abilities, helixes should change in what ways? I certainly don’t know.
Just for future reference she has native 2 second stun on shield throw and damage amp on desecrate. At level 1 you can add pull or 5 second wound to desecrate. At level 2 you can add 5 second wound on shield throw. At level 4 you can add silence on desecrate. At level 8 you can add slow on desecrate.
She has a couple things that don’t really make sense, like bleed on shield bash and I don’t think she needs more than one speed boost helix if any. That’s just my opinion though.
Maybe if they swapped the damage and healing options for the pull and wound? That would mean you would have to choose between silence, pull or wound but not have a combination. Most non tanks with hard cc get it at level 4 or above. Just a thought.
2 Likes
@lemonheadjake literally just posted a perfect response above as an answer. He is not the first person to have made the suggestion. There have been plenty of discussions regarding how the changes could be made as well as what they are.
Problem being GBX’s eventual fixes aren’t even close to what is required.
1 Like
I have an extension that turns the comments off, and I see really no reason to disable said extension (for what I think are obvious, er… reasons).
That unintentionally inflammatory statement aside, that is certainly one of the better thought-out counter-points I’ve come across in, well, anything really. And as such, I sit corrected.
Aside: I still dread the now infamous incoming Galilea rework. For some reason, I keep thinking of how BioWare used to have weekly “balance changes” in ME3 that usually made a lot of characters’ ability go to ■■■■. I fear this is how Gals may end up. 
2 Likes