Crazzie said:This has to be the most underrated post ever. It has been a long standing history that Devs dont think past pen and paper. Nerf's not only hurt game play but also hurt the player base. It seems nobody can really sit down and imagine what it would be like in a world of spending hundreds of hours prefecting your character then the very next day you find out your cut in half.
DO the math Devs, dont allow for wild changes 5-10 yrs down the road.
One of the worst ones, Stats, opps forgot we have no room for improvements... Items, gave too much.... 2 top end MMOs of all time both did it.
What did they both do? /nerf everyone
I'm not saying being a minmaxer is objectively bad - I'm really not - but devs should really not improve/balance a game so that minmaxers aren't inconvenienced?
Didn't those minmaxers enjoy working out their set up the first time? If not, why do it at all? Isn't doing it again fun? Like being handed a whole new game, if you're that into the details?
Maybe I don't play to that high a level or am a filthy casual player hehe, but I've never been 'upset' by a nerf. If the devs need to change things, they need to change things.
An exception comes to mind related to Battlefield 1, a multi-player FPS. It's a WW1-themed FPS and the weapon balance is very good. It is 'authentic' if not 'realistic'. The balance between weapon types is good.
Several years into the game, when everyone was more than used to how things worked (even though some, from modern-era based versions of the franchise didn't particularly like the way they worked like 'old' weapons) the devs decided to re-balance to make it work "more like BF4" (the previous, modern-era version of the franchise).
That mucked up the balance everyone by then had gotten used to. It might well have pleased the BF4 players who had never much liked the BF1 weapon mechanics, but why do it several years in with a player base that are clearly good with how it was? (or they wouldn't be playing).
Now that was bad. They all but admitted they were doing it to 'test' how it went because they were developing the *next* version in the franchise to see if it should be more like BF4 or BF1. They 'experimented' on the playerbase to help the development of another game.
Now, *that* kind of thing, I will agree, is a step too far, but surely, if it's *not* that kind of thing and it is just 'fixes' to the existing balance, then it's acceptable?
P.S. Even with the change to BF1, it didn't *ruin* the game and everyone quickly got used to it. It was to most, not an improvement, and so, a baffling thing to do, but it was nothing that couldn't be coped with. As with MMORPG minmaxers, I think Battlefield players would have to be seriously very particular meta-playing or even professional players to be that upset by it.