Don't nerf anything. Improve things.

There's an old saying: "An Eye for an Eye makes the whole world blind."

I think it can apply here: whatever selfish people don't use must be nerfed, especially if it killed them once. Anything that slows down or sets back their gameplay needs nerfs.

How about we talk buffs, improvements, and as a catch, we can't talk about nerfing anything?

I'll go hard-mode and go with something I'm not even interested in that has some very obnoxious advocates in these forums: sniping.

Instead of nerfing Nanoweave, how about we talk about and try to make a balancable version of a "sniping module?" It was suggested by someone else before, and I liked it. It would be something to extend the optimal range of the weapon and therefore its OHK-capable range. I'd possibly suggest a "rooted" prone position while this is done, sort of like real-life sniping is often shown. A similar thing is already in game for MAX and Prowler anchoring.

Instead of nerfing Fractures, how about buffing Falcons? Perhaps make them a slower firing but signifigantly higher damage-per shot counterpart with similar firing arc and accuracy? I'd prefer the old Falcons back but I can deal.

Instead of nerfing Harassers, how about buffing Lightnings to some extent so they're not quite so outshined? Sure, they're one-person vehicles but they also lack that third seat for auto-repair. I'm sure something can be figured out.

This is just a thought experiment. Flame on if you must, but I think this is a better way to do things.

You see, the problem is you are making the game harder by doing this.

I used to think the exact same way but imagine this


VS are given a no-drop OHK gun
TR/NC are given toy guns

If TR/NC get an OHK gun (instead of nerfing VS) the game will be freaking hard

the av turret has no cost, no timer, infinite ammo, outranges everything that can harm it, no drop, can change the direction of the shot whenever it wants to. it oneshots infantry, 2shots maxes, does tankgun level damage to vehicles. what do you want to improve here, everything?

That IS true to some extent.

Buffs and buffs alone lead to power creep which is also a problem.

However, I am not seeing a lot of calls for buffs as much as lots of demands for nerfs. To counterbalance this, it is probably best to think the other direction for the time being.

In general, I agree that bringing under performing items up to high performing items is far preferable to bringing high performers down to low performers.

However, IamDH makes a good point that sometimes you just have to reign some things in.

I actually agree there.

Even so, at present, the "NERF X" threads are overwhelming, and rarely do nerfs make anyone happy except narrow self-interested groups.

We need a generally happy playerbase to prosper. It isn't about what the ESF wants or the MAX wants or the sniper wants or for that matter what the Medic or Engineer wants. Not entirely. If we just stab blindly at each other's gameplay we're going to have a pretty unplayable mess except for the fortunate few who got their way the most, and get to wonder why the game stopped having a playerbase.

If you NEVER nerf anything, you end up with guns doing 3000 damage per hit against infantry with 20,000 health. Rockets will do 15,000 with 10,000 splash and tanks will have 25,000 health with armor resist values that stack on top of that.

We have to nerf things or we get problems with number creep.

True.

The first action i would take is buffing C85 and PPA to Marauders level, instead of the nerf it is inevitably going to receive


Edit: Nerfing should occur for certain weapons

We already covered this and moved on.

The point is to put the pitchforks and torches away and try constructive instead of destructive changes to the game for at least a little while.

Hey, I LIKE the PPA!

... but a buff would be nice. It's like rolling bowling balls toward the enemy, except airborne.

Well, tbh, it has been a lot easier lately for me to not play thanks to a lot of different things going ignored- some since release.

Nerf threads are always going to abound- it is just easier, IMO, to think about what is doing too well than it tends to be about what is not doing well (in part because people tend to avoid those things).

Also, it is easier to post a negative thread in general because to post a positive thread. You can say "X is OP and here is why" but I think cognitively it is more difficult to think of the ways "Y is UP".

Still, I have some experience in terms of requesting for under performing items to be brought up to snuff and I can say that while you get flamed a little less, you still get flamed, the threads die off more quickly and the devs never seem to respond regardless.

From a psychological point of view, I would think buffs tend to be preferable because instead of upsetting faction A to simply appease faction B like with nerfs you are instead not really upsetting faction A (since they still get the exact same performance) but are actually making faction B happy rather than just satisfied because now they have items that perform better.

It is as if you have 3 people and you have given them unequal amounts of money. If you take money away from the person who got the most they will be unhappy and the two others will simply feel better because the situation is equitable. If, instead, you give the two other people more money then you still get the positive benefits of the situation being equitable but now instead of 1 person having less, 2 other people have more.

I wish you more luck than I or the other people I have seen try something similar.

Judging by the venom spit my way in a recent thread (up to and including a "omg ur in game stats are terribad!" witch hunt), I definitely have an uphill climb there.

Rather glad we could agree on this.

Maybe similar action can be done to ESRLs.

Instead of nerfing striker into the ground:
Phoenixes could OHK to the head (which is hard to pull off)
Lancer could get a damage buff or something

I actually liked the idea of "sideways buffing" the Striker into a dumbfire launcher with a Fracture-like velocity and its damage divided into five shots. That way, the risk taken by having to stand out in the open to fire all five is paid off by doing more damage than a single dumbfire rocket of another launcher (but not by too much). Another idea would be making it wire guided, but it just sounds like another Raven that way, might be hard to give it faction flavor.

Phoenixes are downright brutal in groups, and I've lost more Sunderers, I think, to them than anything. I suppose that's the problem with them: they require groups to do that. Perhaps they need a second-stage damage boost, where the missile gets harder to aim but does more damage? It'd make it slightly harder to hit hidden vehicles, but trick shots, like arcing the missile high then nose-diving it into a Sunderer over a rockside, would be possible.

Lancer could get a damage buff, yes. It's great for a narrow role but the problem is that it's technically a weak-scoped sniper rifle with a windup.

It happens, especially when there are genuine balance issues around- people get frustrated and take it out on others, I know I have.

What really gets me is when you try to engage someone and then they start in with personal insults- I need to work on getting better at just reporting them, hoping the mods do something, and moving on but it can really be difficult. Or how people post "L2P" type threads, particularly those aimed at entire factions, when it is both a) insulting by definition and b) completely misguided logic. Still shocked that the mods do not automatically close any thread that starts with a "L2P" attitude because it is practically the definition of a troll thread (i.e. a post with a high probability of inciting a negative emotional response in others).

Yep. Had this problem.

Granted I'm no angel: I rib and prod and sometimes think things are ridiculous and call them out. But it saddens me whenever someone sinks to the "u r virgin looser u haev no lief l2p kill urself" method of forum debate.

Phoenix: That would be really nice. Perfect risk vs reward and people who are skilled enough will perform better

Striker: Main problem with doing this is that it would exit its vehicle destroyer role and would be used on infantry and stuff

Hmm. What if it had a "flak" style mechanic, where the Striker rockets wouldn't arm and do explosive damage until they hit a vehicle surface? Similar to how bursters work, or for that matter UBGLs if they hit below minimum range.

That'd be funny: hitting someone in the stomach with a not-armed Striker warhead. Might kill, awkwardly, but definitely only if the guy was already wounded or taken by surprise.

Thats a really good suggestion and would fix the issue greatly.