When it comes to nerfs, maybe change is good
by Mike Schramm 
Apr 11th 2007 at 10:41AM
Here's a fascinating post over on Terra Nova. Joshua Fairfield has been playing a lot of Arena PvP, and he suspects something very interesting: that the developers might not be trying for equilibrium in PvP at all. They may actually be trying for imbalance.Our assumption, he says, is that with every nerf and/or buff, the developers are trying to reach a nirvana of balance-- a game where every class has an equal chance to win when all of their abilities are used correctly. Keep in mind that the "chance to win" could only involve a percentage of the time-- Blizzard has already stated that they're working for a "rock, paper, scissors" solution, where rogues beat casters but warriors beat rogues, and so on. But we've assumed that the main goal is a balance, where as long as every class is played well, every class will win a certain percentage of the time.
But Fairfield suggests the opposite-- that "games that seek permanent engagement by communities," i.e. MMORPGs like WoW, are actually working against equilibrium, and fighting to keep things constantly interesting. Mages are winning because of Pyroblast's high damage? Nerf it to make Mages use other spells. Warriors are being kited around? Give them a way out of it, so other classes have to learn new strategies.
That's a wacky way of looking at game design, but it works for games like WoW because we're already expecting the rules to constantly change. Chess has an established balance-- rook moves a certain way, queen moves another way, and every game they will always move those ways. But WoW is dependent on the rules changing every patch-- if players maxed out their characters and learned all possible strategies, they'd quit paying the monthly fee. So in that strange sense, Blizzard should be happy when lots of players cry foul over a nerf-- the more players they affect with a change, the more they can keep interested. "Any change disrupts the current equilibrium," and forces players to figure out new ways to win.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Podcasting, Blizzard, PvP, Classes, Buffs
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jorane Apr 11th 2007 10:48AM
Mike, did you mean to put in a link to warcrackwear, or were you just doing a little shopping whilst typing your article? ;)
FYI, the real link is:
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2007/04/nerf_nerf_nerf.html
Savok Apr 11th 2007 10:53AM
Starcraft says otherwise. The fanatical devotion shown to that game, I'd expect some would be willing to part with their souls.
Falgorn Apr 11th 2007 11:13AM
I would honestly suspect that Blizzard are striving for the closest they can get to class balance under the Rock paper formula. Once each class has at least one "oh Crap" class to deal with there will always be a challenge.
Constantly shifting talents and abilities around will frustrate as many players as it will satiate and is probably a dangerous way to develop an Online game.
It must also be noted that a certain class may not seem like an obvious threat, but depending on spec can provide an unusual challenge. For example, on my Warlock I have no great fear of Fire Mages thanks to Nether Protection. Frost Mages on the other hand can cause significant headaches. Similarly, Arms and protection Warriors aren't all that challenging provided I CC them tentativly, however fury warriors present quite a threat if I'm not paying attention.
The Balance Blizzard are trying to achieve is both delicate and massivly complicated, and the proposition that it is cyclical so as to remain entertaining is unlikely imo.
Mike Schramm Apr 11th 2007 11:18AM
Yes, thanks Jorane, I pasted the wrong link in there. Fixed, thanks for the heads up.
Karmakin Apr 11th 2007 11:29AM
"Nerf early, Nerf often"
That used to be the cry of my Guild Wars guild, when we heavily played PvP. While all the forum people were whining when their favorite skill/build got nerfed, we thought it was all wonderful fun, having to analyze the new skill set to find out
I think it's the same thing in WoW. While on occasion something might be broken, in one way or another, it makes a game more fun IMO.
Karalyn Apr 11th 2007 11:53AM
As someone who came late to the game it makes it more fun to us, as well. My main is slowly climbing from 63 to 70 and if everyone already knew all the tricks of how every class was played... well, it would suck to be the new kid.
Znodis Apr 11th 2007 12:18PM
I once read an article on game RPS game balance. If you think about it why is RPS not a game we play all the time? Because the values are too equal.
Imagine a game of RPS played to 50 points. Winning with rock gives 20 points, scissors 10, and paper 5 points. Now there's some real strategy involved. Everyone wants to throw rock, so instead throw paper. Now they think you're going to throw paper again, but instead you can throw rock for 20 huge points. The _imbalance_ makes the game interesting.
John Apr 11th 2007 12:16PM
maybe they should add things, instead of nerfing existing things. instead of nerfing a spell, spread around more powerful spells/skills
Derbeste Apr 11th 2007 12:57PM
It's already been pointed out, but I think I'll bring it up again....
It's an interesting idea to think that constant shuffling of the rules is what keeps people from quitting, but human behavior in other competitions just don't support that theory.
In actuality, most competitions are kept static in order to truly measure who is "better". It's that competition, pride, and arrogance that drives most people. In fact, it's the human need to feel better at something than someone else that gives most individuals a perceived sense of identity - something teenagers in particular struggle with (hence all the kiddies in PvP?)
That is why most competitions are static - to eliminate as many variables in the measurement as possible. Furthermore, history has shown that for the reasons mentioned above, people keep coming back even though the rules don't change.
Some popular examples off the top of my head:
1. Most Olympic sports.
2. Chess
3. Professional sports leagues (yes the rules change SOME, but only when there is a real problem with a rule. Rules VERY rarely change to "mix it up")
4. Counter strike.
5. Starcraft
6. Golf
7. Soccer (probably the best example)
The list goes on. Some of these competitions go back thousands of years and are still popular. Soccer, in particular, proves the game does not need to change to keep the worlds interest.
What DOES keep people coming back, is the difference in PEOPLE...not the rules. There is your variety right there. People like to see different match ups with the same rules. It, again, ensures that someone is TRULY better because of skill....not an arbitrary change in "balance".
That stamina hunter a few posts down proves we don't need the rules to change to keep it interesting....just the players.
Luciox Apr 11th 2007 1:05PM
This may sound like a conspiracy theory but has anyone noticed a similarity between the current priest/pally debate and the feral druid/warrior debate?
I think blizz might be buffing and nerfing different classes to show that more then just the "holy trinity" can get the job done. To prove that not only warriors can tank but so can druids and pallys ect.
That probably doesnt make any sense but its a thought.
1up Apr 11th 2007 1:22PM
I wonder if that buff to warriors he is talking about is the one with intervene/charge/intercept removing any snares.
Zules Apr 11th 2007 1:04PM
If that were truly their game design philosophy, with the nerfs, then I'd be left shaking my head. Wouldn't it be far less frustrating, to change the environment up (especially in PvP), rather than to change the classes? That would achieve the same goals without alienating or aggravating a good number of their players. Additionally, if it was truly PvP-oriented, they'd be able to leave their PvE players in peace while tweaking for optimum PvP interest. *wistful sigh*
oshin Apr 11th 2007 1:30PM
I think its a case of just when they have class just as they want it they throw a cat in with the pigeons in the form of a class review/expansion. But hes right, if there was no change in classes wow would be very boring.
Lori Apr 11th 2007 2:23PM
@9 But in all those sports, the humans are the variables. Players age, new players arrive on the scene, players are traded, etc to change the game and keep it interesting. In WoW, unless Blizz changes things, character specs are static and once ppl figure out how to play the various classes nothing much changes. People learn to play a specific character very well and win most of the time or learn that their particular class sucks at PvP and give up or roll up a winning class character.
If nothing changes, IMO, the PvP aspect of WoW would stagnate. Perhaps PvP teams is an attempt at making WoW PvP more like RL sports. If PvP teams become popular enough to warrant the effort on Blizz's part, larger teams could keep more people intrested longer. What would really help is a way to watch team competitions.
Derbeste Apr 11th 2007 3:24PM
Lori,
The humans are the variables in PvP by definition too. That is because it's humans controlling the avatars. Therefore the players change all the time without having to change the rules of engagement.
"cookie cutter" plays happen is sports too. But people still watch year in and year out to see different matchups.
This phenominon of player variables seems to be the direction of all gaming as a result.
AI is becoming the focus of "next gen".
No game is considered complete anymore without a multiplayer aspect.
Games all seem to be going online (including simple games like poker and hearts)
Even old 1player games are being remade with the ability to interact with other players. (think the new FF remakes)
I submit that no matter how many expansions are made to PvE, no matter how many rules are changed, and no matter how many new sets of gear are released, WoW would be nothing without the human variable. Who would want to raids alone with the rest of your players controlled by the computer?
I also submit that the human variable can make a game survive while everything else remains static. Whereas constant rule changes have a harder time keeping people's attention without the human touch. It still happens some (hence offline gaming franchises), but it's much more difficult. Hell...you can keep humans entertained for DAYS playing a simple games like pool, air hockey, or Poker as long as they are playing each other. You can't keep the same people entertained playing such simple games against a computer.
Case in point...how many times do you put the same jigsaw puzzle together?
So in short....changing up the rules will only give the illusion of newness. But NO changes would keep players without the people to play them against. That's what keeps people around.
Deafdumbandblind Apr 12th 2007 7:35AM
Mike, you are demented if you think that Blizzard constantly nerfing things "keeps things interesting".
WRONG! Every nerf adds to a bank of frustration and every day someone's bank is filled until it can't take any more and they quit.
Blizz better hope that the number of people starting doesn't dip below the number of those leaving.
Ryan Apr 12th 2007 10:32AM
@16...
No one's leaving because of nerfs. Get over yourself. Every class gets nerfed and buffed all the time. People that know how to play get over it and learn new ways to play their class to its full potential. People that endlessly complain about nerfs truly don't know how to play their class... or play at all for that matter.
Frogs Apr 12th 2007 3:49PM
I think that having a class balance that didn't constantly change and actually worked, where all characters were equal in different ways, would be a lot more satisfying. As it is now, when I beat someone in PvP, is it because my class is one of the overpowered ones right now, or am I actually a competent player? Or when I lose, is it just because I was fighting one of the overpowered flavours of the month? Having abilities that change around is nice, but not when they cause some classes to be weaker overall than others.