It’s to keep design space open and to minimize developer work.
Let’s say we decide to keep an overperforming gun. It does all the things. It has all the ammo, all the damage, all fire rate, all the reload speed. Now, all future weapons have to be made with that as a consideration. Why would players choose this new weapon, when there’s the old overperformer? The design space is being controlled and minimized by the overperformer. Players will complain if new weapons aren’t on the level of the overperformer.
Now, let’s say we have ten weapons with one clear overperformer. Now, we can either nerf a single weapon to bring it in line with the others, or buff nine weapons to attempt to bring them up to the level of the overperformer. Assuming the balance adjustments of each weapon are the same amount of work, that’s 9x the effort. However, if we assume we do this extra work to satisfy players, now we have ten overperforming guns and players find the game too easy, so now we also have to buff enemies to match. However, the game isn’t designed to handle these increase in difficulty. Players complain if we just add more health to enemies, so we have to do other things like increase enemy count, but adding more enemies increases performance issues. It’s a cascading problem.
I consider nerfs a necessary evil. It’s absurd to ask developers to always buff weapons and give them so much work when they could be developing actual additions to the game. Sometimes, a weapon really does need a nerf.
Also, I’m not sure how much this applies to helldivers specifically, but from what I’ve seen, teams didn’t really teamwork. Because they didn’t have to.
This can be very bad because if it follows these steps:
game is easy, no teamwork required, players learn to play the game without teamwork
game gets harder, but some people can still manage solo, complain about “newbs” and tell them to “git gud”
game gets even harder, now it’s impossible to play “quasi solo” but the environment is no longer fit to learn teamwork in the context of this game. “How” to work together effectively.
Then people will complain, justly, that they don’t have the tools and methods to beat the challenge. Which is correct. They don’t. But you can’t just tell people to “go play easy mode and learn the game”, when they are “max level” and put 40-100 hours into the game.
Of course the synergy tools still have to exist and I’m not knowledgeable about helldivers whether they do.
There is no good choice to “encourage” teamplay, except via creating “natural” funnels that people will “end up at” “organically”, and putting a challenge in front of them that they can only work with teamwork. But that means the challenge has to beat them, until they get it. And that may never happen.
One game I have found exceptional as a case study for what is “overpowered” and what isn’t, and why, is magic the gathering. All the “code” is public. The complaints are public. The bans are public, and explained. So if anyone here wants to nerd out about balance and doesn’t know mtg yet, there is a rabbit hole for you.
It’s to keep design space open and to minimize developer work.
Let’s say we decide to keep an overperforming gun. It does all the things. It has all the ammo, all the damage, all fire rate, all the reload speed. Now, all future weapons have to be made with that as a consideration. Why would players choose this new weapon, when there’s the old overperformer? The design space is being controlled and minimized by the overperformer. Players will complain if new weapons aren’t on the level of the overperformer.
Now, let’s say we have ten weapons with one clear overperformer. Now, we can either nerf a single weapon to bring it in line with the others, or buff nine weapons to attempt to bring them up to the level of the overperformer. Assuming the balance adjustments of each weapon are the same amount of work, that’s 9x the effort. However, if we assume we do this extra work to satisfy players, now we have ten overperforming guns and players find the game too easy, so now we also have to buff enemies to match. However, the game isn’t designed to handle these increase in difficulty. Players complain if we just add more health to enemies, so we have to do other things like increase enemy count, but adding more enemies increases performance issues. It’s a cascading problem.
I consider nerfs a necessary evil. It’s absurd to ask developers to always buff weapons and give them so much work when they could be developing actual additions to the game. Sometimes, a weapon really does need a nerf.
Also, I’m not sure how much this applies to helldivers specifically, but from what I’ve seen, teams didn’t really teamwork. Because they didn’t have to.
This can be very bad because if it follows these steps:
Then people will complain, justly, that they don’t have the tools and methods to beat the challenge. Which is correct. They don’t. But you can’t just tell people to “go play easy mode and learn the game”, when they are “max level” and put 40-100 hours into the game.
Of course the synergy tools still have to exist and I’m not knowledgeable about helldivers whether they do.
There is no good choice to “encourage” teamplay, except via creating “natural” funnels that people will “end up at” “organically”, and putting a challenge in front of them that they can only work with teamwork. But that means the challenge has to beat them, until they get it. And that may never happen.
One game I have found exceptional as a case study for what is “overpowered” and what isn’t, and why, is magic the gathering. All the “code” is public. The complaints are public. The bans are public, and explained. So if anyone here wants to nerd out about balance and doesn’t know mtg yet, there is a rabbit hole for you.