Now to start, I would like everyone to know that I have no intentions of coming off as an elitist, in fact i’m not even that good at the game. However, I don’t like seeing posts that are just whining about a bunch of nerfs. I’ve invested a lot of time into Bungie’s Destiny and from release to now, that game’s weapon sandbox is garbage. It’s a big pillow fight of weak stuff. NERFING EVERYTHING DOES NOT = BALANCED. Instead of asking for nerfs, how about you look into the situation, try and figure out why a unit is so good, then come up with solutions such as offering strategies or counter measures. Now in some cases yes, a thing may require a nerf, but nerfing other things will only negate those nerfs and make more things unbalanced and it just turns into what other games have become. So please, I ask that we stop always jumping to the conclusion of “NERF THIS!” or “THIS IS TOO GOOD, 343 PLEASE NERF” or “THIS IS OP AS ALL GET OUT insert video here”.
If you read this topic and ask for nerfs often, do not take this as a flame, but rather a suggestion to eliminate constant nerfing.
Edit: I am in support of nerfing, prime example is the Locust, but I’m just saying we should look to buffing counters too. Like when they buffed Hunters and Cyclops to become a better counter against Locusts, this is the kind of thing I think would be healthier than nerf everything. I also am in game design and understand that GAME BALANCING IS TOUGH. Making almost everything weaker doesn’t help too much though because then people will complain about how Rushing is the only viable strategy and that there are very few army builds that are competent. Besides all that I’m loving the responses.
Edit#2: I noticed my title may come off as “I am better than you so listen to me”. Therefore I changed the title because I want to do my best not to become a toxic member of the community.
Breezy approves this message 
Ok. Fair points, but some things genuinely did need to be nerfed, just as others needed to be buffed. It’s an inherent challenge for RTS. Balance in shooters is something else entirely.
Nerfs and buffs will be an ongoing battle. You can’t just release a balanced RTS, and as new units, leaders, and abilities are introduced so too will new balance measures need to be introduced.
I agree, but anything that rinses/ kills your base in seconds no matter what you do and such is something that requires nerfing, like the locusts they could kite their counters and just mix in reavers so that their technical only counter that CAN keep up with them will die quickly and you have a invincible deathball, that has been tuned to where hunters can be a reliable counter now due to their buff and the locust nerf
> 2533274834453829;1:
> Now to start, I would like everyone to know that I have no intentions of coming off as an elitist, in fact i’m not even that good at the game. However, I don’t like seeing posts that are just whining about a bunch of nerfs. I’ve invested a lot of time into Bungie’s Destiny and from release to now, that game’s weapon sandbox is garbage. It’s a big pillow fight of weak stuff. NERFING EVERYTHING DOES NOT = BALANCED. Instead of asking for nerfs, how about you look into the situation, try and figure out why a unit is so good, then come up with solutions such as offering strategies or counter measures. Now in some cases yes, a thing may require a nerf, but nerfing other things will only negate those nerfs and make more things unbalanced and it just turns into what other games have become. So please, I ask that we stop always jumping to the conclusion of “NERF THIS!” or “THIS IS TOO GOOD, 343 PLEASE NERF” or “THIS IS OP AS ALL GET OUT insert video here”.
> If you read this topic and ask for nerfs often, do not take this as a flame, but rather a suggestion to eliminate constant nerfing.
Thank you someone has finally said it!
Sandbox balance is a very tricky thing that takes trial and error in many cases as is seen across all games where multiple balance updates happen as the tools in a sandbox get larger and more complex. So when people do talk about nerfs and buffs they may or may not make sense to everyone. In some cases calls to nerf one unit might actually be an underlying issue with other units that aren’t working properly against the unit people are asking to nerf. On the other side of that coin buffs aren’t always the answer and can hurt balance more if time to kills are increased too much by units. Both buffs and nerfs have valid uses for various scenarios. The key is finding that unicorn we know as perfect balance that everyone is striving to achieve where all strategies can be successfully used as well as successfully countered.
I understand many not wanting people to ask for nerfs, but a better question you can ask yourself when you see people calling for them is why are they asking for them in the first place? If it is because a true imbalance exists? Is it because the person didn’t know what was coming and therefore didn’t build the appropriate counter? Or is it simply because they didn’t know a counter strategy existed?
We as a community should work on helping others understand the viable strategies as well as the counters to said strategies. And in the cases where true imbalance does exist discuss what can be done to help make viable counter strategies. As a last resort if a viable strategy is purely unbeatable - then screams for buff/nerf become even more appropriate and should be addressed.
So, TLDR; just remember that even though many say nerf when it may not be needed, and can be a way to vent frustration or simply not knowing how to counter something - there are often times where arguments for imbalance are truly appropriate. Discerning between the two is where we as the community play a great role in discussing things to help make a game better.
> 2533274809541057;3:
> Ok. Fair points, but some things genuinely did need to be nerfed, just as others needed to be buffed. It’s an inherent challenge for RTS. Balance in shooters is something else entirely.
>
> Nerfs and buffs will be an ongoing battle. You can’t just release a balanced RTS, and as new units, leaders, and abilities are introduced so too will new balance measures need to be introduced.
I completely agree no game is perfect on release. My point though was that we should give some evidence or actually supply some critical thought when we say nerf because many times it’s “_____ destroyed my stuff too fast”, because yes somethings need nerfs. Like Locusts, rather than say " they destroy my base too fast", talk about how they’re a specialized unit rather than a core unit, therefore they should recieve a nerf to keep them specialized. I also see that perhaps FPS balancing can’t be compared but I think you can see what I was getting at. Also, thank you for the constructive argument and not being rude about it.
Please note that in my post I did state that it’s OK to nerf things. I believe somethings need nerfing but not everything like it seems. Another point I was trying to make is we need to come together as a community to provide help to one another because often times people just attack the ones that say nerf. Again I support nerfing, but we should also buff other things, for example, I see barely anyone mention how crappy Marauders and Hogs are. Those could be buffed to become a viable unit.
> 2533274834453829;7:
> > 2533274809541057;3:
> > Ok. Fair points, but some things genuinely did need to be nerfed, just as others needed to be buffed. It’s an inherent challenge for RTS. Balance in shooters is something else entirely.
> >
> > Nerfs and buffs will be an ongoing battle. You can’t just release a balanced RTS, and as new units, leaders, and abilities are introduced so too will new balance measures need to be introduced.
>
> I completely agree no game is perfect on release. My point though was that we should give some evidence or actually supply some critical thought when we say nerf because many times it’s “_____ destroyed my stuff too fast”, because yes somethings need nerfs. Like Locusts, rather than say " they destroy my base too fast", talk about how they’re a specialized unit rather than a core unit, therefore they should recieve a nerf to keep them specialized. I also see that perhaps FPS balancing can’t be compared but I think you can see what I was getting at. Also, thank you for the constructive argument and not being rude about it.
A lot of the balance posts are quite in depth. The izhere guys and blaky are especially good.
> 2674682457271996;9:
> > 2533274834453829;7:
> > > 2533274809541057;3:
> > > Ok. Fair points, but some things genuinely did need to be nerfed, just as others needed to be buffed. It’s an inherent challenge for RTS. Balance in shooters is something else entirely.
> > >
> > > Nerfs and buffs will be an ongoing battle. You can’t just release a balanced RTS, and as new units, leaders, and abilities are introduced so too will new balance measures need to be introduced.
> >
> > I completely agree no game is perfect on release. My point though was that we should give some evidence or actually supply some critical thought when we say nerf because many times it’s “_____ destroyed my stuff too fast”, because yes somethings need nerfs. Like Locusts, rather than say " they destroy my base too fast", talk about how they’re a specialized unit rather than a core unit, therefore they should recieve a nerf to keep them specialized. I also see that perhaps FPS balancing can’t be compared but I think you can see what I was getting at. Also, thank you for the constructive argument and not being rude about it.
>
> A lot of the balance posts are quite in depth. The izhere guys and blaky are especially good.
Yes these are very good examples. 100% agree
> 2533274959649201;4:
> I agree, but anything that rinses/ kills your base in seconds no matter what you do and such is something that requires nerfing, like the locusts they could kite their counters and just mix in reavers so that their technical only counter that CAN keep up with them will die quickly and you have a invincible deathball, that has been tuned to where hunters can be a reliable counter now due to their buff and the locust nerf
Yes the Locust/Anti-V was what I was getting at in my original post.