Nerfed is a term that defines the weakening of an EXISTING character. if he is not released into the contest yet, he doesn't exist yet. There is no former game play to compared his weakened state to. To say that carnage was nerfed would mean he was released bad, and made even worse. Obviously, the Kabam rep at NYCC merely answered the question using the same terms worded in the question. They probably answered a lot of questions and didn't give much thought to the distinction of terms, just answering the question the way it was asked. Once again...... A nerf is a change in an EXISTING PLAYABLE CHARACTER. Before release, it's just a revision of a upcoming non-released character. I wish a Kabam employee or a Mod would get on and explain this. It makes me cringe when I see someone who is obviously wrong so determined that they are right.
Nerfed is a term that defines the weakening of an EXISTING character. if he is not released into the contest yet, he doesn't exist yet. There is no former game play to compared his weakened state to. To say that carnage was nerfed would mean he was released bad, and made even worse. Obviously, the Kabam rep at NYCC merely answered the question using the same terms worded in the question. They probably answered a lot of questions and didn't give much thought to the distinction of terms, just answering the question the way it was asked. Once again...... A nerf is a change in an EXISTING PLAYABLE CHARACTER. Before release, it's just a revision of a upcoming non-released character. I wish a Kabam employee or a Mod would get on and explain this. It makes me cringe when I see someone who is obviously wrong so determined that they are right.
Nerfed is a term that defines the weakening of an EXISTING character. if he is not released into the contest yet, he doesn't exist yet. There is no former game play to compared his weakened state to. To say that carnage was nerfed would mean he was released bad, and made even worse. Obviously, the Kabam rep at NYCC merely answered the question using the same terms worded in the question. They probably answered a lot of questions and didn't give much thought to the distinction of terms, just answering the question the way it was asked. Once again...... A nerf is a change in an EXISTING PLAYABLE CHARACTER. Before release, it's just a revision of a upcoming non-released character. I wish a Kabam employee or a Mod would get on and explain this. It makes me cringe when I see someone who is obviously wrong so determined that they are right.
I agree. I really didn't want to start a debate on the term. It got a bit off-topic. I wanted to point out that a nerf is not the same as pre-released revisions. There is a difference because the intention is much closer to the final product.
I suspect that the Dev was using a term that could be understood. In any event, the topic is how extreme the change was. As I mentioned, I believe it has to do with trying to keep the Buffs balanced among each other.
Which is no offense to the OP. People can post what they want. What I'm saying is in terms of wanting him buffed, it doesn't matter what he used to be.
I'm not sure why you would say that. As in literally, I have no idea what purpose that statement serves. But it certainly does matter. For one thing, it matters to me in all sorts of ways having to do with better understanding how the champion was designed, how he ended up the way he is, why he was changed, and what the actual designer's opinion about the change is.
People can post what they want, but no offense: it doesn't matter what you think is relevant. It does matter what the Kabam devs themselves think is relevant to any discussion about future changes, so by definition everything they say and think about the dev process is extremely relevant. Speaking for myself, it informs everything I think I know about how the game is made and what the devs consider reasonable and unreasonable. And when it comes to thinking about the game design and making suggestions about improvements, these statements are immeasurably valuable.
Just the tiny bits said at NYCC have given me a greater insight into Carnage's performance than I could ever have deduced by just randomly speculating. Why anyone would say that what he used to be doesn't matter is really inconceivable to me. I will say this: it was relevant to the players asking the question, it was relevant to the dev answering the question, and it will be relevant to anything I might say about Carnage in the future. To the extent that I have any small influence on discussions at all, it will be relevant to them. The relevance of that fact is guaranteed.
The majority of this thread debates the definition of nerf. Who honestly cares.
I love the response the guy made about admitting they took Carnage too low after realizing he was too op. It tells me that they are worried about Champion balance and it hits the buffing of current Champions.
Which is no offense to the OP. People can post what they want. What I'm saying is in terms of wanting him buffed, it doesn't matter what he used to be.
I'm not sure why you would say that. As in literally, I have no idea what purpose that statement serves. But it certainly does matter. For one thing, it matters to me in all sorts of ways having to do with better understanding how the champion was designed, how he ended up the way he is, why he was changed, and what the actual designer's opinion about the change is.
People can post what they want, but no offense: it doesn't matter what you think is relevant. It does matter what the Kabam devs themselves think is relevant to any discussion about future changes, so by definition everything they say and think about the dev process is extremely relevant. Speaking for myself, it informs everything I think I know about how the game is made and what the devs consider reasonable and unreasonable. And when it comes to thinking about the game design and making suggestions about improvements, these statements are immeasurably valuable.
Just the tiny bits said at NYCC have given me a greater insight into Carnage's performance than I could ever have deduced by just randomly speculating. Why anyone would say that what he used to be doesn't matter is really inconceivable to me. I will say this: it was relevant to the players asking the question, it was relevant to the dev answering the question, and it will be relevant to anything I might say about Carnage in the future. To the extent that I have any small influence on discussions at all, it will be relevant to them. The relevance of that fact is guaranteed.
I could have worded that differently. It came off differently than I wanted it to. It has relevance to the topic, yes. What really doesn't hold relevance to me is having the knowledge that they changed him before release. These choices are part of the inner workings. I can see how sharing that information is a good, and a bad thing.
Nerfed is a term that defines the weakening of an EXISTING character. if he is not released into the contest yet, he doesn't exist yet. There is no former game play to compared his weakened state to. To say that carnage was nerfed would mean he was released bad, and made even worse. Obviously, the Kabam rep at NYCC merely answered the question using the same terms worded in the question. They probably answered a lot of questions and didn't give much thought to the distinction of terms, just answering the question the way it was asked. Once again...... A nerf is a change in an EXISTING PLAYABLE CHARACTER. Before release, it's just a revision of a upcoming non-released character. I wish a Kabam employee or a Mod would get on and explain this. It makes me cringe when I see someone who is obviously wrong so determined that they are right.
So you are saying the Kabam rep is wrong?
I'm saying the Kabam rep was busy so he answered questions using the same terms stated in the questions asked of him. How many questions do you think he was asked about REAL actual nerfs, and people using that term in questions about pre release. How likely is it that he would explain the obvious difference between terms. He most likely corrected the first few people who used the incorrect term in questions about pre release development, but gave up trying after that. Would you want to spend the whole weekend explaining the obvious difference to people who didn't understand if you were him? Or would you want to focus on more important things. Probably the latter.
Use the term nerfed or don't use the term nerfed, it doesn't really matter. The important point from this seems that at the very least they did consider the outcome of releasing an OP champ into the player base. Let's assume he was amazing and then everyone dumps awakening gems, sig stones and rank up resources into him. There would be a massive backlash if they nerfed him post release.
Of course this is just obvious speculation. But something that doesn't exist yet cannot be nerfed. It cannot have a state to weaken, as it does not yet exist.
Seriously, stop quoting and responding to the troll. Ignore him like the rest of us. When you quote the troll I have to read what he says. Every thread he participates in just turns into him feeling people don't respect his right to an opinion. It's not that at all. It's that every thread he participates in gets detailed and becomes about him due to his need to always play devil's advocate. Please stop feeding the troll!
Of course this is just obvious speculation. But something that doesn't exist yet cannot be nerfed. It cannot have a state to weaken, as it does not yet exist.
If it doesn't exist, then how can they change it? Don't be a dolt. The term Nerf originated from an instance where the devs made in-game weapons substantially weaker than what they were, but no one cares if the change is pre- or post-release. It is the change itself that is agreed on by almost everyone to be a 'nerf' if the change leads to a lowering of abilities.
Nerfed is a term that defines the weakening of an EXISTING character. if he is not released into the contest yet, he doesn't exist yet. There is no former game play to compared his weakened state to. To say that carnage was nerfed would mean he was released bad, and made even worse. Obviously, the Kabam rep at NYCC merely answered the question using the same terms worded in the question. They probably answered a lot of questions and didn't give much thought to the distinction of terms, just answering the question the way it was asked. Once again...... A nerf is a change in an EXISTING PLAYABLE CHARACTER. Before release, it's just a revision of a upcoming non-released character. I wish a Kabam employee or a Mod would get on and explain this. It makes me cringe when I see someone who is obviously wrong so determined that they are right.
No it is not. The distinction you are promoting - live production games verses everything else - is a useless distinction in game development. Games don't go from scratch pads to live servers in one jump. They go from concept platforms to early alpha to early beta to closed beta to open beta to live. Nobody, and I mean nobody but word-quibblers, wants to invent entirely separate language to refer to what a nerf would be except the thing isn't live yet. If the Carnage developer implemented the character and it was being tested either by beta testers, internal QA, or internal alpha builds of the game, and then he dramatically reduced the power of that champion after those people played it, he "nerfed" it relative to the people who experienced its original design.
I've used the term in that way as a player, as someone who interacted with developers, and in my very brief stint as a developer. The definition you are promoting is one that I have rarely seen from players and never from developers. It would be crazy for them to adopt colloquial language that was useless to their own work.
K whatever I always thought a nerf was a change in a game that leaves the player with something weakened. Apparently a nerf now has no effect whatsoever on any player, no change. Kool. Makes sense.
K whatever I always thought a nerf was a change in a game that leaves the player with something weakened. Apparently a nerf now has no effect whatsoever on any player, no change. Kool. Makes sense.
@RichiesDad79 What?!!! This statement makes no sense. A nerf to a champ who is available in the game affects players directly. A nerf to a champ prior to release affects them in a different way and may cause less uproar but the effect on players isn't really part of the definition of the word. Leaving the player with something weakened is neither here nor there. @DNA3000 appreciate your insight on this thread. @GroundedWisdom not so much this time lol. It seems the released champ distinction isn't relevant.
K whatever I always thought a nerf was a change in a game that leaves the player with something weakened. Apparently a nerf now has no effect whatsoever on any player, no change. Kool. Makes sense.
Well, you were always wrong then. And from your second sentence I can see that you're still wrong. K.
K whatever I always thought a nerf was a change in a game that leaves the player with something weakened. Apparently a nerf now has no effect whatsoever on any player, no change. Kool. Makes sense.
@RichiesDad79 What?!!! This statement makes no sense. A nerf to a champ who is available in the game affects players directly. A nerf to a champ prior to release affects them in a different way and may cause less uproar but the effect on players isn't really part of the definition of the word. Leaving the player with something weakened is neither here nor there. @DNA3000 appreciate your insight on this thread. @GroundedWisdom not so much this time lol. It seems the released champ distinction isn't relevant.
Not to get too into it again because somehow it generated a separate debate that wasn't really what I intended, it is an important distinction. When something is in process, it's not the same as the final product. The final product is what is in question. Now, in this case the OP wanted to know how the end result came to be such an extreme. Which is only something the Devs could answer for certain. However, it's important to note that we cannot base the final product on decisions made before its release because that is their process, not our own. We would have to understand everything about the previous version, what the issue with it was, how it conflicted with their overall objective, how they arrived at the current version, etc. Basically their entire thought process. Now, I was trying to illustrate that a nerf is only for existing Champs because the term is used quite often here to mean something else, along with all the reactions that follow. The word is also used colloquially, and I understand that. The real distinction I was trying to make is that the changes they make before releasing a Champ are not at all the same as the changes after. How they arrived at the final product is really moot at this point, and that is dependant on what they were trying to achieve at that time. Somewhere along the lines, the conversation turned into an off-topic debate about words and I apologize for triggering that as it was not my intention to do.
Can't we all just settle with the fact that Carnage was once too powerful but was tweaked to be weaker, except he is now too weak, before he was released? Nerf...revisited...readjusted, I mean, if we can understand what we are saying to each other, is there really a need to debate which is the correct word to use?
If I say "He was nerfed before being released" versus "He was revised before being released", I think we can get pretty much the same meaning out of those two statements, and that would be "His overall effectiveness and power were reduced before being released into the game to prevent him from being too overpowered".
That being said, revise is not a wrong word to use, since the word nerf means, and I quote , "a change to a game that reduces the desirability or effectiveness of a particular game element" and since Carnage was tweaked before his release, technically that would be considered a revisit, rather than a nerf, since he wasn't in the game and thus his tweak isn't a change to the game. So the word should be revisit.
But then Wikipedia also states a nerf is "a change to a game that reduces the power of a weapon or skill in order to maintain game balance.". It doesn't actually state whether the change to the game can refer to something that hasn't yet been released into the game, but is still in production. They did weaken Carnage to maintain game balance before his release into the game, otherwise known as "reducing the power of a weapon" or in this case a champion, and he was eventually going to be in the game anyway...so I guess nerf is the word.
Exactly, it's debatable. Either way, it looks and sounds correct to me. If you tell me "nerfed him before release" vs "revised him before release" I honestly wouldn't care too much because I can infer pretty much the same thing from those two statements. This is a thread about Carnage's tweak before release, not about whether nerf or revise is the correct word to use.
Can't we all just settle with the fact that Carnage was once too powerful but was tweaked to be weaker, except he is now too weak, before he was released? Nerf...revisited...readjusted, I mean, if we can understand what we are saying to each other, is there really a need to debate which is the correct word to use?
If I say "He was nerfed before being released" versus "He was revised before being released", I think we can get pretty much the same meaning out of those two statements, and that would be "His overall effectiveness and power were reduced before being released into the game to prevent him from being too overpowered".
That being said, revise is not a wrong word to use, since the word nerf means, and I quote , "a change to a game that reduces the desirability or effectiveness of a particular game element" and since Carnage was tweaked before his release, technically that would be considered a revisit, rather than a nerf, since he wasn't in the game and thus his tweak isn't a change to the game. So the word should be revisit.
But then Wikipedia also states a nerf is "a change to a game that reduces the power of a weapon or skill in order to maintain game balance.". It doesn't actually state whether the change to the game can refer to something that hasn't yet been released into the game, but is still in production. They did weaken Carnage to maintain game balance before his release, otherwise known as "reducing the power of a weapon" or in this case a champion...so I guess nerf is the word.
Exactly, it's debatable. Either way, it looks and sounds correct to me. If you tell me "nerfed him before release" vs "revised him before release" I honestly wouldn't care too much because I can infer pretty much the same thing from those two statements. This is a thread about Carnage's tweak before release, not about whether nerf or revise is the correct word to use.
Yes I agree. I think I tried to make a distinction in too few words and it became focused on semantics. I'm no longer debating the use of the words.
As I said before, I'm indifferent. I'm one of the few that really didn't share the same reaction as others. Now, I can see why he's considered bad. I'm not blind. I just think it's tricky given his current cycle of Buffs. It will be interesting to see how they choose to tweak him if it comes. I have no ideas yet. The Base Stats would amp up everything. There could be improvements to his Bleed, but as it stacks with his L1, that could be tricky as well. I love the overall design either way. It's just a curious situation.
Changes to a Champ before its release are not nerfs.
The person I talked to (Kabam developer) specifically said he was nerfed before his launch, and was nerfed too much.
SO I'M PRETTY SURE NERF is the correct term lol.
But hey you were there so you know better than me........
Technically, a Champ has to be playable to consider it a nerf. Otherwise it's revisions to the design before the release.
Technically even when you're wrong you're right is what you're saying. JHC
I'm making a distinction. When a Champ is still being finalized, according to the intended outcome, and it hasn't been released yet, that's not a nerf. It's still being designed. A nerf is a major change to a Champ that exists. If their intentions for a Champ change, that's still revising. It's an important disticntion to make because this is a window into the process of making a Champ, and not a nerf to a Champ that is already playable. While the information was shared, it was not the same as implying they nerfed him. He wasn't even released yet.
Dude why carry on the argument, the dev said to him they NERFED Carnage... end of story. We don't need a Oxford Dictionary out to say who was wrong using whatever terms... he was told they nerfed Carnage. End of, leave it. Stop
Changes to a Champ before its release are not nerfs.
The person I talked to (Kabam developer) specifically said he was nerfed before his launch, and was nerfed too much.
SO I'M PRETTY SURE NERF is the correct term lol.
But hey you were there so you know better than me........
Technically, a Champ has to be playable to consider it a nerf. Otherwise it's revisions to the design before the release.
Technically even when you're wrong you're right is what you're saying. JHC
I'm making a distinction. When a Champ is still being finalized, according to the intended outcome, and it hasn't been released yet, that's not a nerf. It's still being designed. A nerf is a major change to a Champ that exists. If their intentions for a Champ change, that's still revising. It's an important disticntion to make because this is a window into the process of making a Champ, and not a nerf to a Champ that is already playable. While the information was shared, it was not the same as implying they nerfed him. He wasn't even released yet.
Dude why carry on the argument, the dev said to him they NERFED Carnage... end of story. We don't need a Oxford Dictionary out to say who was wrong using whatever terms... he was told they nerfed Carnage. End of, leave it. Stop
A change to a charter befor they are released wouldn't be a nerf. That would be part of the development proses. People prob want to think it's a nerf because they are mad he was changed
Grounded is truly special, continues to repeat him self because he doesn't like that people don't agree with his opinion. Truly pathetic. Sorry OP, for the train wreck.
Or it could be kabam just doesn’t understand how to fix their game what so ever . So turning carnage into mush was the best they could do. Seems like it happens a lot lately no in between either awsome of pure trash. In all aspects of the game
Comments
So you are saying the Kabam rep is wrong?
I agree. I really didn't want to start a debate on the term. It got a bit off-topic. I wanted to point out that a nerf is not the same as pre-released revisions. There is a difference because the intention is much closer to the final product.
I suspect that the Dev was using a term that could be understood. In any event, the topic is how extreme the change was. As I mentioned, I believe it has to do with trying to keep the Buffs balanced among each other.
I'm not sure why you would say that. As in literally, I have no idea what purpose that statement serves. But it certainly does matter. For one thing, it matters to me in all sorts of ways having to do with better understanding how the champion was designed, how he ended up the way he is, why he was changed, and what the actual designer's opinion about the change is.
People can post what they want, but no offense: it doesn't matter what you think is relevant. It does matter what the Kabam devs themselves think is relevant to any discussion about future changes, so by definition everything they say and think about the dev process is extremely relevant. Speaking for myself, it informs everything I think I know about how the game is made and what the devs consider reasonable and unreasonable. And when it comes to thinking about the game design and making suggestions about improvements, these statements are immeasurably valuable.
Just the tiny bits said at NYCC have given me a greater insight into Carnage's performance than I could ever have deduced by just randomly speculating. Why anyone would say that what he used to be doesn't matter is really inconceivable to me. I will say this: it was relevant to the players asking the question, it was relevant to the dev answering the question, and it will be relevant to anything I might say about Carnage in the future. To the extent that I have any small influence on discussions at all, it will be relevant to them. The relevance of that fact is guaranteed.
I love the response the guy made about admitting they took Carnage too low after realizing he was too op. It tells me that they are worried about Champion balance and it hits the buffing of current Champions.
I could have worded that differently. It came off differently than I wanted it to. It has relevance to the topic, yes. What really doesn't hold relevance to me is having the knowledge that they changed him before release. These choices are part of the inner workings. I can see how sharing that information is a good, and a bad thing.
I'm saying the Kabam rep was busy so he answered questions using the same terms stated in the questions asked of him. How many questions do you think he was asked about REAL actual nerfs, and people using that term in questions about pre release. How likely is it that he would explain the obvious difference between terms. He most likely corrected the first few people who used the incorrect term in questions about pre release development, but gave up trying after that. Would you want to spend the whole weekend explaining the obvious difference to people who didn't understand if you were him? Or would you want to focus on more important things. Probably the latter.
It is easier to give than it is to take away.
If it doesn't exist, then how can they change it? Don't be a dolt. The term Nerf originated from an instance where the devs made in-game weapons substantially weaker than what they were, but no one cares if the change is pre- or post-release. It is the change itself that is agreed on by almost everyone to be a 'nerf' if the change leads to a lowering of abilities.
No it is not. The distinction you are promoting - live production games verses everything else - is a useless distinction in game development. Games don't go from scratch pads to live servers in one jump. They go from concept platforms to early alpha to early beta to closed beta to open beta to live. Nobody, and I mean nobody but word-quibblers, wants to invent entirely separate language to refer to what a nerf would be except the thing isn't live yet. If the Carnage developer implemented the character and it was being tested either by beta testers, internal QA, or internal alpha builds of the game, and then he dramatically reduced the power of that champion after those people played it, he "nerfed" it relative to the people who experienced its original design.
I've used the term in that way as a player, as someone who interacted with developers, and in my very brief stint as a developer. The definition you are promoting is one that I have rarely seen from players and never from developers. It would be crazy for them to adopt colloquial language that was useless to their own work.
@RichiesDad79 What?!!! This statement makes no sense. A nerf to a champ who is available in the game affects players directly. A nerf to a champ prior to release affects them in a different way and may cause less uproar but the effect on players isn't really part of the definition of the word. Leaving the player with something weakened is neither here nor there. @DNA3000 appreciate your insight on this thread. @GroundedWisdom not so much this time lol. It seems the released champ distinction isn't relevant.
Well, you were always wrong then. And from your second sentence I can see that you're still wrong. K.
Not to get too into it again because somehow it generated a separate debate that wasn't really what I intended, it is an important distinction. When something is in process, it's not the same as the final product. The final product is what is in question. Now, in this case the OP wanted to know how the end result came to be such an extreme. Which is only something the Devs could answer for certain. However, it's important to note that we cannot base the final product on decisions made before its release because that is their process, not our own. We would have to understand everything about the previous version, what the issue with it was, how it conflicted with their overall objective, how they arrived at the current version, etc. Basically their entire thought process. Now, I was trying to illustrate that a nerf is only for existing Champs because the term is used quite often here to mean something else, along with all the reactions that follow. The word is also used colloquially, and I understand that. The real distinction I was trying to make is that the changes they make before releasing a Champ are not at all the same as the changes after. How they arrived at the final product is really moot at this point, and that is dependant on what they were trying to achieve at that time. Somewhere along the lines, the conversation turned into an off-topic debate about words and I apologize for triggering that as it was not my intention to do.
If I say "He was nerfed before being released" versus "He was revised before being released", I think we can get pretty much the same meaning out of those two statements, and that would be "His overall effectiveness and power were reduced before being released into the game to prevent him from being too overpowered".
That being said, revise is not a wrong word to use, since the word nerf means, and I quote , "a change to a game that reduces the desirability or effectiveness of a particular game element" and since Carnage was tweaked before his release, technically that would be considered a revisit, rather than a nerf, since he wasn't in the game and thus his tweak isn't a change to the game. So the word should be revisit.
But then Wikipedia also states a nerf is "a change to a game that reduces the power of a weapon or skill in order to maintain game balance.". It doesn't actually state whether the change to the game can refer to something that hasn't yet been released into the game, but is still in production. They did weaken Carnage to maintain game balance before his release into the game, otherwise known as "reducing the power of a weapon" or in this case a champion, and he was eventually going to be in the game anyway...so I guess nerf is the word.
Exactly, it's debatable. Either way, it looks and sounds correct to me. If you tell me "nerfed him before release" vs "revised him before release" I honestly wouldn't care too much because I can infer pretty much the same thing from those two statements. This is a thread about Carnage's tweak before release, not about whether nerf or revise is the correct word to use.
Yes I agree. I think I tried to make a distinction in too few words and it became focused on semantics. I'm no longer debating the use of the words.
As I said before, I'm indifferent. I'm one of the few that really didn't share the same reaction as others. Now, I can see why he's considered bad. I'm not blind. I just think it's tricky given his current cycle of Buffs. It will be interesting to see how they choose to tweak him if it comes. I have no ideas yet. The Base Stats would amp up everything. There could be improvements to his Bleed, but as it stacks with his L1, that could be tricky as well. I love the overall design either way. It's just a curious situation.
So quit trying to say they do
Or explain the bugs(if they had testers they would of realized there were bugs)
So either they have testers to test and just release stuff to screw us
Or they just lieing that they have testers just to screw us
I just don't get this silence
Dude why carry on the argument, the dev said to him they NERFED Carnage... end of story. We don't need a Oxford Dictionary out to say who was wrong using whatever terms... he was told they nerfed Carnage. End of, leave it. Stop
Did you even read the latter part of the Thread?
The REAL definition of nerf, now shhhh this thread is about Carnage, not a Webster's debate