Nerfs : Why always offensive?

There have been a lot of nerfs in the game since its beginning. My question is : Why are these nerfs directed towards stuff that is helpful to the players. Whenever, something beneficial comes up for the players, it gets nerfed.
Let's see some examples :
1) OG DP's regen
2) Items Cap.
3) Block Prof.
4) SW, DS, BW, Thor all nerfed.

While on the other hand, you never see something that will cost the players get nerfed. I know it's a business after all, but shouldn't be like this.
Has spidey ever been nerfed ? Electro ? NC? Mordo ? No.
MD? No. And they won't be because they mean more spending.

And with the latest Act 5.2 Ch, the money grab increased even more.
Please stop ruining the game for us players. You can't force a player who doesn't wanna spend. Either he'll try to save up some free items, or just give up on the game in frustration.
Rant over.

Comments

  • BitterSteelBitterSteel Posts: 2,926 ★★★★★
    Magik even had a buff which was a detriment to the player
  • kunal_rules01kunal_rules01 Posts: 13
    Totally agree!
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 10,478 Guardian
    Superman69 wrote: »
    There have been a lot of nerfs in the game since its beginning. My question is : Why are these nerfs directed towards stuff that is helpful to the players.

    It tends to be portrayed that way, but that's mostly because the computer can't complain when it gets nerfed.

    Nerfs change champions, and because players use almost every champion all nerfs will hit players. They really hit both in favor of players and against players, but the focus is always on the way it hurts players. It is the same with buffs. The buff to Winter Soldier helps players with the champion, but the focus was on the way it hurts players that have to face him in content like RoL. Nerfing regen defenders in AW hurts the players that use them, but *not* nerfing Magik and Iceman in AW hurts the players that have to face them.

    All changes can be depicted as either hurting players or helping the computer, because nearly all champions are used by both players and the computer, and on top of that the players are both the offense and the defense in AW. It is impossible to implement a nerf that can't be seen as hurting the players. All champion abilities can be seen as helping the players, so any decrease in them can be seen as hurting the players.
  • TKalTKal Posts: 534 ★★
    Yeah actually Mordo has been nerfed, his sp3 deals no damages now
  • ShrimkinsShrimkins Posts: 1,464 ★★★★
    Basically 3/4 on your list got nerfed before there was even such a thing as a "defensive" and "offensive" things because AW didn't even exist. (I know there was BP early in AW but not very long).

    Also you fail to mention the WP nerf which definitely benefited defenders much more than attackers. They then also nerfed regen in AW defense even more so that's another defensive nerf.

    They even removed half the thorns from the map so there's another defensive nerf.

    They even nerfed the entire map. It use to be if you got to tier 3 you jumped straight to the expert map, now you don't play on expert until tier 1 you play on challenger which is significantly easier.

    So I named 4 defensive nerfs pretty easily.

    Clearly not all nerfs are to offensive stuff.

  • Superman69Superman69 Posts: 534
    Shrimkins wrote: »
    Basically 3/4 on your list got nerfed before there was even such a thing as a "defensive" and "offensive" things because AW didn't even exist. (I know there was BP early in AW but not very long).

    Also you fail to mention the WP nerf which definitely benefited defenders much more than attackers. They then also nerfed regen in AW defense even more so that's another defensive nerf.

    They even removed half the thorns from the map so there's another defensive nerf.

    They even nerfed the entire map. It use to be if you got to tier 3 you jumped straight to the expert map, now you don't play on expert until tier 1 you play on challenger which is significantly easier.

    So I named 4 defensive nerfs pretty easily.

    Clearly not all nerfs are to offensive stuff.

    WP was an offensive mastery. Most people unlocked it to help in quests and AQ etc.
    It only became defensive when AW came. And all your other examples are related to AW as well. AW is not the only part of the game.

    And by those terms, i was referring to the whole game in general not just AW. By defensive, i meant opponents in AQ, quests etc.
  • Superman69Superman69 Posts: 534
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Superman69 wrote: »
    There have been a lot of nerfs in the game since its beginning. My question is : Why are these nerfs directed towards stuff that is helpful to the players.

    It tends to be portrayed that way, but that's mostly because the computer can't complain when it gets nerfed.

    Nerfs change champions, and because players use almost every champion all nerfs will hit players. They really hit both in favor of players and against players, but the focus is always on the way it hurts players. It is the same with buffs. The buff to Winter Soldier helps players with the champion, but the focus was on the way it hurts players that have to face him in content like RoL. Nerfing regen defenders in AW hurts the players that use them, but *not* nerfing Magik and Iceman in AW hurts the players that have to face them.

    All changes can be depicted as either hurting players or helping the computer, because nearly all champions are used by both players and the computer, and on top of that the players are both the offense and the defense in AW. It is impossible to implement a nerf that can't be seen as hurting the players. All champion abilities can be seen as helping the players, so any decrease in them can be seen as hurting the players.

    Well yes, a nerf will hurt the players. But what i meant was it's mostly done to the champions that the players use as their offense teams.
    I don't see how nerfing SW or Thor was really in favor of players.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 10,478 Guardian
    Superman69 wrote: »
    Well yes, a nerf will hurt the players. But what i meant was it's mostly done to the champions that the players use as their offense teams.
    I don't see how nerfing SW or Thor was really in favor of players.

    Most of the champions that are considered specifically useful are considered specifically useful on offense. So if you threw nerfs at the champions randomly, most would hit champions the players use on offense.

    This is amplified by the fact that while many people have a list of champions that are "good but not the best" on offense, fewer have the same consideration for what is good on defense.

    To top it off, almost *no* champion is really great on defense in AW purely on the basis of the champion design: they are strong on defense in combination with node buffs. So while the only way to nerf a champion that is good on offense is to nerf the champion specifically, it is possible to nerf defensive champions by adjusting either the nodes or how the champions interact with the nodes, such as the nerf to scaling regen. This is a good thing for players, because it nerfs champions by the minimum necessary. For example, they could nerf the way regeneration scales with health buffs, or they could have directly nerfed the regeneration of every strong regen champion. The former is better for the players than the latter.

    Which means ultimately, the reason why Kabam nerfs offensive champions more than defensive champions is because it would hurt players worse if they nerfed them evenly. Because the only way to even that out is not to nerf offense less, but to nerf defense more. And nerfing defense doesn't just reduce their power when on defense, it also nerfs those champions when you play them on offense.
Sign In or Register to comment.