Original Post — Direct link

So my question i'm asking today is, in a game that features constant updates and changes to the game. where do you stand when builds that become popular and are arguably too overpowered get nerfed (limited/removed/made unplayable). do you stand on the side that prefers to limit builds from being too strong that the game becomes "too easy". or do you stand on the side of leave the build alone and bring the rest of the skills/builds/playstyles up to par to compete with the "meta" or "Goat/BIS builds". this is not a discussion to debate about builds being broken or just a pure cheat. this is simple see do you prefer it when games balance a game out with nerfs or buffs in regards to overall performance of individual skills. i understand i'm kind of making a grey topic go black and white with two options, but i didn't want to muddy the poll with too many options.

Again this is not a discussion to argue broken builds should stay in the game. this question stemmed from a conversation with a buddy while i was messing around trying to make a lightning fire ball spark charge build work, and the topic of what would you do if they nerfed fireball.

View Poll

External link →
about 1 year ago - /u/ekimarcher - Direct link

Originally posted by johlar

I mean its both, no?

The current bugged zombie build that can do pretty much infinite waves in arena or the 6k corr static ground build that was nerfed aren't what every build should be. Ofcourse there should also not exist things like acid flask that just totally suck.

EHG needs to figure out a very general desired powerlevel and not over buff/nerf builds within that range.

Thank you.