Analysis: Why We Should Buff More Than Nerf 

Theres a difference between lowering a number and taking away an ability. Losing options will effect playstyles more harshly than having an attack do 10% less damage

"Balance is worthless by itself" *Thanos has left the chat*

One of the best nerfs that I never saw anybody complain about was getting rid of Sonic's ability to shield cancel spin dash.

Everyone laughing until we buff nerfing

"Extreme cases" *shows bayonetta*

"Extreme cases." _Shows Bayonetta_ Core-A gets it.

"We actually saw this concept in 1984" *Shows a picture of George Orwell* Nice.

"Come back when you start getting banned in tournaments" - Brawl Meta Knight

6:05 And on that day, Sir Woolington of the Zaibatsu was never the same.

Buffs are basically for making things more fun and challenging Nerfs are not about making it easier, it's about removing bullshit mechanisms

So in basketball, they don't wait for patches? :O

Balance has to be done carefully, and it's more than just "nerf this, buff that". Buffs need to be done in such a way that they increase the possibility space of a game, that is, the amount of things that can be done. So nerfing one character might actually involve making a small buff to another that puts them on equal ground. It's complex, very complex.

Poor Woolie, getting absolutely styled on in round one then, and being dissected to make a point now.

You're quite right. The idea of picking Mika up again now that the wall bounce is gone depresses me. That was the whole reason why I played her. I understand it was very strong, but that's how it feels.

This reminded me of the nerf of Healing Spirit in D&D 5E. Nerfing it dealt with something strong that frustrated some DMs, but nerfing it also entirely ignored that it was one of the few good things Druids and Rangers had at low and mid levels. Now they're basically back to cherry tapping with their spells that almost all require that they be one at a time for several rounds (most of their spells are concentration spells) while the other casters and half-casters fire off big things every round, sometimes 2 at a time with ease. Sometimes, a buff paired with nerf can be good too. If one thing in a kit is too strong and overused, giving them more options at the same time might help address some issues.

EA: "Alright, let's nerf starter weapons." **Update log** Starter sword damage 10 -> 20 Premium starter sword damage ($59 total) 20 -> 200

5:17 c'mon man, why'd you have to bring that up again... Woolie still cries himself to sleep every night thinking of that.

It's also worth noting that if you nerf too much you punish players for practicing by wasting their time with tech that no longer exists.

I present to you, Jojo: HFTF, so very broken, yet so very fun.

I think this applies amazingly to D&D 5e. There is a tendency as a DM to "nerf" your players for fear that they'll be too powerful and every battle will be inconsequential, which is a very real possibility that happens all the time. Instead I've found that if you allow your players to pull rule bending shenanigans and give them story related homebrew abilities it genuinely makes the game more fun and interesting for them because there is a greater sense of creative freedom and choice. If all a fighter can do is attack a few times per turn then theres not really any fun in playing them. In a game where imagination is *literally* the limit, why constrain yourself and your players? To "balance" this buffing simply do the same for the encounters that you plan. Create situations where the environment is interactive and have the enemies think creatively to use external elements to their advantage. Even homebrew some mechanics to swing things in an unexpected way - is there a time-constraint? are they moving? are there environmental dangers? As much as the rules of the game are vitally important, the fun of the game is the reason you all sat down in the first place. Games are meant to be fun, not balanced.

BUFF EVERYONE UNTIL EVERYTHING IS A ONE HIT KILL Which is why divekick works

"Extreme Cases" >Bayonetta clip

Valve: OP vs OP Every gaming company: [Visible Confusion]

A fun game of "Where's Woolie" that I didn't know I was playing today.

But Buffs across the board can lead to the game being too quick to end though. This is especially true with FPS balance when too many guns get buffed to match the highest ttk weapons. It takes away from the back and forth of a fight and becomes a matter of who shot first (or in a fighting game's case: who got off the 1st combo).

I've been a subscriber for some time and I really appreciate you making these videos. I don't play fighting games at a good level but I'm the kind of person that likes to soak up whatever interesting kind of knowledge there is on a game or community. I kinda wish there was a link to donate, I think chipping in a little would help the quality work you do!

"Hands, hadoken, jab, teleport, crossup standing fierce" had me in tears that has got to be the best combo of all time.

Too much buffing kills a game. Too much nerfing kills a game.

For those wondering, the game at 1:35 is Guilty Gear Xrd Rev 2. It's as fun as it looks.

Daigo vs. Woolie Man ... this takes me back when we had actually fun street fighter

"The ability of a game character starts with the talent of the gamer" -Putin AND Ghandi

I know this video generally applies to fighting games, but I feel like this analysis applies all forms of games. Battlefront 2 is my favorite example. Everything in that game has been nerfed throughout it's lifespan, and now it just feels sad.

This video assumes that every example of over buffing would be in a creative sense as in street fighter rainbow edition. If you look even poorly at the history of a game like League of Legends, the threats of over buffing characters become clearly visible. Anybody who played during season three will remember when Kassadin was pick or ban (earning the nickname Kassa-win), and anybody who played the game when Xin Zhao was first released also would know how powerful he was on release. Overbuffing characters doesn't always mean cool and interesting new mechanics. Sometimes it can just mean a game of rock, paper, scissors and gun.

In conclusion, don't nerf Korea, buff all of the others countries. Sorry.

Well best example for an unbalanced fun videogame with a rising competitive scene is... *ShReK sUpEr SlAm*

4:50 This challenge I would definetly take! (says "win" twice)

I wrote this piece-by-piece as I watched, so some topics are in response to individual portions of the video and are not representative of the video as a whole. Also, it's a long one. Your opening argument undermines your entire point. Nerfs and buffs are absolutely not meant to make a video game more fun to watch. Professional sports is primarily for spectators. In fact, the leagues only even exist because of revenue from spectators. However, video games are meant to be played by the masses, rather than by a handful of elite players like professional sports leagues. Changing rules to make basketball more interesting to watch is vastly different than changing the properties of attacks and characters to make a game more balanced and more fair. A game that is more fair is more fun, but fun is such a subjective topic that it's not even worth discussing. NBA basketball needs to be entertaining to maintain revenue, and thus maintain its existence. Video games do not rely no spectators (barring professional leagues, but that's a different story), they rely on players. You're conflating a lot of very different ideas and overlooking a lot of important details. For one, Street Fighter 1 isn't boring because it's perfectly balanced, it's boring because of a lack of variety. Variety and balance, however, are not mutually exclusive. A ton of feathers weighs just as much as a ton of bricks, even though the two objects are vastly different. You're also looking at nerfs or buffs across the entire cast, but buffing or nerfing the entire cast is vastly different than nerfs or buffs applied to an individual character. When the whole cast is affected, it still maintains uniformity and balance, and instead of changing how one character or matchup is played, it fundamentally changes how the entire game is played. Whether or not this is for better or for worse has nothing to do with whether or not the characters were nerfed or buffed, and is entirely dependent on the design of the game itself. Therein lies the brick that, once taken, causes your entire argument to fall flat. Whether or not nerfs or buffs should be applied to a game depends on how the game is played, or how the developers want to shape the gameplay. This is an incredibly complex design topic that I'm not going to get into here, because frankly, I could write thousands of words on that topic alone. Your tangent on loss aversion is more about the psychology of fun than it is about game design. There is no universal "fun" design, there is only design which promotes depth, nuance, strategy, and all of the things that make video games more intellectually stimulating and engaging to play, and those that do the opposite. Talking about fun in video games is an invariably dead end that is neither constructive nor interesting. You also are looking at nerfs and buffs from a strictly numeric perspective, i.e. damage done, frames, etc. What you need to look at is how it influences gameplay as a whole. If a character in Super Smash Bros has the KBG of an uptilt reduced, is it a nerf if it opens up more combo potential with that move? Is your SF4 Ryu example actually a nerf if it opens up more mix-ups and strategic potential? That sounds like a buff to me, albeit a well-designed one. Your SF5 example alludes to what I was talking about earlier, with cast-wide changes shaping how the game is played as a whole. Whether or not the nerf was bad has nothing to do with the fact that it was a nerf, but instead how the game played as a result. A buff could just have easily done the same thing. Now that I've seen the whole video, I don't believe you've made a strong case at all. This is not a topic of buffs and nerfs, it's a much broader topic of game design as a whole, only it doesn't consider all of the many nuances of game design, and wrongfully attributes these changes to nerfs and buffs exclusively. You also talk way too much about fun and excitement, which are not topics of game design at all, despite being the reason people play video games. Nerfing is actually the better approach to balance for one main reason: linearity. A buff creates linearity. It potentially elevates one move or character above the rest and encourages the use of fewer game elements. The worst a nerf does is make one character or attack non-viable, while the rest of the game's content stays relatively the same. The other reason is interplay, or the interaction of game elements. Interplay has two phases: push and pull. The push is the "approach," so to speak, and the "pull" is the opening or the vulnerability. Both of these elements are essential to game depth and interesting gameplay. Buffing increases the force of the "push," and nerfing the force of the "pull." When a game has too much of either, it becomes less interesting. However, this is also dependent on the game's design as a whole, which as I mentioned before is an incredibly complex topic. Whether or not to nerf or buff is not a decision that can ever be made in a vacuum. You need to consider how it changes the game as a whole. Nerfs and buffs are equally capable of negatively shaping gameplay, though nerfs are typically far safer due to how they shift engagement away from one element and toward all of the others, rather than toward a single element.

I disagree with just about everything that's said in this video. It's completely wrong. Specifically about how "balance is worthless by itself", and e-sports. Balance is the backbone of these games, and your idea of nerfs = stale, buffs = fun is nonsense. Good balance is at the core of any games fun factor. It's what allows players to be able to pick any character, and know that the playing field is level. It's irrelevant if you have 100 characters in the game, if only 10 of them are viable for consistent winning. Nerfing those 10 is the obvious and correct choice for the game, not buffing the other 90. You might buff the lowest 10 however. About e-sports. The entertaining aspect of e-sports is about the players. It's about the professionals doing things in the game you couldn't do because they practice so hard. So your worry that nerfing is going to somehow homogenize the cast into a stale, unentertaining game is unfounded. Nerfing isn't about making everyone the same. Neither is buffing. It's about ensuring that every character has a viable chance to win, and that no one character sticks so far out as to ruin or create a stale meta.

This video and its consequences have been a disaster for twitter conversations

You do amazing work. Never seen anyone else explain fighting game mechanics while also using real life sports. Love the channel

A good "nerf" imho was the Lucio rework in Overwatch. He was just way too good the way he was, but by lowering his AOE, giving a visual indicator, and buffing his wall ride and projectile damage, he feels better to play over all.

Comparing nerfing a character (game mechanic) to nerfing a player (person) is false equivalence. The basketball example was to make the game more fun. Nerfing characters in video games is for balance. The basic argument against buffing more than nerfing is parsimony. You buff the weak and nerf the strong equally toward the center because it's easier. It also maintains game balance and doesn't push things to be overly offensive or gimmicky.

I like how he talked about how melee players are fine with wobbling and separately talked about how if something is broken the community can just ban it lol. [:

Nerfs are neccesary if you lose the ability to adapt or to be unique. League of legends is a good example, it doesnt matter how much you can adapt, if the meta forbids your chosen playstyle you will lose. Thats why everyone hates on the balancing team in lol, "op" rules over "normals" and forbidds adaptive/unique playstyles.

imo bayonetta's nerf was necessary, she is still a good character and almost always makes it into top 8 on tournaments. She does not feel unfair anymore

love this video. great idea to include a real life nerf/buff situation with basketball

THIS is exactly what I wanted to say to the overwatch team as they reworked out all of the """situational""" characters. Balance is worthless by itself. Just because characters have a more even pick/win rate now, doesn't mean that the game was improved by the changes.

The problem with the philosophy of "buff instead of nerf" is that there comes a point where you remove skill from the equation because everything is so strong. A shooting game would benefit more from weaker weapons than instant kill weapons since it means longer engagements which means greater chance the more skilled player will win.

4:48 "if tails, you win"

Look man I’m just saying it seems easier to Lower the range of Goku Black’s 2H than raise the range of everyone else

I love the references to the history of basketball about this. Great research!

@5:20 A wild Woolie appears!

Blizz still haven't learned this

"Enjoyed Wobbling in Melee" Wobbling is banned and I don't know anybody who complains about it.

I've been binge watching these videos and they made me fall in love with fighting games

2:19 incase someone is wondering The game is killer instinct s3

jesus christ, you always make the best videos. consistently well thought out and well explained. fuck man, thats impressive

Talk about "better to buff than nerf" but doesn't talk about power creeping?

"Something for everyone is nothing for anyone" expresses nicely how it can all just blend together. My example would be a monk in PvP in WoW. Windwalker was fun to play at start, very different skill set than other classes had, very fun and effective to play solo in random BG. But in competitive PvP as rated BG or arena it was hardly viable. Well, the forums floated about "OP MONK" because los nobos got their asses handed to them and Blizzard did listen, stripping off the unique abilities one by one, nerfed the damage and soon we had monk that wasn't fun to play and wasn't viable in any PvP mode, not in casual or ranked, so there we go, great job (y) Of course there was the end of WoTLK iirc, where almost every class was buffed to heavens, which ended up PvP being "I WIN" macro for nearly every class. Players blowing up from 100 to 0 in two, sometimes one global cooldown. That was plain horrible, blowing up other players like that didn't even feel like you achieved something. "Oh you didn't have your defensive CD, so I win, yayyyy!" And maybe it was end of MoP, where healers were just so overpowered, that I could tank/evade 5 enemies (out of 10...) as Mistweaver for 5 minutes until I got bored and let them kill me just to get to do something else in that battleground before it's over. Then there was the feral druid as the "flavor of the month" era. He came from stealth, dropped every DoT he had and then left. And you died unless you were a healer or had something to completely negate the damage. Except if you did, he just did it again until you didn't have any defensive CD left. For most classes there was simply nothing they could do against the druid no matter how skilled you were. So far haven't played that many games with PvP really, but from my experience Blizzard has been the worst to balance anything. Probably not a suprise that I haven't played in 3-4 years, have tried couple of times, but it's just clunky and meh after playing DotA for some years.

Core A gaming quote? "The ultimate point of buffs and nerfs isn't balance but to make a game that's fun to play and watch"

The idea that we should only ever buff the weaker characters to make them more in-line with the strongest ones is simplistic and ignores the ramifications of power creep. Using Blazblue Cross Tag Battle at the moment of writing as an example, Ruby and Gordeau are the only characters who can completely ignore the neutral game and this is why teams of those two characters completely dominated in two major tournaments. Now, we can't nerf them because nerfs are wrong, which means we have to find a way to bring everyone else to that level (that's 38 other characters who all fight in teams so there's also interplay between them all to think about as well) and then even if you manage that, we're left with a game where the neutral no longer matters, in fact it doesn't exist anymore. It's a really unhealthy approach to game design. Another thing I'd like to say is speaking from my experiences as a D&D DM, players are very, very bad at deciding what's actually fun and balanced for a game. I can ask a player if he wants his 5th level fighter to be able to shoot eye lasers and leap 60ft in the air, and he'll almost certainly say yes, but good luck challenging him with environment obstacles or snipers or flying enemies.

5:55 always feels good to see woolie getting owned in a video.

This is a pretty good video though it falls apart when you look at it at a competitive level. At a competitive levels, targeted nerfs need to happen to the right characters and frequently. I think about it in terms of a hero shooter or a MOBA. In those games, if there's an overpowered character they will be picked or banned all the time, every game. If there's no ban system in the game or there's nothing stopping mirror characters, every single game on both teams. It doesn't even just make competitive play hell, it makes casual play hell. It's only fun for the person playing the overpowered character, but not all the times. Sometimes I would find that the overpowered character at the time isn't what I like to play, and for people who don't like to play them or play against them, it's a lose-lose situation in terms of fun.

6:12 This is kinda the same reason why everyone disliked the tracking buff to Mishima hellsweep in Tekken 7. It was a buff but it removed some of the identity of the characters, that being a weakness to sidestepping left. It also didn't give them more options, it just reduced everyone else's options, making it almost a nerf to every other character rather than a buff.

I will always prefer buffing weaker characters over nerfing the strong ones. People playing the top tiers won't have to completely drop everything they learned to stand a chance and the ones who played lower tier now have more to work with. You keep the playing field even without causing a lot of frustration for players. It makes things fun for everybody and exciting since now there are more options available. You also sort of avoid creating this vicious cycle of nerfing the strong while buffing the weak and creating a new dominant set of characters who will then be gimped and replaced with yet another dominant set.

Insightful videos as always. So many youtube channels declare themselves "content creators" when some of them just comment on hot topics or regurgitate articles for views. You actually make original videos and show what content creation really is. I'm not a competitive player on fighting games but regardless, these videos are fantastic.

love these analysis vids.great work.

4:16 Starts to talk about nerfing things Immediately shows clip of meta knight the game RIGHT AFTER brawl

Capcom wants to be esports but the character balance has to be esports too. For the benefit of the players and the people watching radical changes and departures from previous states of the game just confuses everybody. Nerfs or buffs need to be indirect. Instead of nerfing characters like Mika with the removal of the invisible wall what if she just did less damage? That way Mika still has a gimmick she can abuse but it is more forgiving if you get caught by it. The opponent doesn't have to go afk when in Mika's vortex. They can wait for a reset and try again. This opens up possibilities for a comeback. Buffs and nerfs need to make it so that the game can go on instead of 'oh he got clipped he's dead'. That means more chances for players to win. That means more game for people to watch. That means more screen time on TV or twitch. That means more money for the ads. At least that's what I think. In an effort to keep the game balanced and accessible they are dumbing the game down and giving more emphasis to the neutral. If you were to play you would say that's a good thing but people watching may want to see more specials more stuff flying around on screen. Ask someone to play a fighting game for the first time and they will ask you how to do a special not how to do footsies. Capcom wants to be esports but they are still not thinking esports if you ask me. Please note that this is the opinion of someone new to fighting games and the fgc. If you managed to read through all of this I sincerely thank you for for your time. Take care

CapCom should hire you 22 years from now when street fighter 6 is released.

Interestingly in card games, this mentality leads to the infamous term "power creep". Eventually leading to coin flip where first turn players win. I guess I agree that one way to counter this is to buff second turn players, though so far it just changes into a game of "drawing your out".

Here's a mad thing: I've just discovered this channel (which I love) because Jozef Chen talked about it on a Brazilian jiu-jitsu podcast. So I've watched six videos in two days, and this one screenshots a Eurogamer article I wrote about the rainbow edit, at 2:59! Amazing scenes, I love these videos, my man.

Nerfs aren't fun. lets say you have 4 classes, paladin, mage, rogue, warrior mage has some really strong spells, and i mean REALLY strong. they can 3 shot rogue, and keep ever the hardest warriors/pallies at bay, this comes at the cost of low armor and hp. now, some people start complaining that mage is too op.the devs hear these complaints and get to work "Fixing" the class. now, they have 2 choices when it comes to this situation. choice 1: Make the mage weaker. a flat damage nerf for example, or even a cast time nerf Choice 2: Give the pally a sort of anti magic aura bubble, give the rogue some form of spell dodge, and give the warrior a spell reflect. choice one makes the mage worse, this makes the class less fun to play and leads to other problems (more on those in a sec) choice two keeps the mage as a fun hard hitter, but also gives other classes a fun option to help counter the mage now about those problems i mentioned earlier the mage now has low-mid damage, low armor, and low hp Warriors can now charge straight through mages and tear them to parts. mages can't really fight back because their damage (which was their 1 real pro) is now basically gone. now the mage cries that "Warriors hit too hard!" and that "Our spells are too weak to do anything!" so now warriors need to have their damage and armor nerfed. but this leads to a new problem. now rogues (with their armor pen) can tear warriors several new assholes. and so the warriors complain "roge 2 stronk, nerf ahmo pen plox" now the armor pen on rogues is garbage, and the pallies with their high armor and healing spells are walking fortresses of go fuck yourself "Nerf the pallies!" cry the rogues "Lower their armor and reduce their heals so my armor pen can be worth a lick of salt!" and so the pallies are nerfed, which raises more problems, etc etc and so the cycle continues until noone is having fun and all the nice/abilities spells that you've come to know and love have become various flavors of marshmallows.

The problem though is that you FREQUENTLY have characters nowadays where it's impossible to buff every character up to that extent without it either being logically impossible or making every character the same... Which obviously isn't going to help the "fun" factor. In the rainbow edition example, there were some fun ideas in there, but it would've never sold as a full version because buffing everyone to that extent was mostly random gibberish and chaos. It's funny for the shock for a bit, but it doesn't stand up to long-term viewing. Although, you seemed to be more making an argument that balance isn't necessarily exciting which, while true at times, the inverse DEFINITELY isn't true. A broken game with less than a quarter of its cast being viable is pretty equally dreadful. Several games have died pretty young because they left absolute juggernaut characters untouched. Also, while sometimes this is exciting to fighting game fans, it also creates and impermeable barrier at times that keep the community from expanding. It's definitely hard to explain to outsiders why people enjoy watching the same characters in finals over and over again.

As an experiment, I would love to see someone take a game that has extreme balance issues and only apply buffs. Smash Brothers Brawl, for example. Meta Knight should realistically be nerfed and would be if that game was released during the timeframe smash 4 was released... but, what if instead of needing the obvious eat character the absolute worst character was buffed instead. Initially I thought this was an idea what would quickly spiral out of control. It won’t. A buff for any character can be seen as a universal nerf for everyone who isn’t that character while a nerf is a universal buff. You can take the worst character in Brawl and make them immune to tripping. They’ll still such, but whatever. Then decrease their knock back, the damage they take, etc etc. If it’s only offensive buffs, yeah... shit gets out of hand pretty quickly.

As someone who plays League of Legends, I would love more nerfs than buffs right now. There is such a damage creep in the game right now, it's so not fun to play a weaker role when you just get 1 shot by everything else.

but when the *50/50* coin flip takes over the game for the sake of *"crowd hype"*, the game doesn't become more fun to play, nor watch... yall remember when MKX came out ?! the hype finals between *Dizzy* and *SonicFox* ?!, now fast fwd some months, and people realized that the game didn't had much aside fucking 50/50s i understand that Capcom wants to make the game easier for cauals, competitive for Pros, and fun to watch for viewers, but, this game that we are playing right now it isn't Street Fighter....

"Where else can you do hands hadouken into jab teleport cross-up standing fierce" lmao

I would say this is accurate psychologically. However practically it poses two major problems, one is it’s much harder to buff everything To bring it up to the level of the overpowered character or ability. And if you do this too often you end up with serious power creep.

reminds me of warframe(when I used to play it) as they just kept on nerfing everything, including weapons/skills that made grinding a lot more tolerable.

Counter strike has a great example of this. In 1.6 saving on terrorists was cancer and ruined the game like before goal tending was a thing. Players would push a site and if they lost 2 or 3 people they would just run down the clock. It was a necessary nerf that prevented the game from being unfun. On the other hand in csgo they nerfed the awp prety much soley because kennys was abusing it since he was the best awper but it made the awp less exiting and powerfull for skillful players and was just a bad nerf.

if you only buff then you'll end up with the problem of power creep. you may have a game where everyone deals on average 100dps but playable characters are slightly unbalanced. after your buff-based balancing however, everyone would probably do 1000dps. diablo 3 is a very good example. the same character is on average doing 10 times more damage from v2.0 to v2.5. all you see is stupid 12-digit damage number floating on your screen. yes the game maybe more balanced. it has also become a never ending power creep.

my fav buff is ubercharge feature from medic in tf2. i heard less people play as medic and they came out of idea of ubercharging. giving them short immortality

God these are so well made! I dont play any of these games but i can still draw parallels to the ones i do and every other game. This and Player types is some of the best gamer meta video i have ever seen period.

Brilliant video as always, Core-A Gaming. Keep up the good work!

buffing too much could make the game stray too far from the intended design. Certain characters who's abilities are impossible to work in the current context will have to be changed in a way that makes them less fun. In moderate amounts I agree

One thing I think isn’t covered in this enough, is that nerfs are necessary sometimes, as the developers ability to spend more time on thing to create a good game, and nerfing can be necessary for some experiences. However I love this video, rewatch it a lot, and agree with nearly all points you did cover. The point of a nerf or buff is to improve the game in enjoyment, so more interesting and thought out options given or taken to make those situations is the best way to do it I would say

No matter how many times I watch one of your videos, my emotions are always stirred. Wonderful content.

who needs to think about balancing when you have icefrog in charge

TL;DR: _No, when something is broken, you don't buff everything of everyone to compensate around it, sometimes nerfs are needed if you don't want to break everything._ *1 Nerf > ∞ Buffs*

This was the video that got me hooked on your stuff and I've been watching your vids before bed every night. Keep it up my dude!

Brawl minus is my favorite brawl mod. It buffs everyone so they all have so many options to anything, and ganondorf has the hardest punish game

6:52 Oh how the mighty have fallen...

I thought the exact same recently! But the idea came out of the window, from the most unexpected of places... a strategy mobile phone game by the name of Fire Emblem Heroes, based on the characters of Smash Bros, er, I mean, Fire Emblem. So I was getting merced by Reinhardt since day 1 of the sibling bonds banner, and wouldn't you know it, now there are so many options against him, but Reinhardt is still the exact same character, he also has more options now, but the rest of units can benefit more of them, and can finally counter him with the proper minmaxing. Now if the power creep stopped though, 'twould be nice.

very good points, nicely told... great video ^^

Love how you used a mega man X song sigma stage one i think :)

5:19 WOOLIE

*"I'll be Bastian"* *"Buff everyone but bastain"*

My favorite rebalance I've seen done so far is for my main in Overwatch Lucio. What did they do? They made him a bit weaker and a bit stronger by reducing the area in which he can heal/boost but also increase the power of said heal/boost. Why do I like this? Because it took away what was annoying about the character by adding to what was fun about the character. Did it make him Op? No he was still beat out by mercy for most comps but it made him fun for the comps he was included in.

Wow, awesome video, I always thought the same way