Often times, people confuse balance with a spree of nerfs. Usually when there is an argument against nerfing, there is usually somebody who responds with "but it's balance". Let's make something crystal clear before I build Trump's Wall of Text...... [b]Balancing the sandbox does not entail going on a nerf spree.[/b] I like a balanced game, I really do. I appreciate the sandbox teams's dedication to balancing the scales of the crucible (because we all know you don't give a shit about PVE). But you're going about it all wrong, and I'll tell you why. When discussing balance, you often use the phrase "balancing the scales". This term sounds nice and innocent, but it is not at all representative of the way you actually go about balancing the game. Balancing the scales implies working towards a midpoint by taking from one side and adding to the other. Bungie, you're not balancing the scales. You're whittling everything down as if it were a bar of soap. If you think you're doing things well, I have a suggestion. Head over to a sander and try to make all of your fingers the same length by sanding them down little by little. You wouldn't like that, because you'd have stumps for fingers, even though they're relatively the same length. The same principle applies. You may have made weapons more balanced over time (if only a little), but you've reduced them to the point where they're a cut above super soakers. This beings me to my next point. Destiny is only slightly more balanced now then it was on day one. But it's come at a huge cost. You may have balanced your precious scales a little bit more, but you've destroyed the fun in the process, and you fail to realize it. You fail to realize it because you're so glued to your user data and your graphs that there have been nothing but blind eyes turned toward reality. Ah, user data. It seems like such an effective balancing tool. You can tell what's being used, how much it's being used. The only problem is, [b]that's all it tells you[/b]. It gives you no indication of how good the weapon is, or why it's being used in the first place. Yet you draw such conclusions from user data. You assume that (used too much) = (overpowered) = (needs to be nerfed). Clearly the concept of cause and effect eludes you. Example: auto rifles are nerfed. The nerf pushes people towards hand cannons. Hand cannons get nerfed. This nerf pushes people towards pulse rifles. Pulse rifles get nerfed. This nerf pushes people towards scout rifles. Did it not occur to you, any step of the way, that this is one big set of dominos? Clearly it didn't. You just kept whittling down. Furthermore, you blanket nerf an archetype based on one or two weapons. Often times, only a couple weapons were prominent, yet you nerfed an entire archetype, making that entire weapon class garbage based on a couple weapons. Another flaw in your thought process is that you only look at things in the short term. You always look at the latest balance patch and say "wow, the game is in a good place now". Well guess what, you said the same thing a year ago, except the game was fun back then. If you looked at the depreciation of the quality of weapons over time (something your excel graphs don't tell you), you'd be shocked. Go back and play the 1.1.1 build. [b][u]Perks[/b][/u] One of the biggest grievances I have with weapons in year 2 is perks. For starters, you nerfed almost every year 1 perk. You took every middle tree node and made it some tradeoff which, often times, takes more than it gives. Take for example the 'send it' perk. It used to increase range and accuracy. Now, it makes the weapon harder to handle and decreases reserve ammo. Why do you do this? Perks are supposed to boost weapon performance, but now they just give some and take more. And, a lot of these perks are absolute garbage. I'm talking about exhumed, surrounded, underdog, guerilla fighter, icarus, battle runner, hot swap. Legendary weapons might as well have one perk slot because it wouldn't make a difference most of the time. what's wrong with having good perks? Why should all of our time playing this game being rewarded with these shit perks, and no way of customizing them? [b][u]Exotics[/b][/u] Exotics have so much potential in Destiny. They can be the coolest, most fun to use, most effective gear in the game. But, you've butchered them. Most exotics really aren't that special, if at all. Boolean Gemini, Jade Rabbit, Hard Light, Fabian Strategy. These guns are worthless; there's no reason to equip them over some legendary. And some of the exotics that are actually good, have been nerfed. Take Thorn for example. Thorn is supposed to disengage the opponent from battle by preventing health regeneration, and allowing the wielder to track them behind walls. The weapon doesn't have to be damage focused; it can still be really good, and worth using. Now, it's not worth shit. It only disengages the opponent for about one addition second. what the -blam!- good is that? Exotics have the potential to be really good. There's nothing wrong with having weapons that are overpowered, but it only works if you have a wide variety of overpowered weapons. Instead, you have a wide variety of disappointing weapons. What's the point of having exotics in the game if you can't handle their existence, if you're just gonna treat them like garbage legendaries and punish them for being good? I hear a lot that overpowered weapons can't exist in crucible, that things like TLW and thorn make PVP broken. I'll tell you why you're wrong... The only reason weapons like Thorn and TLW stood out so much is because they were the only really powerful exotics. I guarantee you if you made other exotics just as powerful, you wouldn't have a problem, because you'd have variety. You'd have just as much variety as we have now, except you'd have a variety of good weapons instead of a variety of boring weapons. Another thing I hear a lot is that overpowered weapons break PVE content. Again, I'm gonna tell you why you're wrong... The reason gjallarhorn and black hammer destroyed Crota's End is because the mechanics were based entirely around dps. If a piece of content is so easily made trivial by a weapon, that's entirely on poor design. Take king's fall for example. King's fall is very well designed compared to the previous 2 raids (not saying it's better, just saying it's more intelligently designed). If you took gjallarhorn and black hammer (and hell even fatebringer) into King's Fall, not much difference would be made. You might kill ogres faster, but you wouldn't trivialize any mechanics. Let's talk about black hammer. do you know why black hammer was so good? Because enemies just stand there and beg you to shoot them in the head? Maybe if enemies weren't so stupid, this weapon would take some skill to use effectively. Yet you punish players for shitty design. The dismissal of such crucial details has destroyed the game. You can balance the game without nerfing everything that's good. You can alter weapon usage without nerfing the thing that's being used a lot. Your scorched earth policy has removed every bit of fun from this game. We're it not for how you've skinned weapons alive for no good reason, I would be enjoying destiny right now more than ever. The april update made the game rewarding, made it worth playing. But what good is it if, in a loot based game, the loot is such -blam!-ing garbage? This has been another Kabr complaining post. Thanks for reading.