To everyone complaining about the Barriss "nerf"...

Well it is a "nerf". Bariss nerf 3.0 in fact. Read before flaming....

Nerf 1- November 2015 because her heal was too strong.

Nerf 2- protection intro making her a lame duck

Nerf 3-now- her unique said nothing of before or after death and many uniques survive death. Any case who cares- a toon that hits 3k damage at max with crit is still viable at nerf 3.0.

It was nice that they are refunding the Zeta for those that used it on her and she deserves it again anyway.

"DatBoi;88043" wrote:
If you're thinking that fixing the bug with Barriss is a nerf, then let me let you in on a secret: now she has a soft taunt. Before the fix, you could leave her for last while she bats at you with a wet noodle. Now you have to take her out first so the rest of the team doesn't have the health bonus. If you have her, you can protect her with tanks and hammer the other team with DPS while the other team is forced to go after your high health toons.

ummm if you could leave her for last before... you can still do so now.

But yeah I agree the change makes sense imo. It would be different if it was the leader ability.

Who is complaining

I agree this actually added in some strategy back to who you kill first.

@Asic 4 nerfs really, the protection update to me was a double nerf since she also received a damage reduction. That op 1.8k crit got nerfed

"DatBoi;88043" wrote:
If you're thinking that fixing the bug with Barriss is a nerf, then let me let you in on a secret: now she has a soft taunt. Before the fix, you could leave her for last while she bats at you with a wet noodle. Now you have to take her out first so the rest of the team doesn't have the health bonus. If you have her, you can protect her with tanks and hammer the other team with DPS while the other team is forced to go after your high health toons.

Exactly..

And is this the same Dat who was in Force United?

Much easier response to this. Anyone who thinks a bug fix is a nerf. Just needs to learn the proper language to describe things, because they're not the same. If it's WAI and then they change it, it's a nerf. If it wasn't intended that way, then fixing it is called a bug fix, not a nerf, and it's dishonest to call it a nerf.

"Parableman;856315" wrote:
Much easier response to this. Anyone who thinks a bug fix is a nerf. Just needs to learn the proper language to describe things, because they're not the same. If it's WAI and then they change it, it's a nerf. If it wasn't intended that way, then fixing it is called a bug fix, not a nerf, and it's dishonest to call it a nerf.

devil's advocate .. how about it was WAI, but it was unforeseen that it coupled with gk massive defense boost will cause teams to time out against it.

"Parableman;856315" wrote:
Much easier response to this. Anyone who thinks a bug fix is a nerf. Just needs to learn the proper language to describe things, because they're not the same. If it's WAI and then they change it, it's a nerf. If it wasn't intended that way, then fixing it is called a bug fix, not a nerf, and it's dishonest to call it a nerf.

IMO a bug fix would not have had a change to the description of an ability. If the description is changed to match a "bug fix" that is a nerf.

"scuba;856376" wrote:

"Parableman;856315" wrote:
Much easier response to this. Anyone who thinks a bug fix is a nerf. Just needs to learn the proper language to describe things, because they're not the same. If it's WAI and then they change it, it's a nerf. If it wasn't intended that way, then fixing it is called a bug fix, not a nerf, and it's dishonest to call it a nerf.

IMO a bug fix would not have had a change to the description of an ability. If the description is changed to match a "bug fix" that is a nerf.

My definition of a bug is behaviour that is not as per design. Barriss could have been designed with death ending her heal effect. The bug in this case would have been twofold.

The implementation of the design did not include the "ends on death" portion

The text also did not reflect the design intent explicitly. Daka's unique revive does not explicitly state that it ends on death. Yet it does. That would be an example of a text bug.


From the official response, #1 is true. It would seem very coincidental that #2 would also have resulted but that is entirely possible.