This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nerfing (gaming) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Nerfing" gaming – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 September 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
|
That is not the question. The question is: "What to talk about in the lead-in section?"
Original:
In computer gaming, a nerf is a change to a game that downgrades the power, effectiveness or influence of a particular game element in the attempt to achieve balance. The term originated as a reference to the NERF brand of child toys, which are made to minimize possible damage. In the same way, "to nerf" describes the action of making something less harmful.
Discussion.
OK, as-is, this is very much an opinion item. Trying for a neutral PoV, and to be balanced in presenting different interpretations, how about something more like:
In computer gaming, the term nerf is often used to refer to a change that reduces the utility or desirability of any game element, for any reason. It may refer to an item "They nerfed my Axe of Extreme Coolness! It now looks just like a rusty axe!", an encounter "They nerfed The Encounter Of Extreme Uberness! Now *ANYONE* can just zone in and get keyed! And after all our work in beating the Whatsit Of Doom!", an area "MAN they nerfed the exp in Colossal Plains of Long Running! I killed 100 zeebaras and got like half a bubble!", a tradeskill, ability, class, or even technical game feature "They nerfed the reconnect thing, and now you have to stay logged out 5 minutes if you /quit out."
There are a number of theories as to how the term entered the gaming jargon. One idea is that NERF toys are designed to minimize possible damage, and that "nerfing" in computer games reduces the harm done by that game element. Another is that while it hurts to be hit by a NERF bat, it probably won't cause an injury: similarly, having one's "Axe of Extreme Coolness" change from a huge glowing axe to a small rusty axe won't injure the player, but it may well "hurt".
There are also many causes for "nerfing". Developers may find that a feature is exploitable, or it may use too many resources. They may simply have made an error, or corrected one, with or without knowledge of its impact on one or more players. It may be the developers' method of correcting a balance issue: an item or feature might favor a class or style of play, or it might put too much money into a game economy, or it might obsolete future content.
Sinneed ( talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just kill off everything but a stub?
As previously discussed, here and on other similar computer gaming slang, does this belong in Wikipedia at all?
Consider this for a "stub" article, with the "stub" header.
A nerf or "to nerf" in computer gaming jargon refers to a change or the act of making a change that reduces the utility or desirability of an item, encounter, area, trade-skill, ability, class, technical game feature, or any other game element.
There are a number of theories as to how the term entered the gaming jargon.
There are also many reasons given by developers for "nerfs".
Sinneed ( talk) 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
---
Ignoring that sidebar, I note that the problem with sourcing online slang is that... it is online slang. This has been a concern a number of us have voiced: "Do these slang terms belong in Wiki at all?" As I have cleaned these up, I have taken the personal POV out, and presented various points of view. Sinneed ( talk) 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Sinneed ( talk) 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally, I again want to suggest that this article be "stubbed", with just the note of what nerf means and the header requesting the article be improved (if possible) with sourced material. Reverting to a mishmash of personal POV nerf-hate and nerf-love seems very very counterproductive: thus the article languished for months. Sinneed ( talk) 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Sinneed, a couple of things before I go on with listing the issues regarding your edits. I want you to keep in mind that everything I am listing here adheres to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I can list all of the policies that pertain to the issues as well if you want me to, but I'd rather save time/space here and assume you have read them yourself and work on the issues with the article instead.
First off, I don't have to discuss anything before making any edit regardless of how massive that edit is - my duty as an editor is to the reader; not to other editors. Yet, I was going to(did) discuss the reason why I made such an edit, as mentioned in my edit summary, and was referring to the very short timeframe you gave me to post on the talk page - 6 mins according to the timestamp. Now for someone who genuinely wishes to discuss the edits, your actions aren't very convincing.
Secondly, I never accused *you* in particular of adding the WoW entries, but the removal of them were part of my edits, which I wanted to explain on the talk page.
Now on to the problems
In your version, you went ahead and listed in the lead paragraph every game element you could think of that could be nerfed, which creates 2 problems. First, the lead should summarize the article in a concise manner and using the term "particular game element" to capture all of the elements that can be nerfed as opposed to listing them achieves just that. Secondly, by listing each element you encourage other editors passing through here to list other elements you may have missed and risk having the list get ever so longer creating listcruft, which is not prohibited per se, but is ever so annoying as a reader and doesn't belong in the lead paragraph if accepted anyway.
As with the list you created about "game elements", the section you titled "Popular usage examples" has similar problems. Every 2nd editor coming through here is going to want to add their example and we find ourselves again with listcruft, which doesn't do the article a favour. More importantly however, is that the section is completely unsourced, which *is* unacceptable as per wikipedia policy. Especially seeing as you are claiming these usage examples are "Popular".
Speaking of sources, the fact that online slang is difficult to source does not excuse the article from being sourced. We are not trying to achieve a stub here, as you put it, but a lengthy unsourced article is no better. The added injury vs. hurt theory on how the term came into usage is a particular problem. Not only is the theory unsourced, but it's borderline original research, which is also unacceptable.
Anyhow, that's all I have for now. There's more to come in the future I'm sure. — Dorvaq ( talk) 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You inherently reduce the desirability of a game element by reducing its "power effectiveness or influence..." I suggest we keep desirability and remove the other 2 points. — Dorvaq ( talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
"all nerfs affect desirability."
False. Source? *kicks self for rejoining fruitless discussion* Addicted. :,(
Sinneed (
talk)
18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Desirability.
Prestige. NOT desirability. THAT will go *UP*.
Maybe desirability. The area may be heavily hunted for other reasons... in fact it might become MORE popular and desirable by removing (real example) mass slaughter of the entire zone by small groups of players.
Desirability...maybe. But the reality is that most trade-skilling in most games is essentially an end in itself... the rewards are very occasional... in VERY general.
Desirability? Maybe.
Desireability? Not in my experience. Usually this is just wounded pride.
Nah. People have the same desire to log out as before. It might affect the ease of an encounter, for example... which might make it MORE desirable, if it increased the value of the reward. *shrug*
Every single example you're using to refute my point still has to do with lowered desirability, so I really don't know what to tell you anymore. I'm really trying to work with you to make a better article, but you seem more interested in simply discarding for the sake of discarding and making personal attacks. If this is the type of discussion you were asking for in your edit summaries, then I guess you and I aren't discussing anymore.
I'll refrain from entertaining any point you make where I feel you're arguing for the sake of arguing, and in fact, I won't even make any edits to the article page unless I'm reverting clear vandalism, because I don't care all that much. Feel free to add/remove whatever it is you want and I'll allow you to get whatever it is you are getting out of this with another editor.
Whenever you wish to participate in a real discussion, let me know as I would be glad to hear constructive comments. — Dorvaq ( talk) 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Sinneed ( talk) 04:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Pity there is no way to source online slang, it might be possible to turn this into a good article. Sinneed ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No minor improvement is being allowed. The basic problem being objected to by Thumpy is that the online jargon cannot be sourced, no improvements will be allowed unless sourced. I am again correcting the lead in.
As an alternative to deletion, I propose changing the article into a stub, containing in whatever format would somehow be acceptable, 3 items:
If anyone can source usage of nerf, it would be grand to include examples of usage, IMO.
If anyone can source reasons devs and players claim nerfs are good, that would be good, IMO.
If anyone can source reasons devs and players claim nerfs are bad, that would be good, IMO.
All comments, including those made only for effect, are quite welcome.
And, of course, there was no discussion, and no improvement. Please either stop reversing out my edits or make some kind of improvement. This edit war silliness needs to end. Reinstating the simple, and not ambiguous, use of nerf as a verb. Sinneed ( talk) 04:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested, you may look through the history of a number of terms like nerf, and find that there is much discussion of whether they belong in Wiki at all.
Proposing that if no unsourced changes are to be allowed, and no sourcing is possible, that the article be deleted is not a threat. It is a realistic alternative, of only 3:
I will not leave the article as it. You will not let me change it. ( at least not so far ) You will not let me kill it.
If I have missed one, please share it with me. If there is a way to source online slang, please share it with me, strictly as a courtesy, and I realize I am asking for an unearned favor.
But please, either join in or stop reversing me. This doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. Sinneed ( talk) 04:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
"In computer gaming, a nerf is a change, and "to nerf" the act of making a change, that reduces the desirability of a particular game element."
I have been informed that this needs to be different. I should hope this would be an area that an editor actually interesting in improving the lead-in might contribute.
I think the leadin needs these 3 things to convey what "a nerf" is, and what it means "to nerf" something:
Sinneed ( talk) 04:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
": they're fun to shoot people with, but their plush, foamy dart-like qualities make them generally innocuous. "
I have some hope that no one enjoys nerfing. I have a stronger sense that this is not quite the lead-in we would hope to find if we opened a $2000.00 encyclopedia and looked up "nerf". Perhaps I am missing the need for this addition, and if so, I apologize. Sinneed ( talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems the origin of the term has been lost to most, but i was there. Dark Castle MUD circa 1992 ( http://www.dcastle.org/). There was a weapon in game called the nerf assault rifle that had a special procedure to automatically cast the spell magic missle on attack. The game's imp increased the damage of magic missle to be based apon character level, which inadvertenly made the weapon vastly more powerful than the norm. The wepaon recieved a significant downgrading to such an extent the weapon was near worthless. Apon further 'rebalancing' of items in the game, the players harkened back to the original downgrading of 'the nerf'. At this time MUDs were pretty much the only games with dynamic content and thus i am fairly certain this is the true origin. Most MMORPG's to date still have identical gameplay mechanics to MUDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.117.153 ( talk) 09:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
—
Text added to the lead-in by an anon editor: "This meaning of "nerf" entered wide usage due to an across-the-board reduction in the effectiveness of melee weapons in Ultima Online undertaken by developer "EvilJohn" in 1998. The reduced damage led players to complain that they felt like they were "fighting with nerf weapons", in reference to the NERF brand of toys."
While this is a very attractive statement, it is not sourced, and I know how difficult that is with these... but without sourcing it is just telling stories around the campfire... it is not an encyclopedia article. Sorry to kill your edit, and I hope you can find sourcing that I cannot. sinneed ( talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This link died right after I added it, but now it is back. The link in the text is to the cached version, so this is a note explaining why. Protonk ( talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Presented (Thank You!) by Protonk ( talk)
Over on the German version of this page, these additional sources are listed:
Editors who want to contribute may find this list useful. But even if not, I wanted to preserve the sources in an easy-to-find spot.
The full deletion discussion is archived (I have no idea for how long) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nerf_(computer_gaming)_(2nd_nomination) sinneed ( talk) 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition: The term nerf does not apply to corrections made by simple clerical error. For instance 2 new weapons are put into the game. One is a 15th level quest reward and the second is a 30th level quest reward. Upon database entry the transcriber enters the 15th level weapon with the same DPS (damage per second) as the 30th level weapon. An obviuos mistake that is not caught until the weapons have gone live. The developers are made aware of this issue and correct it. This is not a nerf.
1st - this is a classic example of a nerf.
2nd - you'll need a
wp:rs to add that. Yes, lots of stuff here with no source, but just because
wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff. Please dive in and
source madly. :) It is a real challenge with these Internet jargon terms. I have argued that they don't belong in Wikipedia because they are very difficult to source. I am in a small minority and the consensus is to leave them in.
3rd - The lead in rests on the rest of the article... it leads in to it. If you can find sources to add the content you appear to feel strongly about, please
wp:be bold and add it to the body. Perhaps a section called "What is and what is not a nerf". Then, once it is in and sourced, perhaps it will merit a mention in the lead in (and you can always jsut
wp:be bold and add it... but without source it won't stay...and if it is too much for the lead-in it won't stay). But I am dubious.
Most nerfs are just this sort. Someone makes a simple error. It has minor or profound effects that are found only once the change is live. The change is reversed, and someone objects... usually multiple someones object... to the nerf. sinneed ( talk) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I learned of this proposed merge when it was implemented. There was some discussion Video Games Project archive "Nerfing? Section", but it was *VERY* short, there was no proposed redirect put here, none at the game balance. If the merge target article there were not so VERY bad, I would feel better about the merge. I spoke with the merging editor about the lack of consensus at User talk:Zxcvbnm#Erm., but I did not revert the merge...I think the idea in and of itself is fine... but the target needs very VERY much work. sinneed ( talk) 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The claim that the name was first used in Ultima Online was not properly sourced (and the idea that this was actually the first use is ludicrous). The first reference says that its first use in online games was on Ultima Online, not that its first use whatsoever was in Ultima Online. The New York Times reference is only a reference for the origin of the word, not for its first use. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 15:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
... to Nerf (Video gaming) - an editor argues that the term "video gaming" is broader than computer gaming.
As the meaning of computer gaming has slowly come to mean desktop computer, rather than computer-in-general, this argument may have merit. However, computer gaming includes computer gaming for the blind (rare), and all other computer-based games, whether PC, Mac, mainframe, pager, handheld.
I oppose this move, somewhat weakly. - Sinneed 14:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
anon game designer: I also oppose this move, but for different reasons. Though I cannot dig up sources for it atm of course, in usage on forums and in life I've very commonly heard "nerf" as the "weakening" noun and "nerfing" verb be applied to non-computer games. I've heard tons of people talk about "nerfing" colors or cards in Magic: The Gathering, for one example, and that is no computer or video game. And it flies beyond the scope of gaming sometimes. I wouldn't be surprised to see "Nerf" become as ubiquitous a noun in this meaning as "Spam".
Honestly though, this all reeks of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Why does this article need to exist? It should fall under a page on "Game Design" and the art of "Balancing", which ties in with other concepts like the double rule or risks/rewards or game theory, etc. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.245.16.248 (
talk)
04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, if a source scites a specific use, it doesn't mean there isn't a general use. I am not going to remove this, but I will povflag it. It doesn't belong in the lead at all, and if it needs discussion in the body, wording to the effect that it is commonly used in MMORPGS might be OK... but it is right there in the source, and I don't see the need.-
Sinneed
00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Suppose we used a source at poker (game) that referred to "Tim had 3 aces and 2 eights: a full house, aces over eights." and someone placed in the body "When players named Tim, specifically, have 3 aces and 2 eights, it is called a full house." This would, quite clearly, be incorrect, and it would not be OR to mention on the talk page that everyone who has 3 aces and 2 eights has a full house, and to change the text to "For example, when a player has 3 aces and 2 eights, it is called a full house, aces over eights." - Sinneed 02:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::On second thought, I think it may be best to just go ahead and remove the OR now, I don't think this discussion is going to be profitable.-
Sinneed
03:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
deteriorate/deterioration, debuff, worsening, weakening, impairment/impair/impairing... 124.106.142.94 ( talk) 04:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nerfing (gaming). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nerfing (gaming) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Nerfing" gaming – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 September 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
That is not the question. The question is: "What to talk about in the lead-in section?"
Original:
In computer gaming, a nerf is a change to a game that downgrades the power, effectiveness or influence of a particular game element in the attempt to achieve balance. The term originated as a reference to the NERF brand of child toys, which are made to minimize possible damage. In the same way, "to nerf" describes the action of making something less harmful.
Discussion.
OK, as-is, this is very much an opinion item. Trying for a neutral PoV, and to be balanced in presenting different interpretations, how about something more like:
In computer gaming, the term nerf is often used to refer to a change that reduces the utility or desirability of any game element, for any reason. It may refer to an item "They nerfed my Axe of Extreme Coolness! It now looks just like a rusty axe!", an encounter "They nerfed The Encounter Of Extreme Uberness! Now *ANYONE* can just zone in and get keyed! And after all our work in beating the Whatsit Of Doom!", an area "MAN they nerfed the exp in Colossal Plains of Long Running! I killed 100 zeebaras and got like half a bubble!", a tradeskill, ability, class, or even technical game feature "They nerfed the reconnect thing, and now you have to stay logged out 5 minutes if you /quit out."
There are a number of theories as to how the term entered the gaming jargon. One idea is that NERF toys are designed to minimize possible damage, and that "nerfing" in computer games reduces the harm done by that game element. Another is that while it hurts to be hit by a NERF bat, it probably won't cause an injury: similarly, having one's "Axe of Extreme Coolness" change from a huge glowing axe to a small rusty axe won't injure the player, but it may well "hurt".
There are also many causes for "nerfing". Developers may find that a feature is exploitable, or it may use too many resources. They may simply have made an error, or corrected one, with or without knowledge of its impact on one or more players. It may be the developers' method of correcting a balance issue: an item or feature might favor a class or style of play, or it might put too much money into a game economy, or it might obsolete future content.
Sinneed ( talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just kill off everything but a stub?
As previously discussed, here and on other similar computer gaming slang, does this belong in Wikipedia at all?
Consider this for a "stub" article, with the "stub" header.
A nerf or "to nerf" in computer gaming jargon refers to a change or the act of making a change that reduces the utility or desirability of an item, encounter, area, trade-skill, ability, class, technical game feature, or any other game element.
There are a number of theories as to how the term entered the gaming jargon.
There are also many reasons given by developers for "nerfs".
Sinneed ( talk) 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
---
Ignoring that sidebar, I note that the problem with sourcing online slang is that... it is online slang. This has been a concern a number of us have voiced: "Do these slang terms belong in Wiki at all?" As I have cleaned these up, I have taken the personal POV out, and presented various points of view. Sinneed ( talk) 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Sinneed ( talk) 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally, I again want to suggest that this article be "stubbed", with just the note of what nerf means and the header requesting the article be improved (if possible) with sourced material. Reverting to a mishmash of personal POV nerf-hate and nerf-love seems very very counterproductive: thus the article languished for months. Sinneed ( talk) 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Sinneed, a couple of things before I go on with listing the issues regarding your edits. I want you to keep in mind that everything I am listing here adheres to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I can list all of the policies that pertain to the issues as well if you want me to, but I'd rather save time/space here and assume you have read them yourself and work on the issues with the article instead.
First off, I don't have to discuss anything before making any edit regardless of how massive that edit is - my duty as an editor is to the reader; not to other editors. Yet, I was going to(did) discuss the reason why I made such an edit, as mentioned in my edit summary, and was referring to the very short timeframe you gave me to post on the talk page - 6 mins according to the timestamp. Now for someone who genuinely wishes to discuss the edits, your actions aren't very convincing.
Secondly, I never accused *you* in particular of adding the WoW entries, but the removal of them were part of my edits, which I wanted to explain on the talk page.
Now on to the problems
In your version, you went ahead and listed in the lead paragraph every game element you could think of that could be nerfed, which creates 2 problems. First, the lead should summarize the article in a concise manner and using the term "particular game element" to capture all of the elements that can be nerfed as opposed to listing them achieves just that. Secondly, by listing each element you encourage other editors passing through here to list other elements you may have missed and risk having the list get ever so longer creating listcruft, which is not prohibited per se, but is ever so annoying as a reader and doesn't belong in the lead paragraph if accepted anyway.
As with the list you created about "game elements", the section you titled "Popular usage examples" has similar problems. Every 2nd editor coming through here is going to want to add their example and we find ourselves again with listcruft, which doesn't do the article a favour. More importantly however, is that the section is completely unsourced, which *is* unacceptable as per wikipedia policy. Especially seeing as you are claiming these usage examples are "Popular".
Speaking of sources, the fact that online slang is difficult to source does not excuse the article from being sourced. We are not trying to achieve a stub here, as you put it, but a lengthy unsourced article is no better. The added injury vs. hurt theory on how the term came into usage is a particular problem. Not only is the theory unsourced, but it's borderline original research, which is also unacceptable.
Anyhow, that's all I have for now. There's more to come in the future I'm sure. — Dorvaq ( talk) 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You inherently reduce the desirability of a game element by reducing its "power effectiveness or influence..." I suggest we keep desirability and remove the other 2 points. — Dorvaq ( talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
"all nerfs affect desirability."
False. Source? *kicks self for rejoining fruitless discussion* Addicted. :,(
Sinneed (
talk)
18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Desirability.
Prestige. NOT desirability. THAT will go *UP*.
Maybe desirability. The area may be heavily hunted for other reasons... in fact it might become MORE popular and desirable by removing (real example) mass slaughter of the entire zone by small groups of players.
Desirability...maybe. But the reality is that most trade-skilling in most games is essentially an end in itself... the rewards are very occasional... in VERY general.
Desirability? Maybe.
Desireability? Not in my experience. Usually this is just wounded pride.
Nah. People have the same desire to log out as before. It might affect the ease of an encounter, for example... which might make it MORE desirable, if it increased the value of the reward. *shrug*
Every single example you're using to refute my point still has to do with lowered desirability, so I really don't know what to tell you anymore. I'm really trying to work with you to make a better article, but you seem more interested in simply discarding for the sake of discarding and making personal attacks. If this is the type of discussion you were asking for in your edit summaries, then I guess you and I aren't discussing anymore.
I'll refrain from entertaining any point you make where I feel you're arguing for the sake of arguing, and in fact, I won't even make any edits to the article page unless I'm reverting clear vandalism, because I don't care all that much. Feel free to add/remove whatever it is you want and I'll allow you to get whatever it is you are getting out of this with another editor.
Whenever you wish to participate in a real discussion, let me know as I would be glad to hear constructive comments. — Dorvaq ( talk) 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Sinneed ( talk) 04:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Pity there is no way to source online slang, it might be possible to turn this into a good article. Sinneed ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No minor improvement is being allowed. The basic problem being objected to by Thumpy is that the online jargon cannot be sourced, no improvements will be allowed unless sourced. I am again correcting the lead in.
As an alternative to deletion, I propose changing the article into a stub, containing in whatever format would somehow be acceptable, 3 items:
If anyone can source usage of nerf, it would be grand to include examples of usage, IMO.
If anyone can source reasons devs and players claim nerfs are good, that would be good, IMO.
If anyone can source reasons devs and players claim nerfs are bad, that would be good, IMO.
All comments, including those made only for effect, are quite welcome.
And, of course, there was no discussion, and no improvement. Please either stop reversing out my edits or make some kind of improvement. This edit war silliness needs to end. Reinstating the simple, and not ambiguous, use of nerf as a verb. Sinneed ( talk) 04:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested, you may look through the history of a number of terms like nerf, and find that there is much discussion of whether they belong in Wiki at all.
Proposing that if no unsourced changes are to be allowed, and no sourcing is possible, that the article be deleted is not a threat. It is a realistic alternative, of only 3:
I will not leave the article as it. You will not let me change it. ( at least not so far ) You will not let me kill it.
If I have missed one, please share it with me. If there is a way to source online slang, please share it with me, strictly as a courtesy, and I realize I am asking for an unearned favor.
But please, either join in or stop reversing me. This doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. Sinneed ( talk) 04:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
"In computer gaming, a nerf is a change, and "to nerf" the act of making a change, that reduces the desirability of a particular game element."
I have been informed that this needs to be different. I should hope this would be an area that an editor actually interesting in improving the lead-in might contribute.
I think the leadin needs these 3 things to convey what "a nerf" is, and what it means "to nerf" something:
Sinneed ( talk) 04:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
": they're fun to shoot people with, but their plush, foamy dart-like qualities make them generally innocuous. "
I have some hope that no one enjoys nerfing. I have a stronger sense that this is not quite the lead-in we would hope to find if we opened a $2000.00 encyclopedia and looked up "nerf". Perhaps I am missing the need for this addition, and if so, I apologize. Sinneed ( talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems the origin of the term has been lost to most, but i was there. Dark Castle MUD circa 1992 ( http://www.dcastle.org/). There was a weapon in game called the nerf assault rifle that had a special procedure to automatically cast the spell magic missle on attack. The game's imp increased the damage of magic missle to be based apon character level, which inadvertenly made the weapon vastly more powerful than the norm. The wepaon recieved a significant downgrading to such an extent the weapon was near worthless. Apon further 'rebalancing' of items in the game, the players harkened back to the original downgrading of 'the nerf'. At this time MUDs were pretty much the only games with dynamic content and thus i am fairly certain this is the true origin. Most MMORPG's to date still have identical gameplay mechanics to MUDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.117.153 ( talk) 09:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
—
Text added to the lead-in by an anon editor: "This meaning of "nerf" entered wide usage due to an across-the-board reduction in the effectiveness of melee weapons in Ultima Online undertaken by developer "EvilJohn" in 1998. The reduced damage led players to complain that they felt like they were "fighting with nerf weapons", in reference to the NERF brand of toys."
While this is a very attractive statement, it is not sourced, and I know how difficult that is with these... but without sourcing it is just telling stories around the campfire... it is not an encyclopedia article. Sorry to kill your edit, and I hope you can find sourcing that I cannot. sinneed ( talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This link died right after I added it, but now it is back. The link in the text is to the cached version, so this is a note explaining why. Protonk ( talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Presented (Thank You!) by Protonk ( talk)
Over on the German version of this page, these additional sources are listed:
Editors who want to contribute may find this list useful. But even if not, I wanted to preserve the sources in an easy-to-find spot.
The full deletion discussion is archived (I have no idea for how long) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nerf_(computer_gaming)_(2nd_nomination) sinneed ( talk) 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition: The term nerf does not apply to corrections made by simple clerical error. For instance 2 new weapons are put into the game. One is a 15th level quest reward and the second is a 30th level quest reward. Upon database entry the transcriber enters the 15th level weapon with the same DPS (damage per second) as the 30th level weapon. An obviuos mistake that is not caught until the weapons have gone live. The developers are made aware of this issue and correct it. This is not a nerf.
1st - this is a classic example of a nerf.
2nd - you'll need a
wp:rs to add that. Yes, lots of stuff here with no source, but just because
wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff. Please dive in and
source madly. :) It is a real challenge with these Internet jargon terms. I have argued that they don't belong in Wikipedia because they are very difficult to source. I am in a small minority and the consensus is to leave them in.
3rd - The lead in rests on the rest of the article... it leads in to it. If you can find sources to add the content you appear to feel strongly about, please
wp:be bold and add it to the body. Perhaps a section called "What is and what is not a nerf". Then, once it is in and sourced, perhaps it will merit a mention in the lead in (and you can always jsut
wp:be bold and add it... but without source it won't stay...and if it is too much for the lead-in it won't stay). But I am dubious.
Most nerfs are just this sort. Someone makes a simple error. It has minor or profound effects that are found only once the change is live. The change is reversed, and someone objects... usually multiple someones object... to the nerf. sinneed ( talk) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I learned of this proposed merge when it was implemented. There was some discussion Video Games Project archive "Nerfing? Section", but it was *VERY* short, there was no proposed redirect put here, none at the game balance. If the merge target article there were not so VERY bad, I would feel better about the merge. I spoke with the merging editor about the lack of consensus at User talk:Zxcvbnm#Erm., but I did not revert the merge...I think the idea in and of itself is fine... but the target needs very VERY much work. sinneed ( talk) 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The claim that the name was first used in Ultima Online was not properly sourced (and the idea that this was actually the first use is ludicrous). The first reference says that its first use in online games was on Ultima Online, not that its first use whatsoever was in Ultima Online. The New York Times reference is only a reference for the origin of the word, not for its first use. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 15:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
... to Nerf (Video gaming) - an editor argues that the term "video gaming" is broader than computer gaming.
As the meaning of computer gaming has slowly come to mean desktop computer, rather than computer-in-general, this argument may have merit. However, computer gaming includes computer gaming for the blind (rare), and all other computer-based games, whether PC, Mac, mainframe, pager, handheld.
I oppose this move, somewhat weakly. - Sinneed 14:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
anon game designer: I also oppose this move, but for different reasons. Though I cannot dig up sources for it atm of course, in usage on forums and in life I've very commonly heard "nerf" as the "weakening" noun and "nerfing" verb be applied to non-computer games. I've heard tons of people talk about "nerfing" colors or cards in Magic: The Gathering, for one example, and that is no computer or video game. And it flies beyond the scope of gaming sometimes. I wouldn't be surprised to see "Nerf" become as ubiquitous a noun in this meaning as "Spam".
Honestly though, this all reeks of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Why does this article need to exist? It should fall under a page on "Game Design" and the art of "Balancing", which ties in with other concepts like the double rule or risks/rewards or game theory, etc. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.245.16.248 (
talk)
04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, if a source scites a specific use, it doesn't mean there isn't a general use. I am not going to remove this, but I will povflag it. It doesn't belong in the lead at all, and if it needs discussion in the body, wording to the effect that it is commonly used in MMORPGS might be OK... but it is right there in the source, and I don't see the need.-
Sinneed
00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Suppose we used a source at poker (game) that referred to "Tim had 3 aces and 2 eights: a full house, aces over eights." and someone placed in the body "When players named Tim, specifically, have 3 aces and 2 eights, it is called a full house." This would, quite clearly, be incorrect, and it would not be OR to mention on the talk page that everyone who has 3 aces and 2 eights has a full house, and to change the text to "For example, when a player has 3 aces and 2 eights, it is called a full house, aces over eights." - Sinneed 02:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::On second thought, I think it may be best to just go ahead and remove the OR now, I don't think this discussion is going to be profitable.-
Sinneed
03:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
deteriorate/deterioration, debuff, worsening, weakening, impairment/impair/impairing... 124.106.142.94 ( talk) 04:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nerfing (gaming). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)