Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

I totally agree with JAlex that we should be precise when discussing shared terms like power creep. With that in mind, I really dislike the wiktionary definition of it here. I think we can come up with a better one. https://t.co/rFwtzfueHt

I totally agree with JAlex that we should be precise when discussing shared terms like power creep. With that in mind, I *really* dislike the wiktionary definition of it here. I think we can come up with a better one. https://t.co/rFwtzfueHt

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

I totally agree with JAlex that we should be precise when discussing shared terms like power creep. With that in mind, I *really* dislike the wiktionary definition of it here. I think we can come up with a better one. https://t.co/rFwtzfueHt

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

The main issue I take with this definition is that, in my experience, power creep is deliberate, whereas "gradual unbalancing" sounds to me like "bad balance". Though power creep is related to balance, it does not automatically create bad balance.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

The main reason designers power creep is because gamers REALLY want to engage with new content when it comes out, and REALLY hate losing. If new content is worse than old content, players are forced to choose between a good old thing or a bad new thing, which is not a fun choice.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

Players often frame power creep in a way like this wiktionary definition does - as if its a purely negative thing that they don't want designers to do - while the reality is that designers power creep because players demand it.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

Players often site "balance" as the thing they want, but in my experience they regularly use the word balance to mean "variety" or "change". Things that were once cool and exciting when they were first released often become "unbalanced" the moment players grow tired of them.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

Players are usually willing to give well-designed content a long rope before they grow tired of it, while worse designs tends to grow old and become "unbalanced" quickly. Anecdotally, players seemed to have a tolerance of ~1 set for Denathrius. Is that a good, or good bad design?

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

Either way, players grow tired of seeing the same things and eventually demand change. The fastest way to change is live balance. Nerf the strong stuff, buff the weak stuff, and hopefully players will no longer have to choose between two things they want - variety and winning.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

Another way to add change is to release new content. However, new content only creates change if it is strong enough to outcompete the old stuff! New content isn't much fun if it makes you lose. If playing the new thing means losing to the old thing, players demand change.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

This is how the cycle of make strong new thing -> nerf new thing once players get tired of it -> make strong new thing perpetuates. Its also why you see more nerfs than buffs in games. Nerfs are an expected outcome of power creep doing its job.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

With all that said, here's how would I define power creep: "A cycle of continually releasing new content in games at a higher power level than preceding content, so players feel rewarded for playing with the new content." But that's just my opinion! What do y'all think?

Savjz

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@AlecoGereco In my view, power creep stands for the negative effects. It is about the relative, unintended unbalancing of parts of the game that can't keep up with others. It's about the collateral damage to parts of the game that get neglected.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@Savjz What would you call the positives then? I think part of the issue here is that people use the term power creep to refer to the negatives, the positives, and the combination of the two interchangeably.

Savjz

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@AlecoGereco I agree it's used differently. I'm pretty sure I've only heard devs use it positively though. 3rd set of yr has to have better cards - it's true. But what would you call entire classes becoming unplayable due to reliance on outdated cards?

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@Savjz That’s really hard to nail down on one specific issue or term. It could be power creep, suboptimal live balance choices, initial design choices, meta conditions, poor player perception, a combination of these, or any number of other factors.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@Savjz Sometimes underplayed classes feel like they can only be properly fixed with new content (initial/final design issue) and live balance can’t do much. Other times it’s entirely on live balance. I’d say it’s quite fluid!

Savjz

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@AlecoGereco Yeah. Core set rotation is probably a bigger window of opportunity for example. What about opening the core set 2x a year, like april and october instead of just april? Would allow setup for set 3 at an otherwise boring time. It could also be *just* additions for weak classes.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@Savjz Im pretty open to this! I think there is potentially a bit more leeway for us to explore in core.

Mitchell Loewen

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@AlecoGereco Imo I would personally go with something slightly more neutral like: "The gradual increase of power in new game content relative to preceding content." Mostly because I don't feel power creep is inherently good or bad. It's more of an inevitable thing that occurs as games age.

Mitchell Loewen

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@AlecoGereco There are ways it can be leveraged to improve your game, as well as ways it can harm your game. For me, I think that designers should be mindful of it and plan for it so it's more beneficial than detrimental.
Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@LoewenMitchell I think I agree that a more neutral definition is preferable. Well said!

rberberich

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@AlecoGereco So, do you think rogue’s current power level is not out of line and just a consequence of your fickle player base’s wild imagination? Did it just “grow old” seeing them cheat 50 mana in a turn or create and unanswerable board on turn 4, or is it just undesirable on its own?

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@rberberich No I think Rogue is too strong in high MMR right now

bkopleck

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@AlecoGereco players (and designers) putting balance above all else could be its own tweet thread

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@bkopleck 100%! The relationship between balance, community perception, need for variety, and change tolerance is essentially the entire art live balance. Easier said than done! Maybe I should write my next blog post on this 🤔

adam_noodelman

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@AlecoGereco This might be more business/financial side of things but do you think there's any credence to the thought that if new stuff is always better than old stuff it'll shake consumer confidence and people won't buy new stuff because it'll be obsolete too quickly?

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@adam_noodelman I think that concern should be weighed against the alternative, which is that the new thing isn't noticeably better so people won't buy it because its not exciting. I'm sure some people feel the way you describe, but suspect a much bigger group would be offended by the opposite.

Aleco Gereco

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@adam_noodelman That said, I would guess that for consumer products that consistently get new upgrades such as the iPhone, they probably have conservations about how to space their new releases out properly in order to avoid burnout as you described.

Chadd Nervigg

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@AlecoGereco Analogy I like: Game Balance is like a good Chef’s Knife. It gets dull over time, and you have to sharpen it periodically to keep it sharp. Power Creep is the inevitable thinning of the blade over time. You can try to minimize it, but there’s no stopping it besides staying dull. https://t.co/whoTLOAv6x https://t.co/ZWdEWW7zAS

Vidinamel

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@Celestalon @AlecoGereco I am going to be the pedantic guy and say what's Gordon is doing is Honing the knife and not sharpening it.

Chadd Nervigg

Posted 2 years, 11 months ago (Source)

@Vidinamel @AlecoGereco I suspected someone might note the difference, but didn't think it was worth it. :)

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
I totally agree with JAlex that we should be precise when discussing shared terms like power creep. With that in mind, I *really* dislike the wiktionary definition of it here. I think we can come up with a better one. https://t.co/rFwtzfueHt (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068108670697473">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
The main issue I take with this definition is that, in my experience, power creep is deliberate, whereas "gradual unbalancing" sounds to me like "bad balance". Though power creep is related to balance, it does not automatically create bad balance. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068111074029568">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
The main reason designers power creep is because gamers REALLY want to engage with new content when it comes out, and REALLY hate losing. If new content is worse than old content, players are forced to choose between a good old thing or a bad new thing, which is not a fun choice. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068112781103104">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
Players often frame power creep in a way like this wiktionary definition does - as if its a purely negative thing that they don't want designers to do - while the reality is that designers power creep because players demand it. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068114416861186">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
Players often site "balance" as the thing they want, but in my experience they regularly use the word balance to mean "variety" or "change". Things that were once cool and exciting when they were first released often become "unbalanced" the moment players grow tired of them. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068116115582976">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
Players are usually willing to give well-designed content a long rope before they grow tired of it, while worse designs tends to grow old and become "unbalanced" quickly. Anecdotally, players seemed to have a tolerance of ~1 set for Denathrius. Is that a good, or good bad design? (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068117852028928">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
Either way, players grow tired of seeing the same things and eventually demand change. The fastest way to change is live balance. Nerf the strong stuff, buff the weak stuff, and hopefully players will no longer have to choose between two things they want - variety and winning. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068119475204097">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
Another way to add change is to release new content. However, new content only creates change if it is strong enough to outcompete the old stuff! New content isn't much fun if it makes you lose. If playing the new thing means losing to the old thing, players demand change. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068121106804738">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
This is how the cycle of make strong new thing -> nerf new thing once players get tired of it -> make strong new thing perpetuates. Its also why you see more nerfs than buffs in games. Nerfs are an expected outcome of power creep doing its job. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068122826461184">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
With all that said, here's how would I define power creep:

"A cycle of continually releasing new content in games at a higher power level than preceding content, so players feel rewarded for playing with the new content."

But that's just my opinion! What do y'all think? (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068124525146112">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@AlecoGereco In my view, power creep stands for the negative effects. It is about the relative, unintended unbalancing of parts of the game that can't keep up with others. It's about the collateral damage to parts of the game that get neglected. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614075158188425216">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@Savjz What would you call the positives then? I think part of the issue here is that people use the term power creep to refer to the negatives, the positives, and the combination of the two interchangeably. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614075855474679811">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@AlecoGereco I agree it's used differently. I'm pretty sure I've only heard devs use it positively though. 3rd set of yr has to have better cards - it's true.

But what would you call entire classes becoming unplayable due to reliance on outdated cards? (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614079533849939971">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@Savjz That’s really hard to nail down on one specific issue or term. It could be power creep, suboptimal live balance choices, initial design choices, meta conditions, poor player perception, a combination of these, or any number of other factors. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614081154344423428">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@Savjz Sometimes underplayed classes feel like they can only be properly fixed with new content (initial/final design issue) and live balance can’t do much. Other times it’s entirely on live balance. I’d say it’s quite fluid! (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614081978973958144">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@AlecoGereco Yeah. Core set rotation is probably a bigger window of opportunity for example. What about opening the core set 2x a year, like april and october instead of just april? Would allow setup for set 3 at an otherwise boring time. It could also be *just* additions for weak classes. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614083108831395840">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@Savjz Im pretty open to this! I think there is potentially a bit more leeway for us to explore in core. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614083657085652992">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@AlecoGereco Imo I would personally go with something slightly more neutral like:

"The gradual increase of power in new game content relative to preceding content."

Mostly because I don't feel power creep is inherently good or bad. It's more of an inevitable thing that occurs as games age. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614082744203743232">Mitchell Loewen</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@AlecoGereco There are ways it can be leveraged to improve your game, as well as ways it can harm your game.

For me, I think that designers should be mindful of it and plan for it so it's more beneficial than detrimental. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614083238888366081">Mitchell Loewen</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@LoewenMitchell I think I agree that a more neutral definition is preferable. Well said! (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614083156931645440">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@AlecoGereco So, do you think rogue’s current power level is not out of line and just a consequence of your fickle player base’s wild imagination? Did it just “grow old” seeing them cheat 50 mana in a turn or create and unanswerable board on turn 4, or is it just undesirable on its own? (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614072276294443009">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@rberberich No I think Rogue is too strong in high MMR right now (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614073792833388544">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@AlecoGereco players (and designers) putting balance above all else could be its own tweet thread (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614074028523950080">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@bkopleck 100%! The relationship between balance, community perception, need for variety, and change tolerance is essentially the entire art live balance. Easier said than done! Maybe I should write my next blog post on this 🤔 (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614075105231134720">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@AlecoGereco This might be more business/financial side of things but do you think there's any credence to the thought that if new stuff is always better than old stuff it'll shake consumer confidence and people won't buy new stuff because it'll be obsolete too quickly? (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614071276628230144">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@adam_noodelman I think that concern should be weighed against the alternative, which is that the new thing isn't noticeably better so people won't buy it because its not exciting. I'm sure some people feel the way you describe, but suspect a much bigger group would be offended by the opposite. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614072486462881797">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@adam_noodelman That said, I would guess that for consumer products that consistently get new upgrades such as the iPhone, they probably have conservations about how to space their new releases out properly in order to avoid burnout as you described. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614072793213341697">Aleco Gereco</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@AlecoGereco Analogy I like: Game Balance is like a good Chef’s Knife. It gets dull over time, and you have to sharpen it periodically to keep it sharp. Power Creep is the inevitable thinning of the blade over time. You can try to minimize it, but there’s no stopping it besides staying dull. https://t.co/whoTLOAv6x https://t.co/ZWdEWW7zAS (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614333998779756547">Chadd Nervigg</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@Celestalon @AlecoGereco I am going to be the pedantic guy and say what's Gordon is doing is Honing the knife and not sharpening it. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614369287799554052">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@Vidinamel @AlecoGereco I suspected someone might note the difference, but didn't think it was worth it. :) (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614400281562976257">Chadd Nervigg</a>)
<hr/>

Tweet

I totally agree with JAlex that we should be precise when discussing shared terms like power creep. With that in mind, I *really* dislike the wiktionary definition of it here. I think we can come up with a better one. https://t.co/rFwtzfueHt (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068108670697473">Source</a>)

The main issue I take with this definition is that, in my experience, power creep is deliberate, whereas "gradual unbalancing" sounds to me like "bad balance". Though power creep is related to balance, it does not automatically create bad balance. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068111074029568">Source</a>)

The main reason designers power creep is because gamers REALLY want to engage with new content when it comes out, and REALLY hate losing. If new content is worse than old content, players are forced to choose between a good old thing or a bad new thing, which is not a fun choice. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068112781103104">Source</a>)

Players often frame power creep in a way like this wiktionary definition does - as if its a purely negative thing that they don't want designers to do - while the reality is that designers power creep because players demand it. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068114416861186">Source</a>)

Players often site "balance" as the thing they want, but in my experience they regularly use the word balance to mean "variety" or "change". Things that were once cool and exciting when they were first released often become "unbalanced" the moment players grow tired of them. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068116115582976">Source</a>)

Players are usually willing to give well-designed content a long rope before they grow tired of it, while worse designs tends to grow old and become "unbalanced" quickly. Anecdotally, players seemed to have a tolerance of ~1 set for Denathrius. Is that a good, or good bad design? (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068117852028928">Source</a>)

Either way, players grow tired of seeing the same things and eventually demand change. The fastest way to change is live balance. Nerf the strong stuff, buff the weak stuff, and hopefully players will no longer have to choose between two things they want - variety and winning. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068119475204097">Source</a>)

Another way to add change is to release new content. However, new content only creates change if it is strong enough to outcompete the old stuff! New content isn't much fun if it makes you lose. If playing the new thing means losing to the old thing, players demand change. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068121106804738">Source</a>)

This is how the cycle of make strong new thing -&gt; nerf new thing once players get tired of it -&gt; make strong new thing perpetuates. Its also why you see more nerfs than buffs in games. Nerfs are an expected outcome of power creep doing its job. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068122826461184">Source</a>)

With all that said, here's how would I define power creep:

"A cycle of continually releasing new content in games at a higher power level than preceding content, so players feel rewarded for playing with the new content."

But that's just my opinion! What do y'all think? (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614068124525146112">Source</a>)

@AlecoGereco In my view, power creep stands for the negative effects. It is about the relative, unintended unbalancing of parts of the game that can't keep up with others. It's about the collateral damage to parts of the game that get neglected.

@Savjz What would you call the positives then? I think part of the issue here is that people use the term power creep to refer to the negatives, the positives, and the combination of the two interchangeably. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614075855474679811">Source</a>)

@AlecoGereco I agree it's used differently. I'm pretty sure I've only heard devs use it positively though. 3rd set of yr has to have better cards - it's true.

But what would you call entire classes becoming unplayable due to reliance on outdated cards?

@Savjz That’s really hard to nail down on one specific issue or term. It could be power creep, suboptimal live balance choices, initial design choices, meta conditions, poor player perception, a combination of these, or any number of other factors. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614081154344423428">Source</a>)

@Savjz Sometimes underplayed classes feel like they can only be properly fixed with new content (initial/final design issue) and live balance can’t do much. Other times it’s entirely on live balance. I’d say it’s quite fluid! (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614081978973958144">Source</a>)

@AlecoGereco Yeah. Core set rotation is probably a bigger window of opportunity for example. What about opening the core set 2x a year, like april and october instead of just april? Would allow setup for set 3 at an otherwise boring time. It could also be *just* additions for weak classes.

@Savjz Im pretty open to this! I think there is potentially a bit more leeway for us to explore in core. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614083657085652992">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>

@AlecoGereco Imo I would personally go with something slightly more neutral like:

"The gradual increase of power in new game content relative to preceding content."

Mostly because I don't feel power creep is inherently good or bad. It's more of an inevitable thing that occurs as games age. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614082744203743232">Source</a>)

@AlecoGereco There are ways it can be leveraged to improve your game, as well as ways it can harm your game.

For me, I think that designers should be mindful of it and plan for it so it's more beneficial than detrimental. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614083238888366081">Source</a>)

@LoewenMitchell I think I agree that a more neutral definition is preferable. Well said! (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614083156931645440">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>

@AlecoGereco So, do you think rogue’s current power level is not out of line and just a consequence of your fickle player base’s wild imagination? Did it just “grow old” seeing them cheat 50 mana in a turn or create and unanswerable board on turn 4, or is it just undesirable on its own?

@rberberich No I think Rogue is too strong in high MMR right now (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614073792833388544">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>

@AlecoGereco players (and designers) putting balance above all else could be its own tweet thread

@bkopleck 100%! The relationship between balance, community perception, need for variety, and change tolerance is essentially the entire art live balance. Easier said than done! Maybe I should write my next blog post on this 🤔 (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614075105231134720">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>

@AlecoGereco This might be more business/financial side of things but do you think there's any credence to the thought that if new stuff is always better than old stuff it'll shake consumer confidence and people won't buy new stuff because it'll be obsolete too quickly?

@adam_noodelman I think that concern should be weighed against the alternative, which is that the new thing isn't noticeably better so people won't buy it because its not exciting. I'm sure some people feel the way you describe, but suspect a much bigger group would be offended by the opposite. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614072486462881797">Source</a>)

@adam_noodelman That said, I would guess that for consumer products that consistently get new upgrades such as the iPhone, they probably have conservations about how to space their new releases out properly in order to avoid burnout as you described. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614072793213341697">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>

@AlecoGereco Analogy I like: Game Balance is like a good Chef’s Knife. It gets dull over time, and you have to sharpen it periodically to keep it sharp. Power Creep is the inevitable thinning of the blade over time. You can try to minimize it, but there’s no stopping it besides staying dull. https://t.co/whoTLOAv6x https://t.co/ZWdEWW7zAS (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614333998779756547">Source</a>)

@Celestalon @AlecoGereco I am going to be the pedantic guy and say what's Gordon is doing is Honing the knife and not sharpening it.

@Vidinamel @AlecoGereco I suspected someone might note the difference, but didn't think it was worth it. :) (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614400281562976257">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>