DumDumDugn wrote: GT-47LM wrote: Come on, who didn't see this coming? Ragnarok was by far the most complained about and overpowered character in the game. That's why I didn't try to level him because I knew it was going to happen. His red is still effective to the point where it is how it should have been since the beginning with a huge increase in damage. I still like him. Nobody saw a 300% increase in AP cost coming, sorry. His red is still effective with a huge increase in damage? You just lost all credibility. It does 8xx damage at level 115. Thor does 1113 at level 85.
GT-47LM wrote: Come on, who didn't see this coming? Ragnarok was by far the most complained about and overpowered character in the game. That's why I didn't try to level him because I knew it was going to happen. His red is still effective to the point where it is how it should have been since the beginning with a huge increase in damage. I still like him.
GT-47LM wrote: DumDumDugn wrote: GT-47LM wrote: Come on, who didn't see this coming? Ragnarok was by far the most complained about and overpowered character in the game. That's why I didn't try to level him because I knew it was going to happen. His red is still effective to the point where it is how it should have been since the beginning with a huge increase in damage. I still like him. Nobody saw a 300% increase in AP cost coming, sorry. His red is still effective with a huge increase in damage? You just lost all credibility. It does 8xx damage at level 115. Thor does 1113 at level 85. Wait, it only does 800 damage? Wow, I thought that an extra 260% of baseline actually meant something. This is pretty bad. But still, my point still stands, besides the damage part.
Nemek wrote: GT-47LM wrote: DumDumDugn wrote: GT-47LM wrote: Come on, who didn't see this coming? Ragnarok was by far the most complained about and overpowered character in the game. That's why I didn't try to level him because I knew it was going to happen. His red is still effective to the point where it is how it should have been since the beginning with a huge increase in damage. I still like him. Nobody saw a 300% increase in AP cost coming, sorry. His red is still effective with a huge increase in damage? You just lost all credibility. It does 8xx damage at level 115. Thor does 1113 at level 85. Wait, it only does 800 damage? Wow, I thought that an extra 260% of baseline actually meant something. This is pretty bad. But still, my point still stands, besides the damage part. It's now 967. (Still not great.)
"[ wrote: » "] I was thinking of the "character combo" with GSBW or with M/C.Storm to fuel their green skills. I think that is much more interesting to be able to have teams that work well together and can use different strategies rather than 3 independent characters that dont support each other. It is similar to what you say about venom, it was also a strategy requiring 2 characters (spidey/venom) and it was nerfed.
Eddiemon wrote: "[ wrote: » "] I was thinking of the "character combo" with GSBW or with M/C.Storm to fuel their green skills. I think that is much more interesting to be able to have teams that work well together and can use different strategies rather than 3 independent characters that dont support each other. It is similar to what you say about venom, it was also a strategy requiring 2 characters (spidey/venom) and it was nerfed. But that was my point. Spidey and venom needed each other to work. Spidey does no damage and venom could never hope to get 8 webs out. Whereas I could keep rag fed off his own cascades mostly. Sure a better use of the green was nice, but while widow needed rags, rags didn't need her.
DumDumDugn wrote: Spidey most definitely does not need venom lmfao
BigMao wrote: Nemek wrote: The problem with listening to users is that they are very short sighted and are more interested in immediate gratification and not what's best for the future of the game. I acknowledge I don't know what's best for the future of this game. In order to make a good product, developers and publishers need a balance of their own skills / experience and user feedback. I'm sure they are weighing the costs and benefits of this nerf, but it's up to us to determine the costs and tell the developers this move isn't worth it. My claim is simple; unannounced and heavy-handed nerfs make this game less fun for players, and make customers less willing to spend money. It can ruin the game for me and that's all I'm qualified to say.
Nemek wrote: The problem with listening to users is that they are very short sighted and are more interested in immediate gratification and not what's best for the future of the game.
Davometer wrote: You know what, I'm actually glad they nerfed him this hard! Very glad! You know why? Because when a newbie asks what they should spend their hp on, the immediate response is: COVER SLOTS! So why are you guys spending money on covers??? Instead you all should be buying cover slots like a good casual player. It's the only thing that won't change on you overnight!
BigMao wrote: I would still be willing to spend money on a balanced game, though I would still try to optimize my return by redeeming my HP for the best covers. Nerfs like these are demotivating because they introduce too much uncertainty into the equation; there's less of an incentive to invest time or money into a character. It doesn't have to be this way - since HP is not a true currency, the developers are free to give refunds in order to satisfy our sense of fairness. As players we're at the mercy of the developer's systems and rules, but we're also free to choose to support them or not.
Saint Matthew wrote: I would have preferred hats. I can spend money on hats.