Vhailorx wrote: Juggs is great as a team up evnwhen he isn't playable. Also, for a short time, I was running a 0/1/5 patch with 2* daken t0 save health packs. Whenever. Could choose a 3rd character, I used my lvl 26 juggs. He didn't tank anything, but had enough health to survive the odd aoe. And his 6AP green board shaker was awesome (cast chemical reaction to clear strike tiles, then shake the board, and likely regen at least one strike tile in the process). And if I got unlucky, and my mains wiped, then juggs could usually headutt his way to a pyrrhic victory. He definitely can't find his way into an A team, but he is definitely playable on the right B team. And he gives team ups, AND he is the best defensive character in the game in balance of power. I am not anywhere close to selling mine.
mischiefmaker wrote: 40. 3* Beast, -6Finally gets his due as the worst 3* in the game, except that he's probably only the second-worst now.
onimus wrote: mischiefmaker wrote: 40. 3* Beast, -6Finally gets his due as the worst 3* in the game, except that he's probably only the second-worst now. Who do you think is the new worst? Doc Oct?
Ben Grimm wrote: onimus wrote: mischiefmaker wrote: 40. 3* Beast, -6Finally gets his due as the worst 3* in the game, except that he's probably only the second-worst now. Who do you think is the new worst? Doc Oct? Lazy Storm? She's definitely worse than Doc Ock,who's probably not bottom five.
43. 2* Wolverine (Astonishing), even Actually still a little bit useful after fully transitioning to 3*, since his green is one of the fastest powers in the game when dealing with low-level (2k health and below) opponents.
NorthernPolarity wrote: Crazy talk, lazy storm sees more use for me than even average tier 3*s like dp and colossus. Her synergies with femthor are amazing in pve.
Vhailorx wrote: Hmmm, the way Mischiefmaker said that beast is "now" only the second worst 3*. Of the various 3*s new to this quarter's rankings, I can't see any except gamora and doc oc being rated worse than beast. I haven't played with doc oc enough to have an opinion there, but I would say that gamora is a bit better than beast though still definitely a below average 3* (it's sad really, gamora would be a very playable character if her black created stronger strike tiles or cost less AP. As is, she just isn't worth playing unless she is your only well covered 3*). Edited for typos.
mischiefmaker wrote: Due to his black, he can be a reasonable character for PvE, but you know who else is a reasonable character for PvE? Basically everyone!
Arondite wrote: Gamora isn't close to the bottom, haha. She's not the best by any means, but she's running around the middle of the pack rather than the bottom of the barrel. She sits much prettier than the likes of Beast, Octopus, Psylocke, Storm3, etc.
NorthernPolarity wrote: mischiefmaker wrote: Due to his black, he can be a reasonable character for PvE, but you know who else is a reasonable character for PvE? Basically everyone! After seeing the light of how useful certain characters can be in PvE, I think we should stop dismissing PvE as the red-haired stepchild, and instead take the format slightly more seriously. Take Mohawk for instance. Terrible in PvP, and everyone agrees that she's "good" in PvE, but it turns out that she is significantly better at PvE than most other characters in the game, arguably top 8 or so. I think there would ideally be three axis of viability that cover most of the areas of the game, and which a character's value is typically judged (in order of importance): 1. How good the character is in PvP. 2. How good the character is in high level PvE nodes (level 180+) 3. How good the character is at speed killing seed teams, low level PvE nodes, 2* team compositions, etc. I will go and update my guide with these ratings now I guess. TLDR: Nitpicks! "PvE" should mean "high level PvE". Add "low-end" to each instance of PvE in that sentence like you do later on in the paragraph.
onimus wrote: NorthernPolarity wrote: mischiefmaker wrote: Due to his black, he can be a reasonable character for PvE, but you know who else is a reasonable character for PvE? Basically everyone! After seeing the light of how useful certain characters can be in PvE, I think we should stop dismissing PvE as the red-haired stepchild, and instead take the format slightly more seriously. Take Mohawk for instance. Terrible in PvP, and everyone agrees that she's "good" in PvE, but it turns out that she is significantly better at PvE than most other characters in the game, arguably top 8 or so. I think there would ideally be three axis of viability that cover most of the areas of the game, and which a character's value is typically judged (in order of importance): 1. How good the character is in PvP. 2. How good the character is in high level PvE nodes (level 180+) 3. How good the character is at speed killing seed teams, low level PvE nodes, 2* team compositions, etc. I will go and update my guide with these ratings now I guess. TLDR: Nitpicks! "PvE" should mean "high level PvE". Add "low-end" to each instance of PvE in that sentence like you do later on in the paragraph. Respectfully disagree. And here's why: PVE is going to be beat. When PVE is really just doing essential nodes once every 3 hours, it is less a matter of beating the top nodes (the ones that scale into infinity) and more just who can deal the most damage to grind out the essentials, which don't scale as rapidly. And the characters that deal the most damage are, almost always, going to be the best in PVP as well. Just off the top of my head, there's Thor, Xforce, 4hor, Daken and LCap. All great at dealing heavy damage relatively quickly and grinding out those essential nodes. PVE isn't really about roster strength. It's more about how much disposable time you, the player, have on your hands. So while PVE may be a saving grace for a character that is, in PVP, not usable, like MoStorm, it shouldn't really be weighted too heavily when grading a character. At least that's my opinion. I can compete in PVE without leveling characters that specialize in PVE but are worthless in PVP. My PVP roster is more than enough to beat PVE nodes. It's more about the time you have available, rather than having PVE specialists covered and leveled.
wymtime wrote: Anybody else shocked at how low She-Hulk is ranked? She has a very good AOE for 9 AP and it does good board shake up, her blue in PVE can be awsome, her green might be horrible, but 2 out of 3 isn't bad. I actually like playing her a lot more than Hulk. I don't think she is top 10 but she should be in the 11-15 range. Good health, strong red, and situational blue and pairs really well with X-Force if you are going up against a red primary color. Lot's of board shake up and AOE damage. I highly recomend her and she as she is a very solid 3* character.