The Top Tier aka 4* Thor and Wolverine

NorthernPolarity

ronin-san wrote:

I don't want any 4* neuters until we have at least triple (counting star-lord) the number of 4* in circulation. This will provide many benefits.

Players who played and won covers for xfw are not punished because others lack them. My xfw is still stuck at 2 green, but I have 5 in his black. I use him anyway. It just changes the speed of my fights.

But the motivation to match xfw and 4hor's dominant abilities means d3 releases stronger 4* chars going forward. And if we are all honest, we want more 4hor and less Sue Storm. sue, btw, WILL get boosted. She is worse than 3* good.

So no more xfw 4hor neuter talks until we have heaps of characters to judge them against. Because otherwise, we will be complaining about how badly we need xfw buffed.

And we have already been down that road.

This fear of nerfing characters to unplayable tier is rather silly, don't you think? Everyone seems to think that nerfing XF / LadyThor is going to make them Beast tier, even though that's not how it would be at all. Triple the 4*s in circulation? Look at Elektra and Starlord. Now look at XF and LadyThor. Elektra and Starlord are newer 4*s and what the devs must consider "balanced". And yet, look at all these forum people complaining that they're basically trash tier because XF / 4or are just that good. What does it even take to make these characters as good as XF / LadyThor? Elektra red does 4k damage a turn? Fury demolition does 16k damage? The power creep would be too damn high, and it makes much more sense to just remove the AP gain on surgical, and lower the stun / charge tiles of surge.

The nerf isn't going to look like -
XF - green is now 20 ap. Black now does 1k damage and costs 30 ap.

It's going to look like:
XF - surgical now doesn't gain AP.

XF is still a top tier character after this nerf, how is this screwing over anyone when he's STILL going to be the cornerstone of your roster?

ronin_san

NorthernPolarity wrote:

ronin-san wrote:

I don't want any 4* neuters until we have at least triple (counting star-lord) the number of 4* in circulation. This will provide many benefits.

Players who played and won covers for xfw are not punished because others lack them. My xfw is still stuck at 2 green, but I have 5 in his black. I use him anyway. It just changes the speed of my fights.

But the motivation to match xfw and 4hor's dominant abilities means d3 releases stronger 4* chars going forward. And if we are all honest, we want more 4hor and less Sue Storm. sue, btw, WILL get boosted. She is worse than 3* good.

So no more xfw 4hor neuter talks until we have heaps of characters to judge them against. Because otherwise, we will be complaining about how badly we need xfw buffed.

And we have already been down that road.

This fear of nerfing characters to unplayable tier is rather silly, don't you think? Everyone seems to think that nerfing XF / LadyThor is going to make them Beast tier, even though that's not how it would be at all. Triple the 4*s in circulation? Look at Elektra and Starlord. Now look at XF and LadyThor. Elektra and Starlord are newer 4*s and what the devs must consider "balanced". And yet, look at all these forum people complaining that they're basically trash tier because XF / 4or are just that good. What does it even take to make these characters as good as XF / LadyThor? Elektra red does 4k damage a turn? Fury demolition does 16k damage? The power creep would be too damn high, and it makes much more sense to just remove the AP gain on surgical, and lower the stun / charge tiles of surge.

The nerf isn't going to look like -
XF - green is now 20 ap. Black now does 1k damage and costs 30 ap.

It's going to look like:
XF - surgical now doesn't gain AP.

XF is still a top tier character after this nerf, how is this screwing over anyone when he's STILL going to be the cornerstone of your roster?

In truth, people are just jealous for losing to them in fights.

I am going to edit out the top sentence of my comment, because it doesn't fit the feeling I was trying to convey. NP is right.

What I meant to say is that we are not only in a 3-4* transition, but the 4* tier as a whole is unrealized. Just because Black Panther, Daken, and LazyThor are phenomenal, doesn't mean that Gamora is useless or won't ever be heavily used.

It's the same in the comics. X character may have a great ability, but be generally unlikable. So what I meant to say was that it is silly to consider nerfing something when the criteria (and the company of 4*s near said char) is as yet incomplete.

And I think we can all agree that we would sooner have old Sentry and old Spider-Man back than for the devs to overnerf another character out of functionality.

NorthernPolarity

ronin-san wrote:

NorthernPolarity wrote:

ronin-san wrote:

I don't want any 4* neuters until we have at least triple (counting star-lord) the number of 4* in circulation. This will provide many benefits.

Players who played and won covers for xfw are not punished because others lack them. My xfw is still stuck at 2 green, but I have 5 in his black. I use him anyway. It just changes the speed of my fights.

But the motivation to match xfw and 4hor's dominant abilities means d3 releases stronger 4* chars going forward. And if we are all honest, we want more 4hor and less Sue Storm. sue, btw, WILL get boosted. She is worse than 3* good.

So no more xfw 4hor neuter talks until we have heaps of characters to judge them against. Because otherwise, we will be complaining about how badly we need xfw buffed.

And we have already been down that road.

This fear of nerfing characters to unplayable tier is rather silly, don't you think? Everyone seems to think that nerfing XF / LadyThor is going to make them Beast tier, even though that's not how it would be at all. Triple the 4*s in circulation? Look at Elektra and Starlord. Now look at XF and LadyThor. Elektra and Starlord are newer 4*s and what the devs must consider "balanced". And yet, look at all these forum people complaining that they're basically trash tier because XF / 4or are just that good. What does it even take to make these characters as good as XF / LadyThor? Elektra red does 4k damage a turn? Fury demolition does 16k damage? The power creep would be too damn high, and it makes much more sense to just remove the AP gain on surgical, and lower the stun / charge tiles of surge.

The nerf isn't going to look like -
XF - green is now 20 ap. Black now does 1k damage and costs 30 ap.

It's going to look like:
XF - surgical now doesn't gain AP.

XF is still a top tier character after this nerf, how is this screwing over anyone when he's STILL going to be the cornerstone of your roster?

In truth, people are just jealous for losing to them in fights.

I am going to edit out the top sentence of my comment, because it doesn't fit the feeling I was trying to convey. NP is right.

What I meant to say is that we are not only in a 3-4* transition, but the 4* tier as a whole is unrealized. Just because Black Panther, Daken, and LazyThor are phenomenal, doesn't mean that Gamora is useless or won't ever be heavily used.

It's the same in the comics. X character may have a great ability, but be generally unlikable. So what I meant to say was that it is silly to consider nerfing something when the criteria (and the company of 4*s near said char) is as yet incomplete.

And I think we can all agree that we would sooner have old Sentry and old Spider-Man back than for the devs to overnerf another character out of functionality.

That's the thing though! I completely disagree, and think the game is far better off without Sentry and old Spider-man. Yes, it sucks that they're overnerfed and not usable in PvP anymore, but those characters were so broken that the game is far better off without them, and I think a large amount of people would agree that as well.

Unknown

All great questions in this thread.

Do the devs discuss any of this in their video? No. Instead we get meaningless fluff softball questions.

MPQ gonna MPQ.

NorthernPolarity

Switchman wrote:

All great questions in this thread.

Do the devs discuss any of this in their video? No. Instead we get meaningless fluff softball questions.

MPQ gonna MPQ.

Don't the devs only answer questions that we actually ask them? Did anyone ask this particular question to them?

ronin_san

ronin-san wrote:

And I think we can all agree that we would sooner have old Sentry and old Spider-Man back than for the devs to overnerf another character out of functionality.

NorthernPolarity wrote:

That's the thing though! I completely disagree, and think the game is far better off without Sentry and old Spider-man. Yes, it sucks that they're overnerfed and not usable in PvP anymore, but those characters were so broken that the game is far better off without them, and I think a large amount of people would agree that as well.

But we would have less complaining re: 4hor and XFW if people could neutralize (or at least trivialize the dmg received eg Daken sentry) when facing them. And spider man of old could have delayed sentry's speed rupture. They balance themselves.

I don't want to go back to spamming low low cost abilities (however it's ok for DEVIL DINO, somehow)... It looks like a rearrange but is efficient and can do good dmg with strike tiles.

Unknown

Strike tiles are not inherently tied to an imbalance just because they favor cheaper abilities more. Magnetic Field would be pretty broken even by itself. You might as well use it with strike tiles so that you don't get bored out of your mind while running it, but it's quite possible to beat stuff with only match damage through Magnetic Field. There's a pretty wild overreaction to how low AP cost abilities were way overpowered in the past (Feral Claw, Thunderclap, ATU, Magnetic Field, World Rupture) and you sort of have the opposite now where everything that's remotely decent has to be 4 match (and X Force having a killer 3 match move is part of why he's so much more powerful than anyone else), and if you slow the game down to the level of needing 4 matches then the person with the most HP (Thor) probably is going to win if the game is that slow. It also creates a nasty imbalance with guys like OBW or The Hood and they're currently only kept in control because X Force's 3 match move can kill just about anyone who can steal AP reliably. In fact, if we go back and look at the 2-3 match territory here's what we found:

2 match
Great: ALoTT
Conditional: Chemical Reaction
Usable: Psi-Katana

3 match
Godlike: X Force, Power Surge
Great: Battleplan, Fireball, Polarized Force
Good: Judgment (it's probably not weaker than some of the ones above, but it's obviously a tier below Battleplan), Molotov
Conditional: Nightstalker, Berserker Rage, Retribution.
Note: The conditional moves can be great in the right teams, but having a specific team to build around say Berserker Rage is its own limitation, compared to something like Battleplan that fits in any team.

I didn't bother looking at the characters I have at a very low level. I'm sure there's I missed but I don't think you'd find a much bigger list of great 3 match moves. There are surprisingly few good 3 match move to begin with, and the irony is that X Force and Thor owns 2 of the best ones in the game anyway, and of course they also have the top 4 match moves in the game as well. If we accept that 4* as a trend have significantly more HP than their 3* counterparts, it'd make more sense for the 3*s to have very good 2/3 match moves so that they can attempt to sneak in some damage to at least wear down the 4*s before the 4* can bring their game ending 4 match move. If the position of Fireball and X Force is swapped, while HT is not going to beat X Force 1on1, you'd at least be better able to put up a fight before X Force demolishes you with his superior overall stats. This is probably why Nick Fury is powerful but not overpowered, because all his moves are 4 matches even though they're all great 4 match moves, so he does take significant damage while fighting 3*s just because you got to wait for 4 matches before you can do anything.

evil panda

dear D3,

if Xforce and GT take a huge nerf, i would expect that you refund the money i paid to buy covers. you and i both know that they were given this level of power to incent spending, and i freely accepted that bargain, in exchange for more powerful characters. so let's hold up each other's side of the bargain please.

thanks!

Unknown

evil panda wrote:

dear D3,

if Xforce and GT take a huge nerf, i would expect that you refund the money i paid to buy covers. you and i both know that they were given this level of power to incent spending, and i freely accepted that bargain, in exchange for more powerful characters. so let's hold up each other's side of the bargain please.

thanks!

I always respect NP's inputs on the forum. His arguments are invariably well thought out and convincing. So, from that point of view, I could imagine a rebalance being a positive thing (depending on the strategic aim the devs have). Having said that, Evil Panda's comment stands strong in my mind. I bought C Mags covers before his nerf. I bought Sentry covers before his nerf. I got some limited utility from those purchases (not as much as most I would suspect), but if I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have never bought C Mags and especially not Sentry covers. Ultimately, I feel I didn't get what I paid for.

I've now I've bought Xforce covers, and have bought 4hor covers -- in the neighborhood of 20000 HP. If the same were to occur for 4hor and Xforce, I'd have to say I'd start to get a little irritated. One can always claim 'Caveat emptor', but a principled counter-argument could be made that one should never buy covers because you can never guarantee you get what you pay for, and sometimes not even remotely what you paid for. One might even contend that there shouldn't even be the option to buy covers in the game since the risk that the buyer won't get what they pay for is arguably too high. It looks like a short term money grab. And it would be hard to argue against that argument and that perception.

I'd totally be okay with all this if there were a refund policy that was fair -- I don't think the current system is fair. Just because players aren't selling, as an example, Sentry (though many acquiesced and did) doesn't indicate those players concluded the rebalanced Sentry was worth the investment they made. Instead, what it indicates is that 86k ISO and 1500HP is nowhere near sufficient compensation to the investment the player made, and is akin to taking a further loss stacked upon a loss. I would have sold Sentry and arguably even Mags if the refund were reasonable. I'd have even traded all the covers and ISO I won with those characters for the money back that I spent.

So, if they rebalance 4hor and Xforce, please, there needs to be a discussion about how to do so without leaving those who paid cash money for covers with a bitter taste in their mouth and feeling robbed. I've just barely got started with 4hor/xf after having finally leveled them. At this point, I'd feel ripped off with anything less than getting to keep the rebalanced characters and getting a portion, perhaps half, of the HP spent on covers.

Phaserhawk

To me the largest problem with 4*'s is one thing, health. Every 4* is a 60+% increase in health of a comparable 3* slot.

Of the four main health levels for 3*s

5500 to 5950--support or high damage (Torch) class

6800--Brusiers

8500--Tanky/Bruisers

10200--Tanks.

Elektra/X-Force/StarLord fall into the the 6800 class but they get a 60% mark up in the 10960 health

IW falls in Hood catergory and gets 60%
Fury fallls into Torch category
4hor is in the Thor/Sentry/She-Hulk category.

The jump up from 2* to 3* is even crazier with a 74% health jump

I like even #'s, First off you need to find a baseline and then each upgrade should be say 25% or 50% upgrade. Lets say 2* Thor is 5000. His 3* should be 7500 and then the 4* should be 11250. However I actually like 3*' Thor's health at 10200, (better if it was just an even 10,000. That mean's 4hor should be no more than 15000. 6800's should just be 7000 that means X-Force should be more like 10500 round it down to

Because let's face it, when the 5*'s come...and we know they are an X-Force level 5* is going to be around the 17,500 level. What if 5* Thanos comes, well he would be in the 10,200 category possibly Hulk category putting him at 26,000 hit points.

I'm okay with the transition to 4* and while X-Force is very strong, if all of a sudden there is a Human Torch like 4* that has Fury Health but a cheaply costed damage skill that does like 7K, well the terror of X-Force will start to sway.

Quck fix though for 4* dominance. Give Punisher more than a 40% threshhold and raise Deadpool's damage cap. You buff those 2 characters and people can make quick work of them. I would rather have mid tier characrers get a buff then completely nerfing top tiers.

Trisul

camichan wrote:

I always respect NP's inputs on the forum. His arguments are invariably well thought out and convincing. So, from that point of view, I could imagine a rebalance being a positive thing (depending on the strategic aim the devs have). Having said that, Evil Panda's comment stands strong in my mind. I bought C Mags covers before his nerf. I bought Sentry covers before his nerf. I got some limited utility from those purchases (not as much as most I would suspect), but if I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have never bought C Mags and especially not Sentry covers. Ultimately, I feel I didn't get what I paid for.

I've now I've bought Xforce covers, and have bought 4hor covers -- in the neighborhood of 20000 HP. If the same were to occur for 4hor and Xforce, I'd have to say I'd start to get a little irritated. One can always claim 'Caveat emptor', but a principled counter-argument could be made that one should never buy covers because you can never guarantee you get what you pay for, and sometimes not even remotely what you paid for. One might even contend that there shouldn't even be the option to buy covers in the game since the risk that the buyer won't get what they pay for is arguably too high. It looks like a short term money grab. And it would be hard to argue against that argument and that perception.

I'd totally be okay with all this if there were a refund policy that was fair -- I don't think the current system is fair. Just because players aren't selling, as an example, Sentry (though many acquiesced and did) doesn't indicate those players concluded the rebalanced Sentry was worth the investment they made. Instead, what it indicates is that 86k ISO and 1500HP is nowhere near sufficient compensation to the investment the player made, and is akin to taking a further loss stacked upon a loss. I would have sold Sentry and arguably even Mags if the refund were reasonable. I'd have even traded all the covers and ISO I won with those characters for the money back that I spent.

So, if they rebalance 4hor and Xforce, please, there needs to be a discussion about how to do so without leaving those who paid cash money for covers with a bitter taste in their mouth and feeling robbed. I've just barely got started with 4hor/xf after having finally leveled them. At this point, I'd feel ripped off with anything less than getting to keep the rebalanced characters and getting a portion, perhaps half, of the HP spent on covers.

What would make sense to the player-base is something similar to the Hearthstone model, where the changed characters have high refund values, ideally the exact amount of HP/iso it takes for each cover. A 13-cover 4* would sell for 32,500 HP. Or maybe you'd just count the 10 above the base covers, which would still be 25,000 HP.

I doubt they will/can be this generous though, considering that the HP would be ~$125 value and the Iso would be ~$550 value.

Unknown

Totally disagree with all of you calling for nerfs. The concept that 4* heroes should be remotely comparable to 3* heroes is deeply flawed because you are essentially saying there is little if any progression beyond having 2 maxed 3* heroes. You are basically arguing for progression beyond a certain point to be mainly cosmetic along with an incredibly disappointing incremental improvement.

If anything an argument could be made that XF and 4Thor are NOT powerful enough because it is still perfectly straightforward to beat them with 2 lvl 166 3* heroes as is demonstrated by a large number of people hitting me every single PvP.

The solution to their almost exclusive use is to make other 4* heroes better, especially when it comes to utility on defence. Also the increased release rate of 4* heroes noted by the devs will create a more substantially sized 4* tier allowing for more variety.

Bottom line is 4*s are the new 3*s when it comes to end game but, even as they stand, they are not even close to the same degree of improvement over the 3* tier that you see moving from 2* heroes to 3* heroes. I am specifically talking about XF and 4Thor here. Elektra and IW are no improvement at all and Fury, although better, is more of a 3*+ really. With the cost of covers (in HP and/or effort) and huge ISO investment to max these heroes there needs to be a significantly payoff.

Here is a good question (IMO): If I have maxed 3* heroes it's not unreasonable for me to sit at a high score and expect minimal, if any attacks from 2* rosters. Why is it that with my 4* heroes, if I sit at a high score unshielded 3* rosters can and will tear my score to pieces if you are correct in claiming that they are oh so overpowered?

Unknown

4* are in a weird place from design. We can see that HP is linear to your level for a given HP class. If you had a node that's a level 395 Thor 2/3/4*, they'd all have roughly the same HP since all 3 Thors are on the same base HP class. At a level cap of 270, the 4* have roughly 50% more HP compared to a level 166 for just being a 4* when maxed.

Now for a long time the idea seems to be that 4*s have +50% HP and -20% effectiveness and this gets you 0.8 * 1.5 = 1.2X. Even Nick Fury, despite his very large damage on his abilities, is pretty slow and arguably not more effective than a 3* after factoring in speed. Of course then you have Thor and X Force who are more like +50% effectiveness. Well, if someone is +50% HP and +50% effectiveness he's obviously way better than a 3*. So okay you can say maybe 4*s are meant to dominate and own 3*, and that's fine, except why is it that almost all PvP events are forever tied to requiring a 3*? Why is it PvE events almost never feature a 4* except when that guy was first released? Why is 4* never available on heroic roster? if the point is that 4* are supposed to own and we're supposed to spend money on them, why does the game go out of its way to make you unable to use them optimally, and sometimes not at all? And if 4*s aren't supposed to be significantly better than 3*s, who thought X Force and Thor was remotely balanced to 3*s?

morph3us

bonfire01 wrote:

Here is a good question (IMO): If I have maxed 3* heroes it's not unreasonable for me to sit at a high score and expect minimal, if any attacks from 2* rosters. Why is it that with my 4* heroes, if I sit at a high score unshielded 3* rosters can and will tear my score to pieces if you are correct in claiming that they are oh so overpowered?

In the case of X-Force and 4* Thor, I tend to be very, very wary about attacking them in combination, especially if the defender has a usable featured character. I don't have any usable 4*s, so my PvP team is exclusively 166s. If I fully boost, I honestly have the expectation that I have a 50% chance of a win or loss. Based on that, I very rarely will hit a 270XF/270Thor team on a hop, unless it is my last hop, and I'm planning to Super Whales it. I'd much rather hit skip on you, and find a lower risk proposition (a 270/166 team). If it's a XF/Fury team, it's still a riskier proposition than a 270/166, so I'll also pass on that, if at all possible.

This problem has been particularly magnified with the shield cooldowns. I can't afford to risk a 50% chance of a loss, given I have to time my shield breaks.

Granted, the gap is not as substantial as 2* to 3*, but the gap is still present.

Unknown

morph3us wrote:

bonfire01 wrote:

Here is a good question (IMO): If I have maxed 3* heroes it's not unreasonable for me to sit at a high score and expect minimal, if any attacks from 2* rosters. Why is it that with my 4* heroes, if I sit at a high score unshielded 3* rosters can and will tear my score to pieces if you are correct in claiming that they are oh so overpowered?

In the case of X-Force and 4* Thor, I tend to be very, very wary about attacking them in combination, especially if the defender has a usable featured character. I don't have any usable 4*s, so my PvP team is exclusively 166s. If I fully boost, I honestly have the expectation that I have a 50% chance of a win or loss. Based on that, I very rarely will hit a 270XF/270Thor team on a hop, unless it is my last hop, and I'm planning to Super Whales it. I'd much rather hit skip on you, and find a lower risk proposition (a 270/166 team). If it's a XF/Fury team, it's still a riskier proposition than a 270/166, so I'll also pass on that, if at all possible.

This problem has been particularly magnified with the shield cooldowns. I can't afford to risk a 50% chance of a loss, given I have to time my shield breaks.

Granted, the gap is not as substantial as 2* to 3*, but the gap is still present.

While i'm sure that's how you play it a LOT of other players don't. I get his repeatedly by 3* teams with only occasional defensive wins (with the notable exceptions of the Blade and Sentry PvPs (no idea why Sentry did so well)) and I have very usable featured heroes with the exception of heroes who would be no use at all even if I DID level them (hello Beast).

My defensive wins vs 3* teams are probably in the region of 20-25% but a number of those are ppl with non-maxed 3* pairings trying their luck. Vs 166 3*s I would say more like 10-15%. So i'm not seeing the massively overpowered nature of my 4*s. Hell, it's not like they even win on offence hugely faster than Hulk bombing. I probably only outscore those guys by a decent margin because they are a generally more tempting target to hit.

NorthernPolarity

bonfire01 wrote:

Totally disagree with all of you calling for nerfs. The concept that 4* heroes should be remotely comparable to 3* heroes is deeply flawed because you are essentially saying there is little if any progression beyond having 2 maxed 3* heroes. You are basically arguing for progression beyond a certain point to be mainly cosmetic along with an incredibly disappointing incremental improvement.

I see a ton of responses like this being brought up without any consideration for the nerfs that we're actually proposing. For reference, the nerfs that I specifically want are:
XF - remove AP gain on sugical
LadyThor - Surge down to 2/3 turn stun, 8/9 charge tiles.

You can't argue that the improvements are incremental over 3* because these nerfed characters are still significantly better than any 3* we're seeing. It's like all of you see the word "nerf" and think to yourselves "oh ****, post nerf 4* wolvie is going to be worse than She-Hulk".

bonfire01 wrote:

If anything an argument could be made that XF and 4Thor are NOT powerful enough because it is still perfectly straightforward to beat them with 2 lvl 166 3* heroes as is demonstrated by a large number of people hitting me every single PvP.

Here is a good question (IMO): If I have maxed 3* heroes it's not unreasonable for me to sit at a high score and expect minimal, if any attacks from 2* rosters. Why is it that with my 4* heroes, if I sit at a high score unshielded 3* rosters can and will tear my score to pieces if you are correct in claiming that they are oh so overpowered?

Ah the good old "bad at defense" argument. This is the exact same argument that people championed when Demiurge nerfed Spidey and C. Mags. In hindsight that sounds ridiculous: people were advocating that a 2 AP 3 turn stun was perfectly balanced and didn't deserve a nerf simply because they could beat the character in PvP. MPQ is an offense orientated game. People don't like losing on offense, and as such the offensive guy is going to have an insane advantage over your team, so of course you should expect to be hit at high point totals by 3* rosters and lose because they're probably full iso boosting. This doesn't mean that the 4*s are underpowered: Here's a thought. People fight and beat level 300+ juggernaut all the time in PvE: does that mean that he's perfectly balanced and if he were brought into PvP, isn't powerful enough because you'll still lose on defense running him? If you're at 1.2k points, people will boost significantly and attack you regardless of what team you're running. The main benefit to 4* teams is a higher point equilibrium in PvPs where you won't lose any points, and much slower hits on defense as you're climbing to ridiculous power levels. I stay unshielded at 700, and push to 1k with barely any hits on my team. A 3* team obviously isn't going to share the same fate.

Like I said before, the whole point for calling for these nerfs is roster diversity. Yes, a 4* should be significantly better than a 3*. But should a 4* be significantly better than a 50% boosted 3*? Probably not. Look at the how the metagame is right now. For LazyCap's tournament, everyone is probably going to run XF / LadyThor even though Cap conflicts 100% with LadyThor, and you know why? Because LadyThor is so damned overpowered that it doesn't even matter if a really good 3* boosted 50% is featured: LadyThor's just always going to be strictly better than any single other character in the game. And if you start bringing every single character in the game to LadyThor's power level, you're going to end up with power creep so high that it doesn't even matter what the 3* featured character is. 4*s should be significantly better than 3*s, but they shouldn't be significantly better than boosted 3*s. TLDR, here are the main benefits for a nerf:
1. You don't end up with stupid power creep like Fury dealing 16k demolition damage or 8k AoE team damage just so that you would CONSIDER playing him over LadyThor. This sort of "buff everyone else" logic has the exact same fallacy as the "buff everyone else to be as strong as Sentry" logic (although it's not as crazy as that): LadyThor is so efficient that buffing everyone else would end up resulting in really really stupid abilities. Just like how we shouldn't buff everyone else so that the standard is being able to deal 9k AoE damage on turn 4, we shouldn't buff everyone so the standard is stunlock + 12k damage for 10 red and 9 blue.
2. More roster diversity for PvP: if the featured character actually mattered and 4*s were reasonably balanced, we'd see a metagame where we actually built a team AROUND the 3* character, instead of just jamming LadyThor + support into the team regardless of who the featured character is. This is the main reason why it makes more sense to keep 4*s at a level closer to BOOSTED 3*s: having the 3* character actually matter would encourage much more variety in team compositions, as opposed to the current "who cares about the 3*" mentality that we're seeing.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

4* are in a weird place from design. We can see that HP is linear to your level for a given HP class. If you had a node that's a level 395 Thor 2/3/4*, they'd all have roughly the same HP since all 3 Thors are on the same base HP class. At a level cap of 270, the 4* have roughly 50% more HP compared to a level 166 for just being a 4* when maxed.

Now for a long time the idea seems to be that 4*s have +50% HP and -20% effectiveness and this gets you 0.8 * 1.5 = 1.2X. Even Nick Fury, despite his very large damage on his abilities, is pretty slow and arguably not more effective than a 3* after factoring in speed. Of course then you have Thor and X Force who are more like +50% effectiveness. Well, if someone is +50% HP and +50% effectiveness he's obviously way better than a 3*. So okay you can say maybe 4*s are meant to dominate and own 3*, and that's fine, except why is it that almost all PvP events are forever tied to requiring a 3*? Why is it PvE events almost never feature a 4* except when that guy was first released? Why is 4* never available on heroic roster? if the point is that 4* are supposed to own and we're supposed to spend money on them, why does the game go out of its way to make you unable to use them optimally, and sometimes not at all? And if 4*s aren't supposed to be significantly better than 3*s, who thought X Force and Thor was remotely balanced to 3*s?

It's an attempt to both be inclusive and give perceived value to the entire 3* collection. Having them featured means that, no matter how mediocre they may be, putting effort and resources into 3* heroes has a pay off.

As for being inclusive.... it's a fact that 4*s are pretty rare, especially in anything resembling a usable state (they are hugely more cover dependent (and 5th cover dependent in a lot of cases) than 3*s). So if they are featured heroes then anyone who lacks said hero feels somewhat deflated and excluded in that PvP.

3*s on the other hand are far more widespread and often a lot more usable undercovered (when boosted). So when they are featured a much larger portion of your player base feels like they are more fully engaged in an event.

Finally, I imagine the design decision is that 4*s are better than 3*s making them desirable to everyone BUT by not having them featured max 3* rosters still have the capacity to compete (to a degree) with 4* users which is the case at the moment.

It's worth bearing in mind that ppl with maxed XForce and 4Thor rosters also almost exclusively happen to be veterans in big guilds who may spend moderately to heavily on the game (even if they don't spend they have more access to HP than ppl starting after them). They were getting top places well before the 4* heroes came out (in there current state) without them due to willingness to invest time, effort and/or money in the game. You can't attribute the fact they are at the top of leaderboards to the "overpowered" nature of those heroes when it is simply a continuation of the status quo before those heroes even came out.

Unknown

@NorthernPolarity.

I'm not saying the changes you are proposing make them worse than She-Hulk i'm saying they make them worse than they are now and IMO the way they are now is appropriate. The simple difference in our argument is WHERE 4*s should be balanced. I believe they should be a tier above 3* heroes and the changed you are suggesting fail to deliver that. I also believe that they should be better than a 50% buffed 3* hero. You can make the argument that them being level capped at 270 and a max buffed 3* having a lower level than that implies they should be better but I simply believe that, in order to have any kind of progression at end game, they need to be better than that.

As for the comments on defence you're missing the point I was making. I am saying that a maxed 3* team has a very large defensive advantage over a maxed 2* team and a maxed 4* team entirely lacks that advantage over a maxed 3* team ALREADY. If you nerf those heroes they are even LESS of a defensive deterrent. What is the point in progression that fails to progress?

Finally you are not doing ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING to promote roster diversity by unilaterally nerfing XF and 4Thor. What heroes are suddenly going to surge to prominence? You have 2 4* heroes who are worse than maxed 3* heroes, one that is such a minimal practical improvement as to be completely unworthy of the investment and Starlord who i'll reseve judgement on. If you actually nerf XF and 4Thor to the point where Fury or heaven forbid IW/Elektra are viable alternatives (as they stand) then you are better off using 3* heroes.

The sensible solution to 4* roster diversity is to bring the alternatives up to XF/4Thor level or thereabouts and have a proper 4* tier. Even then there WILL be a best pairing (there always is) and since everyone is a min-maxer in this game THAT is what they'll use.

NorthernPolarity

bonfire01 wrote:

@NorthernPolarity.

I'm not saying the changes you are proposing make them worse than She-Hulk i'm saying they make them worse than they are now and IMO the way they are now is appropriate. The simple difference in our argument is WHERE 4*s should be balanced. I believe they should be a tier above 3* heroes and the changed you are suggesting fail to deliver that. I also believe that they should be better than a 50% buffed 3* hero. You can make the argument that them being level capped at 270 and a max buffed 3* having a lower level than that implies they should be better but I simply believe that, in order to have any kind of progression at end game, they need to be better than that.

As for the comments on defence you're missing the point I was making. I am saying that a maxed 3* team has a very large defensive advantage over a maxed 2* team and a maxed 4* team entirely lacks that advantage over a maxed 3* team ALREADY. If you nerf those heroes they are even LESS of a defensive deterrent. What is the point in progression that fails to progress.

You can't honestly say with a straight face that a maxed 4* team lacks that type of advantage over a 3* team. Look at literally every single PvP bracket nowadays: it's all XF / 4or people above 800. 4or / X-Force allows you to push to 1k without shielding or worrying about significant attacks. Try doing that with a Patch / Hulk team above 700: I'm pretty sure every single xor team will target you instantly and hit you for -100 before you can even get 2 fights in. There's a huge advantage in having an xor team defensively for PvP, and it's ridiculous to say that that advantage isn't as strong as the 2->3* advantage. 2*'s let you push to 500, 3*'s let you push to 700. 4*s let you push to 1k+ off of a single shield. Yeah, that Patch/Hulk guy doing one fight a hop can beat your team, but when he's spending 150+ HP for 25 points at 700+ compared to your 1k+ score for 0 HP, it's obvious who has the advantage here.

bonfire01 wrote:

Finally you are not doing ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING to promote roster diversity by unilaterally nerfing XF and 4Thor. What heroes are suddenly going to surge to prominence? You have 2 4* heroes who are worse than maxed 3* heroes, one that is such a minimal practical improvement as to be completely unworthy of the investment and Starlord who i'll reseve judgement on. If you actually nerf XF and 4Thor to the point where Fury or heaven forbid IW/Elektra are viable alternatives (as they stand) then you are better off using 3* heroes. The sensible solution to 4* roster diversity is to bring the alternatives up to XF/4Thor level or thereabouts and have a proper 4* tier. Even then there WILL be a best pairing (there always is) and since everyone is a min-maxer in this game THAT is what they'll use.

My mistake on not clarifying earlier, I'm saying that roster diversity will occur when BOTH of these things happen (nerfs on XF / 4or) and buffs on 4*s / new 4*s. Just as a thought experiment, you tell me how you would buff Fury or Elektra to a point where you would even CONSIDER using them over 4or. I wasn't exaggerating earlier with the 8k AoE stuff, I'm pretty sure Fury would have to look like this before he is a viable alternative to 4or:
Demolition - 10 AP, 16k damage.
Avengers Assemble - 5k AoE damage, 3k single target damage, stun, etc.
Escape Plan - 10 AP - 6k damage.

These numbers just seem too high and ridiculous to even warrant considering, which tells me that in order to have a balanced metagame without insane power creep, 4or needs to be nerfed. The point is "what is a reasonable 4* character power level". I would put it at somewhere between Starlord/XF -> 4or is clearly way above that.

Unknown

NorthernPolarity wrote:

You can't honestly say with a straight face that a maxed 4* team lacks that type of advantage over a 3* team. Look at literally every single PvP bracket nowadays: it's all XF / 4or people above 800. 4or / X-Force allows you to push to 1k without shielding or worrying about significant attacks. Try doing that with a Patch / Hulk team above 700: I'm pretty sure every single xor team will target you instantly and hit you for -100 before you can even get 2 fights in. There's a huge advantage in having an xor team defensively for PvP, and it's ridiculous to say that that advantage isn't as strong as the 2->3* advantage. 2*'s let you push to 500, 3*'s let you push to 700. 4*s let you push to 1k+ off of a single shield. Yeah, that Patch/Hulk guy doing one fight a hop can beat your team, but when he's spending 150+ HP for 25 points at 700+ compared to your 1k+ score for 0 HP, it's obvious who has the advantage here.

Just because it didn't have your name in it doesn't mean you don't have to read my genius!!! I will repeat what I said above:

"It's worth bearing in mind that ppl with maxed XForce and 4Thor rosters also almost exclusively happen to be veterans in big guilds who may spend moderately to heavily on the game (even if they don't spend they have more access to HP than ppl starting after them). They were getting top places well before the 4* heroes came out (in there current state) without them due to willingness to invest time, effort and/or money in the game. You can't attribute the fact they are at the top of leaderboards to the "overpowered" nature of those heroes when it is simply a continuation of the status quo before those heroes even came out."

Your argument misrepresents the reason IMO. Also there is more than one way to avoid getting hit in PvP and the fact it is possible to make use of node lag to climb late doesn't make the heroes your using unblanaced. Also NO-ONE with a XF-Thor team who isn't above my score is skipping me at 1k points IF they can see I have those points. Also you can only push to 1k AT THE END of the even by using node lag to your advantage. Push to 1k (in fact over 650) early and those points are all being taken.

NorthernPolarity wrote:

My mistake on not clarifying earlier, I'm saying that roster diversity will occur when BOTH of these things happen (nerfs on XF / 4or) and buffs on 4*s / new 4*s. Just as a thought experiment, you tell me how you would buff Fury or Elektra to a point where you would even CONSIDER using them over 4or. I wasn't exaggerating earlier with the 8k AoE stuff, I'm pretty sure Fury would have to look like this before he is a viable alternative to 4or:
Demolition - 10 AP, 16k damage.
Avengers Assemble - 5k AoE damage, 3k single target damage, stun, etc.
Escape Plan - 10 AP - 6k damage.

These numbers just seem too high and ridiculous to even warrant considering, which tells me that in order to have a balanced metagame without insane power creep, 4or needs to be nerfed. The point is "what is a reasonable 4* character power level". I would put it at somewhere between Starlord/XF -> 4or is clearly way above that.

Oh come on and stop being silly. Demoltion doesn't need to do 16k to be on a par with 4Thor. She has to spend 19 AP to do 11k ish damage and a 4 turn stun. Why does he have to do way more than a smite's worth of damage, with no prep, for the same AP to be comparable? You're also flippantly exaggerating what you would have to do to his other abilities to be comparable.

If you genuinely believe that 4Thor is equivalent to those numbers........