Respec option in the works? Dev read please.

Unknown

I know this has been raised but I would like a direct answer from a dev please.

I think a respec option would be only fair considering that all characters are subject to change. Many of us have spent a lot of time and money on levelling certain characters. Now we understand that many changes are necessary for the sake of game balance. However, we ask that once big changes are made, an option to respec at least the affected characters be available, both in terms of powers as well as iso.

Yes in the case of Ragnarok he was overpowered and needed a nerf. But for those who pooled a lot of money and time into him, you can imagine the grief, frustration and disappointment when he was thereafter nerfed. Currently a lot of the remaining players are very uncertain when it comes to how to further invest in their characters as there is no recourse for being hit harshly by a future update. When we invest this much time and money in a game, we don't want to feel like we're being forced to permanently commit to a build that could be rendered obsolete through a patch with no avenue for rectification. I think we can all agree that compelling us players to make uncertain and unalterable leaps of faiths in character progression is just not fun. Nor is it good for the game's prospects.

Furthermore, I realise character customisation is important, but is limiting max powers to 13/15 the most creative and fun way of achieving this end? It has been said that one can rarely completely ruin their character with a sub optimal build, but does anybody really want to spend literally months maxing a 3* or 4* character just to have it rendered 'sub optimal' through a patch?

We do appreciate the increased developer communication over the last few days. Please understand the mentality from our perspective. Of course balance changes are necessary, but please don't make us feel like we've wasted months of time and/or hundreds of dollars whenever an unfavorable change hits, or worse, have us suffer the unyielding suspicion that our current efforts could all amount to a complete waste at some point in the future.

I think a respec option is a very fair way of addressing this problem. Can you tell me candidly whether such a feature is currently in development? It would be ideal if further nerfs are held back until this feature is ready.

Thank you for your time.

Unknown

ISO refund is definitely off the table. If that is in place, nothing besides the potential HP cost will stop players from holding on to a pool of ISO, resetting and levelling characters as they are required in tournaments.

Currently, characters with the same power level but with different builds have different level caps. Until the increase in power level leads to equal increments in level cap, respeccing would be tough to implement.

Clintman

I liked the suggestion to let a player collect 15 covers, then be able to select the build through a respec option. This would not be difficult to do, and variety in builds would be more than it is now.

For example, I heard that C. Magnetos red skill is terrible, I would test it out and see for myself, but I destroyed my red covers electing instead to go with the build that the player base theorycrafted as the best because the risk is too great to make a mistake.

Now say for example I want to test out how a team would work out with hulk and ares, I would want to see how hulk is with 3/5/5 and ares with 5/3/5 and see how well they synergize. I cannot do this because my Hulk is 4/4/5 and my Ares is 4/4/5, and all of the things that I learn about the characters leveling them up does not help me when they are max level since I cannot change the build.

People might LOVE an IM40 Ironman with 5 yellow, or a OBW with 5 purple, but you cannot take the chance.

Could you imagine building a sub optimal 4* wolvie then finding either through experience or nerf that his build is bad? The investment is not trivial.

Demiurge_Will

Hi, Liaomiao!

Thanks for the note. Re-spec is one of our most requested features (including internally to the team here), and we like making changes that everybody wants.

We have a design for it, and it's at the top of our backlog, but we can't give you an ETA. Bear in mind that, in addition to all the usual uncertainty of software development, for changes that require an app update, like this one, there's a long and unpredictable lead time between when we develop a feature and when it's in your hands.

We'll continue to make balance improvements in the meantime - both changes that make characters stronger and those that make them weaker - because balance issues are too important to the experience to leave them alone for that long. We'll try to keep you informed of our plans in that department, like we're doing here:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2079

and see also
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2094#p29438

Unknown

Let's not forget that their idea of balance is to take anything they think is too strong and make it completely worthless.

Unknown

zhadum wrote:

Let's not forget that their idea of balance is to take anything they think is too strong and make it completely worthless.

Can you give me some examples of this? The only things that were nerfed were Classic Storm and Ragnarok, and both are FAR from worthless.

Demiurge_Will

zhadum wrote:

Let's not forget that their idea of balance is to take anything they think is too strong and make it completely worthless.

Yesterday I was reading a player-made summary of character changes we've made:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2292

What counts as a "buff" and what counts as a "nerf" is often arguable, but more changes that we make fall in the first category than the second. There will always be louder reactions to nerfs: we human beings feel losses more acutely than gains, and it's not always as easy to see what's been gained when an overpowered ability or character is weakened as it is to see what's been lost.

Unknown

We humans miss relic rags ^_^

Unknown

Demiurge_Will wrote:

zhadum wrote:

Let's not forget that their idea of balance is to take anything they think is too strong and make it completely worthless.

Yesterday I was reading a player-made summary of character changes we've made:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2292

What counts as a "buff" and what counts as a "nerf" is often arguable, but more changes that we make fall in the first category than the second. There will always be louder reactions to nerfs: we human beings feel losses more acutely than gains, and it's not always as easy to see what's been gained when an overpowered ability or character is weakened as it is to see what's been lost.

And yet, when you look at that list it basically makes my point for me. The ones on the list of nerfs were front line characters that many people were using - and they were destroyed so completely that the only time you see them in any quantity are when the event has a buff on them. The list of buffed characters are almost all 3rd stringers you only ever saw being used when they were buffed by an event - and after the changes, they are still 3rd stringers that nobody uses. The only exception there is Spider man - where you took a completely worthless ability and made it worth something - but then nobody uses Spider Man for his purple, he is used for his cheap stuns and heals (which I'm sure you are working on nerfing to oblivion soon enough)

Purty_Hawkeye

Can we please sticky this to the top of the "General discussion" area? It seems like the first thing every new poster asks is cane we re-spec. If this was the first post i think it will keep it from popping up evey few days especially since it contains responses directly from the dev team.

Unknown

When communicating with game developers you have to pick your battles.

The Rag nerf shouldn't be one of them. It was completely necessary and the only way he is worthless is if you mean 'not letting me win matches very quickly with no effort like I could before.'

Nemek

zhadum wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

zhadum wrote:

Let's not forget that their idea of balance is to take anything they think is too strong and make it completely worthless.

Yesterday I was reading a player-made summary of character changes we've made:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2292

What counts as a "buff" and what counts as a "nerf" is often arguable, but more changes that we make fall in the first category than the second. There will always be louder reactions to nerfs: we human beings feel losses more acutely than gains, and it's not always as easy to see what's been gained when an overpowered ability or character is weakened as it is to see what's been lost.

And yet, when you look at that list it basically makes my point for me. The ones on the list of nerfs were front line characters that many people were using - and they were destroyed so completely that the only time you see them in any quantity are when the event has a buff on them. The list of buffed characters are almost all 3rd stringers you only ever saw being used when they were buffed by an event - and after the changes, they are still 3rd stringers that nobody uses. The only exception there is Spider man - where you took a completely worthless ability and made it worth something - but then nobody uses Spider Man for his purple, he is used for his cheap stuns and heals (which I'm sure you are working on nerfing to oblivion soon enough)

So...they shouldn't nerf the overpowered and buff the underused? Is there a different formula to use?

Unknown

Nemek wrote:

So...they shouldn't nerf the overpowered and buff the underused? Is there a different formula to use?

Congratulations, you were able to understand one of the points I was making, while letting the other point blow completely over your head.

1. If you nerf someone who is overpowered, and afterwords nobody uses the character - then you have nerfed the character too much.
2. If you buff a character that nobody uses, and afterwords nobody uses the character - then you have not buffed them enough.
And if you are doing both 1 and 2 then of course most people are going to focus on the nerfs - BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT HAD ANY EFFECT ON THE METAGAME.

Unknown

zhadum wrote:

Nemek wrote:

So...they shouldn't nerf the overpowered and buff the underused? Is there a different formula to use?

Congratulations, you were able to understand one of the points I was making, while letting the other point blow completely over your head.

1. If you nerf someone who is overpowered, and afterwords nobody uses the character - then you have nerfed the character too much.
2. If you buff a character that nobody uses, and afterwords nobody uses the character - then you have not buffed them enough.
And if you are doing both 1 and 2 then of course most people are going to focus on the nerfs - BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT HAD ANY EFFECT ON THE METAGAME.

Except the changes being made to characters are making a difference. Half the characters in the 'Steriods' list were simply bug fixes, not actualy rebalancing. The changes to Spider-Man were absolutely positive, and changed the way people specced him and played him. Ditto Black Widow. And the changes to IW appear to possibly be game changing at higher levels. Daken and Moonstone are the only 2 characters who had buffs that didn't really change their playability (though I continue to see teams with Daken on then, as he makes a useful 3rd in some cases). And I still see teams with Storm on them, so she also isn't nerfed into unusability.

TL/DR The sky is not falling, you are just overblowing the negative.

Unknown

An easy fix to this mess could be the option to remove a cover from a character instead of breaking down the character to his components. For example an option next to each ability to 'remove' a cover for 50-100HP. However observing the options they have given us, I would expect the cost to remove/destroy a cover to be equal to the upgrade (1250 for a 3*). There is an issue here with lost ISO if the hero would lose the levels above his current max level after you remove a cover, but I assume most would be fine with this as an option to re-tune their character since the alternative is to build one from scratch.

It also creates another HP black hole and since the devs seem to love giving us ways to spend our "hard earned" HP, I am sure they would love this option compared to a reset from their part.

It would offer player the opportunity to try a certain combo of ability levels for themselves before deciding the final 13/15.

Unknown

Narkon wrote:

An easy fix to this mess could be the option to remove a cover from a character instead of breaking down the character to his components. For example an option next to each ability to 'remove' a cover for 50-100HP. However observing the options they have given us, I would expect the cost to remove/destroy a cover to be equal to the upgrade (1250 for a 3*). There is an issue here with lost ISO if the hero would lose the levels above his current max level after you remove a cover, but I assume most would be fine with this as an option to re-tune their character since the alternative is to build one from scratch.

It also creates another HP black hole and since the devs seem to love giving us ways to spend our "hard earned" HP, I am sure they would love this option compared to a reset from their part.

It would offer player the opportunity to try a certain combo of ability levels for themselves before deciding the final 13/15.

The only reason devs make things cost HP is because the market bares it. If people would stop throwing away HP, or in this case suggesting that the devs charge for a feature that's standard in any game where you build characters, they wouldn't put HP tags on things and wouldn't lower the HP progression rewards. Stop asking the devs to charge more money! If you would pay HP for a respec good for you. When the option comes out send D3 a check but don't encourage them to add more ways to to sap HP from people.

Clintman

Badman82 wrote:

Narkon wrote:

An easy fix to this mess could be the option to remove a cover from a character instead of breaking down the character to his components. For example an option next to each ability to 'remove' a cover for 50-100HP. However observing the options they have given us, I would expect the cost to remove/destroy a cover to be equal to the upgrade (1250 for a 3*). There is an issue here with lost ISO if the hero would lose the levels above his current max level after you remove a cover, but I assume most would be fine with this as an option to re-tune their character since the alternative is to build one from scratch.

It also creates another HP black hole and since the devs seem to love giving us ways to spend our "hard earned" HP, I am sure they would love this option compared to a reset from their part.

It would offer player the opportunity to try a certain combo of ability levels for themselves before deciding the final 13/15.

The only reason devs make things cost HP is because the market bares it. If people would stop throwing away HP, or in this case suggesting that the devs charge for a feature that's standard in any game where you build characters, they wouldn't put HP tags on things and wouldn't lower the HP progression rewards. Stop asking the devs to charge more money! If you would pay HP for a respec good for you. When the option comes out send D3 a check but don't encourage them to add more ways to to sap HP from people.

Funny imaging in my mind when someone uses the wrong word. What the market bears, as in what it can hold without breaking vs. what the market bares as in what the market... I don't know, strips off, flashes us?

Unknown

Lol if only the market would strip for us!

Beast1970

Clint wrote:

Funny imaging in my mind when someone uses the wrong word. What the market bears, as in what it can hold without breaking vs. what the market bares as in what the market... I don't know, strips off, flashes us?

Yelena's new third power? 13 yellow AP, Yelena performs a strip tease, distracting all male members of the opposing team for one turn.

I do agree with the sentiment, don't encourage charging HP. In this instance, I am hoping they consider it a fair trade if they let us destroy a cover with possible ISO loss as your level goes down enough of a hardship without adding an HP cost as well. Theoretically, a substantial number of people who would use this would most likely invest HP to add the desired new levels anyway, still bringing cash flow in to support the game.

Unknown

Thanks Will for the quick reply.

It's reassuring to know that a respec system is in the works.

It is a fun game you guys have built, I hope you're happy with it's current playerbase and am sure it'll continue to expand in the future.
Hopefully I didn't come across as too harsh, it's just that there's been a lot of balance changes lately and everyone's feeling a little edgey.

Unknown

Badman82 wrote:

Narkon wrote:

An easy fix to this mess could be the option to remove a cover from a character instead of breaking down the character to his components. For example an option next to each ability to 'remove' a cover for 50-100HP. However observing the options they have given us, I would expect the cost to remove/destroy a cover to be equal to the upgrade (1250 for a 3*). There is an issue here with lost ISO if the hero would lose the levels above his current max level after you remove a cover, but I assume most would be fine with this as an option to re-tune their character since the alternative is to build one from scratch.

It also creates another HP black hole and since the devs seem to love giving us ways to spend our "hard earned" HP, I am sure they would love this option compared to a reset from their part.

It would offer player the opportunity to try a certain combo of ability levels for themselves before deciding the final 13/15.

The only reason devs make things cost HP is because the market bares it. If people would stop throwing away HP, or in this case suggesting that the devs charge for a feature that's standard in any game where you build characters, they wouldn't put HP tags on things and wouldn't lower the HP progression rewards. Stop asking the devs to charge more money! If you would pay HP for a respec good for you. When the option comes out send D3 a check but don't encourage them to add more ways to to sap HP from people.

Have you been playing the same game as I? Haven't you seen HP costs on every turn? Do you really expect this dev to offer an option like this for free? I would of course welcome a free option to re-balance my characters any time I choose to do it, but I try to be a realist. If this is a permanent feature and not one that can be used once for each character or an auto-repair system after they make drastic changes to a character, expect to see a cost attached.