For those upset over the nerfs

grifterx777

Meet us halfway. 3 stun for 8 charged tiles. I'm ok with that after giving them countless hours and hard earned money. Make it mean something.

Oldboy

I think the main problem with the nerfs is that people paid money for the HP for the covers.

When we buy something, we check the price and the goods. If both are satisfactory, we make payment for it and we expect to get what we paid for. In this case the nerfs lowered the value for the consumer. As others have pointed out examples, you pay for a diamond ring but end up with a toy ring. Or you get A one-of-a-kind artwork but later discover it's a reproduction with multiple copies elsewhere. If the abilities were as they are now when they were considering buying it, they may not have bought it. It doesnt matter the timeframe or the use they have put it to or what they have gained as a result of being able to use it. They were willing to pay for it and they should get what they paid for and that includes advantages. The point is they changed the intrinsic worth of the product without the consent of the consumer after the consumer paid for it and no refund or exchange was provided. Sellback is not a complete refund but only a fraction of the time and money spent. (However for this post i will only refer to actual cash spent for HP for covers)

If it was any 'real world' product, we'd be rightly angry.

Disclaimer:with regards to the updates, i only used HP for one Mystique cover. Havent poured HP into the rest involved in the nerfs. So while i'm only mildly affected by it, those who paid real cash for the HP to cover up their 4hor or IF or Mystique are rightly pissed.

Add on:
Whether the metagame was broken or the abilities were overpowered should not be the fault of the players/consumers and they should not be penalised for it. The devs are the ones who designed the abilities and they should have play tested it before releasing it for consumption. There have been offers by some forumites to playtest new characters for them but there has been no word from them about it. Instead of nerfing, create alternatives.

Bowgentle

I'm not upset because I spent money on Thor covers.
I bought the remaining covers in her release week (8 or something? 9?) and made a net gain of about 200 HP per PVP ever since - that's about 600 HP per week since November.

The thing I'm sad about (not even upset) is the message the devs are sending.
After the Xforce buff and the Thor release it looked like 4* chars were meant to be powerful - really powerful.

Then along came Elektra and Starlord, which were more on the level of Fury. So, were those two the power level the devs had in mind for 4*s, or was it the power level of XF and Thor?
Which were the anomalies and which were the correct ones?

After taking the nerf route for Thor and not the buff route for Elektra/SL I'm afraid the answer is "4*s are supposed to be only slightly better than 3*s" which is what I'm sad about, because we're yet again back to square one.

I get it, it's better for the game in general if 3* players can compete with 4* players, but why would I ever want to work towards using 4*s when they don't make enough of a difference to warrant the HP, time and ISO needed to get them covered and leveled?

tanis3303

Exactly. I have an almost fully covered starlord, and my elektra is getting there too. You know who Im leveling up right now tho? Cage and iron fist, because at the end of the day, I can max both of them for less ISO than either starlord or elektra and they are probably more powerful than the 4*s anyway! 4* characters should offer something flat out powerful (xforce) or a whole new mechanic (charged tiles, locking tiles via IW etc) to warrant the 430,000 ISO investment, otherwise what the heck is the point?

Unknown

The bottom line is most people complaining about 4hor have her already. They either bought her straight up or spent tons of time grinding for her. The cost of purchasing a 4* is much more than that of a 3*, so people are complaining that 4hor shouldn't be the same power as a 3*, which makes sense cause the purchase price was much higher. Then for people that earned them: they either earned a few from her hellish PvE (which caused permanent changes to PVE countdown timers as a result) or were hitting 1300+ progression (1000 now but that's equally as hard as "old" 1300 imo) or were winning PvP/PvE events. Regular 3* characters earn much easier than that. So for her to be equal powered as a 3* is unfair from that perspective as well

Then I read people saying "oh it's fine. You'll be be better balanced with everyone else". Why would that be fair or just? People either put in tons of money or time & are now being told that was wasted
"But you earned so much from having her this whole time" - people could've put their resources & time elsewhere & still gotten good results. I'm in a top 10 alliance & our top scorer 2 seasons ago didn't even have a 4hor. So I know it's doable cause I've seen it done

Personally I feel like a lot of the people liking her change are not people that currently have her & are excited to see her neutered so they can have a better advantage relative to their peers. What a selfish attitude! Ok so they didn't pay or earn her covers/ISO so they are upset that they run into a XF 4hor wall regularly. They are happy that others are getting their assets neutered because it will be easier for them to do better. Instead they should grind more or complain less. In my top 10 alliance, we have several guys who literally have earned their entire 4hor through grinding & winning with no spending. How is it far to them? The D3 sale price thing is a crock. You lose the character when you sell it. I know lots of people who regret selling sentry or hood or cmag or spidey from before when their events come up

Next I see a lot of "she's still good" or "she's horrible now"
Quick analysis:
Right now she is #2. Clearly #2. Anyone who plays & wins regularly against XF 4hor teams knows that the only way you'll lose is if XF hits surgical strike because the AI isn't hitting blue==>red w 4hor. Her health & damage clearly separate her from thenext tier of players: Cage IF Fury Cyclops LT (each of these either has less damage or less health)
Going forward, she will still be good but not nearly as good. Probably top 7 when compared in a vacuum with those characters mentioned above. BUT she shouldnt be used when facing teams that don't have her. Max Cage will beat teams that don't have 4hor much faster than 4hor would defeat those teams. You will need 4hor to defeat a 4hor based team because you can leverage the opposing team's power surge & smite to gain charges to use against the opposing 4hor.
The real question is: "will top end players move away from 4hor?" - I feel that they should. XF Cage is a much quicker combo for dealing with any team that doesn't have Dino or 4hor because cage has a much better damage per ap collected & helps save health w his protect tile that constantly replenishes

We will see what happens. Including the devs possibly amending their choice from 12 to 5 & possibly landing on 7-9 instead.

Mikaveus

Xenoberyll wrote:

All this overpowered talk is wrong imho. I think 4stars should be more powerful than 3stars. The fact that people are using their 3stars over Fury, Starlord, Elektra, Invisible Woman just shows that those 4star characters are too weak.

To be fair, 4* covers aren't as widespread as 3*, so you wouldn't see them being used as rampantly. I mean, for every PvP, how many people win a 4* cover? 1 out of 100? 500? That's less than 1%.

And on top of that, X-Force and Lady Thor were so OP compared to the others, who in their right mind would "waste" all that ISO on any other 4* character? The investment to max cover and level one 4* character is SO MUCH more than covering two 3* characters.

If covers for Fury, Starlord, and Elektra were more accessible, they would be used over many 3* characters. Not Invisible Woman because... y'know. A lot of it is the investment to build a 4*.

Unknown

ballingbees wrote:

I am afraid that the recent uproar may be indirectly sending a confused signal to the developers.
That it is criminal to nerf powerful characters, but it is ok or even praiseworthy to create **** ones and buff them later.

Spiderman nerf : negative response
X-Force buff : overwhelming positive response
Magneto nerf : overall positive response
Sentry nerf : negative response
Daredevil buff : positive response
Loki/Doom buff : positive response

Seems we love buffs, and hate nerfs. The one exception being Magneto, who was nerfed with good measure, so that it wasn't broken on offence, yet is still viable in defence. Which I think is how 4Thor was balanced: her blue is no longer overpowered (which other power gives a 240% hike between 4 and 5 covers?), yet is still very much the defence deterrent she was and still is. I'm ready to bet my roster that all those who are condemning her nerf will not be in a hurry to replace their X-Force/4Thor teams with X-Force/Elektra. Yes it is understandable to feel aggrieved to have spent money and effort in getting her blue, only for it to be not what was once advertised. I'm just pointing out that the balancing is not a far departure from what they have been doing, and they have been getting slightly better at it compared to before, Magneto being a direct comparison.

Do we really want more Beast-ly characters at launch, wait 6 months for its buff then celebrate them? Is it not any different from creating powerful characters at launch (iFist) and then nerf them? Both cases display the lack of adequate play testing, why should our response be different

Sentry and Spiderman were nerfed with good measure as well, they were also offensively broken. The problem is now they are close to unusable. We hate nerfs that make characters we've invested time/resources/money into becoming a worthless roster slot.

Spiderman was close, very close, to a decent rework, and then came True Healing, so he got nerfed twice in rapid succession. Sure, he wouldn't be able to infinite stun anymore but hey at least he could save a few health packs, except a week later no he can't. Every character who has a heal needs to be looked at and fixed because True healing devalued their power set. Spiderman doesn't even have a single offensive power, you have to kill your opponents with match damage while he's around. Not good.

Sentry was hit so hard as to be crippled. World Rupture needed to cost 12 or have 3 turn CDs, not both. Now his team damage isn't worth the expense and he's just a big yellow strike tile battery.

evil panda

i felt like responding to the incredibly condescending and OP, but these guys already said it all. thumbs to you both.

bonfire01 wrote:

For those people telling me how to feel about the nerfs for god knows what reason as if they know something I don't...

1) I make a decision about playing a game based on whether I enjoy it. I don't give a **** what other ppl think about any given change because them having fun or feeling it's a good change doesn't make me want to play it. I'm not going to play something because YOU enjoy it. Therefore if changes are made that make me find the game dull or... more to the point... pointless due to there being ZERO progression i'll stop playing it.

2) 4thor is not great post nerf.. not even good. she is meh. If you think she is you don't know what you're talking about.

3) If you were using any of the characters you ARE diminished, regardless of how you feel. You are also now on a more even footing with 3* players if you were a 4* player which is ****. Why progress when there is no progression?

4) If you aren't attached why post your condescending and valueless post?

5) If you spend lots of money on something you generally expect to keep it. It's like buying a ferrari then they come along later and swap it's engine for a fiesta. Would some idiot come along and say "why are you complaining... you got to use the ferrari for a while. Instead look on the bright side you are now more balanced towards Fiesta owners. That's a good thing... right?"

Incidentally gambling is regulated and there's no way what they are doing would be legal if it were in a similarly regulated field.... basically it's not gambling and when you purchase something you should have faith it'll retain it's value... or at least retain it's use.

Thanks for the topic though... it's nice to know how I SHOULD feel and for someone who normally comments on posts about being impossible to get 4*s... therefore presumably doesn't use a 4Thor and has no idea about end game PvP telling me she just fine so it's all ok....

JoshBot3000 wrote:

The bottom line is most people complaining about 4hor have her already. They either bought her straight up or spent tons of time grinding for her. The cost of purchasing a 4* is much more than that of a 3*, so people are complaining that 4hor shouldn't be the same power as a 3*, which makes sense cause the purchase price was much higher. Then for people that earned them: they either earned a few from her hellish PvE (which caused permanent changes to PVE countdown timers as a result) or were hitting 1300+ progression (1000 now but that's equally as hard as "old" 1300 imo) or were winning PvP/PvE events. Regular 3* characters earn much easier than that. So for her to be equal powered as a 3* is unfair from that perspective as well

Then I read people saying "oh it's fine. You'll be be better balanced with everyone else". Why would that be fair or just? People either put in tons of money or time & are now being told that was wasted
"But you earned so much from having her this whole time" - people could've put their resources & time elsewhere & still gotten good results. I'm in a top 10 alliance & our top scorer 2 seasons ago didn't even have a 4hor. So I know it's doable cause I've seen it done

Personally I feel like a lot of the people liking her change are not people that currently have her & are excited to see her neutered so they can have a better advantage relative to their peers. What a selfish attitude! Ok so they didn't pay or earn her covers/ISO so they are upset that they run into a XF 4hor wall regularly. They are happy that others are getting their assets neutered because it will be easier for them to do better. Instead they should grind more or complain less. In my top 10 alliance, we have several guys who literally have earned their entire 4hor through grinding & winning with no spending. How is it far to them? The D3 sale price thing is a crock. You lose the character when you sell it. I know lots of people who regret selling sentry or hood or cmag or spidey from before when their events come up

simonsez

Mikaveus wrote:

If covers for Fury, Starlord, and Elektra were more accessible, they would be used over many 3* characters.

Fury probably, but Starlord and Elektra, absolutely not. GT was no more accessible than those, but because she was good, people went out of their way to get the covers and level her up. If Starlord and Elektra were any good, people would do the same. Cover rarity has nothing to do with it. They're just not worth it.

tanis3303

An argument could be made for starlord and elektra in pve. Starlord would be decent vs goons I think, with his purple able to overwrite countdowns, and elektra could do some work with her black to dodge big hits. They're all but worthless in pvp tho, so there's no way they're worth the 430,000 ISO investment.

simonsez

tanis3303 wrote:

Starlord would be decent vs goons I think

Think about that. Is that really what we're looking for in a 4*? That "maybe" they'd be "decent" against goons? Can we set the bar any lower than that? I don't think so.

tanis3303

No, I was just trying to be positive for a change ...starlord and elektra are good 3* characters, and now, so is thor. Fury I would call a 3*+. Xforce is imo the only real 4* now, but since that level of power is apparently not where they want 4*s to sit, expect him to be toned down to fury levels very soon.

Mikaveus

simonsez wrote:

Mikaveus wrote:

If covers for Fury, Starlord, and Elektra were more accessible, they would be used over many 3* characters.

Fury probably, but Starlord and Elektra, absolutely not. GT was no more accessible than those, but because she was good, people went out of their way to get the covers and level her up. If Starlord and Elektra were any good, people would do the same. Cover rarity has nothing to do with it. They're just not worth it.

I'm not sold on Starlord either, but Elektra is definitely a pain in the butt to face. My original comment was regarding the lack of use for other 4* characters not named X-Force or Lady Thor. I still maintain it's due to the high investment of a 4* character. Most people without beaucoup funding will focus on building one elite character. And no one was choosing over X-Force and Lady Thor. It's too much ISO and too much HP to roll against a proven entity. And cover rarity does still factor in as far as removing the opportunity for players to build, and keep other 4* characters from being seen.

puppychow

simonsez wrote:

papa07 wrote:

I guarantee that 4Thor is still a top10 character and is most likely still a top5.

I'd love to see the rationale behind this opinion. 19AP for 7k damage has no place in high end PvP. She's devil dino who can't dance.

Post change, I think I would prefer Dino over GT (depending on the other members of my team of course). w/ MnMag's red tile generation, Dino will be biting a LOT. lol

Unknown

Mikaveus wrote:

I'm not sold on Starlord either, but Elektra is definitely a pain in the butt to face.

Indeed. I remember a fight against Colognoisseur in the 4Thor lightning round, and he had a team with Xforce/4Thor/Elektra all maxed. With my 2 3* and level 166 XForce, I managed to kill his XForce and Thor without too much problems, but Elektra destroyed my team swiftly.
Since then, I always remember to never underestimate her.

Dauthi

The problem isn't making 4*s "stronger" than 3*s, all of them are (with the exception of useless IW) because they can hit 270. I would gladly work towards earning a 3* Thor who could hit 270, he would be by far and above better than the new 4* Thor. He is a top tier character in both 2* and 3* leagues. 4*s don't have to be better, they innately are due to level cap.

Red Star Lord up for grabs in the new pvp, note my previous comments. D3 knows everyone is looking for a new red to do damage, because it won't be 4* Thor anymore. Star Lord is a great option since his pink doesn't stink like Elektra's, though I wouldn't say she isn't viable. Her black is just less useful compared to XForce's.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

The problem isn't making 4*s "stronger" than 3*s, all of them are (with the exception of useless IW) because they can hit 270. I would gladly work towards earning a 3* Thor who could hit 270, he would be by far and above better than the new 4* Thor. He is a top tier character in both 2* and 3* leagues. 4*s don't have to be better, they innately are due to level cap.

Red Star Lord up for grabs in the new pvp, note my previous comments. D3 knows everyone is looking for a new red to do damage, because it won't be 4* Thor anymore. Star Lord is a great option since his pink doesn't stink like Elektra's, though I wouldn't say she isn't viable. Her black is just less useful compared to XForce's.

I have some bad new for you..... levelling 4*s doesn't do what you think it does. Let's say you have a fully covered lvl 220 Xforce then you add those last 50 levels.... you get about 4% (IIRC) exra abilitiy damage. So your 3* Thor would barely improve if you increase the level cap on him to 270 BUT make him scale like a 4* instead of a 3*. Well he would gain health but damage is so high in game compared to health AND the fact once you can fire off one big ability you often have nearly enough for a few others in other colours means it's not as big of a deal as you'd think.

Hope I didn't dampen your enthusiasm for that red SL cover though... (it's an ok skill, nothing to write home about.... his purple is better).

simonsez

Dauthi wrote:

The problem isn't making 4*s "stronger" than 3*s, all of them are

I could try to give reasons why they're obviously not, but it's enough to say that if they were, people would be using them. But they're not. And it has nothing to do with rarity. Plenty of people have Elektra and Starlord fully covered, but there's no reason to level them.

Dauthi wrote:

D3 knows everyone is looking for a new red to do damage, because it won't be 4* Thor anymore. Star Lord is a great option

Putting your faith in a red nuke countdown tile isn't something people are going to do. What are you supposed to do when you're shield hopping and it's one of the 50% of the times that the countdown doesn't survive? Retreat, or drag the match out and take the -48 net and try again in 8 hours?

Dauthi

simonsez wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

The problem isn't making 4*s "stronger" than 3*s, all of them are

I could try to give reasons why they're obviously not, but it's enough to say that if they were, people would be using them. But they're not. And it has nothing to do with rarity. Plenty of people have Elektra and Starlord fully covered, but there's no reason to level them.

Please name any maxed 3* you would rather fight than maxed Elektra. She isn't that bad, like I said the only 4* that bad is IW. People are not leveling her simply because there are better 4*s that they have or will have soon enough.

Dauthi wrote:

D3 knows everyone is looking for a new red to do damage, because it won't be 4* Thor anymore. Star Lord is a great option

Putting your faith in a red nuke countdown tile isn't something people are going to do. What are you supposed to do when you're shield hopping and it's one of the 50% of the times that the countdown doesn't survive? Retreat, or drag the match out and take the -48 net and try again in 8 hours?

I don't think it will be that bad, but to each their own. It does more damage than 4* Thor's red + blue, and is cheaper. Defensively I certainly don't want to go up against that, and offensively I can remove a character from the game pretty quick while debilitating the other team.

bonfire01 wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

The problem isn't making 4*s "stronger" than 3*s, all of them are (with the exception of useless IW) because they can hit 270. I would gladly work towards earning a 3* Thor who could hit 270, he would be by far and above better than the new 4* Thor. He is a top tier character in both 2* and 3* leagues. 4*s don't have to be better, they innately are due to level cap.

Red Star Lord up for grabs in the new pvp, note my previous comments. D3 knows everyone is looking for a new red to do damage, because it won't be 4* Thor anymore. Star Lord is a great option since his pink doesn't stink like Elektra's, though I wouldn't say she isn't viable. Her black is just less useful compared to XForce's.

I have some bad new for you..... levelling 4*s doesn't do what you think it does. Let's say you have a fully covered lvl 220 Xforce then you add those last 50 levels.... you get about 4% (IIRC) exra abilitiy damage. So your 3* Thor would barely improve if you increase the level cap on him to 270 BUT make him scale like a 4* instead of a 3*. Well he would gain health but damage is so high in game compared to health AND the fact once you can fire off one big ability you often have nearly enough for a few others in other colours means it's not as big of a deal as you'd think.

Hope I didn't dampen your enthusiasm for that red SL cover though... (it's an ok skill, nothing to write home about.... his purple is better).

Perhaps, but in the most recent featured 3* Thor event, when he is boosted close to, but still under 4*s maximum level his yellow did 3.7k(ish) damage, and green did 3.6k ish damage (x2 to the main target). This equaled out to around 18k damage across the team. This is crazy.

Despite that, even if we compare the damage he can do across typical 3* team based on a %, it is pretty devastating, so I don't think the scaling would be that bad. He would still be more damage by far and above (like i said) than 4* Thor even if he did half that damage boosted. Granted, there is a stun to take into account, but I seriously doubt that scaling would remove half of the damage.

Purple is great, 4* Thor covered blue and red and Star Lord covers Purple and Red for damage.

NighteyesGrisu

bonfire01 wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

The problem isn't making 4*s "stronger" than 3*s, all of them are (with the exception of useless IW) because they can hit 270. I would gladly work towards earning a 3* Thor who could hit 270, he would be by far and above better than the new 4* Thor. He is a top tier character in both 2* and 3* leagues. 4*s don't have to be better, they innately are due to level cap.

Red Star Lord up for grabs in the new pvp, note my previous comments. D3 knows everyone is looking for a new red to do damage, because it won't be 4* Thor anymore. Star Lord is a great option since his pink doesn't stink like Elektra's, though I wouldn't say she isn't viable. Her black is just less useful compared to XForce's.

I have some bad new for you..... levelling 4*s doesn't do what you think it does. Let's say you have a fully covered lvl 220 Xforce then you add those last 50 levels.... you get about 4% (IIRC) exra abilitiy damage. So your 3* Thor would barely improve if you increase the level cap on him to 270 BUT make him scale like a 4* instead of a 3*. Well he would gain health but damage is so high in game compared to health AND the fact once you can fire off one big ability you often have nearly enough for a few others in other colours means it's not as big of a deal as you'd think.

Hope I didn't dampen your enthusiasm for that red SL cover though... (it's an ok skill, nothing to write home about.... his purple is better).

hey but you get to spend way more iso on them, and as a bonus have them almost never boosted/featured...isn't that cool?