Coming Soon: Character Updates!

Unknown

I was agreeing with you until I got to this part:

Narkon wrote:

XF was fine for the most part

Arondite

raisinbman wrote:

I was agreeing with you until I got to this part:

Narkon wrote:

XF was fine for the most part

He was right though. X Force was pretty much acceptable.

if any nerf was needed at all, and that much is very debatable, it was a ligth touch to Surgical Strike.

Unknown

fmftint wrote:

15 pages and I still haven't read ONE reason why a single character being the best answer for every node is good for the game.
What I have seen are emotional reactions and invalid analogies

Elektra is far better vs over-scaled Maggia Muscles because their strikes are huge. IF is better vs trivial nodes and seeds due to speed and the overkill of all of XF's abilities on trivial junk compared to the efficiency of IF's passive. So that's 2 examples requiring a few seconds of thought.

So the reason you didn't get an answer is probably because the question is based on an incorrect premise. Now if you'd said the best answer to most high end content I would agree and say it's not good... then I would say make the other 4*s less **** to fix it.

Also... even if you were right (you aren't) doesn't necessitate the specific content of this change to rectify. So if if you were right (you aren't) regarding him being the best vs every node you're still missing the point regarding people's dislike of the scale of his nerf.

Personally I still haven't read one good reason why the 4* tier should be such a minimal functional improvement over the 3* tier (which it will be in its entirety post XF nerf).

DrStrange-616

Gave up reading this thread. All I know is...

PvP is no fun anymore. MMR is worse than a blind date with Sam Kinison. All of the fights are long and points are hard to come by/keep. The rewards are not worth the effort time anymore.

PvE is no fun anymore. Scaling is out of control and the progression rewards make no sense. How can you set up an event where the final progression reward is easily earned on the first day of a 5 day event?

The SIM is no fun anymore. I have no interest in fighting 166s over and over for a chance at a Yelena cover. The progression rewards there are from the Mesolithic Period.

Seasons are no fun anymore. The SIM and PvP blow and alliance sell their grandmother to get one lousy 4* cover at the end of it all.

Getting new characters is no fun anymore. They cost me an arm and a leg and at least one boob. And I'm running low.

Leveling characters is no fun anymore. ISO is hard to come by in the amounts necessary and, as soon as I do level them, they'll just be nerfed.

The game isn't fun anymore. I don't trust the Powers That Be to make good decisions.

That said, the game format is addicting and I love and adore Marvel. That and the good people I've met along the way have kept me here. But how much longer can that hold? I don't know.

mohio

So couple things.

To add to the xforce discussion minutely, NP can probably give the exact number but xforce does not destroy 15 tiles. With tiles overlapping or hitting edges I'm sure it averages more like 14. Not that it's that big of a deal, but people seem to be hell bent on getting it exact so figured I'd throw it out there.

The health buff to many characters is really nerfing quite a lot of characters indirectly. I originally thought BP was getting buffed with the extra health but with everyone else's health going up RotP looks much worse. Sure torch is maybe usable with more health but his abilities essentially do less damage, or at least have a lower impact. LT is still awesome, but facing 3 guys at 9k+ life means you need to fire his combo at least twice to down the enemy team. Good luck collecting all that ap before getting severely damaged by whoever you're facing. I could keep going, but you all get the idea.

Additionally back to xforce for a minute, increasing all these characters health already made xforce's burst damage less effective, so they certainly didn't need to go so far in nerfing him, but I can't say I'm surprised with how they've over nerfed the last few.

simonsez

Dauthi wrote:

Thus when I was wrong about that ability it is much more subjective (relative to what I believe) vs what it actually is (objective)

You were objectively wrong about how many tiles are destroyed, thus your subjective argument was flawed. I hope that's clear, because this has already gone on too long, and I'm done.

Arondite

simonsez wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Thus when I was wrong about that ability it is much more subjective (relative to what I believe) vs what it actually is (objective)

You were objectively wrong about how many tiles are destroyed, thus your subjective argument was flawed. I hope that's clear, because this has already gone on too long, and I'm done.

He read the definition of subjective, but he doesn't really understand what it means.

I think he's under the impression that subjective means "wrong" and not "a matter of opinion".

Unknown

Getting back to discussing updates and not dictionaries, Beast's green still has room for more damage. Beast's whole "has a blue tile" thing makes him a bit on the weak side to begin with since it seems his power costs are balanced for "has a blue tile". Granted that's a lot easier for 6 blue and random tile creation, but still.

KK's AoE green does crazy amounts of damage. KK and Beast have the same health tier, and both group temp health with yellow. I don't think it's out of like that Beast's damage should at least approach 75% of KK for 75% the cost. Plus tile destruction for some up front damage and cascade with AP generation, but this is clearly his thing for damage right, so to be considered "good" he would need >500 damage per AP. So Animal Inside can support a base damage of 950 at least I feel. Plus the whole "no blue = no good" thing should count for something.

Unknown

I'd really like someone with multiple 4*'s to weigh in on these changes and how they affect the end game. We're hearing a lot of "Xforce is nerfed, 4*'s aren't worth it anymore," but what does "not worth it mean?" Not worth the triple ISO cost because they're not at all better than 90% of the 3*'s? (Yes, I know 3* Thor is better than most 4*'s).

Or not worth it because they are better, but not 3 times better?

As a 3 to 4 star transitioner, I guess I'm just wondering... costs aside, are we really saying that the current Fury, nerfed XF and new IW and new Elektra aren't stronger than 3*'s?
Are we really looking at a non-existent end game? Or just a less dominating one?

Unknown

AznLyte wrote:

I'd really like someone with multiple 4*'s to weigh in on these changes and how they affect the end game. We're hearing a lot of "Xforce is nerfed, 4*'s aren't worth it anymore," but what does "not worth it mean?" Not worth the triple ISO cost because they're not at all better than 90% of the 3*'s? (Yes, I know 3* Thor is better than most 4*'s).

Or not worth it because they are better, but not 3 times better?

As a 3 to 4 star transitioner, I guess I'm just wondering... costs aside, are we really saying that the current Fury, nerfed XF and new IW and new Elektra aren't stronger than 3*'s?
Are we really looking at a non-existent end game? Or just a less dominating one?

if you're looking for osmeone w/ multiple 4* look at all the 'omg don't nerf xforce' comments and threads. Basically, X-force is now valued as you'd value a 3 star if these changes commence

Professor X is very worth it, Kingpin the jury isn't out yet.

Kolence

mohio wrote:

To add to the xforce discussion minutely, NP can probably give the exact number but xforce does not destroy 15 tiles. With tiles overlapping or hitting edges I'm sure it averages more like 14. Not that it's that big of a deal, but people seem to be hell bent on getting it exact so figured I'd throw it out there.

It might have been like that right after they buffed him, don't remember anymore. But I'm pretty sure his three Xs avoid each other and edges for a long time now, so it always destroys 15 tiles.

Dauthi

Arondite wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Thus when I was wrong about that ability it is much more subjective (relative to what I believe) vs what it actually is (objective)

You were objectively wrong about how many tiles are destroyed, thus your subjective argument was flawed. I hope that's clear, because this has already gone on too long, and I'm done.

He read the definition of subjective, but he doesn't really understand what it means.

I think he's under the impression that subjective means "wrong" and not "a matter of opinion".

Being subjective isn't necessarily being wrong, but since you are not considering outside facts (which we would define as information that is generally agreed upon as accurate) it tends to be wrong or flawed. Considering this, outside factors create a more objective opinion of something. It's the reason I come here and am vocal about what I think, and don't mind being corrected constructively.

I'm a lit major, so I am 100% clear on what it means. I hope I clarified it for everyone.

After analyzing Groot's green (if I wrote the other character's information correctly, nobody corrected it so I assume it is even if it helps their argument) it is stronger than I thought, and after the xforce nerf his green will be much more viable. That being said, I still think Xforce's green is better, mostly in part to its lower cost.

simonsez wrote:

because this has already gone on too long, and I'm done.

For the sake of the thread I will just agree to this part and move on.

grunth13 wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

grunth13 wrote:

But it cost you 2 to 3 times the amount to get your XF to 250 them to get the other characters to 166.

That doesn't matter if it still gives you an edge.

It does for some if they paid for him as a 4 star. If the devs just make everyone a 3 star like street fighter or mortal combat, then it doesn't matter.

If you have maxed your 3*s, would you move on to 4*s to get an advantage even if it was small (we will say small for the sake of the argument)? What else do you have to do instead? I know that in collectible card games people will pay crazy amounts for even a small advantage from a card.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

grunth13 wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

grunth13 wrote:

But it cost you 2 to 3 times the amount to get your XF to 250 them to get the other characters to 166.

That doesn't matter if it still gives you an edge.

It does for some if they paid for him as a 4 star. If the devs just make everyone a 3 star like street fighter or mortal combat, then it doesn't matter.

If you have maxed your 3*s, would you move on to 4*s to get an advantage even if it was small (we will say small for the sake of the argument)? What else do you have to do instead? I know that in collectible card games people will pay crazy amounts for even a small advantage from a card.

This is mostly relevant to rosters that have a 270 XF and their next highest character is 94 Ares. They got to day 180, and bankrolled a shiny new XF, and have been working his OP for covers. These players are basically hosed, and should probably sell their XF's for the double sale price, and start a 2* transition proper.

If you have a solid roster of 3*s and some 4*s with covers and a 270 XF and Thor, then the changes aren't going to hurt you as bad. They still feel like an emotional gut punch however.

Unknown

Just in case the dev's only read and respond to this one thread on Monday:

Phumade wrote:

I actually like Kamala Khan and thought that she was a lot of fun to play. However, I never thought I would use her because of the green color conflict. These changes really alter game dynamics and allow for some fun new synergies.

I feel really bad for the people that don't know how to adapt and adjust their strategies to fit the new dynamics.

I remember when lots of people thought Gypsy Danger was a blatant out and out cheater because he could score at will blah blah blah. Now everyone shield hops and uses out of game coordination. I for one would say that Gypsy and his team mates were just smarter than everyone else and recognized a legitimate strategy that no one else including developers for saw.

It makes me sad to see how narrow minded the forum players are and not recognize that this is a great opportunity to change up the dynamics of the game and improve their personal and alliance rankings.

I for one will focus my energies on helping my team mates grow and adjust to the new dynamics. I'm sure that just like in the last nerf, alliances rankings will shuffle some alliances will merge and fold and we will slide up another tier in the season standings.

It's less about adapting strategy, which we will do eventually, even if those who just go with the meta wind up copying those who lead the charge, and more about the integrity of a character.

Here is how I feel right now: Them, "Hey you know this character that's really hard to get but not very good, we made him awesome now!" Us, "Shut up and take my money!" Them, "Yea, and we are going to relase more awesome characters too, here's Nick Fury and Thor!" Us, "Cool! Shut up and take more money!" Them, "And here's Elektra, Star Lord, and Professor X" Us, "Meh... not as good as XF, plus we have XF/Thor already" Them, "Oh we see you like XF and Thor, well we can't have you playing the same characters all the time so we are gutting them" Us, "... ****?"

And that is completely a problem of gut punching your customers with popular character nerfs rather than balance shifting buffs. There are more ways to affect strategy than "kill the top guy".

Arondite

You originally said...

Dauthi wrote:

Settle down, I wrote it in haste. You can simply note the correction instead of making personal attacks. If I didn't understand the skill it would be subjective, I think you meant objective.

Reading this as any normal human being would, it sounds like you're saying "subjective means I don't understand the skill". We're both fully aware (I hope) that that's ridiculous, but (I hope) we're also both equally as aware that that is what you said.

Dauthi wrote:

Being subjective isn't necessarily being wrong, but since you are not considering outside facts (which we would define as information that is generally agreed upon as accurate) it tends to be wrong or flawed. Considering this, outside factors create a more objective opinion of something. It's the reason I come here and am vocal about what I think, and don't mind being corrected constructively.

I'm a lit major, so I am 100% clear on what it means. I hope I clarified it for everyone.

Erhm...Are you sure, like "for sure for sure" that you know what subjective means? Because something that is subjective can not, by definition, be wrong. Since it's...subjective. You seem to think it's not necessarily wrong, but has a tendency toward usually being so. Something that is subjective is personal, opinion-based or founded in emotion/feeling. These are things that cannot be "wrong".

Then as you go on to say that "outside factors" create a more "objective opinion", I come to realize you're using flowery language to blow nonsense right from your butthole, as "outside factors" don't influence objectivity (more to the point, they cannot influence objectivity, as they're outside factors). Further, you can't have an "objective opinion", as that which is objective is, again - by defnition, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

But you already know all these things, being a lit major.

Unknown

AznLyte wrote:

I'd really like someone with multiple 4*'s to weigh in on these changes and how they affect the end game. We're hearing a lot of "Xforce is nerfed, 4*'s aren't worth it anymore," but what does "not worth it mean?" Not worth the triple ISO cost because they're not at all better than 90% of the 3*'s? (Yes, I know 3* Thor is better than most 4*'s).

Or not worth it because they are better, but not 3 times better?

As a 3 to 4 star transitioner, I guess I'm just wondering... costs aside, are we really saying that the current Fury, nerfed XF and new IW and new Elektra aren't stronger than 3*'s?
Are we really looking at a non-existent end game? Or just a less dominating one?

I have multiple 4*s and had this to say about these questions:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27384&p=332951#p332951

Dauthi

Arondite wrote:

You originally said...

Dauthi wrote:

Settle down, I wrote it in haste. You can simply note the correction instead of making personal attacks. If I didn't understand the skill it would be subjective, I think you meant objective.

Reading this as any normal human being would, it sounds like you're saying "subjective means I don't understand the skill". We're both fully aware (I hope) that that's ridiculous, but (I hope) we're also both equally as aware that that is what you said.

Here is what he said "How can make subjective arguments when you're this far off on the factual elements of what the skill does?"

How can I make subjective arguments? Anyone can and facts don't matter when creating them too! Now if he wants me to use facts, he would say how can I make objective arguments when I lack correct facts, since they need to contain what others believe to be true as well

Dauthi wrote:

Being subjective isn't necessarily being wrong, but since you are not considering outside facts (which we would define as information that is generally agreed upon as accurate) it tends to be wrong or flawed. Considering this, outside factors create a more objective opinion of something. It's the reason I come here and am vocal about what I think, and don't mind being corrected constructively.

I'm a lit major, so I am 100% clear on what it means. I hope I clarified it for everyone.

Erhm...Are you sure, like "for sure for sure" that you know what subjective means? Because something that is subjective can not, by definition, be wrong. Since it's...subjective. You seem to think it's not necessarily wrong, but has a tendency toward usually being so. Something that is subjective is personal, opinion-based or founded in emotion/feeling. These are things that cannot be "wrong".

Then as you go on to say that "outside factors" create a more "objective opinion", I come to realize you're using flowery language to blow nonsense right from your butthole, as "outside factors" don't influence objectivity (more to the point, they cannot influence objectivity, as they're outside factors). Further, you can't have an "objective opinion", as that which is objective is, again - by defnition, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

But you already know all these things, being a lit major.

Something subjective is only absolutely right to the one holding the thought process. It can be right or wrong to everyone else, which is what actually matters.

Let me ask you something, why do you think people expect journalists be "objective". They need to consider other opinions and facts when writing, otherwise they lean more subjective and this is not helpful (though possibly entertaining). "Objective" is also a adjective, so yes you can have an "objective" opinion. It means your opinion is based on upon others opinions and facts, not feelings. Yeah, I agree it sounds weird, but an example would be someone who listens to everyone's opinion and does research before making an opinion (and bases it on both of these factors), and someone who doesn't. In the world of writing we hope that the first guy is the one everyone is listening to.

Like I said, I come to the forums to get information/opinions so I can consider if what I believe is correct or not. In most cases my opinion changes because I hadn't considered x, y or z. Just by doing this, my opinion/argument becomes more objective and that is satisfying to me.

I apologize for derailing the thread to make this point

Unknown

Whats the point in 4* anymore? Every 4* that is worth being a 4* gets an overnerf to mid 3* or bottom 3* level. Why did you ever released 4*? They doesnt make any sense if they get overnerfed or are on the same or less level with 3*. Shouldnt they be way better than 3*, like 3* are alot better than 2*? And 2* compared to 1*? You are trying to balance tiers, but why? Higher tier should always be better than the previous, else it doesnt make any sense to create tiers. You are trying so hard to balance some things that are not necessarry, but not in every case. No game is perfectly balanced, because its not possible. With the hp buff for most characters you already overovernerfed thoress/xf and all the other characters that didnt get the hp boost(except iron fist). With the hp buff, it would be nerf enough to thoress and xf. Those very long fights in future wont be fun anymore for the most people that are trying to compete. Next top tier characters in the future are yet unknown on the list or probably known. At least they want to earn some money with the next top tier characters the community will be aiming, before they overnerf them and the game starts over and over again. Sad but true, yet the most and i are still playing and trying to enjoy this game somehow after all the sucker punches from d3 . But after the next update i will stop trying to compete and aim for the best in game, because the best in this game is temporary and totally not worth the time and effort.

Dauthi

I'll respond:

gamar wrote:

Unlike a lot of posters, I'm fine with there being some blurring between the tiers. OBW and Ares are better than a few of the 3*s, I'm not bothered with a few of the top 3*s (LazyThor, Iron Fist) being as good as 4*s.

I think most of the 4* characters ARE approximately as good or better than the top 3* characters; Thora, Nick Fury, Prof X, maybe Starlord (the question of "twice as much iso and much harder to get for "slightly better" is another discussion)

But the new X-Force, ugh

I think 4*s should do more damage and have more hp only because they are higher level. I don't think their mechanics should be inherently better.

I would rather fight 3* Thor than Nick maxed personally, so I feel like 4*s will be all stronger than 3*s after the change.

X-Force: "2 more AP than unstoppable crash for 2k additional damage" would be a solid but not spectacular power on a 3*. It's not pushed enough for a 4*.

I don't know about you, but I like having unstoppable crash as a team up. It is a great ability, and I believe it does more than it should for a mere 6 ap (remember Ragnarok's green nerf). If Xforce's green is only 2 ap more and does damage too, then I feel like that is still a great deal.

Recovery: Even with the boost, this is still much worse than it seems on paper, because you're often going to get damage when you need healing and healing when you need damage - 9 AP for either effect (4k damage or 9k "delayed" healing) is ok, not particularly good, and this should be costed for the WORST scenario.


He's still usable, but he's like a B or even C tier 3*, not an A tier one. That bothers me.

On the other hand it is a skill that can both heal and do significant damage, occasionally fate will decide sure, but in most cases it should do what you want. I think this is a good exchange for a skill that has two significant abilities now.Letting him match yellow will matter now, it will be a difficult decision to decide to let him heal or rip your face apart.

Who would you consider an A tier damage dealer with Thor nerfed too? They do more damage than 3*s, just not as much damage as their former selves used to.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

I don't know about you, but I like having unstoppable crash as a team up. It is a great ability, and I believe it does more than it should for a mere 6 ap (remember Ragnarok's green nerf). If Xforce's green is only 2 ap more and does damage too, then I feel like that is still a great deal.

Unstoppable crash would be pretty lousy if it cost 7 AP. Because of being able to go off one turn earlier, as well as the effects of cascades being more significant (by which I mean a small 2-3 match cascade giving you 3 AP in the color of a 6 AP ability is going to have a greater effect on the battle than getting 3 AP in the color of a 10 AP ability) there just ends up being a huge gap between 6 and 7 AP. And Unstoppable Crash in particular is better as a TeamUp because you so rarely prioritize TU AP so it's a nice cheap ability to throw away some teamup AP on and it doesn't cost green.

Like I said, it wouldn't seem out of place on a 3*, but on a 4* I just want some value in all of their abilities, none of the "two good abilities and one useless ability" or "there's almost always something better to be using in this color but at least it's not bad if you have nothing else" that we see on 3*s

Dauthi wrote:

Who would you consider an A tier damage dealer with Thor nerfed too? They do more damage than 3*s, just not as much damage as their former selves used to.

I meant A tier overall, not just A tier damage dealer, but 4* Thor is definitely A tier or above. X-Force? Surgical strike is still excellent, but is it so much better than Rage of the Panther and Magnetized projectiles, etc, that it makes up for the fact that BP and cMags have OTHER really great abilities besides their nukes? I don't think it does.