Dauthi wrote: Linkster79 wrote: I don't use over half of my 3* characters in competitive versus, your point is moot. In every tier there are go to characters, bench warmers and those ready to be traded to the lower leagues. You say this, and yet this nerf did in fact help the "bench warmers". So you think it is perfectly fine for me to have had four 4*s maxed and yet i'm in the same position of power as someone who has 0 4*s? This is the problem with the transition, 3*s are mad because they have no 4*s, then when they get them they realize they aren't any better off unless they got the good ones. Remember, 4*s take a lot longer than 3*s to obtain and level too.
Linkster79 wrote: I don't use over half of my 3* characters in competitive versus, your point is moot. In every tier there are go to characters, bench warmers and those ready to be traded to the lower leagues.
Dauthi wrote: So here you are, with your 4* Thoress completed, and what do you get? Nothing, because you will use most of your 3*s buffed instead.
Linkster79 wrote: Dauthi wrote: Linkster79 wrote: I don't use over half of my 3* characters in competitive versus, your point is moot. In every tier there are go to characters, bench warmers and those ready to be traded to the lower leagues. You say this, and yet this nerf did in fact help the "bench warmers". So you think it is perfectly fine for me to have had four 4*s maxed and yet i'm in the same position of power as someone who has 0 4*s? This is the problem with the transition, 3*s are mad because they have no 4*s, then when they get them they realize they aren't any better off unless they got the good ones. Remember, 4*s take a lot longer than 3*s to obtain and level too. The point that Pylgrim and myself were initially trying to make is that the gap between 2* and 3* got smaller as did the gap between 4* and 5* when at max level, however unless you have max level and max champion the gap between 3* and 4* has gotten bigger. Yet for some reason this change was disguised and passed off as a bug yet when asked for confirmation if it was intended all we are met with is silence. I feel my discussion with you is headed in nothing but circles so I shall wish you a good day and graciously decline to respond any further.
Pylgrim wrote: Dauthi wrote: So here you are, with your 4* Thoress completed, and what do you get? Nothing, because you will use most of your 3*s buffed instead. This remark here makes it sound as though you should be agreeing with us. If your maxed 4*s are unfortunately not the top 4*s and you find yourself still having to use your buffed 3*s in order to keep advancing, and hopefully some day max the top 4*s... shouldn't you be bothered that the fact that it is now harder for you due nerfed buffed 3*s? It seems to me that you are allowing petty resent at the fact that things are not like you'd expect trump practical objectivity.
Moreover, the gap between you with maxed, weak 4*s and those with maxed behemots like HB, JG or Iceman is NOT a consequence of the power of the 3*s, nor nerfing them solves anything for you. The problem lies in both the impact of luck in transition at higher levels (an issue I've decried in the past several times and you've vehemently agreed) and the gap in power between good and bad 4*s. If either problem didn't exist, you'd surely be doing great with your small team of maxed 4*s.
Dauthi wrote: Yes, I can't compete with Hulkbuster/Jeans or Icemans, but at least I can overpower 3* rosters now. Ill take it. I think there was 2 ways to solve this problem, they could rework all the weak 4*s so they are in-line with the top tier, or they could do what they did, and nerf 3*s. I would have rather them buff weak 4*s, but I think the latter was a much easier solution for them. Either would have ended in 3*s dropping in power in relation to 4*s however.
_Ryu_ wrote: wired stuff here, lets agree that we need information about this Champion/nerf/buff/bug/intended 3* change of power. The badest thing about it is... We dont know what we can expect furthermore! We need clarification because its never a good thing to let one (or in this case, us all) in the dark, that maks me feel unpleasant.
colwag wrote: _Ryu_ wrote: wired stuff here, lets agree that we need information about this Champion/nerf/buff/bug/intended 3* change of power. The badest thing about it is... We dont know what we can expect furthermore! We need clarification because its never a good thing to let one (or in this case, us all) in the dark, that maks me feel unpleasant. If it IS intended as a nerf to Level 167-200 ish 3*s and 2*s, is there anything they could say that you wouldn't want to dissect and argue and dismantle? I mean I can understand not saying that because any sort of justification they'd use would be turned into a meme about how bad they are again or whatever.
Pylgrim wrote: Dauthi wrote: Yes, I can't compete with Hulkbuster/Jeans or Icemans, but at least I can overpower 3* rosters now. Ill take it. I think there was 2 ways to solve this problem, they could rework all the weak 4*s so they are in-line with the top tier, or they could do what they did, and nerf 3*s. I would have rather them buff weak 4*s, but I think the latter was a much easier solution for them. Either would have ended in 3*s dropping in power in relation to 4*s however. What team are you using that you had trouble with 3*s pre-nerf? I see maxed, buffed 3*s all the way from 100 to 700 points, (at which point I'll start seeing maxed, buffed 4*s) and I breeze through with my own 3* teams. And Thoress may not be top 5 4*, but she's no pushover either. I'd gladly take her into a fight instead of Magneto or Cap America which are the best 3*s filling in those colours. She certainly doesn't need 3*s to be weaker in order to own them.
Dauthi wrote: Just as a comparison post nerf no buffs, 4* Thor's red and 3* Cyclops red cost the same, and Cyclops still does more damage if there are no charge tiles out and cyclops gets shake-up. Then you have to throw in the fact that Cyclops is his own battery while she painstakingly has to grind up her AP for her abilities, and that her yellow ability is terrible while cyclops has an amazing black. We could compare the other two also, but it is the same situation. She isn't really mid tier, more like bottom 5 though. I'm not sure if I would use her except when she's buffed still.
atomzed wrote: Dauthi wrote: Just as a comparison post nerf no buffs, 4* Thor's red and 3* Cyclops red cost the same, and Cyclops still does more damage if there are no charge tiles out and cyclops gets shake-up. Then you have to throw in the fact that Cyclops is his own battery while she painstakingly has to grind up her AP for her abilities, and that her yellow ability is terrible while cyclops has an amazing black. We could compare the other two also, but it is the same situation. She isn't really mid tier, more like bottom 5 though. I'm not sure if I would use her except when she's buffed still. Bottom 5? Surely you exaggerate. With Mr F, Chulk, IW, Elektra, Starlord around, she cannot be at bottom 5. 3* Cyclops is widely acknowledged as one of the best 3*. Top 5 material. So I think it is not a fair comparison Thoress, while not top 5 material for 4*, is definitely in top 10. She is slow, yes, but when she gets going she wins games for you. She is one my of my go-to team for overscaled pve teams; as long as you can get the first 9 blue ap she will finish the battle for you quickly.
Dauthi wrote: Sure, it's debateable, but the point was that she is not a good character generally. I feel like it takes one combo of blue/red to get her going, not just one blue. After the initial combo, if you can gather most of the charge tiles, yeah she can start rolling. Her problem is she potentially benefits the other team, making 2 of her abilities have possible negative effects. I don't feel her power is where it should be if she can benefit the other team, especially looking at all the abilities that benefit the other team or harm your team.
killerkoala wrote: i find it weird they unpinned this before it activated.
atomzed wrote: Dauthi wrote: Sure, it's debateable, but the point was that she is not a good character generally. I feel like it takes one combo of blue/red to get her going, not just one blue. After the initial combo, if you can gather most of the charge tiles, yeah she can start rolling. Her problem is she potentially benefits the other team, making 2 of her abilities have possible negative effects. I don't feel her power is where it should be if she can benefit the other team, especially looking at all the abilities that benefit the other team or harm your team. Debatable that she is bottom 5? Definitely not. I think it's arguable that she is mid tier, but she is definitely not bottom tier. Her core mechanics are fine, but after the nerf to the number of charge tiles for blue she becomes slower to start . When she starts going however, she moves fast.
Chrono_Tata wrote: 4-star Thor is still a pretty good character, but her main problem and the reason she's underused in PvP is that there is no good complementary character for her. With Hulkbuster, you can pair him up with Jean for almost-rainbow coverage, or Iron Fist for extremely fast black gathering to red conversion. With Thor on the other hand, there isn't any character that works well with her. The only other charged tile generator (apart from Surfer anyway) is Ragnarok, and his charged tile generation power clashes in colour with Thor, not to mention that he sucks. There isn't really a good red or blue generator that plays well with her either. The best red generators are 3-star Cyclops and 4-star Hulkbuster, but those characters have such good red powers anyway that there is no point to use Thor as a red outlet. The only decent blue generator is Bobby, but again his blue is good enough that he doesn't need an outlet either. The only other good blue generator is 2-star Magneto, but obviously no one is gonna use him in PvP at the 4-star level. Make a new 3- or 4-star character that can effectively generate charged tiles on other colours that are not red and blue, or a character that generate red or blue and has good colour complements with Thor, and you're see her used a lot more often.
Dauthi wrote: Back on topic, regardless of being top 10 or top 5, she still became more relevant in MPQ thanks to the nerf to 3*s. Mid-tier 4*s are a prime example of who got a bump.
Chrono_Tata wrote: 4-star Thor is still a pretty good character, but her main problem and the reason she's underused in PvP is that there is no good complementary character for her.
Dauthi wrote: atomzed wrote: Debatable that she is bottom 5? Definitely not. I think it's arguable that she is mid tier, but she is definitely not bottom tier. It's completely off-topic, but who are the bottom 5 to you, and where would she stand above them?
atomzed wrote: Debatable that she is bottom 5? Definitely not. I think it's arguable that she is mid tier, but she is definitely not bottom tier.
Dauthi wrote: atomzed wrote: Bottom 5? Surely you exaggerate. With Mr F, Chulk, IW, Elektra, Starlord around, she cannot be at bottom 5. Sure, it's debateable, but the point was that she is not a good character generally....
atomzed wrote: Bottom 5? Surely you exaggerate. With Mr F, Chulk, IW, Elektra, Starlord around, she cannot be at bottom 5.
Dauthi wrote: What about the fact that she can benefit the other team? That is my problem with her, and what makes her debateable. I feel like D3 doesn't know how to tally charge tiles. When an ability is left to chance, it should be stronger than a typical one. It's completely off-topic, but who are the bottom 5 to you, and where would she stand above them?