'Boosted' Characters Rebalancing Post-Champions

1568101113

Comments

  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,296 Chairperson of the Boards
    Yep, this PVP would have been eye-opening if the issue was not so obvious from the beginning. Beyond 700 points, 350+ Hulkbusters all the way the eye can see. 33k HP, almost 1.2k+ per red AP on Repulsor Punch. For contrast, my level 300 Colossus (only 50 levels below) can deal at most 5.5k damage with Colossal Punch. I need 6 of those (66 AP) in order to down him. He only needs 19 AP to kill my Colossus. But hey, 3*s are overpowered, ain't I right? Maybe another nerf is necessary?
  • atomzed
    atomzed Posts: 1,696 Chairperson of the Boards
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Yep, this PVP would have been eye-opening if the issue was not so obvious from the beginning. Beyond 700 points, 350+ Hulkbusters all the way the eye can see. 33k HP, almost 1.2k+ per red AP on Repulsor Punch. For contrast, my level 300 Colossus (only 50 levels below) can deal at most 5.5k damage with Colossal Punch. I need 6 of those (66 AP) in order to down him. He only needs 19 AP to kill my Colossus. But hey, 3*s are overpowered, ain't I right? Maybe another nerf is necessary?

    I know your opinion about this topic. But I didn't really probe...

    I just want to find out what you think the gap should be between the star levels. I e. How should the gap be like between a buffed 1* and non-buffed 2*, buffed 2* vs non buffed 3*?

    From what I see, d3 is developing 4* tier to be the backbone of the roster. This has happened before, when they shift the meta from a 2* to a 3* meta.

    When this happened in the past, there was a gap between 2* and 3*. And this was before the rotating buff happened.

    Nerf or no nerf, there needs to be a gap between the backbone of the roster (in the past it was 3* and now it will be 4*). Question is, what do you think the gap should be?
  • RoboDuck
    RoboDuck Posts: 142 Tile Toppler
    atomzed wrote:
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Yep, this PVP would have been eye-opening if the issue was not so obvious from the beginning. Beyond 700 points, 350+ Hulkbusters all the way the eye can see. 33k HP, almost 1.2k+ per red AP on Repulsor Punch. For contrast, my level 300 Colossus (only 50 levels below) can deal at most 5.5k damage with Colossal Punch. I need 6 of those (66 AP) in order to down him. He only needs 19 AP to kill my Colossus. But hey, 3*s are overpowered, ain't I right? Maybe another nerf is necessary?

    I know your opinion about this topic. But I didn't really probe...

    I just want to find out what you think the gap should be between the star levels. I e. How should the gap be like between a buffed 1* and non-buffed 2*, buffed 2* vs non buffed 3*?

    From what I see, d3 is developing 4* tier to be the backbone of the roster. This has happened before, when they shift the meta from a 2* to a 3* meta.

    When this happened in the past, there was a gap between 2* and 3*. And this was before the rotating buff happened.

    Nerf or no nerf, there needs to be a gap between the backbone of the roster (in the past it was 3* and now it will be 4*). Question is, what do you think the gap should be?

    If 4 stars are the new backbone of the game, shouldn't there be a viable means to build a 4 stat roster first? The "easiest" option currently is pve progression, but the LT reward is pure luck. Every other option is pretty much unobtainable for the majority of the gamerbase.
  • atomzed
    atomzed Posts: 1,696 Chairperson of the Boards
    RoboDuck wrote:

    If 4 stars are the new backbone of the game, shouldn't there be a viable means to build a 4 stat roster first? The "easiest" option currently is pve progression, but the LT reward is pure luck. Every other option is pretty much unobtainable for the majority of the gamerbase.

    I agree. I think that there should be more 4* rewards . They have initially increase it for pve but I think more should be done.
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,296 Chairperson of the Boards
    atomzed wrote:
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Yep, this PVP would have been eye-opening if the issue was not so obvious from the beginning. Beyond 700 points, 350+ Hulkbusters all the way the eye can see. 33k HP, almost 1.2k+ per red AP on Repulsor Punch. For contrast, my level 300 Colossus (only 50 levels below) can deal at most 5.5k damage with Colossal Punch. I need 6 of those (66 AP) in order to down him. He only needs 19 AP to kill my Colossus. But hey, 3*s are overpowered, ain't I right? Maybe another nerf is necessary?

    I know your opinion about this topic. But I didn't really probe...

    I just want to find out what you think the gap should be between the star levels. I e. How should the gap be like between a buffed 1* and non-buffed 2*, buffed 2* vs non buffed 3*?

    From what I see, d3 is developing 4* tier to be the backbone of the roster. This has happened before, when they shift the meta from a 2* to a 3* meta.

    When this happened in the past, there was a gap between 2* and 3*. And this was before the rotating buff happened.

    Nerf or no nerf, there needs to be a gap between the backbone of the roster (in the past it was 3* and now it will be 4*). Question is, what do you think the gap should be?


    Someone above answered in the same general sense I would have, but I guess I'll still give it to you straight of the horse's mouth. The 1k PVP progression reward is the /only/ way in the whole game to get a certain, specific 4* that most people can theoretically achieve. PVE now gives specific 4*s as well, but only the 0.1% of players in a bracket will get them. So what should the gap be? I'm not sure, it would require tons of testing but the general answer is "whatever allows 3* players to reach 1K in PVP reliably and without excessive expense or pains".

    Thinking about it, (thanks for asking this question), I realise that if that 1K reward wasn't the thing at stake (or if it wasn't so unique and damned necessary), perhaps I wouldn't mind the nerf half as much. As it is, the problem is that the gap is keeping people away from their most certain path to go over the gap!
  • Chrono_Tata
    Chrono_Tata Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    Well, since the devs did ask for specific feedback about how this change have affected us, and since Real Steel is running right now: a level 170, boosted to 295, Colossus only does around 3.5k damage to the enemy in front with Colossal Punch when he's out front. That's pitiful damage for a boosted character in his own featured event. Meanwhile, you have weekly-boosted Hulkbuster doing 10k damage with only a 9AP. Yes, this is a boosted levelled 4-star character, but wasn't the whole point of boosting to let lower rarity characters compete with higher rarity characters?

    The whole fun with boosted character events was to get people to use characters they probably wouldn't use normally and try to build a supporting team around it, as those featured characters get boosted to a point where they can punch well above their weights. With the new change, the featured characters are so weak for people already playing at the 4-star level (i.e. most vets) that I just end up using Jeanbuster all the time, cause the fully levelled boosted 3-star are basically deadweight.

    The only exception so far has been the Heavy Metal event, but that's only because IM40's yellow works well regardless of level.
  • dr tinykittylove
    dr tinykittylove Posts: 1,459 Chairperson of the Boards
    Well, since the devs did ask for specific feedback about how this change have affected us, and since Real Steel is running right now: a level 170, boosted to 295, Colossus only does around 3.5k damage to the enemy in front with Colossal Punch when he's out front. That's pitiful damage for a boosted character in his own featured event. Meanwhile, you have weekly-boosted Hulkbuster doing 10k damage with only a 9AP. Yes, this is a boosted levelled 4-star character, but wasn't the whole point of boosting to let lower rarity characters compete with higher rarity characters?

    The whole fun with boosted character events was to get people to use characters they probably wouldn't use normally and try to build a supporting team around it, as those featured characters get boosted to a point where they can punch well above their weights. With the new change, the featured characters are so weak for people already playing at the 4-star level (i.e. most vets) that I just end up using Jeanbuster all the time, cause the fully levelled boosted 3-star are basically deadweight.

    That cannot be right. My 176 Colossus boosted to 301 does 2220+3700 when in front, plus 1481 to others. That should be enough to deal with a maxed but non-boosted 4*.

    It probably seems worse this week because so many people have HB covered and levelled and he's one of the top 4*s while covering red and black - and yes his black is better than Colossus. Plus he has 50+ levels on Colossus with the weekly boost.

    For me, the featured 3*s have been about equal to a maxed 4*, which seems like what the boosts seem to have intended. I generally avoid taking on high level 5*s with my 4*s as well.

    During the IM40 pvp I used his blue and red as appropriate as well, depending on who I paired him with uncluding 4*s.
  • Chrono_Tata
    Chrono_Tata Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    Well, since the devs did ask for specific feedback about how this change have affected us, and since Real Steel is running right now: a level 170, boosted to 295, Colossus only does around 3.5k damage to the enemy in front with Colossal Punch when he's out front. That's pitiful damage for a boosted character in his own featured event. Meanwhile, you have weekly-boosted Hulkbuster doing 10k damage with only a 9AP. Yes, this is a boosted levelled 4-star character, but wasn't the whole point of boosting to let lower rarity characters compete with higher rarity characters?

    The whole fun with boosted character events was to get people to use characters they probably wouldn't use normally and try to build a supporting team around it, as those featured characters get boosted to a point where they can punch well above their weights. With the new change, the featured characters are so weak for people already playing at the 4-star level (i.e. most vets) that I just end up using Jeanbuster all the time, cause the fully levelled boosted 3-star are basically deadweight.

    That cannot be right. My 176 Colossus boosted to 301 does 2220+3700 when in front, plus 1481 to others. That should be enough to deal with a maxed but non-boosted 4*.

    It probably seems worse this week because so many people have HB covered and levelled and he's one of the top 4*s while covering red and black - and yes his black is better than Colossus. Plus he has 50+ levels on Colossus with the weekly boost.

    For me, the featured 3*s have been about equal to a maxed 4*, which seems like what the boosts seem to have intended. I generally avoid taking on high level 5*s with my 4*s as well.
    Whoops yeah I made a typo there. What I meant was 3.5k on top of the base damage of 2.1k. Either way, that's still a pretty low damage for what you would expect from a levelled, boosted character. For example, my non-boosted, level 273 Jean has 14k HP, so the boosted Colossal Punch isn't even doing enough damage to take out half her HP, and she's one of the lower health tier characters. Not even taking into account that Colossus won't do that damage all the time if he's not out in front, especially when played by the AI, but that's a different issue.

    The last time Real Steel was run, I remember being terrified of Colossus because he could easily wreck your team if you're not careful. Now I just leave him till last cause his damage is so hilariously tiny. True, I can just punch my way to easy victory with boosted HB, but I'm having way less fun than I was when we actually had to creatively build teams to make the best of the featured characters.
  • atomzed
    atomzed Posts: 1,696 Chairperson of the Boards
    Pylgrim wrote:

    Someone above answered in the same general sense I would have, but I guess I'll still give it to you straight of the horse's mouth. The 1k PVP progression reward is the /only/ way in the whole game to get a certain, specific 4* that most people can theoretically achieve. PVE now gives specific 4*s as well, but only the 0.1% of players in a bracket will get them. So what should the gap be? I'm not sure, it would require tons of testing but the general answer is "whatever allows 3* players to reach 1K in PVP reliably and without excessive expense or pains".

    Thinking about it, (thanks for asking this question), I realise that if that 1K reward wasn't the thing at stake (or if it wasn't so unique and damned necessary), perhaps I wouldn't mind the nerf half as much. As it is, the problem is that the gap is keeping people away from their most certain path to go over the gap!

    Thanks for the answer!

    So what you are saying is that as long as you can use your 3* to get 1k, you will be happy with whatever gap it is?

    Hmm... I seen players who get to 1.3k with just 3* alone. I really didn't think that it is impossible to get to 1k with 3* alone. It seems that there is a differences with what you experience and what I see experience.

    Someone pointed out to me that when you fully champ a 3*, you will see a level 465 3*. With that cap level in mind, I can see why d3 has to ensure that the ability damage for 3* is not excessively high.
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,296 Chairperson of the Boards
    atomzed wrote:
    Pylgrim wrote:

    Someone above answered in the same general sense I would have, but I guess I'll still give it to you straight of the horse's mouth. The 1k PVP progression reward is the /only/ way in the whole game to get a certain, specific 4* that most people can theoretically achieve. PVE now gives specific 4*s as well, but only the 0.1% of players in a bracket will get them. So what should the gap be? I'm not sure, it would require tons of testing but the general answer is "whatever allows 3* players to reach 1K in PVP reliably and without excessive expense or pains".

    Thinking about it, (thanks for asking this question), I realise that if that 1K reward wasn't the thing at stake (or if it wasn't so unique and damned necessary), perhaps I wouldn't mind the nerf half as much. As it is, the problem is that the gap is keeping people away from their most certain path to go over the gap!

    Thanks for the answer!

    So what you are saying is that as long as you can use your 3* to get 1k, you will be happy with whatever gap it is?

    Hmm... I seen players who get to 1.3k with just 3* alone. I really didn't think that it is impossible to get to 1k with 3* alone. It seems that there is a differences with what you experience and what I see experience.

    Someone pointed out to me that when you fully champ a 3*, you will see a level 465 3*. With that cap level in mind, I can see why d3 has to ensure that the ability damage for 3* is not excessively high.

    I can get to 1.3k points with 3*s alone. It just takes a crapload of boosts, shields, luck and the use of Line to find cupcakes and warn truce-allies not to hit you, which is a necessity, due to the fact that a fight against maxed, boosted (and championed) 4*s can easily take 5 minutes (or be lost, altogether), while those teams can easily defeat you 2-3 times in the meantime. It was difficult already but more reliably possible before the nerf (and buff of boosted 4*s). Ever since the nerf, the "luck" component in my equation above weighs much more heavily because the ratio of 3*s' powers' damage to 4*s' HP dropped like a stone, resulting in, in average, much longer fights and much more punishing cascades. Be lucky that the opponent's monster of the week doesn't get a cascade in the colour of the ability that can obliterate your characters in one hit. Be lucky that the board is favourable so the game doesn't drag on and on for interminably minutes. Be lucky that not many snipers are sniffing around while you are hopping, etc.

    Also it cannot be right that 3*s go all the way up to 465* since a max championed 3* doesn't even get to the max level of an unboosted, unchampioned 4*. So it should boost to under 350? Not to mention that answers that imply months and months of investment championing 3*s to return them to former power levels are automatically dismissable.
  • atomzed
    atomzed Posts: 1,696 Chairperson of the Boards
    Pylgrim wrote:
    I can get to 1.3k points with 3*s alone. It just takes a crapload of boosts, shields, luck and the use of Line to find cupcakes and warn truce-allies not to hit you, which is a necessity, due to the fact that a fight against maxed, boosted (and championed) 4*s can easily take 5 minutes (or be lost, altogether) [/b]

    So if that's the case, isn't the current situation fits the criteria that you have mentioned?
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Also it cannot be right that 3*s go all the way up to 465* since a max championed 3* doesn't even get to the max level of an unboosted, unchampioned 4*. So it should boost to under 350? Not to mention that answers that imply months and months of investment championing 3*s to return them to former power levels are automatically dismissable.

    Tbh I am not sure. Maybe kingdreadnaught will know. In any case, you missed the point. They still want a gap between champ 3* and max 4*. If they keep it to the pre-nerf level, then champ 3* may be more effective than 4*, that its not worth it to level 4*. Especially when you consider how expensive it is to level 4*.
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,296 Chairperson of the Boards
    atomzed wrote:
    Pylgrim wrote:
    I can get to 1.3k points with 3*s alone. It just takes a crapload of boosts, shields, luck and the use of Line to find cupcakes and warn truce-allies not to hit you, which is a necessity, due to the fact that a fight against maxed, boosted (and championed) 4*s can easily take 5 minutes (or be lost, altogether) [/b]

    So if that's the case, isn't the current situation fits the criteria that you have mentioned?

    Which criteria? The one I'm remembering mentioning was "possible without need of excessive cost or pains", which I'm pretty sure is not what I attempted to illustrate above. Again, I remind you my prior conclusion: This wouldn't be such a problem if there were other ways of earning certain 4* covers. I'm guessing that 2* players have a similar hardship to reach 800 points in PVP for the 3* cover. However, the game is littered with other opportunities to earn certain 3* covers so it's not backbreaking and they can progress at a healthy pace. For 3* transitioners, there are limited opportunities, especially since they made prohibitively more expensive the cost of purchasing 4* covers with currency, so progression pretty much depends on the ability to reach 1k in PVP. The combined weight of the buff to boosted 4*s (and the addition of 2 boosted 4*s per week) plus the nerf to boosted 3*s is way too much of a curtailment to that proposition.
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Also it cannot be right that 3*s go all the way up to 465* since a max championed 3* doesn't even get to the max level of an unboosted, unchampioned 4*. So it should boost to under 350? Not to mention that answers that imply months and months of investment championing 3*s to return them to former power levels are automatically dismissable.

    Tbh I am not sure. Maybe kingdreadnaught will know. In any case, you missed the point. They still want a gap between champ 3* and max 4*. If they keep it to the pre-nerf level, then champ 3* may be more effective than 4*, that its not worth it to level 4*. Especially when you consider how expensive it is to level 4*.

    A pre-nerf champ 3* may be more effective than a normal 4* but the reality is that it will be fighting against boosted and champed 4*s which still be superior. The gap already existed and since 4*s can be championed too AND received a buff to their boosted levels, there was no need to increase that gap. It doesn't matter if you own a 266 3* Cyclops, you still want to get a 270 Hulkbuster, which will be still be much stronger when boosted and astronomically higher when champed and boosted.

    Also, there needs to be mentioned that your support for this change comes from someone in a position that greatly benefited from it. You cannot expect those who paid the cost for said benefit at their expense to agree with you since you are not experiencing their newly acquired hardships.
  • atomzed
    atomzed Posts: 1,696 Chairperson of the Boards
    You mentioned the criteria in a few posts above when I ask you about how big the gap is.

    Your answer was that the gap should be small enough that 3* can consistently hit 1000 for the 4* reward.

    And subsequently we both agree that with 3* it is possible to hit 1000 and above.

    The question is whether you deem it reasonable effort... This part is where we have to agree to disagree.
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Also, there needs to be mentioned that your support for this change comes from someone in a position that greatly benefited from it. You cannot expect those who paid the cost for said benefit at their expense to agree with you since you are not experiencing their newly acquired hardships.

    Well, pylgrim, if you play this card, you are basically saying that I cannot comment on this issue since i "benefited from it".

    My argument is simple:
    1) Between any star levels, there needs to be a gap.
    2) The gap is bigger between the backbone level and the lower star levels. In the past it was 3*, and hence the gap between the 3* and 2* was quite big. Now it has shifted to 4*.
    3) Max Champ 3*, when buffed, will reach a sufficiently high level as unbuffed 4*.
    4) If 3* remains as the previous trajectory, then 3* will be stronger than 4*, and point number 2 won't hold any more.

    Whether I have a 4* or 5* roster is irrelevant to my argument.

    But... Since you already predetermined that my viewpoints don't hold weight, then I shall disappear from the discussion. Tata!
  • Lemminkäinen
    Lemminkäinen Posts: 378 Mover and Shaker
    Also worth noticing IMO is that a max champed 3* is an order of magnitude more work to get than a max non-champed 4*.
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,296 Chairperson of the Boards
    atomzed wrote:
    You mentioned the criteria in a few posts above when I ask you about how big the gap is.

    Your answer was that the gap should be small enough that 3* can consistently hit 1000 for the 4* reward.

    And subsequently we both agree that with 3* it is possible to hit 1000 and above.

    The question is whether you deem it reasonable effort... This part is where we have to agree to disagree.

    I did add the part of not excessive expense or pains and also used the word "reliably". Yes, I've hit 1.3k, but I also have NOT hit 1k a few times after being barraged almost 200 points while doing a last hop to go from 950 to 1k or by unexpectedly losing a fight which demanded an additional shield-hop and I didn't have the HP for it. And "losing a fight", you see, is something that has become much more common now that each battle takes significantly longer than before. You can only deny red and black to Hulkbuster for so many turns.
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Also, there needs to be mentioned that your support for this change comes from someone in a position that greatly benefited from it. You cannot expect those who paid the cost for said benefit at their expense to agree with you since you are not experiencing their newly acquired hardships.

    Well, pylgrim, if you play this card, you are basically saying that I cannot comment on this issue since i "benefited from it".

    I never said or meant that you could not comment for that reason. I apologise if that's how you felt it was said. I was just contextualising our discussion. You have been questioning my arguments from a clear perspective of being above and beyond the issue, where you can take a clinical, detached look at it and theorise and justify it. I was just meaning to level our perspectives and point that your defence of the nerf may or may not be subconsciously biased by either being benefited by it or not being able to experience its negative consequences. It was only meant to be a call for empathy.
    My argument is simple:
    1) Between any star levels, there needs to be a gap.
    2) The gap is bigger between the backbone level and the lower star levels. In the past it was 3*, and hence the gap between the 3* and 2* was quite big. Now it has shifted to 4*.
    3) Max Champ 3*, when buffed, will reach a sufficiently high level as unbuffed 4*.
    4) If 3* remains as the previous trajectory, then 3* will be stronger than 4*, and point number 2 won't hold any more.

    1) Sure... wait, thinking about it, why? This is a rather arbitrary and too generalised argument. Who cares about the existence of a "gap" (between what? boosted 3* vs unboosted 4*? boosted + champed + cosmic + exalted + etc vs unmaxed but hallowed and hyper?) There are way too many variables even without the hyperbole and saying that there "should" be a gap between any of those states is entirely arbitrary and tangent to the game. Now if you said "4*s should comfortably, even easily, beat 3*s in PVP" I'll agree with you, but not without pointing that it was already the case pre-nerf and that the buff to boosted 4* levels alone was a more than sufficient measure to guarantee it kept being that way for the foreseeable future.
    2) I will not disagree with you here, but it seems that you have decidedly ignore here the point I've been pushing lately: There's no reward support to guarantee a comfortable progression pace into this new "backbone" because the only sure way in is has been made considerably more difficult. I repeat: If there where other venues for 3* players to acquire certain 4* covers, we wouldn't be having this argument. Basically what I'm saying at this point is "either remove the nerf and leave things as they are now or leave the nerf in but allow us to get 4* covers in sufficient other ways that make missing the 1k reward in PVP (when it happens) not crippling to progression."
    3) This is basically the same as 1). Who cares about values of boosted vs unboosted values? I'd allege that characters should be comparatively powerful if they have the same levels regardless of their number of stars, but again, the point is that boosted and/or champed 3*s will seldom have to face unboosted 4*s. Most times they will face boosted and/or champed 4*s that can easily mop the floor with them or at least make victory difficult and slow.
    4) This argument is purely speculative. You are presuming that an un-nerfed 3* could rival the 4*s of today. So you are saying that at some point a 3* would have over 30k HP with powers that deal over 1k damage per AP, like some 350 4*s do? I dunno, but I guess than an un-nerfed, feature-boosted, max-champed one could? But the moment you have to introduce "max-champed" you need to be reminded that 4*s get champion levels too and that a 450 4* will be beastly stronger than any 3* can possibly be.
    Whether I have a 4* or 5* roster is irrelevant to my argument.

    I'm sure you believe this and are acting in good faith. Again, I wasn't meaning to say that you are some evil, entitled veteran or anything of the sort. But for example, being 4* (or 5*?) makes you completely blind to my argument to 2) since you neither desperately need the 1k reward nor have any difficulty getting it. Similarly, it may be the subconscious bias that makes you propose something like 4) or makes you believe that the gap (or theoretical absence of it) in 1) and 3) is an institution that must be respected over the reality (not experienced by you) of players on the other side of the gap.
  • Dauthi
    Dauthi Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Yes, I've hit 1.3k, but I also have NOT hit 1k a few times after being barraged almost 200 points while doing a last hop to go from 950 to 1k or by unexpectedly losing a fight which demanded an additional shield-hop and I didn't have the HP for it. And "losing a fight", you see, is something that has become much more common now that each battle takes significantly longer than before. You can only deny red and black to Hulkbuster for so many turns.

    As a 4* transitioner that had around 4-5 4*s for a long time, I have had the same experience of not getting the 1k prize because I am being eaten alive by attacks. This means very little for both of us though since this is affected by all kinds of variables (bracket, time etc). You also can't assume everyone has the best 4*s, other 4*s aren't nearly as menacing as HB, and offer little protection from 3*s attacking you.
    Now if you said "4*s should comfortably, even easily, beat 3*s in PVP" I'll agree with you, but not without pointing that it was already the case pre-nerf and that the buff to boosted 4* levels alone was a more than sufficient measure to guarantee it kept being that way for the foreseeable future.

    This is the problem, it really wasn't. If you had say a maxed Antman, 3*s would eat you alive still. An Antman pre-3* nerf was horridly worse than any given buffed 3* that week. You many not have experienced it, but people in your tier above you like myself did. It made me feel like there was no point to having 4*s, except the top 3. Even buffed "middle of the road" 4*s would be a joke to any buffed top 3*.

    I agree that the buff to 4*s helped, but, as far as I can tell, it was to everyone not to just 4*s. Around 300 3*s will feel it too, this just means they have to be championed and buffed to get there.
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,296 Chairperson of the Boards
    Dauthi wrote:
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Yes, I've hit 1.3k, but I also have NOT hit 1k a few times after being barraged almost 200 points while doing a last hop to go from 950 to 1k or by unexpectedly losing a fight which demanded an additional shield-hop and I didn't have the HP for it. And "losing a fight", you see, is something that has become much more common now that each battle takes significantly longer than before. You can only deny red and black to Hulkbuster for so many turns.

    As a 4* transitioner that had around 4-5 4*s for a long time, I have had the same experience of not getting the 1k prize because I am being eaten alive by attacks. This means very little for both of us though since this is affected by all kinds of variables (bracket, time etc). You also can't assume everyone has the best 4*s, other 4*s aren't nearly as menacing as HB, and offer little protection from 3*s attacking you.
    Now if you said "4*s should comfortably, even easily, beat 3*s in PVP" I'll agree with you, but not without pointing that it was already the case pre-nerf and that the buff to boosted 4* levels alone was a more than sufficient measure to guarantee it kept being that way for the foreseeable future.

    This is the problem, it really wasn't. If you had say a maxed Antman, 3*s would eat you alive still. An Antman pre-3* nerf was horridly worse than any given buffed 3* that week. You many not have experienced it, but people in your tier above you like myself did. It made me feel like there was no point to having 4*s, except the top 3. Even buffed "middle of the road" 4*s would be a joke to any buffed top 3*.

    Your post introduces another variable to this whole mess which is character quality. I can see you struggling if you only maxed 4* is Ant-Man, though if that's the case you should use you good boosted 3*s (and be upset at their nerf). However, by your own admission, you have taken the position of thinking that your mediocre 4* should be better than a good, boosted 3* on principle alone, so the nerf to 3*s is welcome in your eyes. But that's neither here and there, because there are mediocre 3*s as well. I am absolutely positive that a 270 Ant-Man will wipe the floor with a 290 Spider-Man or Falcon or similar. "But," you'll say, "that's not what I see at higher levels of play! It's all backbreaking boosted 3* Cyclops, Kamalas, Cages and Iron Fist, not counting obviously the people running the good, boosted 4*s." Well, that's exactly my argument, too. I don't see Ant-men after 800 points. It's all Jeanbusters, Icemen and Rulks, who can dance around the best 3*s.

    I already mentioned this, but the only basis for your support of the nerf is a disgruntlement with the way your 4* roster cards were dealt and rejoicing in the ones below you being brought even lower so you can more easily squish them. Instead you should be identifying that the real problems that need to be addressed for people in your position are the impact of luck in the 4* transition and the huge gap of power between 4*s.
    I agree that the buff to 4*s helped, but, as far as I can tell, it was to everyone not to just 4*s. Around 300 3*s will feel it too, this just means they have to be championed and buffed to get there.

    You know, the supporters of the nerf (or the people just indifferent to it) usually bring this up: "Eh, just wait until you have champed your 3*s 50 levels (going by Aes's calculations) and then it will be all good again." I've been thinking about it today and I'm not even going to touch how outright unhelpful and even mean is telling someone experiencing an issue today, that things will be ok in the future. Instead, I'll just focus on how championing will actully help a 3* transitioner progress (spoiler alert: not at all).

    Let's say that the average 3* transitioner can, more often than not, reach the 1k reward (at a significant amount of expense and pains, but whatever.) The average 4* player, on the other hand, more often than not reaches the 1.3k reward at a comparatively lower amount of expense and pains. Now let's take in account, that nowadays 1k points are not enough for top 25 placement (except in outlier late-opening brackets). That means that the average 3* player mentioned above will get out of a PVP two 3* covers (one from the 800 point reward and one from placement) and one 4* cover. Conversely, the average 4* player will get three 3* covers (two from placement) and two 4* covers (counting the 25 Cp at 1.3k points as a 4* at the very least,) not to mention, more Iso, HP and CP.

    This means that every 2.5 days or so, in average, the 4* player gets one more 3* and 1 more 4* than the 3* player. Moreover, the 4* player will use their 4*s to champion their maxed 4*s while the 3* players will use the 4* cover to actually cover the character in question. 3 times per week, after a year, the 4* player will have roughly gained 150 more 3* and 4*s than the 3* player.

    So no, the fact that one day, far in the future, our 3*s will be 266, their old power finally recovered and even perhaps increased, is not a solace either psychologically nor technically; the already troubling gap in power between us and the next tier of players will have just constantly and relentlessly increased instead of diminished.
  • gigatilburg29
    gigatilburg29 Posts: 88 Match Maker
    1. before the new championing feature - 3* could compete with 4*
    2. D3.............Hey we have this awesome new feature....championing. Extra covers to make characters stronger
    3. D3 nerf 3*, you have to collect additional 100 covers PER character to make them justs as strong before the championing.

    Wow cool new feature, instead of 13 covers we now have to collect a 100 more.
  • chamber44
    chamber44 Posts: 324 Mover and Shaker
    Also worth noticing IMO is that a max champed 3* is an order of magnitude more work to get than a max non-champed 4*.
    quoted because it bears repeating.

    And, because at the end of the day, players that have maxed 270's aren't stopping there. They'll champion those and keep going -- which is fine.

    but, i felt a lot better about using my maxed 3Clops, IF, and SW/Daken/whomever even against lower level 4's in PvP before the nerf.
  • CaptainFreaky
    CaptainFreaky Posts: 451 Mover and Shaker
    chamber44 wrote:
    Also worth noticing IMO is that a max champed 3* is an order of magnitude more work to get than a max non-champed 4*.
    quoted because it bears repeating.

    And, because at the end of the day, players that have maxed 270's aren't stopping there. They'll champion those and keep going -- which is fine.

    but, i felt a lot better about using my maxed 3Clops, IF, and SW/Daken/whomever even against lower level 4's in PvP before the nerf.

    Exactly. Take the Colossus PVP. Piotr was so underwhelming - high health meant matches were slow, but not threatening. Granted he's low to mid tier at best in 3* land, but even boosted, his redflag.png was not intimating at all, even from lvl 290+ versions. I basically just ignored him til the end. Even boosted GSBW wasn't much of a threat, as her lvl 240+ Sniper Rifle isn't what it used to be. Basically, when I used my few decent 4* characters (luckily GT was boosted), I just rolled over the boosted 3* teams without breaking much of a sweat. I don't think that's very good for the game.

    The 3* tier needs to be returned to it's former (preR91) levels of ability damage between lvl 167-290, then if Demiurge wants to level out the increases above lvl 290 then I'd be fine with that so as not make them "more powerful then similar level 4* characters" above lvl 290 (though that will be debatable).

    My only other thought is that Demiurge is preparing for another shoe to drop such as tiered level play or some other play mode that allows 3* to compete for 4* prizes other than 1K PVP. But, given the glacial pace of development on new play modes at Demiurge, I'm not holding my breath for that.