'Boosted' Characters Rebalancing Post-Champions

halirin

Paired with a 3/5/4 hb, colossus red was the way to go after the strike tiles came out.

CaptainFreaky

halirin wrote:

Paired with a 3/5/4 hb, colossus red was the way to go after the strike tiles came out.

Agree that HB can help power Colossus , but I could also just smite with GT pretty reliably (and then use either Rulk or IM40/battery as a third). My point was that facing off against Colussus really brought home how much damage was reduced on boosted 3*. The last time this PVP ran, I remember having to really watch enemy lest my side take a really nasty Colossus punch. This time around, I really didn't care if the enemy collected unless they had someone more dangerous who could use it. Colossus just wasn't a threat like he was last PVP which is my frame of reference.

Dauthi

Pylgrim wrote:

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, *snip*

Not on principle, but on time spent on the characters. How long and how much resources did it take you to champion your Punisher? How long and how much resources did it take for me to bring up my Antman?

I am absolutely positive that a 270 Ant-Man will wipe the floor with a 290 Spider-Man or Falcon or similar.

This is a completely disingenuous comparison. If you are going to compare characters, at least compare ones that can do damage and are in the same tier. This make me wonder if you even understand how strong Antman is or isn't.

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.

Like I mentioned above, this makes me feel like your lack of 4* experience is interferring with what is happening. Antman isn't that bad (again I think the best comparison is Punisher in the 3* realm). Before the 3* nerf, even when Antman was buffed, guys like Cyclops, Thor, etc would wipe the floor with him. This is what you should be addressing, was it ok for 3*s to be that powerful? Secondly, if they were left alone with champions introduced, they would be even more powerful.

Dauthi wrote:

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.

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. *snip*

Let's nip this right now, because you have a very warped representation of players who own 4*s. First I will start by saying I have never gotten 1300 points in pvp. I tried a few times a long time back and more often than not I would fail, so decided it wasn't worth my time, effort, or HP. I think the players you are thinking of are the very small percentage who use coordinated hopping, because otherwise 1300 isn't easy for anyone at my level.

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.

This is assuming a lot here, but I already addressed that it is not easy for players of my level to get 1300, so many shield at 1k and throw in the towel. This means many are tied with 3* rosters at top 50/100 per pvp.

Also, a lot of 4*s don't bother with PVE making it 3*s bread and butter. It's an even playing field where you can earn 3*s covers, so you should factor this in too.

Pylgrim

Dauthi wrote:

Not on principle, but on time spent on the characters. How long and how much resources did it take you to champion your Punisher? How long and how much resources did it take for me to bring up my Antman?

This is a fair argument. Conceded.

I am absolutely positive that a 270 Ant-Man will wipe the floor with a 290 Spider-Man or Falcon or similar.

This is a completely disingenuous comparison. If you are going to compare characters, at least compare ones that can do damage and are in the same tier. This make me wonder if you even understand how strong Antman is or isn't.

Fair enough. Storm? Psylocke? I still see Ant-Man coming ahead.

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.

Like I mentioned above, this makes me feel like your lack of 4* experience is interferring with what is happening. Antman isn't that bad (again I think the best comparison is Punisher in the 3* realm). Before the 3* nerf, even when Antman was buffed, guys like Cyclops, Thor, etc would wipe the floor with him. This is what you should be addressing, was it ok for 3*s to be that powerful? Secondly, if they were left alone with champions introduced, they would be even more powerful.

You may be right that I have no personal experience with a maxed Ant-Man, but I try to keep my finger on the pulse of what 4* players think about 4* characters, and he's widely derided. Sure, not entirely useless depending on the matchup and accompanying characters, and rather fun to play with, but decidedly towards the lower end of the bottom half in power. Then, you bring up some of the best 3*s and my points stands. I don't see a reason why the top tier 3*s, when boosted, shouldn't have an easy time with unboosted mid-bottom and lower 4*s. I insist, the problem is not that /those/ 3*s are too strong, but rather than Ant-Man is too weak and you got screwed by luck. It's like a transitioning 2* player completing an IM40 (pre-buff) first out of all other 3*s and complaining of being owned by boosted Ares and Moonstone.

Also yes, un-nerfed boosted and champed 3*s would be quite powerful, but my other point remains as well. Boosted-curve-corrected AND champed 4*s are MUCH more powerful. May I ask you about your experience with your 350(+?) Ant-Man? Do you think it would have as much trouble against a 240 Cyclops, un-nerfed?

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. *snip*

Let's nip this right now, because you have a very warped representation of players who own 4*s. First I will start by saying I have never gotten 1300 points in pvp. I tried a few times a long time back and more often than not I would fail, so decided it wasn't worth my time, effort, or HP. I think the players you are thinking of are the very small percentage who use coordinated hopping, because otherwise 1300 isn't easy for anyone at my level.

Sorry for saying this, but it seems to me that you are the one who have a warped representation given your own condition. I'll say that your owning one mediocre maxed 4* makes you more of a 3* transitioner than a 4* player. The problem is that you want to believe you are! Yes, I know that you spent quite a bit of Iso maxing him, but as I said, that's the unlucky way fate's dice rolled for you. I wouldn't call a player with a 166 Psylocke and a bunch of other 120 uncompleted 3*s a 3* player, either. Again, what screwed you was luck and the disbalance of power levels among 4*s, not the fact that some boosted 3*s were giving you problem. For anyone whose luck meant that they got a 270 Hulkbuster, Iceman, JG or Rulk instead of Ant-Man, 3*s boosted, un-nerfed or whatnot represent very little trouble. You are telling me that such players shouldn't be taken as representative of the 4* tier (even though, in reality, when you are playing at the higher levels, that's all you see!) but I ask of you, why do you think players in your position should be representative instead? Isn't it cleaner for purposes of the argument to put the players that own good 4*s as the tier representative from which conclusions about power level gaps can be drawn, and all players that don't have maxed good 4* stars as transitioning players?

This is assuming a lot here, but I already addressed that it is not easy for players of my level to get 1300, so many shield at 1k and throw in the towel. This means many are tied with 3* rosters at top 50/100 per pvp.

This, if nothing else should prove to you my point that you are in the same position as a transitioning 3* player. I know that your investment has been higher, but again, you should decry the issues that kept you in a lower tier than you should be, rather that wanting that tier to be pushed down so you'd be higher in comparison. Think about it: If your Ant-Man is having an easier time post-boosted 3* nerf, how much of an easier time are the Jeanbuster players having? So your little moral victory of having your Ant-Man feel more powerful is worthless for progression purposes because the players with good 4*s are still advancing leaps and bounds quicker than you as they can snack on nerfed 3*s much faster and easily than you. And you probably are a snack for them as well, sorry to say.

TLCstormz

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.

Omg. Please stop.

TheOncomingStorm

TLCstormz wrote:

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.

Omg. Please stop.

What was the topic of this thread again? You know, the one ppl said needed to be bumped to keep on page 1?

Lemminkäinen

Pylgrim wrote:

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.)

I think that an average 3* transitioner isn't hitting 1000 and that's because their MMR is really high due to having between one and three useless five-stars. The 3* transitioners hitting that 1000 aren't average, not by a long shot. I'd argue that they weren't average even before the five-stars but now they are decidedly non-average. So with that background in mind, I think that your estimation that 4* transitioners getting to 1300 is just as valid.

And now, with the 3* power nerf, those 3* transitioners really, really aren't hitting 1000 on average.

Because really, the power nerf has been especially fatal to PvP. Hit points went up, power damage went down = matches take longer. In other words, you get hit more (by the 4-stars) while hopping.

atomzed

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

What was the topic of this thread again? You know, the one ppl said needed to be bumped to keep on page 1?

Well, I was talking to pylgrim about the 3* "nerf" and how big the gap it ought to be.yes, I have a different opinion from him and I tried to explain why.

Is that not on topic?

Pylgrim

atomzed wrote:

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

What was the topic of this thread again? You know, the one ppl said needed to be bumped to keep on page 1?

Well, I was talking to pylgrim about the 3* "nerf" and how big the gap it ought to be.yes, I have a different opinion from him and I tried to explain why.

Is that not on topic?

Actually, if I may, you haven't explained /why/ you think a gap is necessary or how big you think it should be.

atomzed

Pylgrim wrote:

atomzed wrote:

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

What was the topic of this thread again? You know, the one ppl said needed to be bumped to keep on page 1?

Well, I was talking to pylgrim about the 3* "nerf" and how big the gap it ought to be.yes, I have a different opinion from him and I tried to explain why.

Is that not on topic?

Actually, if I may, you haven't explained /why/ you think a gap is necessary or how big you think it should be.

True. Let me explain my view point, which is probably going to be unpopular.

Having a higher star tier character must feel like an upgrade over the lower star tier. That gives a sense of progression, when you feel that you have a better roster than before. Hence, a gap is definitely necessary.

I think most will agree that a gap is necessary (as it is absurd if a 1* is as good as a 3*).

The point of contention will always be about the size of the gap between the stars tier. This is hard to determine... I personally feel that the 5*-4* gap is too big.

Before the nerf, the 3*-4* gap is too small. Characters like Antman and Fury and Wolverine are rarely played even when boosted.

So I am glad to see them increaSing the 4*-3* gap, so that people will feel that it is worthwhile leveling those mid tier 4*.

Another point is that I foresee more changes happening to the 4* tier. Such as a possible 4* only pvp. Or the increase of 4* rewards in pvp, which we have seen in pve. So the "nerf"to 3* is a necessary route for them, before they can roll out more 4* rewards. If they don't, then people will just continue to use their 3*, and they will have a harder shifting the meta to a 4* meta.

Pylgrim, you mentioned that d3 should increase the 4* cover flow BEFORE nerfing the 3*. Maybe they could have done it better, may be they can have a better transition. I don't disagree with that.

But I still see this change as necessary for the game long term sustainability. Hence I an supportive of it.

Anyway, I know this is not a popular opinion since I have been ridiculed by TLC and TOS. That's fine by me, I am aware of the opposing view point and respect their freedom to hold a different view point from mine.

Warbringa

I respond because I am seeing what Pylgrim is seeing as well.

Ant-Man is a middle tier 4* that excels against certain enemies, those that produce tiles that you can steal. I wouldn't consider him a high tier 4*. High damage 3* stars should wipe the floor with him as that is what this game has always been about damage. What usually puts a character at the top of his tier? Damage. That is more of an issue with the game itself rather than a valid argument that 3* characters are too powerful because the high damage ones wipe out Ant-Man. Ares is a high damage 2* that boosted could wipe out many 3* characters and he still can. There has always been a bleed over effect between tiers as lower to mid quality 3* for example aren't as good as 2* Ares or 2* OBW (OBW Espionage deals really good damage).

Pylgrim's point is valid. I don't see 4* teams in PvP with Ant-Man. If I did, I would relish it. Instead they are all RHulk, Iceman, Jean and HB plus the required 3*. That doesn't even count the occasional functioning 5* team (5+ covers) that sometimes shows ups. I would play happily against 4* teams if they used a variety of 4* characters but they don't. They use the power 4* characters which happen to all be great damage dealers (although RHulk is more utilitarian than the other 3). I don't blame those players as I would use those characters too. The issue is that it will be a long,long time before I can get covers to use all of those characters. I need a few more to make HB useful but I am a long way off on the other ones with no way to guarantee progression towards this except RNG (much like all the 4* players that complain about 5*) since PvP 1000 cover is so very difficult for me to obtain. The shift to no longer being able to buy cover for 4* has created a dramatic gap in the game for progression as those that did so early benefited from it dramatically and those who are nearing that point now no longer can do so....

I have no issue with no longer being able to buy covers but there needs to be a way to reliably get 4* covers beyond what there is now. The ability that veteran players had in being able to spend HP to get that last necessary cover (or more) for IMHB or Iceman etc. is huge and we are seeing the impact (along with the 3* nerf) now in a dramatic divergence in the game. If it is kept as is, tiered play is a necessity.

Actually a lot of 4* rosters play PvE and I can attest to this. I look at the players around me all the time and top 100 teams are mainly developed 4* rosters in my brackets. Top 10 are all 5* rosters. My goal is to break 100 on a PvE whereas I used to shoot for top 10 to top 50 less than six months ago.

Nellobee

The boosts should be the equivalent of +1*. So a great boosted 3* team should be able to go toe to toe reasonably with Jeanbusters unboosted. Boosted 4*'s should be able to fight 5*s on a level playing field.

simonsez

Nellobee wrote:

a great boosted 3* team should be able to go toe to toe reasonably with Jeanbusters unboosted.

Is the argument that they're not? I'm looking at the boosted 3's in Oscorp, and Storm's black, Cmag's blue, GSBW's green all do damage per AP similar to unboosted 4*s. And those aren't even great 3*s

notamutant

simonsez wrote:

Nellobee wrote:

a great boosted 3* team should be able to go toe to toe reasonably with Jeanbusters unboosted.

Is the argument that they're not? I'm looking at the boosted 3's in Oscorp, and Storm's black, Cmag's blue, GSBW's green all do damage per AP similar to unboosted 4*s. And those aren't even great 3*s

All of the skills you listed are some of the most damaging moves in the 3 star range...

Warbringa

simonsez wrote:

Nellobee wrote:

a great boosted 3* team should be able to go toe to toe reasonably with Jeanbusters unboosted.

Is the argument that they're not? I'm looking at the boosted 3's in Oscorp, and Storm's black, Cmag's blue, GSBW's green all do damage per AP similar to unboosted 4*s. And those aren't even great 3*s

Yes the argument is that they cannot unless you have them covered enough (lvl 266) to get them back to where their pre-nerf power levels were. My boosted 3*, even with the best damage characters, have a very difficult time with Jeanbusters due to the 3* nerf whereas before the nerf, yes I would have been able to win on a more consistent basis. Actually 3* Magneto is one of the best damage dealers in that tier.

simonsez

Warbringa wrote:

My boosted 3*, even with the best damage characters, have a very difficult time with Jeanbusters due to the 3* nerf whereas before the nerf, yes I would have been able to win on a more consistent basis..

Probably because boosted 3*s used to better than unboosted 4*s, which they shouldn't be.

simonsez

notamutant wrote:

All of the skills you listed are some of the most damaging moves in the 3 star range...

There are plenty of 3* skills better than those. Don't act like cmag, storm and gsbw represent cherry-picking the best 3*s.

amusingfoo1

Pylgrim wrote:

Sorry for saying this, but it seems to me that you are the one who have a warped representation given your own condition. I'll say that your owning one mediocre maxed 4* makes you more of a 3* transitioner than a 4* player. The problem is that you want to believe you are! Yes, I know that you spent quite a bit of Iso maxing him, but as I said, that's the unlucky way fate's dice rolled for you. I wouldn't call a player with a 166 Psylocke and a bunch of other 120 uncompleted 3*s a 3* player, either. Again, what screwed you was luck and the disbalance of power levels among 4*s, not the fact that some boosted 3*s were giving you problem. For anyone whose luck meant that they got a 270 Hulkbuster, Iceman, JG or Rulk instead of Ant-Man, 3*s boosted, un-nerfed or whatnot represent very little trouble. You are telling me that such players shouldn't be taken as representative of the 4* tier (even though, in reality, when you are playing at the higher levels, that's all you see!) but I ask of you, why do you think players in your position should be representative instead? Isn't it cleaner for purposes of the argument to put the players that own good 4*s as the tier representative from which conclusions about power level gaps can be drawn, and all players that don't have maxed good 4* stars as transitioning players?

I'm not going to put words in Dauthi's mouth (I have no real idea why he chose Ant-Man to argue about), but I looked up his roster (search for alliance 'Shake N Bake', then for him). I see Kingpin@277, Hulkbuster@275, Ant-Man@274, Fury@274, Prof@272, Thoress@272, Iceman@271. I think he has some clue what he's talking about.

For myself, I will say that I've seen far more Ant-Man this time around, than the last time he was boosted (and have even heard a few people singing his praises vs OML). I will also say that, having recently hit max-4* land (i.e.: within the last two or three weeks), buffed & maxed 3*s are not a problem (although I usually took a lot of damage from Fist/Cage teams when they were boosted last week), even with unbuffed, but championed, 4*s. Though it is true that I'm only playing the top-tier 4*s in PvP; they're the only ones I have remotely close to maxed.

Nellobee

notamutant wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Nellobee wrote:

a great boosted 3* team should be able to go toe to toe reasonably with Jeanbusters unboosted.

Is the argument that they're not? I'm looking at the boosted 3's in Oscorp, and Storm's black, Cmag's blue, GSBW's green all do damage per AP similar to unboosted 4*s. And those aren't even great 3*s

All of the skills you listed are some of the most damaging moves in the 3 star range...

And I am pretty sure GSBW has slightly less healltg than IMHB. Slightly.

Pylgrim

atomzed wrote:

Having a higher star tier character must feel like an upgrade over the lower star tier. That gives a sense of progression, when you feel that you have a better roster than before. Hence, a gap is definitely necessary.

I don't disagree with this. However, what if the gap was big enough that players are not being able to win these "sense-of-progression" covers? That's right, no sense of progression (nor actual progression) at all.

I think most will agree that a gap is necessary (as it is absurd if a 1* is as good as a 3*).

Again, I don't entirely disagree and yet, a 166 Juggernaut feels like a good 3* character and a 270 Ares feels like a good 4*. It seems to me that the game is designed so characters of similar level have similar power levels regardless of star count. This is alleviated by the fact that in PVP every tier gets a set of boosted characters so you are supposed to use your boosted characters to flatten the lower tiers' boosted characters. Difference of powers between characters in a tier throws a wrench in the system making the best characters of a tier clearly better than the worst characters in the tier above, but that's another tale.

The point of contention will always be about the size of the gap between the stars tier. This is hard to determine... I personally feel that the 5*-4* gap is too big.

I'll take your word for it. I'm not doing that transition right now and the 5*s I see in PVP are similarly powered as boosted 4*s. Could you please take my word (and the word of hundreds of others, going by the poll I made a while ago) as a 3* transitioner that the current gap between 3*s and 4*s is too big? It may not /feel/ like so to you, but for us is a very real /experience/.

Before the nerf, the 3*-4* gap is too small. Characters like Antman and Fury and Wolverine are rarely played even when boosted.

So I am glad to see them increaSing the 4*-3* gap, so that people will feel that it is worthwhile leveling those mid tier 4*

How is this an argument for anything? We have people like Daredevil, She-Hulk, Psylocke and many more in the 3* tier, too. That doesn't mean I'm going to clamour for a blanket nerf for the 2* tier so these characters would feel stronger in comparison. Like I've been telling Dauthi, if you feel that it is a problem, lobby for the buffing of those weak 4 *s instead of supporting the nerfing of a whole other tier of characters.

Another point is that I foresee more changes happening to the 4* tier. Such as a possible 4* only pvp. Or the increase of 4* rewards in pvp, which we have seen in pve. So the "nerf"to 3* is a necessary route for them, before they can roll out more 4* rewards. If they don't, then people will just continue to use their 3*, and they will have a harder shifting the meta to a 4* meta.

Pylgrim, you mentioned that d3 should increase the 4* cover flow BEFORE nerfing the 3*. Maybe they could have done it better, may be they can have a better transition. I don't disagree with that.

Well, I guess I can agree with this. At some point, changes that may make sense of the nerf may come, but when? It's been almost 2 months. If those changes were not coming immediately, nerfing the characters in advance is unconscionable. As I pointed to Dauthi, every single PVP that a 3* player is unable to attain the 1k reward represents a small, but cumulative increase of the gap of progression between 3* and 4*s. This means that by the time 3* rosters get to the point where they can again, comfortably reach 1k in PVP against the rosters of players that make it very difficult nowadays, those players will have advanced their own rosters even more, becoming comparatively even more powerful than they are now. 2 months are 24 PVPs. I am on the top end of the 3* transition so I have "only" missed the 1k reward twice in those 24 PVPs (and not missing it when the reward was that precious Red Hulk took many more shields than I'm happy with.) I expect that more average transitioners missed many more of those rewards.

But I still see this change as necessary for the game long term sustainability. Hence I an supportive of it.

What is the benefit to long term sustainability? Even IF boosted 3*s were too powerful pre-nerf (funny that I almost never heard a complain in that regard back then), the buff to 4* boosted levels plus the addition of 2 boosted characters per PVP alone would have easily ironed that wrinkle. All the nerf did was to negatively affect the 3* transitioners' long term progression, as I detailed above.

Anyway, I know this is not a popular opinion since I have been ridiculed by TLC and TOS. That's fine by me, I am aware of the opposing view point and respect their freedom to hold a different view point from mine.

I know I'm on the same side of the argument as TLC but I have to say I don't support his content-lacking, person-attacking posts.

amusingfoo1 wrote:

I'm not going to put words in Dauthi's mouth (I have no real idea why he chose Ant-Man to argue about), but I looked up his roster (search for alliance 'Shake N Bake', then for him). I see Kingpin@277, Hulkbuster@275, Ant-Man@274, Fury@274, Prof@272, Thoress@272, Iceman@271. I think he has some clue what he's talking about.

For myself, I will say that I've seen far more Ant-Man this time around, than the last time he was boosted (and have even heard a few people singing his praises vs OML). I will also say that, having recently hit max-4* land (i.e.: within the last two or three weeks), buffed & maxed 3*s are not a problem (although I usually took a lot of damage from Fist/Cage teams when they were boosted last week), even with unbuffed, but championed, 4*s. Though it is true that I'm only playing the top-tier 4*s in PvP; they're the only ones I have remotely close to maxed.

Uh... if he has that roster he shouldn't have any problem with 3*s. I'm kind of offended by the fact that he was telling me to my face that 3*s were too powerful all the while completely flattening the best 3* boosted teams with a 355 Hulkbuster just the previous week. So he has /an/ Ant-man and he feels that he's entitled to have that character destroy as much face as the top 4*s he has, but instead of asking for a buff for that character alone, he supports the nerf of the whole tier below... that's petty beyond words.