halirin wrote: Paired with a 3/5/4 hb, colossus red was the way to go after the strike tiles came out.
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*
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*.
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.
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.
I am absolutely positive that a 270 Ant-Man will wipe the floor with a 290 Spider-Man or Falcon or similar.
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.
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*
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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?
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.
Nellobee wrote: a great boosted 3* team should be able to go toe to toe reasonably with Jeanbusters unboosted.
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
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..
notamutant wrote: All of the skills you listed are some of the most damaging moves in the 3 star range...
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?
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...
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 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.
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 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 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.
