The 3* Nerf Reality

Pylgrim

Ruinate wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

When the pair of boosted iron fist and Luke cage, two of the stronger 3*s can't reliably beat unboosted Jeanbuster, you cannot present one isolated victory as proof of anything. I, too, accidentally brought once the team of 2*s I use for ddq into a PvP battle against maxed 3*s and managed to win. I wouldn't do it again, nor try to pass it as petulant evidence that 2*s are overpowered.

I get that having your tier nerfed is upsetting, but let's be real here. I get hit by those two turds all the time.

The key word in my post is "reliably". Sure, I won around 75% of those battles; they were slow and more often than not required 2-3 health packs at the end. Sure I don't have to explain you how those numbers and figures are not great when you're hopping near 1k points. Or that unboosted Jeanbuster is arguably one of the smaller threats found when around that score.

Vhailorx

Dauthi wrote:

A lot of players are up in arms about the 3* nerf, and I hear a lot them saying 3*s are worthless/useless, so I thought it would be good to create a topic that has reliable information on what has happened, and what it means. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I feel this whole change needs to be analyzed from a neutral standpoint. Let's also keep in mind the lack of communication from the developers is a separate discussion.

First, level 166 3*s and below were not effected. This nerf applied to the boosts given to 3*s to keep them in line with the power levels of 4*s. Pre-nerf 3*s ability power scaled very quickly past 166. In comparison when a 4* broke 166 the power increase was very gradual. This nerf should have made the power creep of 3*s similar to 4*s now, so your 270 3* should be comparible to a 270 4* of the same tier (top tier 3* characters vs top tier 4* characters for example).

Let's make some comparisons in this thread to clear things up using the whatever boosted 3*s we can compared to non-boosted 4*s. Looking at Luke Cage's yellow at level 240, when both allies are alive (an easy requirement), it does about 645 damage per ap spent. This is higher than Hulkbuster's red at 270. This is a pretty good comparison because both abilities are top tier in the 3* and 4* realm.

Haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if I am just restating someone else's argument.

Dauthi, while you are facts are almost certainly correct (haven't checked, no reason to think you are wrong), I think your argument kinda misses the point. People aren't upset because Cage doesn't do X more damage/ap than IMHB. They upset because

(1) boosted 3*s were the mainstay of most veteran players in both PVE and PVP. Even after 2 years, there aren't many people who have deep 4* rosters relative to the total playerbase. There are plenty of active forum veterans who don't yet have deep 4* rosters. But with ddq now a year old, most people who play the game regularly have a decent stable of 3*s and will probably have 1 or 2 of the weekly boosted 3*s each week.

(2) Prior to the introduction of 5*s and championing, it was generally possible to get to 1k fairly easily (and 1.3k with some shielding) so long as one or two decent 3*s were boosted for the event. When some awesome combo like Cage or Cylcops and Iron Fist were boosted, it was possible to hit 1k without any trouble at all.

(2) Prior to 5*s and champing, the top end opponents in PVP were going to be boosted 4*s or the premier PVP teams like IMHB/IF or JeanBuster.

(3) In the current meta, top tier PVP opponents are boosted, championed 4*s and 350+ 5*s. These characters have 25,000+ or even 35,000+ health. during the recent gauntlet event my champion IMHB had something like 39,000 health and did 1200+ damage per ap.

(4) The combination of all these factors means that most players are now reliant on weaker 3* characters to fight MUCH stronger PVP opponents at the highest end of play. (and I haven't even discussed PVE). It's not like the speed of 4* transition has been increased all that much, so most players are still in 3* land with maybe a handful of 4*s at or close to max.

I suspect that someone could create a decently strong argument that the balance shift is good for the overall health of the game, but of course people are irritated given those circumstances. And the fact that newly nerfed 240 Cage is on par with a 270 IMHB doesn't make much difference because the 240 Cage isn't worried about fighting a 270 IMHB, he's worried about fighting a 405 IMHB or a 420 OML.

TxMoose

oh and here comes a week with imhb boosted - good luck 3* players.

morph3us

Vhailorx wrote:

I suspect that someone could create a decently strong argument that the balance shift is good for the overall health of the game, but of course people are irritated given those circumstances. And the fact that newly nerfed 240 Cage is on par with a 270 IMHB doesn't make much difference because the 240 Cage isn't worried about fighting a 270 IMHB, he's worried about fighting a 405 IMHB or a 420 OML.

Very well stated argument.

I would say in response, without being able to read Demiurge's collective minds, that they've deliberately recalibrated the scale upon which levelling occurs from the 1* to 4* tiers up to level 370, so that it is relatively linear and makes sense. This was probably important because there was some really weird stuff going on before, where we were having to give advice to 2-3* transitioners that a level 94 3* was actually weaker than a level 94 2* in terms of match damage and ability damage, and that the equivalence point was probably closer to 110-120 for a 3*.

Secondly, you're absolutely right, in that there's been a level shift in terms of the boosted 4*s and unboosted/boosted 5*s, where the 3* teams are going to face sigificant difficulties in overcoming those teams due to their massive health pools. As you say, there's been a level/health shift that happened without most of us really noticing until the levelling recalibration that's brought that into stark relief. I don't know to what extent MMR protects 3* players from this. I've noticed that since I've shifted from a 4* roster where I was facing max boosted 3* teams and 4* teams, to a 5* transition roster, I'm now facing max boosted/champed 4*s and 5* teams. I don't see 3* teams anymore. It would be interesting to hear a comment from a 3* player whether they feel that MMR protects them from impossible targets/retals or not.

Thirdly, given the level/health shifts, and the fact that there's been a deliberate recalibration of levels to be linear across 1-4* tiers, it seems unlikely that 3*s will be rebuffed anytime soon. As such, if MMR isn't protecting those 3* teams, it really seems like an appropriate time to implement leagues in PvP, so players are facing appropriate levels of difficulty.

Dauthi

Druss wrote:

Which is easier though?

Acquiring 13 covers for a 4* + 600K or Acquiring 113 3* covers & 150k iso?

Actually, it is more like 63 covers + 150k iso. This would put your 3* when buffed to 240/250 right in the sweet spot near 300 where their stats sky rocket. Most regulars have probably gotten around 15 extra covers or so for their best covered 3*, so I think it is debateable to say those are comparable in difficulty. With all the 4*s releasing, I wonder if aquiring 4*s would be harder, getting just a single one championed will take a long time.

Dauthi

aesthetocyst wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Druss wrote:

Which is easier though?

Acquiring 13 covers for a 4* + 600K or Acquiring 113 3* covers & 150k iso?

Actually, it is more like 63 covers + 150k iso. This would put your 3* when buffed to 240/250 right in the sweet spot near 300 where their stats sky rocket. Most regulars have probably gotten around 15 extra covers or so for their best covered 3*, so I don't think it is debateable to say those are comparable in difficulty. With all the 4*s releasing, I wonder if aquiring 4*s would be harder, getting just a single one championed will take a long time

120K iso maxes a 3*. 63 covers makes said 3* lvl 216 unbuffed, well beyond 240 when buffed for LR, PVP, weekly, or PVE. But yes, a 216 will buff well beyond 270, well into the "exponential zone".

The clarification is much appreciated

morph3us wrote:

=
I don't know to what extent MMR protects 3* players from this. I've noticed that since I've shifted from a 4* roster where I was facing max boosted 3* teams and 4* teams, to a 5* transition roster, I'm now facing max boosted/champed 4*s and 5* teams. I don't see 3* teams anymore. It would be interesting to hear a comment from a 3* player whether they feel that MMR protects them from impossible targets/retals or not.

Thirdly, given the level/health shifts, and the fact that there's been a deliberate recalibration of levels to be linear across 1-4* tiers, it seems unlikely that 3*s will be rebuffed anytime soon. As such, if MMR isn't protecting those 3* teams, it really seems like an appropriate time to implement leagues in PvP, so players are facing appropriate levels of difficulty.

I'm still competing against plenty of 3* rosters for my 1k, for whatever my anecdotal information is worth.

Sandwichboy

Sure, I'm also seeing lots of teams with IF and LC this past week. And sure, on offence, they can still take down just about anything short of a 5* team with some boosts. But I'm not afraid of attacking them anymore. Used to be I ran the risk of either a loss or likely burning 2-3 health packs even if I ran a mirror, especially if I was rushing through a shield hop but now? Now my backbone 4* can eat a righteous uppercut and shrug it off. And THAT'S the difference. Those teams will still win matches TO A POINT. And then they will get crushed like the juicy queues they are. Because that's what even 3/3 boosted 3* teams are now. When a 70 level boost to a championed lazy cap is only increasing his shield throw by a hilarious 700 damage, that's not a character I'm remotely scared of no matter how much extra health he has.

Dauthi

Pylgrim wrote:

Let's take as an example kamala and Jean grey. For 12 green they deal a similar amount of damage (ignoring JG's bonus special tiles). When boosted, kamala actually deals a bit more. The difference is that 4k damage is 25% of the hp of your average 4* team (unboosted!) but almost 50% of an unboosted 3* team. But let's be realistic, people will play with the boosted characters, so 4k is around 15% of the average hp of a boosted 4* team and 35% of a 3* team. Am I coming through here? The 4* team will need around or less than 3 total Full of Surprises (unboosted, I don't know the damage of a boosted one) to down the 3* team, which will need anything between 6 or 7 Embiggened Bashes to win. This was obviously not so stark pre-nerf.

morph3us wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Were/are 3*s glass cannons? As far as I can tell 3*s with high health should have as much health as a Hulkbuster, for instance a She-Hulk and Rocket and Groot should be very close at 270, while Thor should be just under them. For reference, my She-Hulk is at 16,191 health at 253.

Hulkbuster as a character just isn't well balanced, a character should be a glass cannon, a tank with considerably less damage, or somewhere in between. Hulkbuster also fuels his cannon arguably the best out of any character in the game. You don't see anything as broken as him in the 3* realm.

If you look at the way health scales, you're absolutely correct, it appears to be on the same scale for 3*, 4*, and 5*. Looking at the off season BoP event, Wolverine (Patch), Wolverine (X-Force), and Wolverine (Old Man Logan) all had exactly the same health at level 550. Obviously that doesn't hold so true in normal events, since Patch is capped at 266 (plus boosts), XFW at 370 (plus boosts), and OML at 550 (plus boosts).

So we can all agree that 3*s and 4*s are equals, the problem is the level cap on 3*s. If your 3* is at 270, you should be able to stand toe to toe with a 4*. This means you would need a champion at 196, or 30 covers for the weakest buff. So which is easier, obtaining all 13 covers for a 4* and the ISO requirement, or championing your first 3* then getting 30 more covers for him.

So, 166-190 boosted 3*s are weaker than new 4*s, but beyond 190 would match then overpower them pretty quickly due to the frequency of 3* covers vs 4* covers.

carrion_pigeons

Not every buff is the huge buff the required character gets. Every week there are plenty of 3*s that are buffed by 50% or however it works where the gap between non-Champion max and "enough" Champion levels is quite a bit larger than 30 covers.

That said, this is obviously an issue that's going to resolve itself over time. As people get their Champions to high enough levels, the nerf will phase itself out. It'll just take a long, long time and extend the 4* transition by a lot.

Dauthi

carrion pigeons wrote:

Not every buff is the huge buff the required character gets. Every week there are plenty of 3*s that are buffed by 50% or however it works where the gap between non-Champion max and "enough" Champion levels is quite a bit larger than 30 covers.

That said, this is obviously an issue that's going to resolve itself over time. As people get their Champions to high enough levels, the nerf will phase itself out. It'll just take a long, long time and extend the 4* transition by a lot.

Anyone correct me if I am wrong, last I read on the forums, and from what I have observed, champion levels are added onto the buff after the buff applies. So if a 166 is buffed to 240 (the weakest buff), add 30 champion levels and you are at 270.

I agree, everyone will probably forget about this in a few more months when championed 3*s are able compete with non-buffed 4*s again, since championed 4*s move really really slow. If it weren't for the 4* buffs I would say 3*s would have the upper hand easily 6 months from now.

Warbringa

Malcrof wrote:

My Champed She-Hulk in her pvp, boosted, has over 20k health, and basically just Soloed a lvl 390 OML because my OML died.. stole strike tiles, 2500 aoe, ap depletion..

A support character.. a tank no less, took down a high level 5* basically solo...



Tell me again how under-powered they are?

Um...you said it yourself you were using OML too Malcrof. You only used She-Hulk because you had to and yes with the right board it is possible but you and I both know that outcome isn't going to be the usual outcome.

Warbringa

morph3us wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

I suspect that someone could create a decently strong argument that the balance shift is good for the overall health of the game, but of course people are irritated given those circumstances. And the fact that newly nerfed 240 Cage is on par with a 270 IMHB doesn't make much difference because the 240 Cage isn't worried about fighting a 270 IMHB, he's worried about fighting a 405 IMHB or a 420 OML.

Very well stated argument.

I would say in response, without being able to read Demiurge's collective minds, that they've deliberately recalibrated the scale upon which levelling occurs from the 1* to 4* tiers up to level 370, so that it is relatively linear and makes sense. This was probably important because there was some really weird stuff going on before, where we were having to give advice to 2-3* transitioners that a level 94 3* was actually weaker than a level 94 2* in terms of match damage and ability damage, and that the equivalence point was probably closer to 110-120 for a 3*.

Secondly, you're absolutely right, in that there's been a level shift in terms of the boosted 4*s and unboosted/boosted 5*s, where the 3* teams are going to face sigificant difficulties in overcoming those teams due to their massive health pools. As you say, there's been a level/health shift that happened without most of us really noticing until the levelling recalibration that's brought that into stark relief. I don't know to what extent MMR protects 3* players from this. I've noticed that since I've shifted from a 4* roster where I was facing max boosted 3* teams and 4* teams, to a 5* transition roster, I'm now facing max boosted/champed 4*s and 5* teams. I don't see 3* teams anymore. It would be interesting to hear a comment from a 3* player whether they feel that MMR protects them from impossible targets/retals or not.

Thirdly, given the level/health shifts, and the fact that there's been a deliberate recalibration of levels to be linear across 1-4* tiers, it seems unlikely that 3*s will be rebuffed anytime soon. As such, if MMR isn't protecting those 3* teams, it really seems like an appropriate time to implement leagues in PvP, so players are facing appropriate levels of difficulty.

Once I get to around 700-800 in PvP it is almost all 4* level 300+ rosters sometimes way more due to boosting and I get hammered late by 4* climbers that wait until the end if I am unshielded, so yeah MMR isn't protecting 3* rosters to answer your question. I normally don't even try to get to 700-800 anymore unless I have saved up tons of healthpacks. Yes I even see some developed 5* (5+ covers) at times too.

Pylgrim

Dauthi wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Let's take as an example kamala and Jean grey. For 12 green they deal a similar amount of damage (ignoring JG's bonus special tiles). When boosted, kamala actually deals a bit more. The difference is that 4k damage is 25% of the hp of your average 4* team (unboosted!) but almost 50% of an unboosted 3* team. But let's be realistic, people will play with the boosted characters, so 4k is around 15% of the average hp of a boosted 4* team and 35% of a 3* team. Am I coming through here? The 4* team will need around or less than 3 total Full of Surprises (unboosted, I don't know the damage of a boosted one) to down the 3* team, which will need anything between 6 or 7 Embiggened Bashes to win. This was obviously not so stark pre-nerf.

morph3us wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Were/are 3*s glass cannons? As far as I can tell 3*s with high health should have as much health as a Hulkbuster, for instance a She-Hulk and Rocket and Groot should be very close at 270, while Thor should be just under them. For reference, my She-Hulk is at 16,191 health at 253.

Hulkbuster as a character just isn't well balanced, a character should be a glass cannon, a tank with considerably less damage, or somewhere in between. Hulkbuster also fuels his cannon arguably the best out of any character in the game. You don't see anything as broken as him in the 3* realm.

If you look at the way health scales, you're absolutely correct, it appears to be on the same scale for 3*, 4*, and 5*. Looking at the off season BoP event, Wolverine (Patch), Wolverine (X-Force), and Wolverine (Old Man Logan) all had exactly the same health at level 550. Obviously that doesn't hold so true in normal events, since Patch is capped at 266 (plus boosts), XFW at 370 (plus boosts), and OML at 550 (plus boosts).

So we can all agree that 3*s and 4*s are equals, the problem is the level cap on 3*s. If your 3* is at 270, you should be able to stand toe to toe with a 4*. This means you would need a champion at 196, or 30 covers for the weakest buff. So which is easier, obtaining all 13 covers for a 4* and the ISO requirement, or championing your first 3* then getting 30 more covers for him.

So, 166-190 boosted 3*s are weaker than new 4*s, but beyond 190 would match then overpower them pretty quickly due to the frequency of 3* covers vs 4* covers.

I keep hearing this but no one has provided solid numbers or evidence yet. Anyone can tell me exactly at which level a given 3*'s ability is as strong as it was at level 240 or 290 pre-nerf?

Pylgrim

aesthetocyst wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

I keep hearing this but no one has provided solid numbers or evidence yet. Anyone can tell me exactly at which level a given 3*'s ability is as strong as it was at level 240 or 290 pre-nerf?

Semi-educated guesses ... speaking generally because abilities vary so much ... and since to my knowledge no one has comprehensive, level-by-level pre-R91 stats for abilities ...

The pre-R91 lvl 240 3* abilities should correspond to post-R91 lvl 300–305.

Lvl 240 was the old weekly buff cap. What level does a 3* have to be champed to to weekly buff to 300-305? About 215-220.

The pre-R91 lvl 290 3* abilities should correspond to post-R91 lvl 310–315.

Lvl 290 was the old PVP feature buff cap. What level does a 3* have to be champed to to feature buff to 310-315? About 185-190.

Again, shaky guesses based on what before and after data is available.

Thank you. So for the more common buffs and being optimistic (always a risky proposition with MPQ), we should be seeing old power levels at 215, (or maybe 216 and they made it so it would be exactly at the half-way through point?). That's 50 covers. My most advanced 3* is at 176 after almost two months, so I'll correct my previous "one year" estimation to 10 months of setback. Still, pretty ugly.

morph3us

Pylgrim wrote:

Thank you. So for the more common buffs and being optimistic (always a risky proposition with MPQ), we should be seeing old power levels at 215, (or maybe 216 and they made it so it would be exactly at the half-way through point?). That's 50 covers. My most advanced 3* is at 176 after almost two months, so I'll correct my previous "one year" estimation to 10 months of setback. Still, pretty ugly.

Just going to echo your "thank you", Pylgrim. Everyone's not agreeing with each other necessarily about the impact of the balance pass, but it's a really interesting conversation, and we're getting some semi-reliable data back about where things might start to "reset" back to where they were with championing.

As has been said, things will shake themselves out as people get their championed 3*s up, but the next few months are likely to be a tad ugly for some until they do.

Pylgrim

aesthetocyst wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Thank you. So for the more common buffs and being optimistic (always a risky proposition with MPQ), we should be seeing old power levels at 215, (or maybe 216 and they made it so it would be exactly at the half-way through point?). That's 50 covers. My most advanced 3* is at 176 after almost two months, so I'll correct my previous "one year" estimation to 10 months of setback. Still, pretty ugly.

Well, like I said, semi-informed guesses. Just as soon as my highest champs are featured—I have 10 3*s over 185—I'll let you know

How? I have a few characters at 174-176 and those are the ones of which I got placement rewards when they were offered in PVP and PVE /plus/ getting lucky a few times with tokens.