state of the union

SnowcaTT

Linkster79 wrote:

From the topic title I thought the Confederates were getting out of line again.....

I was wondering originally if this was an ask for the "what will happen in a year" thread. IceIX did one (late 2014? early 2015?) saying that there would be "lots more 4*'s" in the coming year, and hinting on some content (I think it was DDQ hinted at?). The problem is then we all just wonder where that content is when it isn't there in six months, and that "lots of characters coming" in hind-sight felt more like a warning than an upcoming benefit.

I'd love another "this is what will be coming in the next year", but from "red responses" over the last year I think the devs may have learned their/a lesson.

Polares

Druss wrote:

...
When X-Force was ruling the roost he got nerfed (way too much imo) when Sentry/hood was ruling they also got mega-nerfed, Neither were as strong as OML.

What?!?! Sentry+Hood killed the entire whole team in 3 or 4 turns! And xforce had an attack that killed one guy and crippled the AP of the rest of the team (he wouldn't be as strong now, but at the time he ruled supreme).

Then we had the super broken chars, Magneto could play infinitely without the other player doing anything, Spiderman could stunlock the other team completely, and Ragnarok also could play forever without the other team doing a move. Those were broken.

How is that not as strong as OML?!?!

The big problem is that all 5s, even SS, are much strong that all the other chars in the game, specially because of the match damage. As an example, Rhulk when buffed has 30k hitpoint and an AoE that does 13k which is quite close to 400 level 5s EXCEPT for the match damage and criticals.

Warbringa

Reading all of the posts, you would think the OP is posting about the haves and have nots. Those that have usable OMLs cry like the dickens about don't you dare nerf my OP character and those that don't have usable OML cry about not being able to compete and the unfairness of rng and such and such. Both sides reactions are actually true and valid. This post is really about how the game is not balanced and broken as the OP explains. All of this angst and back and forth should really be reflected back onto the devs as opposed to the community going at itself.

kwyjibo

Thanks warbringa. That's spot on

fnedude

Hi Nelly! (haha)

re: Changing PvE

The problem I see with that is that then EVERY event becomes Gauntlet, to me, ewww. I don't like Gauntlet because the end (about last 4 lvls( become super hard fighting what, lvl 350+ 4*s, that's no fun to me with only 2 4*'s championed (and working on 3rd). Otherwise you have a point reward system that we have now with PvE. While I like the current system, I can NEVER place over 150 in competitive events (read new character), because I can only play once a day at night. So everyone who can grind the optimal 8hr pattern will beat me in points (and I'm fine with that).

I'd like the idea of a Gauntlet-style event with only progression rewards up to 25CP and 3* and 4* rewards. But I don't know how you scale it so that the people that score top 10 now, don't feel like all the time they spend isn't worth 1x 4*, they want 3x 4* covers dammit! ( ) It would give people like me that only score top 150 a chance at the 4* cover (which I would appreciate!) but never have the chance to earn enough points to compete with a Top50 player.

So while this new PvE "test format" helps me personally, and I don't mind the +lvls each time you defeat the enemy. BUT the starting level of the nodes and the +lvls is scaled WAY TOO HIGH, because to me, it's not fun fighting lvl 200+ dudes on the first try. If it had started (for me) in the 100's, and then +7 lvls per defeat, so that by the time I've ground it 7x, I've only added 50 levels, then I wouldn't have that "Oh F! It feeling", when each time you win, it's +19lvls (I don't want to grind that kind of node).

carrion_pigeons

Every argument about game design follows the same track.
1) Someone says the game has an unfun design flaw.
2) Someone else says "well it can't be fixed without upsetting the whales, so it won't be"
3) Someone else says "screw the whales"
4) Someone else says "whales are the most invested players and deserve to be catered to, screw everyone else"
5) Someone else says "the real problem with the game isn't even the whales, it's [largely unrelated complaint]"
6) Someone else says "well that can't be fixed without upsetting the whales either, so it won't be"

Guess what the real design flaw is?

ammenell

kwyjibo wrote:

well played sir and i see your point.

mine is what about the masses that don't have him?

ignore every single 5* and you will be fine.