Pylgrim wrote: Since the devs answered that question, here's another non-inflammatory question that hopefully they can answer as well: Why does team Iron Man only get 4 buffed 4*s, when team cap gets 5?
fnedude wrote: re: HB "phased out" Why can't they look at how the "participation" was for last event, and say "Gee, it seemed very imbalanced because 80% of the alliances went Team IM because they had HB's, and Team Cap didn't have an equivalent", and they didn't want a repeat of that? I cruised through the IM node w/ my championed HB+champed 3* Cyc+Hood (and I imagine very one else who had them did the same thing). So they want to force players use a different team (because they want it to be a challenge), for a 5* reward (!). Who can blame them?
"David wrote: Moore"]I got word back from the developers and the removal of Hulkbuster is intended. There is a limited number of characters buffed in each run and he was removed to make room for War Machine.
Vhailorx wrote: fnedude wrote: re: HB "phased out" Why can't they look at how the "participation" was for last event, and say "Gee, it seemed very imbalanced because 80% of the alliances went Team IM because they had HB's, and Team Cap didn't have an equivalent", and they didn't want a repeat of that? I cruised through the IM node w/ my championed HB+champed 3* Cyc+Hood (and I imagine very one else who had them did the same thing). So they want to force players use a different team (because they want it to be a challenge), for a 5* reward (!). Who can blame them? Maybe that is true, but the problem is the compounded issues. They took out imhb, then buffed cap significantly, AND didn't add in any 4*s of remotely similar value to imhb (only war machine, who no one will have covered).
VASH1456 wrote: Quake as a cover,what a joke.
VASH1456 wrote: They take the best character (imhb) off the list cause they want people to use different strategies? A good portion of the 3* roster are useless and 4*'s aren't even good til you get 1st least 8 to 9 covers but it's hard when there's only a 0.01% (lol) that you'll pull one from a token.
Polares wrote: Vhailorx wrote: fnedude wrote: re: HB "phased out" Why can't they look at how the "participation" was for last event, and say "Gee, it seemed very imbalanced because 80% of the alliances went Team IM because they had HB's, and Team Cap didn't have an equivalent", and they didn't want a repeat of that? I cruised through the IM node w/ my championed HB+champed 3* Cyc+Hood (and I imagine very one else who had them did the same thing). So they want to force players use a different team (because they want it to be a challenge), for a 5* reward (!). Who can blame them? Maybe that is true, but the problem is the compounded issues. They took out imhb, then buffed cap significantly, AND didn't add in any 4*s of remotely similar value to imhb (only war machine, who no one will have covered). We KNOW this is the real reason, the problem is that they said the reason was ANOTHER ONE. Then they also buff Cap and the 4s left in the team are a 'joke' (one is new, Quake is super recent, most people doesnt have her covered, Reed is one of the worst 4s and the only one decent, but not specially good is Fury), so AGAIN they OVER-DO what we think they wanted to accomplish.
Azoth658 wrote: VASH1456 wrote: They take the best character (imhb) off the list cause they want people to use different strategies? A good portion of the 3* roster are useless and 4*'s aren't even good til you get 1st least 8 to 9 covers but it's hard when there's only a 0.01% (lol) that you'll pull one from a token. Wait you can't use OML??? Oh wait sorry I thought you meant they had locked your best players. Wait you can't even use IMHB??? Oh no wait a minute, he just isn't buffed. You can still use him but that 5670 damage for 9 AP absolutely needs a buff. I mean who would dare only give you a 5.5k move for 9 AP what terrible developers they are.... Oh P.S. I was beating Iron Man at round 7 with a 3* roster last time and he was the worse of the two bosses last time. Now on a general note I find all this complaining about IMHB frustrating. If the boss scaled with your level then fine moan away but he doesn't. So they've made it much harder for you to walk away with a guaranteed 5*, is this worse than not having a 5* in the rewards at all? If that 5* wasn't on the rewards and it was just a legendary token would you all be so precious about not having IMHB? Would you not rather have a wide roster of characters that are good and use strategy to take down bosses rather than one character who you need buffed? If there are any complaints surely it should be how much the boss has been buffed by instead of having one character who everyone seems to build a team around buffed. Look I know we can all complain and I'm sure I've been hypocritical on chastising these complaints with a prior post somewhere, but give the developers a break. They will make errors and they will disgruntle some but they've bought us two alliance events in month. Has that actually ever happened before? If I'm a developer and alliance events get grief why should I bother re-running them? It's this constant abuse about new content and changes that leaves us cycling through the same old content because (if it ain't broke and I don't get more grief, don't fix it). Why don't we actually tell the developers what we do like that they are doing? (Heck I'm thinking a positive thread is required) Right off my soapbox now. Sorry just had to say something.
Jam_Adams wrote: Azoth658 wrote: Snip Look. I get your points. IMHB is good, and he isn't completely locked out. so it's cool we can still use him. But why would they remove the boost from an Iron Man character, when he's obviously Team Iron Man? you say it's to make it challenging, since IMHB made it less challenging since he's so good and was boosted on top of that. but they already countered that in part by buffing Boss Cap. it's just nonsensical to not boost a Team Iron Man character especially when that particular character is IRON MAN!!! wasn't that a significant reason for creating affiliations for in-game characters? to boost particular characters for opposing sides during the CW event? sorry, i'll get off MY soapbox now.
Azoth658 wrote: Snip
Azoth658 wrote: Jam_Adams wrote: Azoth658 wrote: Snip Look. I get your points. IMHB is good, and he isn't completely locked out. so it's cool we can still use him. But why would they remove the boost from an Iron Man character, when he's obviously Team Iron Man? you say it's to make it challenging, since IMHB made it less challenging since he's so good and was boosted on top of that. but they already countered that in part by buffing Boss Cap. it's just nonsensical to not boost a Team Iron Man character especially when that particular character is IRON MAN!!! wasn't that a significant reason for creating affiliations for in-game characters? to boost particular characters for opposing sides during the CW event? sorry, i'll get off MY soapbox now. I agree that both things shouldn't have happened at the same time, also that Iron Man isn't boosted seems silly. They should have only changed the countdown tiles to work correctly and dropped IMHB as boosted (if he was prolifically used and smashing the boss too fast). Also let's not forget that Falcap is hardly on equal footing. My gripe was mainly fueled by the level of animosity being shown for losing IMHB (because of how good he is). If IMHB was Totally non Awesome Chulk in a Iron Man guise we probably wouldn't even have had one comment about his lack of boost. If what they said is true about only a certain amount of characters being able to be boosted maybe we could suggest dropping the 1* IM for 4* IMHB. There isn't a 1* Cap so that's also a thing
Linkster79 wrote: "David wrote: Moore"]I got word back from the developers and the removal of Hulkbuster is intended. There is a limited number of characters buffed in each run and he was removed to make room for War Machine. Thank you David for relaying this message, and thanks to the developers for standing by their ethos that they want the players to develop and use a wide roster and not rely on a core team of 3 or 4 top tier characters as a crutch. I feel that by removing the best 4* from run 1 there will be a much more diverse set of strategies that will encompass and reward players who have dedicated resources into lower tier characters like Mr Fantastic and can have their time to shine.
Omega Red wrote: The outrage over Hulkbuster is hilarious. At some point during the event you'll be glad he's not boosted. I won't explain when or why but it'll help. Mark my words.
udonomefoo wrote: Why does it seem like so many are hating on the Quake rewards? People just can't tell a good character when they see one?