Blahahah wrote: It's odd you say that, because I've yet to see any 5* videos put out that don't have OML in them. That is beyond the point though. If you're making a 3 person team in this game, and you have a well-covered OML, chances are extremely obnoxiously good that OML is always going to be a part of that team.
might even say that unless the enemy team specifically counters it (like Bss) then you have no reason not to choose him at every avenue. I don't buy that it is just "he's been out longer so people use him" because SS has been out way longer and is debated for a spot in comparison to (who else) OML. People can say that bss/gg, phx, im and them are better, but at the end of the day, OML is the one they'll use. At the end of it all, OML is still the best, even if not the strongest. Herein lies the issue between us, and that's what our definition of being "the best" is. You claim it's because other characters do better. I say it's because those characters have to be compared to how they deal with, or compliment, OML.
Let's take BB for example, for the sake of him being the most recent. Despite his clear synergy with SS, he was only regarded as being really "good" when people mixed him with OML and saw what happened. Up until then, as I know you saw, people were saying he was mildly underwhelming. BSS is literally only good because his passive counters OML and PHX as a team, but primarily he counters OML and that's his play in.
In fact, it's been evidenced that the only time you'd use BSS/GG is to counter the OML/PHX team specifically. Otherwise, there isn't much point to it. I see it as a problem when how good a character is falls squarely on how they interact with one single character. As much as you'd like to deny it, for a VAST majority of players it is true. OML is probably the most complained about character in the current day, and the joke "Only character who matters" moniker didn't come from nowhere. One character shouldn't define an entire meta from the ground up, but OML does, and you know he does.
So again, for those at the 0.01% who already don't use OML, him being changed won't shake anything up. According to you, there's plenty of other options already and that works out. For the rest of us at the 99.9% who have to shape our gameplans around having, not having, or going against OML, it matters more to us. I'd say name me one other 5* who affects the meta in the way OML does, but that character doesn't exist. That character hasn't existed since OML came out.
Blahahah wrote: If you don't touch the one reason people bring him along, then nothing changes. Shave the power off of all 5 cover levels, make him a tactical choice and not just a health pack saver. ESPECIALLY at lower levels though.
jobob wrote: Patch and Daken need nerfs, since they are the 3* OML, and thus cosmically OP.
Vhailorx wrote: Why do videos matter? everyone agrees that OML is the most commonly seen 5*, followed closely by Phoenix. My point is that that is for reasons totally separate from his strength relative other 5*s. You second sentence just a restatement of the fact that OML is common.They don't, which is why I said "that is beyond the point.". Yes OML is common, but it's because he is strong enough that anyone and everyone can use him, and for a vast majority of players, they are worse off for not doing so. Definitions certainly are important. But you make some unsupported claims here. you argue that people may say that other 5*s are better, but "at the end of the day" they will use OML. I only ever use 5*s to for lower level nodes, and I don't have any 5*s with more than 6 covers. It's anecdotal, but I can certainly say that "at the end of the day" I will use my 2/2/2 phoenix for some things and my 0/1/0 OML for others. And ignoring my own limited direct experience with 5*s, there is still evidence against your claim. Just above our discussion in this thread is a post from Jobob. He has ALL of the 5*s at 450+. There are a (relatively small) number of players in the game with a roster that strong. Why don't we ask them if they always use OML "at the end of the day." (hint: I have asked them, and they don't! sometimes they do use him, sometimes they don't. it depends on many factors. just like my own use of my now fairly deep bench of 4*s and very deep bench of 3*s.)The claims aren't completely unsupported, because Jobob has verified that OML would be the one he kept out of all of them if he had to choose. You don't just pick a "He isn't that good maybe top 5 at best" character over all of the others unless there is some big lapse in scaling. OML would be the character he picked. For a majority of people, OML is the one they would pick too. The problem isn't his strength, as I've said lots of times, it's the fact that 9/10 times he is the best option. Yes, supposing you wouldn't always use him if you had a better option, but that's selecting niche. I'd never use Antman's Blue at 5 covers normally, but put me up against Luke/IF/HB/OML and you'll see me steal everything. That doesn't mean that 5 blue is a better option, and it doesn't mean I won't swap him back to purple after I'm done stealing everything. It means that, yes, there is situations where there ARE better options, but it's hard to deny after you've used your BSS to counter someone that he can fight for that spot OML needs. In your situation, you're openly comparing a 6 cover phoenix with a one cover OML and even then you're saying that the OML contends for a spot. How is that not imbalanced? I disagree with this analysis. People were unsure about BB at release because everyone focused on his yellow power, which is mediocre. And his green power was somewhat analagous to Fury's yellow, which is fairly meh. We largely ignored his passive. Then people got more experience with the passive and discovered that it was REALLY good. It's basically free AP for the player, or free damage every turn. And either one is great!I don't disagree, because his passive was the first thing people focused on. The idea of charged tiles and the passive was a topic of discussion up until the numbers dropped. Thats when people started looking into yellow and green. The passive was always on the table, but I recall distinctly that it wasn't until people mentioned dipping with OML strikes that people took it with any weight. I remember people even debating if he was around Hulk tier. (Also admittedly it took me a second to realize you were referring to Black Bolt and not Bruce Banner) How has it been evidenced? I am told that every single person uses OML all the time, so who is using BSS/GG to counter him? But I don't really know if your 'otherwise' statement is fair. If Team X is a great counter to Team Y, does it necessarily follow that the components of Team X have no other value. There are several posts on the forums suggesting BSS is the best 5*. Same for GG. BSS is a good counter to OML or Phoenix because of the strikes, but he can also be annoying to fight because he goes invisible so easily. and his blue can hit very hard for just 6ap if you build around it. GG has a very powerful black, an awesome mechanic in fortifying tiles, and a great utility power with purple. Surely you can see that he is very strong on offense?GG, yes. BSS, specically, no. There's several posts on the forums suggesting a lot of things, but I'm doubtful that any of them honestly put the assumption that BSS is solid on his own out there with no regard to, say, how he handles OML and PHX which is the most common team out there. But yeah, no, GG is actually ludicrously strong. I'd believe him for being the best 5* if the AI weren't terrible with him. As for defining the meta, OML only defines the 5* meta because he was the first really good 5*. Thorverine defined the 4* meta for a while because they were the first really good ones to be released. But when there were nerfed, IMHB and JG defined the 4* meta for a while. Should jeanbuster have been nerfed as well? In that case XDP and Iceman would have defined the meta. And if THEY had been nerfed, then Cyc and Rulk would have defined the meta. SOMEONE is always going to be first character around at a new, higher tier of power. That character will become the measuring stick. It doesn't necessarily mean they are too powerful.The problem is I'm not referring to the 5* meta, though it's good to know he dominates that too. OML dominates pretty much all but the 1* meta, maybe early 2* meta. The moment someone gets their hands on an OML yellow cover, the game changes completely for them. 3* players are using OML as a benchmark, I probably don't need to point out that such a thing never happened for SS or PHX or BSS. Even at that relatively low level of play, OML decides if you can compete for top placement or not, because not having him (or his yellow, specifically) more or less decides if you can compete with people who do. No character should have that kind of sway. There actually AREN'T many other options for most players. The problem isn't that OML is too powerful. It's that 5*s are too hard to get, and most people who have a useable set of 5*s will have OML and Pheonix and SS. And they will use PML and Phoenix because that's the best team from those 3. But that's ONLY true of the first flight of people to have 5*s. They were able to collect LTs last fall and winter, when there were fewer 5*s and the odds were better of getting one of the early ones. Early 5*s players tend to have deeper, narrower benches with more covers focused on the first few releases. Players who only started earning LTs later on will have a broader spattering of covers spread out among all 10 5*s. Moving forward, characters will start to get other 5*s as their first usable 5*. That is very likely to be true for me. I already have more covers of recent 5*s than I do of OML. You can bet that I won't be pining for a missing OML if I manage to 8 or 10 BB or IM46 covers. OML is very good and I would use him if I had him. But the players who have options at the 5* tier are telling you that OML is not the "one and only 5*." Any reasonable analysis of 5* powersets will reveal that other 5*s are better options for winning a single match than OML. He is not the best, and his ubiquity has much more to do with extrinsic factors than it does with him being OP. If he is nerfed, then we will just start to see lots of Phoenix teams (or SS teams if he is buffed and becomes strong) because those are the oldest 5*s. If 5*s became easier to get, or if we were to look a year or two into the future, you would not see nearly as many OML teams because people would have other viable options.
jobob wrote: Blahahah wrote: If you don't touch the one reason people bring him along, then nothing changes. Shave the power off of all 5 cover levels, make him a tactical choice and not just a health pack saver. ESPECIALLY at lower levels though. I thought the problem was he did everything well? Now healing is "the one reason people bring him along." ? What is wrong with a health pack saver? They exist at every level. It's an important role to be filled. Patch is a great parallel to OML. If we turned back the clock to a very early 3* game, and then out comes 3* Spidey and Patch... And slowly 8 more non-regen characters were added, including Cage, IF, SW, but 99% of players only had Spidey and Patch covered, people would whine about how OP Patch was. Obviously, though... Just because he's the best that most people have covered at that point, and just because he's a health pack saver, I think we can agree he wouldn't legitimately be an OP 3*.
Blahahah wrote: The problem isn't him being the strongest, for the eleventh time. I'm fully aware that other characters are stronger than him, in terms of numbers it's not surprising. The problem isn't him in terms of the 5* tier, which comprises what... 0.01% of the playerbase MAYBE at the most. The problem is that OML dictates if you can compete or not long before you should even be concerned about 5* tier. For a lot of players, that yellow cover means the difference between top 10 and top 100. You're right that, given time, everyone would be on equal covers and maybe, just maybe, OML will only be on half as many teams rather than 80% of them. Until then, the fact of the matter is that OML's healing and power at one cover is probably equal in value to most other characters at 7 to 8 covers. That's a problem. When you have entire subsections of people whom lack this one cover and thus are heavily disadvantaged against those that do, that is a problem. OML doesn't NEED to be healing that much. He doesn't NEED that power early on. Nerfing his healing to make getting/not getting him less decisive would be almost a non-factor for top level players whom, by your claim, don't even need the character. Changing his aim to be a "transform him for value" rather than a "sit here and gimme swords kthx" would make him interesting and a tactical choice, and not a mandatory one outside of choice situations. The problem lies in the fact that he is the BEST 5* to have, even if he isn't the strongest 5* at 13 covers. He only needs one to change the way you and everyone around you experiences the game. That is a problem.
Dormammu wrote: jobob wrote: Patch and Daken need nerfs, since they are the 3* OML, and thus cosmically OP. I must not know how to use Patch very well because I think he's silly.
Jaedenkaal wrote: I'm sure there's no plan to nerf a character 'into uselessness'. They're clearly aiming to increase the diversity of teams, in pvp and (presumably) elsewhere. The post clearly indicates a desire to start small, make tweaks, examine, and continue to make tweaks. For one character to dominate the meta game is clearly not desirable, whether or not they are "the best". Let's stop blindly assuming that d3 and demiurge are just blindly taking characters that are "overused" and nerf-batting them until we stop using them. (Yes, I know that's happened in the past. Magneto and 4 Thor are hardly unusable today, however) This seems like a new design team (wasn't Will J-H the lead designer at the last video?) Let's give them a chance.
JCTthe3rd81 wrote: So for now, I'm going to wait and see. Give them the benefit of the doubt and continue to have faith in the Demi Gods. I just pray that my faith and loyalty is rewarded by Peggy being spared the nerf bat beat down.
Jaedenkaal wrote: Like I said, this seems like a new team, different from the nerfhammer team from last year and before (When did they nerf a character last? Ragnarok?) Let's give them a chance and see what they can do. They've rather plainly committed to multiple rounds of off-season changes as needed to promote roster diversity.
JCTthe3rd81 wrote: You're right. We should give them a chance. That's exactly what I plan to do. And if they nerf certain characters that need it, then fine. I'll accept it. As long as it's done correctly. Like someone else said above. "They don't plan to nerf them into uselessness, it just happens." They could do a tiny nerf to tweak the numbers just a bit. Then if it's not enough, do a little more later on after rechecking the data. But instead, they tend to do it all at once resulting in over nerfs. See, when it comes to nerfs, they don't exactly have the best track record. Sentry, Hood, 4thor, Venom, Moonstone, Xforce and all the 3* just to name a few. All nerfed far more than they needed to be. Yes, they were over powered, but the nerfs they received were more than they needed.
Blahahah wrote: Except Patch isn't a health pack saver, per se. His green kinda invalidates that, Daken requires blue, Spidey isn't true-heal.
He does do everything well. This includes healing, which is why most people bring him along. He is A tier in everything, S tier in healing. Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas.
solely decides if you can compete with others based on if you do or don't have him, that's an issue.
If Patch gave you free tiles with no downside, healed for 200 more every turn, did about 1k for a match-4, had a good color combination, and had about 4000 more health? Yeah people would probably complain, especially if he did all that only needing two covers and both of those abilities were free. However, he doesn't do any of those things. The fact that he spits out tiles for the opponent makes it an apples-and-oranges comparison. Imagine if Patch had no downside to his abilities and his yellow healed for more, then yeah people would complain for more reason than just him saving some health packs.