NO MORE NERFS! NO MORE NERFS! NO MORE NERFS!

greenglove

I was quite alarmed when I read the recent announcement about balance changes. It seems clear that they want to nerf IMHB, Cyclops, JG, Rulk, and Iceman. This will only make the fan base more disgusted with the developers. Guys, why didn't you listen to us when you nerfed Wolverine? The way to fix the balance is NOT to nerf more characters. The solution is to FIX the characters that cannot compete right now, and do ONLY that. Many of us have paid a lot of money into these characters. We do not want those characters to be less useful than they are. We want OTHER characters to be fixed. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE listen to us before you make us angry yet again! For anyone reading this, please hit like or whatever to show support.

drayviper32

I would be very angry if D3 nerfed the characters that I put money into. I put alot money into some of my favorite characters and my roster. If D3 still wants money I suggest only making weaker characters stronger not stronger characters weaker!!! If they want players still playing and paying don't piss them off!

wirius

If nerfs make the game have a greater selection of useful characters and avoid the monotany of seeing the SAME characters over and over again, please nerf.

Yes, I've spent money on the game, and even certain characters. I love the game, and I want more people to enjoy it. I'll still love it too!

Trilateralus

Completely agree with wirius.

ammenell

i stopped buying roster slots after the fixed vision back to normal.

just accept d3 doesn't give a tinykitty about your opinion, just like d3 has to accept your decision to not throw any more money at the game

mpqr7

I agree. Nerfs ruin the experience of those we love. Instead, they should focus on boosts to improve the experience of those we don't yet love.

I find it very frustrating the threat of nerfing OML, because many of us spent well over a year, struggling to hit 1300 in PVPs and max prog in PVEs, all for the sake of chasing one single cover of his. Or some of us spent money. He truly is the end-game for many, at least until another few years, when we can get more than 1 or 2 covers of other 5* characters.

So nerfing him is basically a big "tiny kitty you" to everyone who has tried very hard to get him for the past year+. The ultimate "sorry, but your princess is in another castle".

And selling a nerfed OML for a small amount of ISO and HP doesn't make up for the years of stress lost to trying to win him.

If you really want to make things fair when you nerf OML, let us exchange OML covers for the same amount of covers of the 5* of our choice. I'd gladly exchange all of my OML covers for BSS covers, GG covers or whichever newer 5* is better and more powerful. Unfortunately it will take me years to find out.

simonsez

wirius wrote:

If nerfs make the game have a greater selection of useful characters and avoid the monotany of seeing the SAME characters over and over again, please nerf.

These nerfs aren't going to do that. You're still going to see OML/PHX constantly. And it's not like they're even the best 5*s anymore. But since there's no path to reasonably cover any other 5*s without taking out a 2nd mortgage, who else are people supposed to use?

Crowl

Personally, I hope that they avoid nerfs entirely below 5* in this first round of changes, moving so many characters up and down would just add to the complexity of the task and it would be better to just do buffs in this first round, aim to push up the mid and low tier chars to a level where they were at least usable when boosted.

The possible exception would be the 5* tier which is much smaller and thus more suited to balancing with both buffs and nerfs to minimise the overall changes.

dsds

nerf away! I've leveled my characters very evenly patiently waiting for the day the game will be played the way it should played. Effective teams should be plenty not just one or two go to teams. Nerf whatever character they need to and buff the weak ones. I hate math so if they just buff and have no nerf, the damage numbers will simply all go up.

It is still technically a nerf if every character except that one had damage go up. You just don't visible see it. Stop trying to lie to your self and just accept the fact that some teams may not be as good before. You had a good run, reflect back on the good memories of curb stomp all those who didn't have a oml with your oml. Unfortunately for me, I got 2 covers of oml and so if he get's nerfedn it will also hurt me, but I think I would gain more than I lost. ChoHulk is at 9-10 covers! Starlord is max covered!.... So excited about the balancing

FaustianDeal

What do "The Originals" (the first 3: SS, OML, Phx) in 5* land represent to most people? Those characters are their best bets for getting a covered 5* that they might be able to promote. They are their best chance to "cross the chasm" of the 4-5 transition and gain a foothold in 5* land. This is not a statement of their power. Its just simple math. Most people have been opening tokens with those 3 characters in them for 10-12 months now; by comparison they have been opening classics with Green Goblin or Spider-Man for half as long.

mpqr7 wrote:

I find it very frustrating the threat of nerfing OML [...]. He truly is the end-game for many[...].

I'm drawing attention to this, (admittedly, slightly butchered) excerpt to highlight a collective problem we all are bringing upon ourselves. When we say that OML is "the goal", "the pinnacle", "the end-game", or "the omega" we are basically advertising to D3 that they need to go over to the case where they keep the nerf bats and break the glass.

Crowl

FaustianDeal wrote:

What do "The Originals" (the first 3: SS, OML, Phx) in 5* land represent to most people? Those characters are their best bets for getting a covered 5* that they might be able to promote. They are their best chance to "cross the chasm" of the 4-5 transition and gain a foothold in 5* land. This is not a statement of their power. Its just simple math. Most people have been opening tokens with those 3 characters in them for 10-12 months now; by comparison they have been opening classics with Green Goblin or Spider-Man for half as long.

The main thing they show is how utterly **** it is for RNG to be the defining factor when it comes to endgame progression, using some of the ones in your example I actually have more Spidey covers than I do OML, but in a double dose of rng cruelty the former is still unusable as they have come in the form of a 5/2/0 character.

They seriously need to implement a counter that will make your next LT a 5* after x amount of misses and they have to get away from covers having colours.

There are already so many characters in each tier that it is stupid for the first 13 covers to be colour specific, especially now that champion levels are in the game, 90% of the covers you need for a character are colourless anyway.