Punisher5784 wrote: Most players won't argue that some characters need a nerf. The problem is the devs over-nerf the character goes from most used to the point that no one uses them anymore.
Punisher5784 wrote: At the time the nerf made sense so new characters felt more welcome but now it's been more than a year and no one uses him.
Lemminkäinen wrote: Punisher5784 wrote: At the time the nerf made sense so new characters felt more welcome but now it's been more than a year and no one uses him. Huh? I see a lot of XFW in PvP all the time. I'd say that he is by far the most common 4* after the hallowed top-five along with the goddess.
wirius wrote: Everyone's favorite topic! I'm going to argue a couple of points about when nerfs are needed, and not needed, for the game.**Reasons to nerf**1. A character breaks intended gameplay Example, D3 intends that a match of X difficulty lasts 3 minutes for most characters to use their powers properly. This is the "game" essentially. This character makes matches that are an average of one minute. Invalidates the core gameplay. The ap denial, give and take, damage mitigation, etc. This character needs a nerf.2. One or two characters make an entire tier of characters worthless. Especially in a game that has a wide dispersal of characters, and one that wants you to spend money to roster them, this is paramount. Again, a tier is designed with a certain power level and gameplay interplay in mind. You can't lift everyone to the broken characters level, or you break the entire tier design. -In Sum: Characters which invalidate entire tiers of designs and gameplay need to be taken down a peg.
HaywireII wrote: Who's on the chopping block? I thought they weren't announcing anything until Monday.
Punisher5784 wrote: The point is, nerfs can be fine when done right such as CMags. He still remained a great character after the nerf. That's what we need.. slight power tweaks and changes, not the easy lazy way of raising AP costs and lowering damage.
MarvelMan wrote: CMags was done *mostly* right. That said, he is still a viable character at the 3* level so they got him mostly right.
BillyBobJoe wrote: MarvelMan wrote: CMags was done *mostly* right. That said, he is still a viable character at the 3* level so they got him mostly right. CMags is a perfect example of why and how a nerf should be done. Original CMags had a red that was only 2AP! And his blue, combined with Patch or Punisher, was the original winfinite. His redo was/is excellent. He is still a good character, and mean when boosted.
Vhailorx wrote: I would also echo the concerns that demi's track record for nerfs is not great.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: Vhailorx wrote: I would also echo the concerns that demi's track record for nerfs is not great. One can hope that those were the result of a different lead designer than the one who announced that these changes were coming. We don't know when the change happened, but there could be reason to ignore the past here.
Vhailorx wrote: Wirius: I have a concern about your first nerfing category. In a vacuum, your reasoning is sound. If the devs want characters that make matches last about 3 minutes, but one character reliably makes matches last 30 seconds, then fine, that character is a problem. BUT, there are extrinsic factors in the design of the game that make faster matches significantly more valuable to players. Demi should be careful about nerfing characters that make matches faster without changing the underlying game mechanics that heavily favor faster matches. The result might be something closer to "intended gameplay" but much much less enjoyable for all players. I would also echo the concerns that demi's trackrecord for nerfs is not great. Chracters tend to be come effectively useless after being nerfed. Cmags is just about the only exception.
MarvelMan wrote: His red, at level 5, only crushed 5 TU tiles for 2AP. So much, MUCH, more limited cascades than current unless you cast it multiple times. Not to mention it did half the damage per. That opened up strategy for when you cast it. Now you just toss it out there.
wirius wrote: Vhailorx wrote: Wirius: I have a concern about your first nerfing category. In a vacuum, your reasoning is sound. If the devs want characters that make matches last about 3 minutes, but one character reliably makes matches last 30 seconds, then fine, that character is a problem. BUT, there are extrinsic factors in the design of the game that make faster matches significantly more valuable to players. Demi should be careful about nerfing characters that make matches faster without changing the underlying game mechanics that heavily favor faster matches. The result might be something closer to "intended gameplay" but much much less enjoyable for all players. I would also echo the concerns that demi's trackrecord for nerfs is not great. Chracters tend to be come effectively useless after being nerfed. Cmags is just about the only exception. I get where you're coming from. You want the gameplay to be a certain way. That's up for the devs to decide. The analogy is meant to be relative. If for example the devs decide gameplay should last 30 seconds, and a champ can finish a match in 5 seconds, that's the same problem. Its relative to the base of what they decide. That being said, it would be nice if they got rid of the game emphasizing fast matches for success. People always want fast matches anyway. My thought is fast match champs should come with higher risk, but that's a topic for another conversation.