OneLastGambit wrote: Think about the tier not the character. Would the 4* tier benefit from iceman stun becoming 8ap for example ? Yes because people may reconsider using him and may perhaps use someone else instead. There's a swathe of good New characters which nobody ever uses because im40 + iceman or goddess and fistbuster is way to comfortable and convenient to use. The devs give you New guys to play with and most of them are well designed and fun...what do people do? Go straight back to fistbustering their way to 1k, why bother learning new strategy for new characters when you know you can get what you want the trusty way? That's the fault of players not the devs. And you can say "well if they made better characters then we would" but they do, and you dont...mostly.
JamesV wrote: The real "issue" with nerfs is that the have a disproportionate impact on the have-nots than the haves in a collectible game like this. If you are playing a traditional game -- Street Fighter -- and a character is buffed and a character is nerfed, it just requires the player to alter their gameplay -- but they already have all characters so there is no impact. But when you have a game where the faster and sooner you can get one of the top tier meta characters (especially in regards to how rewards were previously handled out) the easier* it becomes to get more rewards. More rewards increases the width and depth of that players roster, which makes it easier for those players to absorb nerfs. On the flipside, the slower players earn a top tier meta character, the slower they gain those rewards. So while the nerf in theory effects everyone, it effects the non-top tier people more than it effects them. And this isn't conjecture. Nerfing Sentry Bombing after months of it had long term Sentry bombers in a better position to avoid to move along with the new meta than non-Sentry Bombers for example. And while buffs may provide a disproportionate benefit as well, any benefit > any harm. * easier in comparison to those without. For context, we do have to ignore the RNG factor of five stars, but we can also assume that a more developed roster has higher chances of getting 5*.
wirius wrote: JamesV wrote: The real "issue" with nerfs is that the have a disproportionate impact on the have-nots than the haves in a collectible game like this. If you are playing a traditional game -- Street Fighter -- and a character is buffed and a character is nerfed, it just requires the player to alter their gameplay -- but they already have all characters so there is no impact. But when you have a game where the faster and sooner you can get one of the top tier meta characters (especially in regards to how rewards were previously handled out) the easier* it becomes to get more rewards. More rewards increases the width and depth of that players roster, which makes it easier for those players to absorb nerfs. On the flipside, the slower players earn a top tier meta character, the slower they gain those rewards. So while the nerf in theory effects everyone, it effects the non-top tier people more than it effects them. And this isn't conjecture. Nerfing Sentry Bombing after months of it had long term Sentry bombers in a better position to avoid to move along with the new meta than non-Sentry Bombers for example. And while buffs may provide a disproportionate benefit as well, any benefit > any harm. * easier in comparison to those without. For context, we do have to ignore the RNG factor of five stars, but we can also assume that a more developed roster has higher chances of getting 5*. Your logic is incorrect if proper nerfs are made. When a character or a few characters ruin an entire tier of characters or warp the intended gameplay, anyone who doesn't have those characters has no hope. If balance is more equal along the measure, then you still have a chance with whatever character you happen to have. I think you're misunderstanding. This is not about, "That character has power, nerf!". Its about game warping characters and ridiculous imbalances.
New players may be unfamiliar with the nerfs that have gone before .... in the game's first ~18 months, while the character design crew found their way, their were a ton of nerfs and buffs, several spectacular. This old thread is pretty dusty now, roughly 16 months old, was collected right after the 4Thor and XFW nerfs. Still I hope the young'ns find it educational ... The Most Humiliating Nerfs ... EVER!
lovesthebj wrote: New players may be unfamiliar with the nerfs that have gone before .... in the game's first ~18 months, while the character design crew found their way, their were a ton of nerfs and buffs, several spectacular. This old thread is pretty dusty now, roughly 16 months old, was collected right after the 4Thor and XFW nerfs. Still I hope the young'ns find it educational ... The Most Humiliating Nerfs ... EVER! I didn't have a well-covered Sentry when he was nerfed. Amazing to look back at him, considering that his pre-nerf stats wouldn't be out of place at all in today's game. Would 'old' Sentry be a top-10 3* in today's game? Just another reminder to nerf lightly, if at all. As was said somewhere else, a while ago JeanBuster was everywhere in PvP, and now it's mostly moved on to other characters and combinations. They didn't have to nerf Jean or IMHB to change the meta, just give your players time and resources to build a more diverse roster.
wirius wrote: I got his point Vail, and its still an incorrect point. Here's a comparison. Prior to nerf Char A Char B Char C Char D Power 7 4 3 2 Char A is clearly overpowered. Anyone who does not have Char A does not have a prayer. Most players own B-D Post nerf Char A Char B Char C Char D Power 3 4 3 2 Now that Char A is not overpowered, most people who owned A and C are on equal footing. D is a little less equal footing, but not so much that it can't compete. Competing at a 2 to obtain a 4 is much easer then competing at a 2 or 3 to obtain a 4. MORE people can compete after a nerf, and people. Sure, people with Char A prior to the nerf may have all the other characters, but everyone can still compete easier. And if you DIDN'T nerf A, well, people with A would be getting much rich much quicker in the future then after the post nerf. The argument that nerfs hurt lower rosters ability to obtain the best doesn't make any sense.
SnowcaTT wrote: D3 - please look at your BoP data. Where EVERY CHARACTER is the same level. And basically EVERY PLAYER has some max covered characters to use. And do you want to know which ONE CHARACTER I'm seeing at a 50%+ clip? Out-pacing even the highly-used IM40 in this event? Do you want to know how often I've seen that ONE CHARACTER used at a 50% clip, despite that he's NOT COVERED? So players are willing to use an UNCOVERED character instead of any of 100+ other characters they may have covered?!? Did you guess The Only Character That Matters? I bet you did! Because you see him everywhere too! I am sick of waiting for the OML nerf - there are huge indicators all over the game that he is a massive problem. No true healing and he'd have high use in PVP but you wouldn't see him -everywhere- like you do today.
SnowcaTT wrote: D3 - please look at your BoP data. Where EVERY CHARACTER is the same level. And basically EVERY PLAYER has some max covered characters to use. And do you want to know which ONE CHARACTER I'm seeing at a 50%+ clip?
simonsez wrote: SnowcaTT wrote: D3 - please look at your BoP data. Where EVERY CHARACTER is the same level. And basically EVERY PLAYER has some max covered characters to use. And do you want to know which ONE CHARACTER I'm seeing at a 50%+ clip? #1 - I was 100% convinced you were talking about IM40. #2 - Give people a reasonable chance to get a BSS, GG, Bolt or 5* IM, and you'd be seeing a lot less OML.
akboyce wrote: Obviously not a perfect test since you would expect people to perform better with what they are familiar and practiced with but it sure sounds like it would be a fun experiment. Other than the time and cost to create such a system of course.
simonsez wrote: #1 - I was 100% convinced you were talking about IM40.