Upcoming Character Change to Wolverine (Old Man Logan)

dbfclark

There are three 'flavors' of problems you could imagine. I'll list them in reverse order of plausibility as balance changes:

First, OML could be overused by players with no/limited other max 5* choices. This is almost tautologically not a reasonable balance objection, unless 5*s are not supposed to be better than 4*s, but does represent a slice of players who derive a ton of benefit from OML.

OML is overused by players with many max 5* choices. This is not a logical impossibility, but high-level players tend to report it's not the case. Boosted 4*s can handle maxed OML with ease, at least if you have a plan and play well.

OML is overused by players in transition, with low-cover OMLs sometimes being used over champ 4*s. This certainly happens. It has been previously noted that characters being useful in this range was part of the original design philosophy of 5*s, but it has certainly not been really true for a while.

If the real issue is the third, a reconsideration of scaling is in order, but the adjustment would leave the top end close to untouched. If the real issue is the second, even though we don't see it, you might expect some number reductions here and there, but mostly nibbling around the edges -- lower healing traded off for increased damage, say. If there's a major impact to the first class of players, the real issue is underspending on consumables.

GrumpySmurf1002

madsalad wrote:

Wow.
Thanos, and arguably Black Bolt, are more overpowered than OML.

This is the part that should be focused on, as it directly relates to the real problem: Bad Data Analysis.

Focusing simply on 'most used character' does not give you an accurate measure of the strength of a character.

1) the game obviously focuses on health pack consumption and so healers > non-healers. This is utility, not strength. Further, a character like Carnage is stronger than characters likely used more often, but team decimation lowers utility. Partially semantics, but still important distinctions when there are clearly 'stronger' characters now available than OML

2) Availability, especially at the 5* tier, is it's own disaster, which has left characters in the early-middle release time (Goblin, Civil War, Terrible Hulk) in a hole. Characters after that have been capitalized on by hoarding and hitting up latests, so they've been more popular as that strategy has come to fruition. None of that changes the what, 9 month headstart Logan has?

Now, with that out of the way, that still doesn't mean the existence of OML doesn't require a change. But the change needs to be either in how ALL characters are utilized (de-focusing of speed/health packs), or how others in the 5* tier are made available.

Unfortunately what we're (probably) gonna see is a big ol kick to the Logan crotch for the 4th time, while 3 years later still missing the boat on what 'most used character' is actually telling you.

madsalad

Arix90 wrote:

On behalf of all the players who dont have old man logan covers thank you d3go! Maybe now i can finally be competitive in PVP.

Thanos and Black Bolt say "hi"

GurlBYE

Thanos is definitely the one reason you HAVE to use health packs. Even the 3 version is nasty if you happen to be running with someone low health or didn't top up during a match. the 5 star one is one I'm kinda glad I don't have to see nearly fully covered or leveled.

3 thanos boosted + unboosted redhulk is literally 12K damage to a team if one person dies to the initial 7K.

it's only worse on the 5 star and he doesn't hurt his own team as much.

an1979

He has self healing. Powerfull one.

People don't BUY healthpacks.

Bean-counters are UNHAPPY.

UNHAPPY bean-counters mean developers get FIRED.


It is all about the money, the bottom line, and how to drain as much money from customers as possible.



Vote with or wallet - not one purchase more.

astrp3

GurlBYE wrote:

I dunno guys when I see the hyperbolic posts I ignore them instead of giving em more attention then the overwhelming majority of posts that aren't.

You know, GurlBYE, that's actually pretty darn good advice and I should try to follow it more, but sometimes my annoyance just gets the better of me - especially now that McG is my enabler (just kidding, McG).

darkestcurse

Please don't NERF OML into the ground like Wolverine X-force had.

Also, if you want me playing with more 5*'s, then give them to me! Of the two 5*'s I have championed, I use both of them equally. If I had a third I might change things up. I've had OML championed for over a year now because I quickly got all of his covers when the RNG pool was smaller. BW is my only other 5* with maxed covers and I use her.

Also, if you heavily NERF OML my only choices will be to either sell him or continue to use him no matter how badly you NERF him because I won't be able to compete against other maxed teams without using him. (My MMR already has me matched with 2 other 5*'s 10-20 levels higher than my two).

I'll tell you what DEVS, take my OML and give me 13 covers of Thanos, then you won't hear a peep from me.

It is ridiculous that the DEVS can't see that a character that has been available in both classic and legendary packs at the same time along with being out longer than all but 1 other 5* wouldn't be used more than any other 5*'s. I'd gladly replace my OML with some of the recent 5*'s that are more powerful, but I just don't have the covers to do so. Also, OML is the only 5* to have been rewarded in the dailies twice. DON'T NERF HIM BECAUSE HE WAS EASIER TO MAX.

In regards to him being used more than others at lower covers, maybe only nerf his beginning powers but increase them to their current power when maxed cover. He doesn't scare me away like some other 5*'s when I bring championed 4*'s to the match, so I don't know why we'd need the nerf.

Vhailorx

Arix90 wrote:

On behalf of all the players who dont have old man logan covers thank you d3go! Maybe now i can finally be competitive in PVP.

People with 2 5*s champs other than OML are competitive in pvp. People with any single 5* champ are somewhat competitive in pvp. People with deep 4* rosters can climb to 900 and hop to 1200. Everyone else struggles past 800.

Nerfing OML will hurt the perf9rmance of those players for whom OML is their only, or one of just 2, 5* champs. It will not really help anyone else. Scores may go down a little bit with fewer high value targets.

firethorne

Vhailorx wrote:

Arix90 wrote:

On behalf of all the players who dont have old man logan covers thank you d3go! Maybe now i can finally be competitive in PVP.

People with 2 5*s champs other than OML are competitive in pvp. People with any single 5* champ are somewhat competitive in pvp. People with deep 4* rosters can climb to 900 and hop to 1200. Everyone else struggles past 800.

Nerfing OML will hurt the perf9rmance of those players for whom OML is their only, or one of just 2, 5* champs. It will not really help anyone else. Scores may go down a little bit with fewer high value targets.

Another excellent point. I hadn't thought about the chilling effect on PvP scores. With fewer options to climb without burning through health packs, scores will just be lower overall, and the 900 and 1200 rewards less attainable.

Vhailorx

New McG wrote:

Akari wrote:

Remember when they rolled out the PvE changes to the 4 clear system, everyone on the forums said how grinding 1 node for pts at the end would ruin a lot of competitive brackets, and then the devs came out and admitted that that was exactly the case? Don't knock the forum response. It's a little biased towards the top, but it's accurate to how the game will end up being played.

And yet 90% of the responses have been of the "just another chance to deliberately screw us over" or "this is just because the health packs weren't being bought, they're greedy vultures that just want all our money" variety. That isn't measured, thoughtful, reasonable, or productive. It's what a player says when something they have becomes less useful.

People will point to bonus heroes as the "kind of change we want". Well, of course it is, because it gives us, as players, more stuff at zero cost to us. That can't be the standard change offered, because giving away more and more stuff for free while never making moves to benefit the bottom line means no more game before long. Do I believe this is purely out of the desire to "balance" the characters? No. I'm sure the health pack situation factors into the decision. But I'm also not one who's on here making statements about how the devs are "idiots" who have some malicious intent behind every decision they make which doesn't have a net result of "players get more free stuff at a faster rate".

(1) i dont see your 90% of thoughtless, unreasonable, and counterproductive posts. I see a bunch of "please dont nerf OML for the following X reasons" walls of text. It's the internet, just ignore the odd troll.

(2) of course you are right that demi is a business. But that's their problem. As a player i see no problem with advocating for player-friendly changes. There is a big gap between pointing out that BH is good for players (while vaulting is not), and expecting demi to give out colorless 5* covers on demand.

Astrp3: there doesn't need to be a grand conspiracy. Both events are scheduled in advance. If you know that your player forum will not be functional for 24 hours, then dont schedule a sure-to-be-controversial nerf during that 24 hour window. Keeping this schedule is a slap in tue face ti players. Demi is doing something we dont like, and limiting our ability to provide feedback at the exact same time. It sucks and there is no particular reason to do it this way.

Ubhls1

Just feels like the xf wolverine issue again. Got burnt there last time so haven't put ISO into OML even though he is at 13 covers. Assume despite the hate last time they didn't see a dip in play or revenue or why risk it.

astrp3

Vhailorx wrote:

Astrp3: there doesn't need to be a grand conspiracy. Both events are scheduled in advance. If you know that your player forum will not be functional for 24 hours, then dont schedule a sure-to-be-controversial nerf during that 24 hour window. Keeping this schedule is a slap in tue face ti players. Demi is doing something we dont like, and limiting our ability to provide feedback at the exact same time. It sucks and there is no particular reason to do it this way.

Oh, I totally agree that the timing was poorly thought out. I just don't think it was part of a deliberate cover-up. Delaying one or the other would have been better - though I don't know if they could have delayed the move of the forums. It seems they are in nerf mode now, so I expect more of them in the future, which I fear won't be balanced by buffs.

SuperBatPoohMan

Every single question u have regarding this game can be summed up in one answer ....money

$$$$$

True heal = less health packs bought

Every change = money for devs...pretty simple...that's why I retired and remain retired.

BatteryHorse

For what it's worth, my guess is they're going to 'adjust' the power curve for OML, so at 1/1/1 255 he doesn't heal nearly as well, and his strike tiles are weaker. Maybe his heal won't have the condition about how many teammates he has, it'll just be a lower, fixed heal and some lower numbers overall, maybe even a lower health pool.

Then they'll drop the power curve so he's still weakened through the first half of his levels before ultimately being about the same power when maxed, so the whales aren't too pissed. Mostly I think they just want to see the end of the low-cover OMLs that are still a big part of the game, camping out on trivial nodes and lightning rounds.

I still think it's stupid and short-sighted, but that's my guess until we see real numbers.

pheregas

I take a break from the forums for a day and this is what happens?

People are saying a lot about age of character, true healing, lower covered usefulness, etc...

For the record, I have 5 champed 5*s, two more max covered 5s (now hoarding for ISO), and 39 champed 4s.

All that being said, my reason for using OML is his ability as a tank. Why?

Scaling.

Prior to 5s, the scaling was much more tolerable. I had literally dozens of characters to use in various combinations. If one got hurt, sub him out for someone else and keep on fighting. But with scaling, nothing but 5s are able to keep up with the vast amount of hit points. 60,000 hp Juggs is no joke.

I never had to use health packs before because of roster diversity. I didn't need to use health packs with 5* scaling because of OML.

Now, potentially, I'll need to use many more health packs.

And let's all take a moment to realize how horrible new post release 4* essentials are going to be with 5* scaling and no viable tank.

So let's fix scaling and let us use our whole roster.

snlf25

This isn't even about OML because he isn't that powerful. Its simply a cut and dried cash grab. OML saves people from being victimized by the dev's **** artificial energy system - healthpacks. Metrics show we aren't spending enough hp on health packs so OML has to squeal like a pig. When they duck Carol and Peggy and Thanos, those nerfs will be about power.

Vhailorx

SuperBatPoohMan wrote:

Every single question u have regarding this game can be summed up in one answer ....money

$$$$$

True heal = less health packs bought

Every change = money for devs...pretty simple...that's why I retired and remain retired.

Whether or not everything is about money for demi, this complaint is the price offs a freemium model. If the game sets a real money price on every in game activity, then how can players be wrong to wonder about the monetary affects of each change?

LFChikarason

All Wolverines in game have true heal. Granted some have more hoops you have to jump through (XFW says hi) but I can't see them COMPLETELY taking true heal away. Maybe making it heal for way less? Or come at the end of the turn? Or maybe some other condition needs to be met (X number of a certain tiles on or not on the board, etc.).

Can you tell I'm trying to put a positive spin on this?

Wonko33

People play the best character, there is nothing they can do about it. Used to be
Ragnarock - nerf
Sentry - nerf
She Thor & Xforce - nerf (this one turned me into a casual player)
Now it's OML - metrics say everyone plays him, just like it did all those other times

Sure nerf him, the masses will all move to the next king of the hill.

Maybe they just make a ton of dough when we all rush to the new best thing or maybe they are just slow learners. Enjoy the poopstrorm people the wind is rising

dlegendary0ne

I'm not happy with OML being nerfed for all the reasons previously stated (I just got mine to 10 covers), but my post is about how this change is being handled:

This would've gone much smoother if we had been given all of the details up front. There would still be backlash but not as much.

My roster is similar owning a house. I invest time and money building and customizing it to make it how I like it. With this announcement, you're essentially walking into my house uninvited and unexpected, sitting down in my best chair, and telling me you're gonna make changes to one of my favorite things about my house. It's not even up for discussion, and there's no acknowledgement of how it makes me feel.


The fact that you're even walking into my house against my wishes makes me uncomfortable and angry, but then you're not telling me what you specifically intend to do (no informative details about the nerf). That makes me even more uncomfortable and angry. I'm going to want to resist you as much as possible - even if there's some good in the change.

My point is the way d3 handles announcements like this is just as much a part of the quality of life of the game as the changes you're looking to make to the game. Customers always respond well to good customer service. In this case, that means giving people complete information they can use, and acknowledging how those changes make customers feel. (Not to say that you don't care, but it's not readily portrayed in this communication).