So how is that OML nerf looking now?

Quebbster

Darknes21 said:

carrion pigeons said:

Vhailorx said:

Ruinate:

Who said all nerfs are bad?  

The OML nerf was, and reamins, pointless.  It "solved" a non-existent problem.  It screwed some people over (specifically those with just 1 or 2 5*s) without actually changing the 5* meta then or now.  

But yeah, it sure is silly to talk about things that have happened in the past.  I mean, what could we possibly learn from prior experiences?

Which meta are we talking about, PvE or PvP?  Because the theory that OML's nerf was aimed at PVP has been thoroughly debunked, over and over and over. 

OML was nerfed because of his ability to grind in PvE. Only a small handful of players actually cared about him in pvp by that point, not to mention that his nerf barely even affected his pvp performance anyway. 

So did it change the PvE environment? Not a ton, thanks to Thanos, but that's a whole other kettle of fish, and you can't say the meta would be better if OML were still healing his way onto Thanos teams for even more infinite tapping. 

Please put the crack pipe down! Oml was one of the strongest characters in PVP! I Believe D3 stated they nerf him was because he was used in 90% of all pvp matches. The real reason was they want you to buy health packs. 

He wasn't that strong when he was nerfed, the new characters were overshadowing him. Lots of people had him and used him, but he got easier and easier to beat, so for PvP a nerf wasn't really needed. The Health pack issue (particularly in PvE) was probably closer to the real issue.

byc

Darknes21 said:

carrion pigeons said:

Vhailorx said:

Ruinate:

Who said all nerfs are bad?  

The OML nerf was, and reamins, pointless.  It "solved" a non-existent problem.  It screwed some people over (specifically those with just 1 or 2 5*s) without actually changing the 5* meta then or now.  

But yeah, it sure is silly to talk about things that have happened in the past.  I mean, what could we possibly learn from prior experiences?

Which meta are we talking about, PvE or PvP?  Because the theory that OML's nerf was aimed at PVP has been thoroughly debunked, over and over and over. 

OML was nerfed because of his ability to grind in PvE. Only a small handful of players actually cared about him in pvp by that point, not to mention that his nerf barely even affected his pvp performance anyway. 

So did it change the PvE environment? Not a ton, thanks to Thanos, but that's a whole other kettle of fish, and you can't say the meta would be better if OML were still healing his way onto Thanos teams for even more infinite tapping. 

Please put the crack pipe down! Oml was one of the strongest characters in PVP! I Believe D3 stated they nerf him was because he was used in 90% of all pvp matches. The real reason was they want you to buy health packs. 

He he wasn't.  I loved fighting him in PVP because the bad AI and he's not that powerful.

carrion_pigeons

Darknes21 said:

Please put the crack pipe down! Oml was one of the strongest characters in PVP! I Believe D3 stated they nerf him was because he was used in 90% of all pvp matches. The real reason was they want you to buy health packs. 

No, they said he was used in 10% of all matches (no claim was made about which kind of matches, but 10% of all matches obviously biases towards PvE because the sheer quantity of matches to be competitive in PvE is much higher than in PvP). OML was definitely popular in pvp for a long time. You might even make the argument that OML wasn't nerfed *because* of his popularity in pvp for a long time. They waited until the whales had moved on to bigger and better things, which admittedly took a very long time, before nerfing him. But by the time they actually did nerf him, he wasn't a major factor, and the people who still used him were the people who were coasting along in his wake, not the people who were setting the meta.