New Gambit nerf

Pants1000

Spudgutter said:

huktonfonix said:

Spudgutter said:

Bowgentle said:

Spudgutter said:

I think he is a super strong character who could use a tweak, but it is not really that different from the panthos meta, where in order to do well you had to have the same team as a counter.  Someone is always going to be on top.

You never needed Panthos in that meta.
I ran Surfer Bolt for months, that team absolutely destroyed Panthos.

Case in point.  You are right, i should have said "in order to do well, it helps to have them."  

Just like right now, you don't "need" gambit.  I dont use him and do just fine.  

Name teams you beat similarly leveled Gambits with that don’t include Thor or your own Gambit.

Wait, what?  We are talking about gambit here, but i will bite.  Depending on who the other two are:

Panthos.  JJ/DD.   DD/5trange.  If i had him, SS/BB.  JJ/BB.  DD/thanos.  

Some matches will take longer, some would require health packs and some would really get you a retal on defense.  That's obviously not the point you are trying to make.  You want to know who wins? Me, 90+% of the time.  It's the costs that will be different.  

Thats why i like thor so much.  He has a great balance because he is strong without being overpowered on defense.  You have to bring him in at a disadvantage to get the best utility out of him.

Most of those teams would get crushed by Gambit.  Yes he can be beaten by a handful of teams, but my guess is most people that don’t have Gambit probably don’t have Thor/JJ/Okoye either.

I have 6 champed 5’s, but they mostly older ones because I don’t like hoarding and spend CP on classics.  Yes I realize that wasn’t the best strategy, but I’m not the only one in my situation.  I can beat Gambit teams, but my loss rate and health pack usage is much higher than against any other opponent.  I’d rather hit a 480 Panthos than a 450 Gambit with any other 5.

The only unboosted team I have that stands a decent chance against Gambit is Hawkeye/Coulson, and that’s risky.  The only time I’m confident against a Gambit team is when Grocket or Peggy is boosted.  Grocket along with another boosted GotG can take him out before he gets going, and Peggy can slow him down enough.

Lystrata

Towards the end of last season I got really, really sick of skipping Gambit teams. It was a massive waste of time and iso, so I just started hitting them. And honestly... he's pretty weak on defense, given the right team. At the time  in pvp I was running Thor, AA (one of the most under-appreciated/over-looked chars, imo) and America (for shield).

They crushed him. Mass cascades, stuns, ap denial, near rainbow... and since many people use Gambit with Thor themselves, a large amount of the time Gambit doesn't even use his red. Saves it for Thor, who can typically also be stunned (or downed entirely*), by the time you've gotten rid of Gambit. 

This season I've switched to Thor and JJ, and I haven't lost to a Gambit team yet.

But the key point there is... given the right team. If you aren't fortunate enough to have gotten one of about 4 characters that can reliably take Gambit... I can only imagine how horrendous PvP is. Actually, I know how horrendous it is. And it isn't healthy for the game, to have people refusing to, or incapable of, playing half the content because of one character. 

I think the main problem with the discussion is we've been conditioned to fear nerfs, as many past nerfs have outright destroyed a character's usefulness. Gambit does need to come down a little, but we instinctively fear that - because in the past, the devs have swung wayyy too far in the opposite direction and suddenly a character is useless. With the time, effort and / or money invested in getting a 5* to a champed level, the fear compounds because a lot more work went into getting such a great character. To have him rendered useless would be crushing for many people.

For me, the question isn't really if he should be nerfed (yes), but how far will he be nerfed? 

---

* This being why Thor isn't actually OP or much of a threat. You really need different mindsets with Thor. On offence, awesome. On defense, pretty lackluster. 

huktonfonix

A whole lot of people are overlooking the critical distinction between how a character performs on offense (player controlled) and how they perform on defense (AI controlled).

Thor being tossed around a lot here. Thor is easily top 2 characters in the game right now and is extremely powerful, but is balanced in a critical way that Gambit is not. Yes, on offense and played correctly, Thor can beat any team in the game, including Gambit.  However, on defense, Thor is a glass cannon beatable by literally any 5* team. Defensive Thor enters the fight at 100% hp, which means he does nothing for a long time unless you play very stupidly against him. Don’t believe me? Do that idiot thing I keep doing where I decide to deliberately let 60-100% Thor tank instead of retreating him to 50%. Guaranteed horrible match costing 1-3 health packs.

This is where Gambit stands alone. He’s powerful (maybe not the most powerful, but easily top tier) on offense, but on defense he’s extremely difficult to beat without either your own Gambit or Thor. There is no other 5* character that cannot easily and consistently be beaten by any 5* pairing. You might win one fight against Gambit with a gimmick team, stings, boosts, but there is absolutely no way you’re going to climb to 900-1200 in pvp off Gambit teams with DD/BP, SS/BB, or any of the other nonsense teams mentioned above without crazy luck and a Stark worth of health packs and boosts.

With Gambit being the most common character in PvP, players with Thor and/or Gambit are locked out of high-level pvp. With both of those characters in classics, it would cost approximately 36000 cp to pull 13 covers for either.  For the long term health of the game, this has to change.

There are players with 550 ThorBit teams and no third 550 5 to replace Gambit campaigning for a nerf for that very reason in this thread.  When someone who has spent thousands on a 550 Gambit with no obvious replacement rostered is begging for a self-nerf, that should speak volumes.

elko90

huktonfonix said:

A whole lot of people are overlooking the critical distinction between how a character performs on offense (player controlled) and how they perform on defense (AI controlled).

Thor being tossed around a lot here. Thor is easily top 2 characters in the game right now and is extremely powerful, but is balanced in a critical way that Gambit is not. Yes, on offense and played correctly, Thor can beat any team in the game, including Gambit.  However, on defense, Thor is a glass cannon beatable by literally any 5* team. Defensive Thor enters the fight at 100% hp, which means he does nothing for a long time unless you play very stupidly against him. Don’t believe me? Do that idiot thing I keep doing where I decide to deliberately let 60-100% Thor tank instead of retreating him to 50%. Guaranteed horrible match costing 1-3 health packs.

This is where Gambit stands alone. He’s powerful (maybe not the most powerful, but easily top tier) on offense, but on defense he’s extremely difficult to beat without either your own Gambit or Thor. There is no other 5* character that cannot easily and consistently be beaten by any 5* pairing. You might win one fight against Gambit with a gimmick team, stings, boosts, but there is absolutely no way you’re going to climb to 900-1200 in pvp off Gambit teams with DD/BP, SS/BB, or any of the other nonsense teams mentioned above without crazy luck and a Stark worth of health packs and boosts.

With Gambit being the most common character in PvP, players with Thor and/or Gambit are locked out of high-level pvp. With both of those characters in classics, it would cost approximately 36000 cp to pull 13 covers for either.  For the long term health of the game, this has to change.

There are players with 550 ThorBit teams and no third 550 5 to replace Gambit campaigning for a nerf for that very reason in this thread.  When someone who has spent thousands on a 550 Gambit with no obvious replacement rostered is begging for a self-nerf, that should speak volumes.

As i said before an alliance mate beat me everytime with JJ and Cap(IW) my team was thor and gambit... it wasnt just one match it was 10 of them in succession and each and everytime he beat my thorbit team 

Edit: and matches were without boosts

Bowgentle

Spudgutter said:

CharlieCroker said:

Spudgutter said:

huktonfonix said:

Spudgutter said:

Bowgentle said:

Spudgutter said:

I think he is a super strong character who could use a tweak, but it is not really that different from the panthos meta, where in order to do well you had to have the same team as a counter.  Someone is always going to be on top.

You never needed Panthos in that meta.
I ran Surfer Bolt for months, that team absolutely destroyed Panthos.

Case in point.  You are right, i should have said "in order to do well, it helps to have them."  

Just like right now, you don't "need" gambit.  I dont use him and do just fine.  

Name teams you beat similarly leveled Gambits with that don’t include Thor or your own Gambit.

Wait, what?  We are talking about gambit here, but i will bite.  Depending on who the other two are:

Panthos.  JJ/DD.   DD/5trange.  If i had him, SS/BB.  JJ/BB.  DD/thanos.  

Some matches will take longer, some would require health packs and some would really get you a retal on defense.  That's obviously not the point you are trying to make.  You want to know who wins? Me, 90+% of the time.  It's the costs that will be different.  

Thats why i like thor so much.  He has a great balance because he is strong without being overpowered on defense.  You have to bring him in at a disadvantage to get the best utility out of him.

Did you really just suggest using a team with Black Bolt against Gambit?  Interesting....

But with regards to Thor, the thing is that if you have someone to tank for him (i.e. Gambit 15 levels higher tanks red, or other characters similarly higher) there is no real disadvantage, just the 5ap+ a turn gain.  That's (but obviously) why he's so good and meshes so well with a variety of partners.

I got the idea from bowgentle.  Like i said, it would depend on who the other two opponents were.  SS heals, so if you keep him out front when gambit is getting ready to fire his red, it wouldnt have as much of an impact.  Definitely wouldn't use it for a hop to get to 1200, but would certainly consider it on my climb to save health packs.

Please don't tell people I said to bring not one but TWO charged tile makers against Gambit lol.

No, it's not a good idea and it won't work 80% of the time.

Hadronic

Reading this thread, it seems the problem is that gambit is so easy to use, even the AI can do it. Can we just nerf him so that when controlled by the AI he shoots himself in the face with his red? hahahaha

Bowgentle

OJSP said:

elko90 said:

As i said before an alliance mate beat me everytime with JJ and Cap(IW) my team was thor and gambit... 

They have about 2 months before both go to Classics. Okoye has a bit longer. If the solution for transitioning players is to get one or two latest 5*s so they could fight classic characters released over 9 months ago or get your own Gambit, something is not right.

I'd also like to see them try to go from 900 to 1200 with Cap JJ.

Sm0keyJ0e

Daredevil217 said:

So to quote someone earlier in this thread in why Gambit should be nerfed. 

“Gambit originally generated 3 red and purple ap, each and every turn, without conditions other than his teammates cannot fire their sorry powers. What if he generated 6ap of each color each turn? That's fine? No nerfs cuz they're bad? “

Half health Thor does this, except he collects 5 AP in three colors, gets the damage and cascades from destroying tiles... oh, and he doesn’t block other teammates from using active powers. I get it’s “conditional” in that you have to bring him in half health but that takes place before the match begins. Once in the match there are no conditions to his AP gen and he’s just as powerful as Gambit. So... nerf? I mean he seems to be a pretty big advantage against those who don’t have him. Way more so when Gambit is gutted. 

With all due respect, you are not in the 5* tier and while I respect the fact you can speculate what it's like to play at that tier, first-hand game knowledge and theories about what happens are two totally different things. 

You say you get that it's "conditional"--you can stop right there. That is the difference between every single 5* and Gambit. From the beginning he's generating ap and destroying yours. You start a battle, make one match, and the very next turn you have 1ap and enemy has at least 7ap. This is what happens when fighting Gambit without Gambit and it's an incredible slog trying to gather colors to fire powers. Your analogy of half-health Thor only applies to offense. On defense he's a cake-walk as others have pointed out. Okoye might even be better than Thor at similar levels on offense. Again, on defense--easy peasy, like every other 5*. Can Gambit be beat? Sure, he can be beat. But his mechanics are dumb and game-breaking and he should never have been released the way he was designed.

adamdivine

huktonfonix said:

A whole lot of people are overlooking the critical distinction between how a character performs on offense (player controlled) and how they perform on defense (AI controlled).

Thor being tossed around a lot here. Thor is easily top 2 characters in the game right now and is extremely powerful, but is balanced in a critical way that Gambit is not. Yes, on offense and played correctly, Thor can beat any team in the game, including Gambit.  However, on defense, Thor is a glass cannon beatable by literally any 5* team. Defensive Thor enters the fight at 100% hp, which means he does nothing for a long time unless you play very stupidly against him. Don’t believe me? Do that idiot thing I keep doing where I decide to deliberately let 60-100% Thor tank instead of retreating him to 50%. Guaranteed horrible match costing 1-3 health packs.

This is where Gambit stands alone. He’s powerful (maybe not the most powerful, but easily top tier) on offense, but on defense he’s extremely difficult to beat without either your own Gambit or Thor. There is no other 5* character that cannot easily and consistently be beaten by any 5* pairing. You might win one fight against Gambit with a gimmick team, stings, boosts, but there is absolutely no way you’re going to climb to 900-1200 in pvp off Gambit teams with DD/BP, SS/BB, or any of the other nonsense teams mentioned above without crazy luck and a Stark worth of health packs and boosts.

With Gambit being the most common character in PvP, players with Thor and/or Gambit are locked out of high-level pvp. With both of those characters in classics, it would cost approximately 36000 cp to pull 13 covers for either.  For the long term health of the game, this has to change.

There are players with 550 ThorBit teams and no third 550 5 to replace Gambit campaigning for a nerf for that very reason in this thread.  When someone who has spent thousands on a 550 Gambit with no obvious replacement rostered is begging for a self-nerf, that should speak volumes.

While I'm not near the 550 level, Gambit is my highest 5* at 472....  I completely agree with this. I've wanted Gambit nerfed since about week 1 of having him. He has absolutely ruined the game.

Daredevil217

I’m not in the tier which is why I’m asking questions. Like I said, a lot of hyperbole running around from you can’t beat Gambit to I beat him all the time. Obviously both can’t be true.  What I know is:

Gambit’s AP gen condition is he stops buddies from firing active powers in two colors- but you’d never fire anyone else’s anyway. Thor’s AP gen condition is you need to have him half-health- but you’d never bring him at full health anyway.

Some people (not all) actually prefer to use other options over him because other options have trumped him in speed (mainly Thor)  And despite people ranking him #1 for PVE he really isn’t the best option there. 

While he’s beatable, he is annoying to face on defense and it might cost you considerable resources to beat him. 

Once he’s nerfed, some people (again, not all- but it has already happened in this thread) will be asking for Thor to be nerfed next. 

I believe these are all true statements. 

Sm0keyJ0e

Daredevil217 said:

I’m not in the tier which is why I’m asking questions. 

Well to be honest, you are not really asking questions, you are making a lot of uninformed statements, such as:

That Thor blade is way taller than the others. And unlike Gambit he’s best for PVE AND PVP meaning he dominates the entire game and not just one game mode.

Once in the match there are no conditions to his AP gen and he’s just as powerful as Gambit. So... nerf? I mean he seems to be a pretty big advantage against those who don’t have him. Way more so when Gambit is gutted. 

So the issue isn’t that he’s head and shoulders better than everyone else on offense (as Thor will be post nerf), and that those who have him will be better than everyone else.

I don't know anyone deep into the 5* tier that thinks Thor dominates the entire game, even after Gambit's impending nerf. I can only assume you are theorizing this as you're not in the tier and have never used a champed Thor in PVE or PVP. There are many better/faster options in PVE. And saying Thor is a big advantage against those who don't have him is, again... completely your opinion and not based on anything. Please listen to the masses here: Thor is not difficult to beat--with ANY team, including boosted 4*'s. Those who have Thor, post-nerf, will NOT be better than everyone else. 5* players will once again have options.

Please just stop. You're out of your element and spewing non-truths all over the place.

The rockett

Sm0keyJ0e said:

Daredevil217 said:

I’m not in the tier which is why I’m asking questions. 

Well to be honest, you are not really asking questions, you are making a lot of uninformed statements, such as:

That Thor blade is way taller than the others. And unlike Gambit he’s best for PVE AND PVP meaning he dominates the entire game and not just one game mode.

Once in the match there are no conditions to his AP gen and he’s just as powerful as Gambit. So... nerf? I mean he seems to be a pretty big advantage against those who don’t have him. Way more so when Gambit is gutted. 

So the issue isn’t that he’s head and shoulders better than everyone else on offense (as Thor will be post nerf), and that those who have him will be better than everyone else.

I don't know anyone deep into the 5* tier that thinks Thor dominates the entire game, even after Gambit's impending nerf. I can only assume you are theorizing this as you're not in the tier and have never used a champed Thor in PVE or PVP. There are many better/faster options in PVE. And saying Thor is a big advantage against those who don't have him is, again... completely your opinion and not based on anything. Please listen to the masses here: Thor is not difficult to beat--with ANY team, including boosted 4*'s. Those who have Thor, post-nerf, will NOT be better than everyone else. 5* players will once again have options.

Please just stop. You're out of your element and spewing non-truths all over the place.

Smokey is 100% correct here.  Thor is not bad, You just have to no how to handle him.  There is no need to nerf him.  While he might be near the  top of the 5* then, he is NOT the meta that Gambit is.  There is a huge differance.  

Daredevil217

It’s weird that you responded to the intro of my most recent post but none of the content in it after. Is anything in my most recent post concerning Gambit (and I guess Thor) false or no? Like I said, I believe they’re true based on what others are saying but if I’m wrong please correct me. 

The rockett said:

Smokey is 100% correct here.  Thor is not bad, You just have to no how to handle him.  There is no need to nerf him.  While he might be near the  top of the 5* then, he is NOT the meta that Gambit is.  There is a huge differance.  

This is on defense where you’re saying he’s not a problem though right? I get Thor is easily beatable. On offense he’ll be the best character for PVE (though Thanos is still there with him) and PVP due to the AP gen, cascades, and no limitations on who can fire active powers?

Sm0keyJ0e

Thor and Okoye and JJ are all good designs: really good and fun in the players' hands, easily beat in the AI's hands. That is fun for the players. We all want to be able to use our entire rosters. Boosted 4*'s should be viable even at the 5* tier. We should be able to embrace variety. After all, it's why we've built up our rosters over time. Gambit simply doesn't allow this in his current form. No one is asking for his utter destruction, but remove some of the game breaking elements like unconditional ap gen/destruction and his purple ability to completely nerf nearly every other character's powers.

Once this is done (and it will be done) I guarantee there will be no calls to nerf Thor, or Okoye, or JJ... because they are fun to play and easy to beat.

Sense of accomplishment for all!

CharlieCroker

I posted in the thread earlier that I find Thor slightly OP and I'll stand by this.  For speed he is almost unparalleled (Panthos for grills) and he will greatly accelerate climbs when contrasted against others that don't have him.  I also consider situations where others tank his colours to be edging on game breaking as then there is no disadvantage in keeping him at 50% match after match after match (I do exactly this most PVEs).

However, I'm not really calling for a nerf for the reasons outlined by Rockett, Smokey and others - Thor is not difficult to best on defense without having him.  I can easily beat him with any other 5* (possibly even Banner) and with most 4*s too.  He won't really effect the way I choose to play the game -  you cannot say the same for Gambit.

And whilst Thor is/will be #1 for speed in PvP he won't be the best for everything.  For example Daredevil/Okoye will be more sustainable (barring a tanked for Thor), JJ in particular will be more powerful (as will boosted 4*s) and others like Strange can offer more control.  And most importantly you'll be able to play around with all these options without losing 2ap every turn and having every special tile countered.

The rockett

Daredevil217 said:

It’s weird that you responded to the intro of my most recent post but none of the content in it after. Is anything in my most recent post concerning Gambit (and I guess Thor) false or no? Like I said, I believe they’re true based on what others are saying but if I’m wrong please correct me. 

The rockett said:

Smokey is 100% correct here.  Thor is not bad, You just have to no how to handle him.  There is no need to nerf him.  While he might be near the  top of the 5* then, he is NOT the meta that Gambit is.  There is a huge differance.  

This is on defense where you’re saying he’s not a problem though right? I get Thor is easily beatable. On offense he’ll be the best character for PVE (though Thanos is still there with him) and PVP due to the AP gen, cascades, and no limitations on who can fire active powers?

Thanos, Rockett and Groot Plus a GOTG.  That is the fastest team that I have seen so far most of the time, but for pve I will burn all my health packs and buy if needed.  I really don’t care since it is all about speed and nothing else.  Now depending on the node, other teams can be faster than that one.  Thor 1/2 could be in there but he isn’t the fastest hands down. You need a 3 person team for it to work.  You have to protect Thor so you don’t lose him so you have to play smart in pve when using a 1/2 Thor.  

UNC_Samurai

I’m sorry but “just give us more good characters” or “this Latest Legend is a good counter” are garbage arguments when it comes to fixing a broken play environment.  How are you supposed to get said characters if you can’t reliably pick up rewards in PvP?  

Your argument amounts to “Suck it up and get your teeth kicked in for months while you collect CP, and hope the 5* you dump all your resources into A: is the right one and B: you actually pull the right covers to champ.”

jamesh

I don't have experience with playing at the 5* tier, but having people talk about a "single best character" sounds quite boring to me.

A system where there is no single best character sounds a lot more interesting to me: I'd prefer a system where each character is strong against some and weak against others.  That would encourage diversity in the teams people put forward, since if any one character becomes too popular it will encourage people to use a second, etc.  If you are entering the tier and only have one or two characters, you should still be able to find matches where those characters are a good choice.

maguirenumber6

It seems strange to me that some would quit the game if they rebalanced Gambit again. It'll be your loss at the end of the day. If you don't want your points and prizes I'll gladly have them instead

bluewolf

maguirenumber6 said:

It seems strange to me that some would quit the game if they rebalanced Gambit again. It'll be your loss at the end of the day. If you don't want your points and prizes I'll gladly have them instead

A lot of 5* players have Gambit as their highest level character, either through luck, hoard breaking, or spending. Some also took advantage of a couple of bugs that aren’t really worth discussing here again.

Some of those players may have skipped later characters because they paled in comparison to Gambit. (Or because they weren’t very good.)

If Godbit becomes just one of the crowd, that means you spent lots of resources on someone that is basically now as good as someone you skipped or just barely covered.  Not a good feeling.

Not to mention that your team composition and who you have been running, strategically built around Gambit in some cases, is out the window and you may not be able to be as competitive now.

After the rug is pulled out from under someone, quitting might be a good option.