PvP without 5* Thor

Warbringa

5* Thor isn't the 5* that needs to be nerfed. If we are going to start swing the nerf stick around so liberally (which we shouldn't) it should be a different 5* who is part of the new meta and is really great for offense and defense. Perhaps it would be easier to nerf the 4* that makes said meta so good? I personally don't believe there are any 5* that need nerfing at this point....look at what happened to our good friend Gambit.  Devs don't know how to nerf as said a million times before.  Instead of a minor tweak (which is usually all that is needed) they completely blow the character up. Besides every significant nerf ends up causing a loss of players, which the game does not need now.

ThaRoadWarrior

Taking gladiator Thor off the table allowed me to hit 900 in pvp without shielding for the first time since I champed 5* Ghost Rider as my only champ 5 a couple months back. It was great to float above 300 points, and actually get a defense win or two, rather than losing 200+ pts every time i set the game down.

It would be nice if there were some defensive counter option to Thor - I guess it's Bishop. Some sort of higher-tier The Hood who is passively draining AP might do it.

It is pretty rough that the hard-counter to these meta teams turns to be somebody like BSSM who is reasonably hard to chase on purpose these days if you weren't there for his stint in Latest, or have a big hoard ready for a special store. Having to grind a 4* feeder up for months is better than nothing, but by the time you do that through bonus heroing, the meta has probably run its course anyway.

Vhailorx

Polares:

I agree that the gambit and OML nerfs were different.  Gambit was super strong from the moment he entered the game until the moment he was nerfed.  OML was very strong at release, and remained good for transitioners, but had been totally surpassed by power creep when he was finally nerfed.  Gambit was so strong that required changes to the game (either a significant nerf to him or a significant boost to the rest of 5* land).  OML didn't need to be changed at all.  Both were nerfed into the ground. 

I wasn't suggesting that the context of their nerfs entirely similar, just that Demi viewed both as outliers and nerfed them accordingly (as they also did with thorverine and sentry and Spidey and cmags etc). 

As to whether Demi *knows* how to nerf, I would suggest that they probably do know what an ideal nerf looks likes in theory, but for whatever reason, they also view having to revise a character twice as even worse than going too hard on a Nerf the first time.  Not sure what internal cost/benefit decision brings them to that conclusion, but it seems pretty consistent.  Also, they seem not to understand much about elder game play, which likely affects their decision making too.

We should probably give them more praise for Carnage, who was also nerfed into the ground, but then brought back up to his current, useful condition in pretty quick succession.  That was a good example that I would love to see Demi follow more often. (At least if they aren't going to switch to more incremental, and frequent character tuning).

crackninja

By the time gambit was nerfed, he was about to be surpassed in the meta anyway (very possibly by accident, but still).  Now he's a joke.
Nerfing 5thor would be incredibly frustrating unless the same thing happens and a new meta appears right around that time.
Personally, I find gritty to be fun for pve, but a major healthpack liabilities in pvp.  Taking away thorkoye without something not yet in the game being there to soften the blow...I don't know...I managed to limp my way to 16 wins in the thor pvp and gladly cut bait.
I don't want to overreact, so I'll just say that I hope they leave him alone, and introduce some new fun and effective 5 * characters.

Polares

Vhailorx said:

Polares:

I agree that the gambit and OML nerfs were different.  Gambit was super strong from the moment he entered the game until the moment he was nerfed.  OML was very strong at release, and remained good for transitioners, but had been totally surpassed by power creep when he was finally nerfed.  Gambit was so strong that required changes to the game (either a significant nerf to him or a significant boost to the rest of 5* land).  OML didn't need to be changed at all.  Both were nerfed into the ground. 

I wasn't suggesting that the context of their nerfs entirely similar, just that Demi viewed both as outliers and nerfed them accordingly (as they also did with thorverine and sentry and Spidey and cmags etc). 

Yeah I know that was not your intention, I just wanted to point out, that the real motive under the nerfs was usage, not that they were broken.

Vhailorx said:

As to whether Demi *knows* how to nerf, I would suggest that they probably do know what an ideal nerf looks likes in theory, but for whatever reason, they also view having to revise a character twice as even worse than going too hard on a Nerf the first time.  Not sure what internal cost/benefit decision brings them to that conclusion, but it seems pretty consistent.  Also, they seem not to understand much about elder game play, which likely affects their decision making too.

We should probably give them more praise for Carnage, who was also nerfed into the ground, but then brought back up to his current, useful condition in pretty quick succession.  That was a good example that I would love to see Demi follow more often.

Sadly, I don't think they deserve praise for Carnage. They were buffing him! Yeah his final state is decent, but in the process of buffing him, they nerfed him. It is the same as with Kingpin or the most recent Reed, where they actually nerfed a char instead of buffing him.

This is why I think they should use a far more iterative process, like MOBAs or Fighting games do, were they don't usually change the power set completely, they just tweak the numbers. But that is my opinion and as they have never done it like this, we don't know if this could work. But there are a few chars that with small tweaks like increasing damage or making the powers cheaper would work.

Vhailorx

Polares,

You think the original Carnage revision was meant as a buff?  I always read that as they were scared of Carnage + Medusa + fantastic because Carnage just made special tiles endlessly.  So they nerfed him to fix that problem.  But they stupidly made made his black active, which undermined the entire concept of the character. 

In anu event, that was all bad.

But then the recognized the problem and fixed him to what he is now (which is fine).  And they did it quickly (the very next season iirc).  That is good.  That is what I want to see more of.  I would object less strenuously to a potential Thor/gritty nerf if I had any confidence at all that Demi would recognize and correct an over-nerf.  But they don't.  So we are just left with large amounts of resources invested in pure roster trash (sentry, OML, Gambit, etc).  And that is ****.

gentgeen

I am probably gonna get shot down for saying this... but think about it ...

Thor, Grocket, Kitty, Carnage, OML, Gambit -- what is it that has people yelling they need to be nerfed?  In has centered around the passive power for each one.  

The game already has (well had) 2 built in 'equalizers' .... you can only choose 3 characters, and those characters only have 3 powers.  You have Thor & Kitty who, for all intent and purposes, now have 4 powers.  The reason why there was little talk about Nerfing Grocket when he came out was because at least his passive was one of his 3 powers. 

This passive creep has become the new 'meta' - almost (all?) of the recent characters have some kind of passive element to them.  It is as if the Devs are shoe-horning in ways to give everyone 4 or 5 powers.   And most of the time, (I think) it is a stretch when you think about the character.  Wolverine having a passive heal - makes sense.  What in the character's history makes sense for Kitty's "increase tile strength" ? Bishop absorbing makes sense, but why is he also jumping in front?    Stop giving people a 4th (or more) power, and maybe we can stop asking for nerfs.  

Warbringa

gentgeen said:

I am probably gonna get shot down for saying this... but think about it ...

Thor, Grocket, Kitty, Carnage, OML, Gambit -- what is it that has people yelling they need to be nerfed?  In has centered around the passive power for each one.  

The game already has (well had) 2 built in 'equalizers' .... you can only choose 3 characters, and those characters only have 3 powers.  You have Thor & Kitty who, for all intent and purposes, now have 4 powers.  The reason why there was little talk about Nerfing Grocket when he came out was because at least his passive was one of his 3 powers. 

This passive creep has become the new 'meta' - almost (all?) of the recent characters have some kind of passive element to them.  It is as if the Devs are shoe-horning in ways to give everyone 4 or 5 powers.   And most of the time, (I think) it is a stretch when you think about the character.  Wolverine having a passive heal - makes sense.  What in the character's history makes sense for Kitty's "increase tile strength" ? Bishop absorbing makes sense, but why is he also jumping in front?    Stop giving people a 4th (or more) power, and maybe we can stop asking for nerfs.  

This.  Power creep in character design that they have made passive powers better than active.  Passive abilities need to be significantly weaker (in most cases) than active powers since they are.....passive.  If this is not the case, then those characters with good passives (and multiple ones passives) will always outshine every other character, even those with better active powers. A passive power should be incremental increase in your match benefit, not a game changer like many of the abilities described in characters above.  You can see this discussion in the forums years ago as this creep started, normally about character design topics.  I remember a joke years ago about eventually there will be a character with just 3 passive powers....and then America Chavez showed up.  Turns out she is pretty good in the 4* tier, imagine that!

Vhailorx

Passives have been dominant for a very long time in mpq.  Since hulkbombing at least.  We shouldn't act like this is some new or surprising feature of the game.

T_REZ5000

Vhailorx said:

Passives have been dominant for a very long time in mpq.  Since hulkbombing at least.  We shouldn't act like this is some new or surprising feature of the game.

Hulkbombing required ap to fire patch’s green.  Kitty, thor, old gambit, grocket are all doing ridiculously good things without any board interaction whatsoever. 

I left the game for the first time back when x force was nerfed due to my pve scaling being crazy with a leveled 4* (who was now useless).  Then I came back to a meta dominated by grocket, medusa, and gamora.  I was shocked the devs thought that xfw was OP and too fast but starting out with 2k strike tiles and medusa’s passive adding onto that is totally fine.  Then came gambit and thor with tons of passive ap generation further driving the game away from collecting ap from the board.

PiMacleod

No one is acting like it is.  It's just stating it again.

Acting like theres not a counter-pick system, when you pretty much play a counter picking game until you hit tier 5 gameplay, that's kinda ridiculous. 

As long as I've played, you could counter pick your opponents team, because you can see who they are first.  And it works!  4* tier is the strongest version of it, as there are so many choices and builds to work with.  Enemy has Peggy?  Well, just go passives with a carnage/medusa team.  Also works against teams with Strange.  Enemy 4* Luke Cage?  Its amazing how fast the entire team falls when Brock is on your team.  Enemy vulture or IM40?  Go back to Peggy... slows that team down so you can kill them before they take off.

This exists everywhere... except in our 5* meta.  But somehow I hear that it's bad that we have a solution to Gritty in the form of a 5* character, just because people dont have him.  That's not a reason.   If anything at all, the devs should release another character that can counter Gritty just for more options overall, but seriously, Bishop sucks to fight against, and BSSM takes the entire point of your combo away.

But nothing 'trumps' half Thor.  You cant stop that ability.  It just works.  You say it's easy to kill, yet here we are, talking in a thread made for this purpose.  I use him.  I use gritty too.  Thor makes things so fast, that if you were to lose your Thor (somehow), you'd contemplate quitting.  And if not you, others would.  It's just how it is.  It's so fast, that going back to a slower gameplay is too much.

Doesnt that tell you theres a problem?  If the way ONE character plays affects your speed, grinding time, and overall enjoyment so much, isnt that character broken?  Think about it.  Think of the power level of each character in tier 1.  Then tier 2.  Then tier 3....  yeah, as you go up, some are clearly better than others.  Tier 4.  Definitely some shining stars.  Tier 5.  Pretty awesome stuff. . But one dude shines above the rest.  Because he has an ability that you cant stop,  that gains AP, that can cascade into more AP and damage.

And for the record, yes, it would suck if he were nerfed, for the purpose of my grinding through the game every day.  I'm speaking on this as someone looking at the scales and saying "huh... that's clearly the best 5* power".

On the flip side, if everyone was buffed to this power extraordinaire...  there would be no way that the 4* tier could ever compete then.  It's hard enough now for 4* people to try their hand against a 5* team.  Buffing all 5*s up would make it unfathomable.   You might as well call them all 6*s, then create a new tier of 5* characters between them, because the gap is that big (match damage and HP difference is glaring enough).

I know from my own experience coming up that there was a thrill when you took an all 3*  team and beat down a 4*  team.  You outmaneuvered them, countered them, etc... whatever it was, you did it.  I dont believe that the gap between 4* and 5* should be measured by how awesome thor's passive is.  Because if buffing others up to that level is what happens, it becomes an ivory tower level of power.  No 4* team could touch a 5* team where 5*s were buffed to that level.

Vhailorx

Ha, with hela announced now it seems that Demi will take at least 1 more run at a hard counter to Thor before nerfing him.  No more hoarding green for double cast AOEs

ABaker84

Hela will break Thor's hammer .No longer a need to nerf, if there was a need in the first place. Nerf is a naughty word that should be avoided

Lystrata

PiMacleod said:

That was well said.  I do like how you put it.

...so you're all-for a character that gives 5 free AP a turn, along with potential cascading damage and more AP?

It's hard for me to see the balance in that.  If you want AP, there should be a cost.  Having half health isnt a cost... that's just a thing that's bound to happen as you play more and more.  It's like erosion... its inevitable.

I am absolutely all for a character like 5Thor, because all the things he does that are great are easy to achieve if you're playing him, and easy to avoid him getting if you're playing against him. That's a fantastic combination for a match 3 game that can already require hours of playing. I can play him with the relatively safe knowledge it's fast and effective, and I can play against him with the relatively safe knowledge he's not going to down me in three turns.

Compare it to someone like Gritty. If you're playing that team, there's no guarantee your strike tiles will last - so no guarantee what makes them good will actually help you. If those tiles get destroyed, random deity help you trying to finish off a match in any decent amount of time. And if you're playing against them, there's no guarantee you can avoid the strike tiles ramping up to insane levels - so no real way to safely counter them. (Sure, there are strategies, and one 5*, but nothing I've found yet that's as fool-proof as with just not getting Thor below X life.)

The problem isn't Thor - the problem is there aren't more characters like Thor. I wish there were more characters that were great when I played them and middle of the road when playing against them. 

Though FWIW, I would entirely agree with you if Thor's AP gen was a given for the AI. The thing I like most about the AP gen, the potential cascading damage, etc, is it helps you when playing him, but doesn't automatically (or even at all, a lot of the time) amount to anything when playing against him.

marshall

We wouldn't have this conversation every 5 minutes if they adjust variables on characters every couple of weeks like a normal game company. No, they have to completely overhaul a character with a 20% chance of making anyone happy.

They could have slowly tested out Gambit changes instead of a single dramatic nerf.

BigSoftieFF

If they would like to wrap the game up then yes, nerf Thor.

gentgeen

ABaker84 said:

Hela will break Thor's hammer .No longer a need to nerf, if there was a need in the first place. Nerf is a naughty word that should be avoided

And look at that... She has 5 powers! 

Vhailorx

gentgeen said:

ABaker84 said:

Hela will break Thor's hammer .No longer a need to nerf, if there was a need in the first place. Nerf is a naughty word that should be avoided

And look at that... She has 5 powers! 

So what? Coulson has 6 powers and taskmaster has even more. I done see anyone complaining about them breaking the meta.  Your brightline test us not particularly helpful. You have to consider the content of the powers.

jredd

PiMacleod said:

But nothing 'trumps' half Thor.  You cant stop that ability. 

Keep him above half health, then nuke him in 1 turn with a couple abilities. thankfully you never have start a match against a 1/2 health thor. that would be an issue.

LLohm

ABaker84 said:

Hela will break Thor's hammer .No longer a need to nerf, if there was a need in the first place. Nerf is a naughty word that should be avoided

Dear ABaker84,

I think Hela nerfs all other green users far harder than Thor seeing that he gathers green AP for free.

If anything, Hela breaks Thor the least.