Do you want nerfs?

freakygeek
freakygeek Posts: 96 Match Maker
in MPQ General Discussion
It seems with the complaining about Kitty and Thor that people want a nerf, because carrying on about a character is how you get nerfs.

Is it that everyone has given up on the hope of buffs?  Has everyone decided that a new meta-defining character can't be coming soon?

I won't go into the endless re-hash of complaining that led to nerfs and will bring up some that didn't which show exactly why nerfs are not useful.  Remember when endless threads complained about 4* Carrol and how OP she was before the 5* meta was really rolling.  Kind of pointless now.  Remember when thread after thread complained about the then ever-present Panthos team and how OP that was.  Now they are cannon fodder for the current meta.

Be patient and enjoy the fact that the variety of teams now is more varied than in a long time and know that at some point Gambit 2.0 will appear and homogenize everything again.
«13

Comments

  • Sm0keyJ0e
    Sm0keyJ0e Posts: 730 Critical Contributor
    The last meaningful buff they did was a supposed nerf to Gambit.

    So keep hoping for buffs...
  • Ed_Dragonrider
    Ed_Dragonrider Posts: 593 Critical Contributor
    No, i dont want nerfs. I want resources (and less dilution) so i can finally get these oh-so-overpowered characters and maybe enjoy them myself.
    But all i see is post after post about how strong they are, while i pine away looking from afar at that distant mountain... but never mind, they'll probably be nerfed due to complaints, or overshadowed by the time i get there anyway.

    But no, wait, i can go up against them, get smashed again and again, in the new pve events, or if i stick my face anywhere near pvp, just you know, never have them.
  • Blackstone
    Blackstone Posts: 603 Critical Contributor
    Yeah, so counter grocket with grocket, and the other grocket team with grocket.

    Those early strike tiles make a lot of other characters really powerful because of the damage that can be dealt so quickly.

    I do hate nerfs, and think other characters should be buffed, but....

    The only answer to grocket, is grocket, unless they make another character that can do the same first turn damage, or destroy special tiles on turn one.

    All of the meta characters have some sort of counter but grocket is part of so many meta teams, at different levels of play, for a reason.

    And, he's barely needed after his strikes hit the board.
  • Dormammu
    Dormammu Posts: 3,531 Chairperson of the Boards
    Blackstone said:
    Yeah, so counter grocket with grocket, and the other grocket team with grocket.
    Or Thing, Dazzler, XFDP, Bishop... the list goes on and on.
  • Blackstone
    Blackstone Posts: 603 Critical Contributor
    Dormammu said:
    Blackstone said:
    Yeah, so counter grocket with grocket, and the other grocket team with grocket.
    Or Thing, Dazzler, XFDP, Bishop... the list goes on and on.
    And are any of those characters effective on as many teams as grocket, while not having grocket on the team?

    The short answer is no.

    But that wasn't the point of post.  There will always be characters that are more effective than others.

    There are counters to grocket, depending on who he is paired with, but no other characters makes so many other characters so much more powerful.

    And grocket does it while being great on offense and defense, more so than any of the counters, by placing strike tiles on turn one, with no cost.
  • Blackstone
    Blackstone Posts: 603 Critical Contributor
    Dragon_Nexus said:
    No, I want buffs. I want more of my 5* roster to be worth a damn. I hate that the current 5* selection in latest legends is "okay" at best. I hate that Wasp, one of my favourite characters, is garbage. I hate that God Emperor Doom is only okay. I hate that Captain Marvel is only okay.

    I hate that most of the 5*s I do have are only useful when boosted in PvE.
    Absolutely need buffs.
  • wymtime
    wymtime Posts: 3,759 Chairperson of the Boards
    Tony_Foot said:
    I want them to do minor re-balances all the time, assess and move on or tweak again like most other games I've ever played. Instead they do nothing or use a ICBM to crack a walnut.



    This is what I want.  Minor rebalances on a regular basis.  New character comes out.  Players play test give feedback, devs look at statistics of how the powers are working and make minor adjustments.  

    Please stop releasing characters and when they turn out to be really poor just forget about.  Reduce a repeater tile, make a power fire instead of a CD.  Increase damage by 10%.  Do aomething to make the character better and at least useable instead of an afterthought.
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    Blackstone said:
    Dormammu said:
    Blackstone said:
    Yeah, so counter grocket with grocket, and the other grocket team with grocket.
    Or Thing, Dazzler, XFDP, Bishop... the list goes on and on.
    And are any of those characters effective on as many teams as grocket, while not having grocket on the team?

    The short answer is no.

    But that wasn't the point of post.  There will always be characters that are more effective than others.

    There are counters to grocket, depending on who he is paired with, but no other characters makes so many other characters so much more powerful.

    And grocket does it while being great on offense and defense, more so than any of the counters, by placing strike tiles on turn one, with no cost.
    Grocket is almost 2 years old now.  No one really got bent out of shape about him until kitty. 

    And as discussed, kitty by herself isn't a problem. 

    The problem is that grocket gives 1-2k strikes for free. And kitty automatically adds ~2.5k IF you have enough strikes.  It's the synergy that is bad.

    You could fix the gritty "problem" by reducing the number of tiles that grocket makes, even if the net strength was the same.
  • Bzhai
    Bzhai Posts: 507 Critical Contributor
    edited March 2019
    As it is our selection of useful/efficient 5* characters are so few, why make it even worse?

    It was the whole Gambit fiasco that put us in this sad state state of meh after meh 5* releases. Not saying that the nerf to Gambit was not justified but it influenced their design philosophy to be overly cautious. Just look at the thrash we've been getting since Wasp.

    Instead on focusing on the negative I'd rather rally the forums to call for reworks on the garbage 5 stars, which at present is a list that keeps growing and growing. 

    I want more choices when building my teams, not less.
  • jamesh
    jamesh Posts: 1,600 Chairperson of the Boards
    I enjoy playing Kitty, but think the game could improve by nerfing her a bit.  There are many interesting character builds that are effectively off the table because she ends up being a hard counter:
    1. Anything depending on a single countdown that lasts longer than one or two turns.
    2. Anything that creates strike, attack, or protect tiles at a rate lower than one a turn on average.
    Yes, you can just buff the powers past these limits (create lots of countdowns like Loki, spam many specials like Captain Marvel, etc), but it might be more effective to tone down Circuit Breaker.

    She's obviously not as bad as Gambit was, but I think she's got similar problems related to design of future characters.  I wouldn't be surprised if we see a few more failed attempts to counter her before they finally bite the bullet.
  • Blackstone
    Blackstone Posts: 603 Critical Contributor
    Vhailorx said:
    Blackstone said:
    Dormammu said:
    Blackstone said:
    Yeah, so counter grocket with grocket, and the other grocket team with grocket.
    Or Thing, Dazzler, XFDP, Bishop... the list goes on and on.
    And are any of those characters effective on as many teams as grocket, while not having grocket on the team?

    The short answer is no.

    But that wasn't the point of post.  There will always be characters that are more effective than others.

    There are counters to grocket, depending on who he is paired with, but no other characters makes so many other characters so much more powerful.

    And grocket does it while being great on offense and defense, more so than any of the counters, by placing strike tiles on turn one, with no cost.
    Grocket is almost 2 years old now.  No one really got bent out of shape about him until kitty. 

    And as discussed, kitty by herself isn't a problem. 

    The problem is that grocket gives 1-2k strikes for free. And kitty automatically adds ~2.5k IF you have enough strikes.  It's the synergy that is bad.

    You could fix the gritty "problem" by reducing the number of tiles that grocket makes, even if the net strength was the same.
    I don't have a problem with the synergy.  The synergy between Kitty and grocket is great.  In fact, the synergy between grockets one highly effective free power and many other characters is great.

    I just wish there were more characters that had such synergy, without relying on grockets strike tiles.

    Grocket alone isn't that great as two of his powers are conditional and unreliable.

    But, due to the passive, you could make a long list of characters that range from mediocre to great on their own, but are elevated greatly when paired with grocket, because of those free strike tiles.

    I'm not saying people got vent out of shape over grocket.  I'm not saying Kitty is a problem.  I'm not saying you can't counter grocket teams, but most of those counters do involve your own grocket.  I'm not even saying they should nerf grocket, or anyone else.  (Though, after reading through my earlier post,I understand why it might have seemed that way)

    Nerfing might be an option, but it's rarely a good one.

    I would much rather see other characters elevated, or added to the game, that can be just as effective, so the game feels more diverse.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    The devs have shared with the people in here many of the metrics and criteria that they use to determine whether to buff or nerf a character. If the characters that you asked to buff or nerf doesn't pass the metrics, they will naturally stay as it is. If they require a buff, then they have to queue up in their to-do list.

    If balancing characters and the game is as simple as adding more damage, then anyone can apply for a job with Demiurge as Game Designer.

    Anyway, here is the post: 

    https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/792836/#Comment_792836

    Key metrics we look at are:
    - Win rates
    - Usage relative to ownership
    - How many resources players are investing in this character vs. others

    And we look at player perception, including:
    - Sentiment about the character on the forums and elsewhere
    - How expert players at the company feel about the character
    - Where the character shows up in power rankings/tier lists
    - Comments about the character from reviews/surveys/player interviews

    When those sources give us signals something might need to change, we ask:
    - From a pure numbers perspective, considered by themselves, is this character balanced? What assumptions underlie that and are they correct?
    - How's the meta impacting the strength of this character? Is the problem with this character secretly a problem with another character or another class of characters?
    - How is the way the meta is likely to change in the future going to affect this character?
    - If the character is too strong and that's causing a bad player experience, is there something other than a nerf that will help? Releasing a counter, or adding a buff to someone else?

    As far as garbage character is concerned, it's subjective because it depends on the player's playstyle. Characters who rely on repeater to do something such as Loki, Kingpin, Captain Marvel are garbage to players who are all about smash and bulldoze through everything as fast as possible.
  • ammenell
    ammenell Posts: 817 Critical Contributor
    edited March 2019
    expert players at the company? 
    yeah, sure. . 
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited March 2019
    Very typical... Back then, out of so many criteria and metrics that the devs shared, the focus is on "expert players"... Today, it's still the same. Sounds like an ego issue to me.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    The devs have to cater to both competitive players and non-competitive players. Making all PvEs progression-based will be boring because I have played purely progression based match-3 RPG games and it doesn't capture much attention. 

    Being competitive is a choice. It's logical for players who are competitive and play hard to get better rewards than players who play casually. It's natural and in reality, rewards are typically structured this way as well. It can be seen in PvEs as well. 

    If it's not your nature to be competitive but you force yourself to be one, you will feel terrible. 

    The devs didn't create the game to be all about speed. Players who are competitive make their games all about speed. It's the same in many RPG games. 

    If MPQ is all about speed, then you won't be seeing 5* characters like Wasp, Kingpin, Captain Marvel at all. Any 2 or 3 character teams will be able to end matches in 5 matches if this game is really about speed.

Categories