Do you want nerfs?

jp1

Warbringa said:

Buffs are far preferable but they are far more work for devs too.  You need to apply it to each individual character and you have so many moving parts you are risking creating a lot of problems with a lot of buffs over a short time.  Nerfing is easier for the devs and basically a buff to other characters, hence why we see it more often than buffs.  Unfortunately they usually go with ultra nerfing over reasonable nerf.

Mind elaborating on that? Why is a buff more work than a nerf? Say a character needs more HP, Lower AP cost, better match damage, lower repeater count, more or stronger strike tiles, etc... These are relatively simple changes that can be made without much risk of “breaking” anything. 

I agree that if they need a complete rework then we are looking at a can of worms. It seems more often than not a rework makes things worse. Many characters could be fixed with simple tweaks as mentioned above.

On the other hand releasing something like Wasp in her current 5* iteration is a poor way to ingratiate yourself to the player base. Cases such as this don’t receive the attention that broken 5 like Gambit did. She is certainly broken, so she should be fixed. 

Need revenue to warrant a rework? Open a special store after the job is done and let people have a chance to cover them again. Instead of pumping out an endless parade of new characters, re-release those poorly designed characters every third round or so until they are done.

tiomono

I would love for more buffs and nerfs. They typically just rework a character. If they would do just number adjustments on damage here and there it would help a lot.

I also imagine it's not too hard coding wise to take "x characters damage on red from 5k up to 6k", that's a buff. 

Some characters could benefit from reworks for sure, but most just need gentle nudges on power damage either up or down. 

KGB

jp1 said:

Warbringa said:

Buffs are far preferable but they are far more work for devs too.  You need to apply it to each individual character and you have so many moving parts you are risking creating a lot of problems with a lot of buffs over a short time.  Nerfing is easier for the devs and basically a buff to other characters, hence why we see it more often than buffs.  Unfortunately they usually go with ultra nerfing over reasonable nerf.

Mind elaborating on that? Why is a buff more work than a nerf? Say a character needs more HP, Lower AP cost, better match damage, lower repeater count, more or stronger strike tiles, etc... These are relatively simple changes that can be made without much risk of “breaking” anything. 

Buffing one character is *way* less work than nerfing one over powered character when you are talking about overall game balance. But it also provides *way* less value to the game overall.

When Gambit was released as a clearly over powered character there were only 2 choices. Nerf Gambit *or* buff every other 5* to Gambits level of over poweredness. Obviously it's vastly easier to lower 1 character to the average than raise 30+ characters to be equal to the strongest. This is what Warbringa meant when he said Buffs are more work.

Also there is something else to consider. If Demi releases a useless character like 5* Wasp, the only thing that happens (besides player grumbling) is that everyone ignores her and uses the rest of the 5* tier (or at least the rest of the non-useless characters). But if they release an over powered character like Gambit everyone *must* use him and every other 5* character gets ignored for Gambit. That's why it's always preferable from a game design point of view to err on the side of caution so you don't break the game.

The downside is that when you do release a turkey like Wasp there is little incentive to Buff her because the rationale is that the resources of money/development time are better spent on just releasing another new better designed character (ie if it takes 50 hours and 10K to fix Wasp but 60 hours and 15K to release character Y then it's a better investment for D3 to release Y since they already have all the money they are getting from Wasp).

KGB

HoundofShadow

Since the devs has more or less a systematic way of buffing or nerfing characters, based on what they shared, I would say they require similar amount of time. However, the aftermath of nerfing definitely take up more time.

Vhailorx

KGB said:

jp1 said:

Warbringa said:

Buffs are far preferable but they are far more work for devs too.  You need to apply it to each individual character and you have so many moving parts you are risking creating a lot of problems with a lot of buffs over a short time.  Nerfing is easier for the devs and basically a buff to other characters, hence why we see it more often than buffs.  Unfortunately they usually go with ultra nerfing over reasonable nerf.

Mind elaborating on that? Why is a buff more work than a nerf? Say a character needs more HP, Lower AP cost, better match damage, lower repeater count, more or stronger strike tiles, etc... These are relatively simple changes that can be made without much risk of “breaking” anything. 

Buffing one character is *way* less work than nerfing one over powered character when you are talking about overall game balance.

When Gambit was released as a clearly over powered character there were only 2 choices. Nerf Gambit *or* buff every other 5* to Gambits level of over poweredness. Obviously it's vastly easier to lower 1 character to the average than raise 30+ characters to be equal to the strongest.

Also there is something else to consider. If Demi releases a useless character like 5* Wasp, the only thing that happens (besides player grumbling) is that everyone ignores her and uses the rest of the 5* tier (or at least the rest of the non-useless character). But if they release an over powered character like Gambit everyone *must* use him and every other character gets ignored for Gambit. That's why it's always preferable from a game design point of view to err on the side of caution so you don't break the game.

The downside is that when you do release a turkey like Wasp there is little incentive to Buff her because the rationale is that the resources of money/development time are better spent on just releasing another new better designed character (ie if it takes 50 hours and 10K to fix Wasp but 60 hours and 15K to release character Y then it's a better investment for D3 to release Y since they already have all the money they are getting from Wasp).

KGB

  Youare not wrong kgb, but this is a freemium game, so you cannot have a conprehensive discussion about player incentive and behaviour without considering spending.

Turkeys like wasp are harmless to the meta as compared to OP monsters like Gambit.  But gambits drive spending, while wasps (especially back to back wasps), drive vets out the game.

That is likely an uncomfortable factor in the repeated cycle of releasing strong characters periodically, and then buffing them 10-15 months later when they are both more common and less useful at producing revenue.

Glockoma

Rule of business: It is 10x cheaper to retain current customers than to bring in new ones. Buffs make sense.

UNC_Samurai

Dormammu said:

The last time this forum was (mostly) united in calling for a nerf was for Gambit; after it finally happened I think we all got a taste of 'be careful what you wish for' because when they nerf, they nerf hard. While I think the nerf to Gambit has made the game a better place, it certainly was too much and neither Kitty nor Thor have created the toxic environment Gambit did. That's because neither of them really need nerfing. Take Grocket away from Kitty and she starts to lose her teeth and becomes a decent support character. Take Okoye away from Thor and he becomes like all the other Thors in the game - an expensive damage dealer who is easily manageable.

So should we nerf Grocket or Okoye?

The answer, as it almost always is, is no. Meta teams are like Hydra: cut off one head and another takes its place. The better answer is to give us the tools to counter, which I think the developers are trying to do (with debatable success). We players are a bit better at it. Over in the Tips & Guides and Roster & Level Help sections of these forums, there are entire threads filled with strategies we can use to deal with the common meta teams.

For every Grocket/Gamora/Medusa team that rises, the players on these forums are good with coming up with a Rhulk/Grocket/Carol team to counter.

The answer is more control over the teams
we can fight.  We need to be able to build teams of lower tier to be able to play down to that level.

Vhailorx

Glockoma said:

Rule of business: It is 10x cheaper to retain current customers than to bring in new ones. Buffs make sense.

Only if buffs that drive player interest also drive spending.  And that is just not true of 5*s given how Demi makes 5* acquisition happen.  If they buffed banner to be the best 5* in the game tomorrow, there would still be almost no way for newer players to get him, or chase him, and therefore little incentive to spend.  It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a classic 5* from classic tokens, and still tens of thousands even if banner was put in a specially vault (that might last for 4 days).

Glockoma

Vhailorx said:

Glockoma said:

Rule of business: It is 10x cheaper to retain current customers than to bring in new ones. Buffs make sense.

Only if buffs that drive player interest also drive spending.  And that is just not true of 5*s given how Demi makes 5* acquisition happen.  If they buffed banner to be the best 5* in the game tomorrow, there would still be almost no way for newer players to get him, or chase him, and therefore little incentive to spend.  It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a classic 5* from classic tokens, and still tens of thousands even if banner was put in a specially vault (that might last for 4 days).

This is, (I’m sure the only confident thing I can say for the game), something they would attempt to tweak in order to make money. I agree with your thoughts; they are a business after all. 

Just like the dilution fixes they implemented in the past towards 4*’s, (I’m not going to comment if they worked or not-they attempted at least), we as the community are facing that now with many transitioning into the 5* phase. Reworks work. My favorite so far was 3* Iron Man-what a score. They will however find a way to monetize the effort if it were something they would consider and I’m okay with that.

Daredevil217

No to nerfs

Kitty has no direct damage power. On her own, she needs to collect red, cast it, wait to be hit with a power and then start buffing. Super slow! Yes her purple can do continually damage against certain characters 1-2 tiers below her (Switch, Fist, Cage, Dusa), but that’s what we call a bad matchup. We don’t nerf Kraven because he can do continued damage to Grocket. That’s just a bad matchup for that character. 

On his own, Grocket has one really great power and two expensive, slow, mediocre powers, one with a drawback. And his one good power is easily countered by matching his strikes, effectively making him a paperweight. 

Thor by himself is super squishy if you bring him in at half health. He is a super healthpack suck of Thanos-level proportions. If you don’t run him at half, he is super slow. 

Okoye is basically a pure support character and a damn good one. On her own she has the one red nuke, but is otherwise super slow!

None of these 4 are problem characters. They all have drawbacks and none of them will catapult you to the top of the meta by running any single one of them (unlike Gambit). They need one another for that.

So what is OP is NOT the characters individually. It is their synergy. We should be looking for MORE synergy between characters. Not less!

Give us a super fast 5* stunner. Like a 4 AP, 2 turn stun. Or 6 AP 3 turn stun like Gamora. All of a sudden, Daredevil is a viable partner and counter to Gritty. You can stun kitty early, collect purple and steal. But, “super stun is OP!”. What’s the counter?? All of a sudden people are dusting off their Panthers and saying “move or be moved” the same way BSSM is experiencing a renaissance. With one power (cheap stun), all of a sudden we have a new counter to the meta (DD/stun) and a counter to that counter (BP). All while Thorkoye and Gritty remain viable pairs. More synergy is good. Think creatively and expand our options rather than taking away options. 

jredd

it'd just be nice if they'd show some concern about making sub-par older characters usable. instead of being completely ignored

GrimSkald

Daredevil217 said:

No to nerfs

Kitty has no direct damage power. On her own, she needs to collect red, cast it, wait to be hit with a power and then start buffing. Super slow! Yes her purple can do continually damage against certain characters 1-2 tiers below her (Switch, Fist, Cage, Dusa), but that’s what we call a bad matchup. We don’t nerf Kraven because he can do continued damage to Grocket. That’s just a bad matchup for that character. 

On his own, Grocket has one really great power and two expensive, slow, mediocre powers, one with a drawback. And his one good power is easily countered by matching his strikes, effectively making him a paperweight. 

Thor by himself is super squishy if you bring him in at half health. He is a super healthpack suck of Thanos-level proportions. If you don’t run him at half, he is super slow. 

Okoye is basically a pure support character and a damn good one. On her own she has the one red nuke, but is otherwise super slow!

None of these 4 are problem characters. They all have drawbacks and none of them will catapult you to the top of the meta by running any single one of them (unlike Gambit). They need one another for that.

So what is OP is NOT the characters individually. It is their synergy. We should be looking for MORE synergy between characters. Not less!

Give us a super fast 5* stunner. Like a 4 AP, 2 turn stun. Or 6 AP 3 turn stun like Gamora. All of a sudden, Daredevil is a viable partner and counter to Gritty. You can stun kitty early, collect purple and steal. But, “super stun is OP!”. What’s the counter?? All of a sudden people are dusting off their Panthers and saying “move or be moved” the same way BSSM is experiencing a renaissance. With one power (cheap stun), all of a sudden we have a new counter to the meta (DD/stun) and a counter to that counter (BP). All while Thorkoye and Gritty remain viable pairs. More synergy is good. Think creatively and expand our options rather than taking away options. 

I'm going to take exception to the "easily countered" part of Rocket and Groot.  On average you will be able to deplete the strikes, but since they make 7 of them it's hard to get rid of them entirely.  The key thing with Gritty is reducing them below Kitty's threshold, but that varies in its difficulty too.  Sometimes you'll be able to do it turn 1 or 2, sometimes you won't be able to do it at all.  The only reliable way to get rid of the strikes is to bring a counter.

Other than that, I agree.  I don't think anyone here is OP.  R&G seem to be the most abusable, but I'm not convinced they need any kind of tweak.

thedarkphoenix

This game should be full of neat lil counters and things.

Like how 4 Jean counters Charles or angel fliers.

There should be a character that stuns a whole team for x amount of turns or does damage...etc etc when strike tiles reach a certain damage threshold.

A character that gains ap if the other team has a count tile all kinds of things. 

We were seeing this a decent bit in 4 land for awhile then....