Nerf Bishop

1…2223252728…31

Comments

  • BigSoftieFF
    BigSoftieFF Posts: 454 Mover and Shaker
    HoundofShadow said:
    Invisible makes your team immune to stun, except for random stun, which is available to only female characters, with the exception of Taskmaster.

    What minimum levels must Gritty and Bishop be to prove the point? 
    If you’d like to prove a point go into a match against Bishop with any three champed 5*’s you choose, play normally, don’t get stunned in a minimum of two turns.


    The point has never been about winning. Never. Ever. 













    Never.
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 9,522 Chairperson of the Boards
    I completely realize that this is likely going to derail the thread, but I can't not notice the strange dig in pointing out multi-stuns  are only available to female characters. Seems a superfluous observation

  • A_Wise_Man
    A_Wise_Man Posts: 153 Tile Toppler
    BigSoftieFF said:
    HoundofShadow said:
    Invisible makes your team immune to stun, except for random stun, which is available to only female characters, with the exception of Taskmaster.

    What minimum levels must Gritty and Bishop be to prove the point? 
    If you’d like to prove a point go into a match against Bishop with any three champed 5*’s you choose, play normally, don’t get stunned in a minimum of two turns.


    The point has never been about winning. Never. Ever. 













    Never.
    Let's say 460 kitty 370 rocket 340 bishop.  That's about what I see on average.  How long do you think it would take riri to deal 100k damage to the enemy team?  Keep in kind juggs probably wont tank very long, either.  His increased match damage will trigger bishop and he'll be stunned, then either he or riri/thanks can eat the 10k match damage from gritty.  I suppose thanos slows that down some after 3 or 4 turns.  But still, 100k is a lot to ask of that team.  
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2019
    Going invisible makes you immune to non-random stun. I believe the AI will fire the stun even when your teammate is invisible. That's how smart the AI is.

    Sorry for being unclear but I was referring to Tony_Foot:

    And not one of them will post a video of them running unboosted four stars against kitty grocket and bishop. Or any of the other ideas they dream up. They keep saying it allows them to punch up, show us. Show us your punching up play and how you take down bishop.

    I was wondering what minimum levels they have to be to satisfy his critieria. I suppose a champed Kitty, 370 R4G and 3XX Bishop? Or is it open to other levels.

    Edit: I just saw the above replies. So, it's about not getting stunned in turn 2, and not about being able to win a match against Bishop. 

    I will throw in Silver Surfer or Dr Ock. However, the counter-arguments would be:

     1) they are impossible to cover

    2) they are not viable

    A few conditions, based on replies here, attached to being a counter to Bishop should be able to:

    1) not trigger his passives

    2) not trigger his stun on turn 2

    3) the team used to counter him should not leave a target on your back on defense

    4) possibly not using healthpack(s)

    The fact is: counter(s) to Bishop exists. But when you include so many conditions, the counter(s) cease to exist.

    Is there any difference between saying BBSM (before Thanos/Sabretooth) is a counter to R4G and Silver Surfer is a counter to Bishop? I find them to have some core similarities.

  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 4,025 Chairperson of the Boards
    If Surfer made it so his entire team couldn’t get stunned while alive, the same way Spidey makes it so his whole team can’t take strike damage while alive, I’d agree.


    Spidey would be another stratosphere worse, if you had to make sure he tanked everything in order to shrug off strikes. Especially since Spidey and Surfer are cursed with super low match damage compared to their newer peers. 
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    After over 20 pages, both sides can only agree to disagree.

    Therefore, a middle ground would be to create a 4* or 5* that can stun characters who gain aps that are not stolen from opponents' ap pools passively.

    For every ap gain passively that is not stolen, stun that character for that amount of turn. 

  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2019
    The Limited Spidey Pig could differentiate between tile movers and goons. So, I guess the code is already in place.

    Edit: BSSM nerfs only strike tiles. I think that's why Kitty generates attack and protect tiles to dodge BSSM.
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 9,522 Chairperson of the Boards
    Alternatively a 4*/5* that could shut down passives would solve this problem. I've proposed it a number of times. tie it to a special tile that only appears at start of match, until it's matched away or destroyed similar to Chekhov's Gun. Or make it countdown based- since it would be shutting down Kitty's purple, it would be safe to have out.
  • Zeofar
    Zeofar Posts: 45 Just Dropped In
    ThaRoadWarrior said:
    Alternatively a 4*/5* that could shut down passives would solve this problem. I've proposed it a number of times. tie it to a special tile that only appears at start of match, until it's matched away or destroyed similar to Chekhov's Gun. Or make it countdown based- since it would be shutting down Kitty's purple, it would be safe to have out.
    There's already a mechanic that deals with passives: stunning. And, let's be clear, we all know that Bishop is defined by passives so this is really just a roundabout way to design a character that says "Bishop is stunned for the entire match", with the added kick that every other character that leans on passives is also pretty much gutted. Then again, maybe crippling half the 5-stars on defense is exactly the kind of design the meta needs these days.
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    HoundofShadow said:
    After over 20 pages, both sides can only agree to disagree.

    Therefore, a middle ground would be to create a 4* or 5* that can stun characters who gain aps that are not stolen from opponents' ap pools passively.

    For every ap gain passively that is not stolen, stun that character for that amount of turn. 

    Lol you just stunned bishop for 30 turns.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    We can put a cap, like up to 3 turn or 4 turn.
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,945 Chairperson of the Boards
    The idea of a character that negates passives is not new with Bishop; he's just the most annoying expression of passives yet.

    It would be such a massive nerf to so many characters, and probably buggy as all get out, to have this ability in the game. 

    I'm sure that character would be relative garbage beyond that ability.
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    bluewolf said:
    The idea of a character that negates passives is not new with Bishop; he's just the most annoying expression of passives yet.

    It would be such a massive nerf to so many characters, and probably buggy as all get out, to have this ability in the game. 

    I'm sure that character would be relative garbage beyond that ability.
    I still think a character that passively stops ap gain for the opponent when it is not the opponents turn would be perfect.
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards
    tiomono said:
    bluewolf said:
    The idea of a character that negates passives is not new with Bishop; he's just the most annoying expression of passives yet.

    It would be such a massive nerf to so many characters, and probably buggy as all get out, to have this ability in the game. 

    I'm sure that character would be relative garbage beyond that ability.
    I still think a character that passively stops ap gain for the opponent when it is not the opponents turn would be perfect.

    While that would finally solve the 3* Carol glitch in wave nodes, it comes at the expense of 4* Carol, Miles, Medusa and probably others while totally removing the downside of some character powers like 3* Black Panther, Ares, Namor and possibly others there, too.  I'm not saying this means that the passive shouldn't exist, but we at least need to acknowledge the theoretical power you  describe has a much wider impact than merely toning down Bishop.

    I'd prefer if Bishop was given a condition for his "jump to front" mechanic like literally every other character who has that mechanic.  It doesn't gut the character while still providing a method to circumvent him...or, you know, a puzzle.
  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 4,025 Chairperson of the Boards
    ZootSax said:

    I'd prefer if Bishop was given a condition for his "jump to front" mechanic like literally every other character who has that mechanic.  It doesn't gut the character while still providing a method to circumvent him...or, you know, a puzzle.
    But there is a condition. If you breathe on one of his teammates, he jumps in front, zaps you, and gets AP. 
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    ZootSax said:
    tiomono said:
    bluewolf said:
    The idea of a character that negates passives is not new with Bishop; he's just the most annoying expression of passives yet.

    It would be such a massive nerf to so many characters, and probably buggy as all get out, to have this ability in the game. 

    I'm sure that character would be relative garbage beyond that ability.
    I still think a character that passively stops ap gain for the opponent when it is not the opponents turn would be perfect.

    While that would finally solve the 3* Carol glitch in wave nodes, it comes at the expense of 4* Carol, Miles, Medusa and probably others while totally removing the downside of some character powers like 3* Black Panther, Ares, Namor and possibly others there, too.  I'm not saying this means that the passive shouldn't exist, but we at least need to acknowledge the theoretical power you  describe has a much wider impact than merely toning down Bishop.

    I'd prefer if Bishop was given a condition for his "jump to front" mechanic like literally every other character who has that mechanic.  It doesn't gut the character while still providing a method to circumvent him...or, you know, a puzzle.
    Bssm affects way more than just grocket. But it's not seen as a huge problem. None of those other characters benefit from their ap on the enemy turn more than bishop.
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards
    tiomono said:
    ZootSax said:
    tiomono said:
    bluewolf said:
    The idea of a character that negates passives is not new with Bishop; he's just the most annoying expression of passives yet.

    It would be such a massive nerf to so many characters, and probably buggy as all get out, to have this ability in the game. 

    I'm sure that character would be relative garbage beyond that ability.
    I still think a character that passively stops ap gain for the opponent when it is not the opponents turn would be perfect.

    While that would finally solve the 3* Carol glitch in wave nodes, it comes at the expense of 4* Carol, Miles, Medusa and probably others while totally removing the downside of some character powers like 3* Black Panther, Ares, Namor and possibly others there, too.  I'm not saying this means that the passive shouldn't exist, but we at least need to acknowledge the theoretical power you  describe has a much wider impact than merely toning down Bishop.

    I'd prefer if Bishop was given a condition for his "jump to front" mechanic like literally every other character who has that mechanic.  It doesn't gut the character while still providing a method to circumvent him...or, you know, a puzzle.
    Bssm affects way more than just grocket. But it's not seen as a huge problem. None of those other characters benefit from their ap on the enemy turn more than bishop.
    I agree completely and I wouldn't be opposed to a power along the lines of what you described.  I just fear a counter being designed against one character without considering the ramifications on all other characters across all tiers.  For example, would a 5* with one cover in that theoretical ability make Panther too strong in the 3* tier among that MMR?  Probably not, as the best black generators are all in the 4* tier, but it's a worthwhile question to ask.  That was my only point.

Categories