Nerf Bishop

1…2527293031

Comments

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,527 Chairperson of the Boards
    justsing said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    justsing said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    Lightning Rounds are weird though. No offence but Pick 3 PvP will rarely effect your season so can you, hand on your heart really say you are still not hitting 2000 in Sim or achieving what you want in PVP? Considering most PvP is "fixed" at high levels of play via grills if those players are putting out Bishop "grills" then I am going to be fairly surprised. 
    It's not about whether people are still able to hit 2000 or not. Like others have said in their posts, it's simply NOT FUN. Bishop's mechanism triggered by 5* match damage is not fun. It's broken and OP. And because he's so annoying in 5* land, tons of people float with Bishop + another 5* such as JJ or 5trange. 

    Just a note in general, I really don't appreciate people who aren't in 5* land themselves discounting the opinions of actual 5* players re: Bishop. If you're a 5* player who disagrees about nerfing Bishop, all the power to you. I respect that there are different opinions out there. But for those of you who haven't had to deal with Bishop in 5* PVP, please don't tell us how we should feel or that we're wrong for feeling what we feel. 
    As I am being quoted I assume this is directed my way despite the "general". So,  I hope I haven't disregarded any 5* players feelings and have acknowledged various places how I can see the issue but if your answer to this debate is "shut up" to anybody with an opinion that doesn't meet your criteria in my opinion that isn't really constructive.
    Like OJSP said, the first paragraph was directed at you, but the second wasn't. I just didn't want to double post lol

    Basically, I'm sick of people who don't have champed 5*s telling me to suck it up and just use 4*s / Silver Surfer / Doc Ock / whatever other "solution" they think will work. Bishop is not a problem in 4* land, and the Bishop teams that you encounter with 4* MMR are not comparable to the Bishop teams you encounter with 5* MMR. 
    No probs.
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 9,522 Chairperson of the Boards
    I actually think we do see a consistent narrative of the problem with Bishop: As a 5* Player, making a basic match 3 on my first turn causes me to lose the match to a stunlock.” 

    5* players can absorb a little damage, but he has the same fundamental problem Gambit had in earning way too much free AP on a single turn. Frankly Thor has that problem as well but you can at least manage that one offensively.
  • jp1
    jp1 Posts: 1,081 Chairperson of the Boards
    tiomono said:
    Zeofar said:
    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. 

    Another take: After over 20 pages, there's not much agreement on any "side" over what aspects of Bishop are a problem and when those problems manifest, so talking about middle ground or compromises is a bit laughable. You can scan through the thread and see contrasting attitudes like
    • The problem is Bishop vs 5-stars
    • The problem is Bishop + Gritty
    • The problem is Bishop paired with 2 5-stars
    • The problem is Bishop hits back too hard
    • The problem is Bishop stuns too fast
    • The problem is Bishop generates too much AP
    • The problem is Bishop has no counters
    • The problem is Bishop's counters make you a target
    • The problem is Bishops counters are too hard to get
    • The problem is Bishop is badly broken and OP
    • The problem is Bishop feels bad to play with and against
    • The problem is Bishop is a 4-star
    • It's too hard to win against Bishop
    • It's never been about winning. Never. Ever. Never. (???)
    It's not exactly that ALL of these opinions are contradictory or mutually exclusive (though some are), just that there isn't actually a clear, productive direction that this discussion is going in. I'm not sure if thoughts are just this varied or if people are feeling that piling on with anything that pops into their head somehow makes an airtight case. For me though, I'm not seeing a preponderance of evidence that Bishop is ruining the game nor that there is a generally supported problem-solution concept.
    What strikes me is that there tend to be hate threads for every character or team that isn't a dead-weight HP pool on defense, even when those characters aren't nearly the problem they're made out to be. To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure that there is actually much useful feedback the devs could currently take out of this thread beyond general discontent over a strong character. If people are of the mind that Bishop is indeed a special case and would like to demonstrate that there IS something of value to be taken out of this conversation, I think it would be incredibly helpful to work toward these kinds of goals:
    1. Making cogent arguments establishing that Bishop is actually bad for the game. Personally, I don't take it for granted that a utility/defense 4-star seeing play in the 5-star meta is inherently unhealthy. An entire team of 4-stars competing against full 5-star teams would be another issue, but I don't accept that the game's power hierarchy is compromised just because 4-stars are sometimes useful alongside 5-stars. Moreover, unlike characters that I believe actually negatively impact the game, it seems to me that Bishop offers potential to expand the meta by increasing the value of certain characters and mechanics; if you don't agree with this, perhaps explain why this is not the case or how the bad outweighs the good. Lastly, with or without Bishop so far, the endgame is pretty much the definition of degenerate, with little reason to deviate from 2 core teams. If Bishop can be effectively removed from the metagame, is there an actual improvement that will be seen, or is it just a choice between two bad states?
      Side note here: Bishop + Gritty defensive teams have been presented as a major issue in "Nerf Bishop" topics, but Gritty alone has already been the subject of hate threads. If Bishop is truly the problem piece, I think there needs to be a non-chronological argument (Bishop is the most recent addition, therefore he's the biggest offender) as to why, in a game where speed is thought to be the most useful quality a team can have, that a character whose main contribution is slowing the match down is a bigger issue than characters whose strength is accelerating the match.
    2. Finding agreement over what the problematic part of Bishop's kit is. "All of it, every part" rings extremely hollow and doesn't inspire faith that any particular solution would be well received. Break down the mechanics of what's wrong with Bishop. What does Bishop contribute to a match that leads to a loss, moreso than other characters? If the issue is the stunning, why are existing anti-stun mechanics insufficient to stay off that path to defeat? I fully doubt that Bishop is somehow KOing 5-stars singlehandedly, so walk further to what happens after Bishop does his "thing" and explain why is it inescapable or unfair.
    3. Deciding whether a counter is truly an appealing solution, especially considering the dim view that is taken to characters that already interact with Bishop's mechanics. Bishop counters are described as painting a target on your back; in other contexts BSSM is usually described just the same way, yet is still considered a pretty sufficient counter for Gritty (and has even been brought up in this thread as an example of a functional counter). What's the material difference here, and how would "another" counter for Bishop change this dynamic and actually satisfy complaints?
    1. Players in a match 3 game are being punished severely for matching 3.

    2. A 5* player gains 3 ap and does 2k damage at minimum every turn. While Bishop gains 8 ap and does 4k damage vs a 5* character at minimum every turn.

    3. His 5* "counters" are painting a target on your back in the sense that they only address the stun aspect of bishop. Doc ock needs to make a match 4 in turn one or 2 and be in tanking position at the end of turn 2. Silver Surfer needs to be in tanking position at the end of turn 2. Tanking is difficult for both of them because of the power creep of match damage in 5* play.
    His 4* counters primarilay address bypassing his damage threshold for jumping in front, gaining ap, and damaging your team. Using a team of 3 4*'s as a 5* player will make a laughable retal for any 5* player and your score will drop as everyone you hit with that will guaranteed hit you back.

    As a side note I find it funny one player feels the hate toward bishop is "cult mentality" and that's a bad thing. You however want players that hate bishop to have a hive mentality and all speak in one unified voice with the same points so we can be understood. 
    What is a “bad thing” is shouting down every contradictory opinion as though it is ridiculous and acting as if it is so obvious that Bishop needs nerfing that anyone who disagrees with you is just being stupid. While simultaneously being in support of any nerf Bishop post regardless of how pointless or mean spirited it is.

    I don’t mean every person, it was a generalization that could use some clarification for sure. Let’s be real though, read the threads in full. Take note of the snarky comebacks and the “clever” wit with which so many people have been dismissed or shouted down, then find me the rational, well reasoned, good faith debates in which people actually care to hear the other side of the story and consider it for even one second as valid even if they don’t agree with it. 

    They will be in disproportionate amounts. Meanwhile, let’s drop a “like” on snarky posts to encourage such behavior and back up the notion that we don’t have the spine to say such things ourselves, even though we might like to. Because, somehow, that’s productive?

    Look, I’m happy to stay out of it entirely. For many reasons...the least of which is that some of you have your mind so made up that you won’t even engage in polite discourse in a matter fitting a proper discussion.

    it was a well made point that there isn’t much productive to be taken away from this because there is too much “right fighting” going on. Back the two sentence statements of your feelings which are presented as indisputable facts up with something more substantial and then maybe there is something to work with. 



  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2019
    jp1 said:
    tiomono said:
    Zeofar said:
    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. 

    Another take: After over 20 pages, there's not much agreement on any "side" over what aspects of Bishop are a problem and when those problems manifest, so talking about middle ground or compromises is a bit laughable. You can scan through the thread and see contrasting attitudes like
    • The problem is Bishop vs 5-stars
    • The problem is Bishop + Gritty
    • The problem is Bishop paired with 2 5-stars
    • The problem is Bishop hits back too hard
    • The problem is Bishop stuns too fast
    • The problem is Bishop generates too much AP
    • The problem is Bishop has no counters
    • The problem is Bishop's counters make you a target
    • The problem is Bishops counters are too hard to get
    • The problem is Bishop is badly broken and OP
    • The problem is Bishop feels bad to play with and against
    • The problem is Bishop is a 4-star
    • It's too hard to win against Bishop
    • It's never been about winning. Never. Ever. Never. (???)
    It's not exactly that ALL of these opinions are contradictory or mutually exclusive (though some are), just that there isn't actually a clear, productive direction that this discussion is going in. I'm not sure if thoughts are just this varied or if people are feeling that piling on with anything that pops into their head somehow makes an airtight case. For me though, I'm not seeing a preponderance of evidence that Bishop is ruining the game nor that there is a generally supported problem-solution concept.
    What strikes me is that there tend to be hate threads for every character or team that isn't a dead-weight HP pool on defense, even when those characters aren't nearly the problem they're made out to be. To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure that there is actually much useful feedback the devs could currently take out of this thread beyond general discontent over a strong character. If people are of the mind that Bishop is indeed a special case and would like to demonstrate that there IS something of value to be taken out of this conversation, I think it would be incredibly helpful to work toward these kinds of goals:
    1. Making cogent arguments establishing that Bishop is actually bad for the game. Personally, I don't take it for granted that a utility/defense 4-star seeing play in the 5-star meta is inherently unhealthy. An entire team of 4-stars competing against full 5-star teams would be another issue, but I don't accept that the game's power hierarchy is compromised just because 4-stars are sometimes useful alongside 5-stars. Moreover, unlike characters that I believe actually negatively impact the game, it seems to me that Bishop offers potential to expand the meta by increasing the value of certain characters and mechanics; if you don't agree with this, perhaps explain why this is not the case or how the bad outweighs the good. Lastly, with or without Bishop so far, the endgame is pretty much the definition of degenerate, with little reason to deviate from 2 core teams. If Bishop can be effectively removed from the metagame, is there an actual improvement that will be seen, or is it just a choice between two bad states?
      Side note here: Bishop + Gritty defensive teams have been presented as a major issue in "Nerf Bishop" topics, but Gritty alone has already been the subject of hate threads. If Bishop is truly the problem piece, I think there needs to be a non-chronological argument (Bishop is the most recent addition, therefore he's the biggest offender) as to why, in a game where speed is thought to be the most useful quality a team can have, that a character whose main contribution is slowing the match down is a bigger issue than characters whose strength is accelerating the match.
    2. Finding agreement over what the problematic part of Bishop's kit is. "All of it, every part" rings extremely hollow and doesn't inspire faith that any particular solution would be well received. Break down the mechanics of what's wrong with Bishop. What does Bishop contribute to a match that leads to a loss, moreso than other characters? If the issue is the stunning, why are existing anti-stun mechanics insufficient to stay off that path to defeat? I fully doubt that Bishop is somehow KOing 5-stars singlehandedly, so walk further to what happens after Bishop does his "thing" and explain why is it inescapable or unfair.
    3. Deciding whether a counter is truly an appealing solution, especially considering the dim view that is taken to characters that already interact with Bishop's mechanics. Bishop counters are described as painting a target on your back; in other contexts BSSM is usually described just the same way, yet is still considered a pretty sufficient counter for Gritty (and has even been brought up in this thread as an example of a functional counter). What's the material difference here, and how would "another" counter for Bishop change this dynamic and actually satisfy complaints?
    1. Players in a match 3 game are being punished severely for matching 3.

    2. A 5* player gains 3 ap and does 2k damage at minimum every turn. While Bishop gains 8 ap and does 4k damage vs a 5* character at minimum every turn.

    3. His 5* "counters" are painting a target on your back in the sense that they only address the stun aspect of bishop. Doc ock needs to make a match 4 in turn one or 2 and be in tanking position at the end of turn 2. Silver Surfer needs to be in tanking position at the end of turn 2. Tanking is difficult for both of them because of the power creep of match damage in 5* play.
    His 4* counters primarilay address bypassing his damage threshold for jumping in front, gaining ap, and damaging your team. Using a team of 3 4*'s as a 5* player will make a laughable retal for any 5* player and your score will drop as everyone you hit with that will guaranteed hit you back.

    As a side note I find it funny one player feels the hate toward bishop is "cult mentality" and that's a bad thing. You however want players that hate bishop to have a hive mentality and all speak in one unified voice with the same points so we can be understood. 
    What is a “bad thing” is shouting down every contradictory opinion as though it is ridiculous and acting as if it is so obvious that Bishop needs nerfing that anyone who disagrees with you is just being stupid. While simultaneously being in support of any nerf Bishop post regardless of how pointless or mean spirited it is.

    I don’t mean every person, it was a generalization that could use some clarification for sure. Let’s be real though, read the threads in full. Take note of the snarky comebacks and the “clever” wit with which so many people have been dismissed or shouted down, then find me the rational, well reasoned, good faith debates in which people actually care to hear the other side of the story and consider it for even one second as valid even if they don’t agree with it. 

    They will be in disproportionate amounts. Meanwhile, let’s drop a “like” on snarky posts to encourage such behavior and back up the notion that we don’t have the spine to say such things ourselves, even though we might like to. Because, somehow, that’s productive?

    Look, I’m happy to stay out of it entirely. For many reasons...the least of which is that some of you have your mind so made up that you won’t even engage in polite discourse in a matter fitting a proper discussion.

    it was a well made point that there isn’t much productive to be taken away from this because there is too much “right fighting” going on. Back the two sentence statements of your feelings which are presented as indisputable facts up with something more substantial and then maybe there is something to work with. 



    Point taken. I edited my post.

    Would you like to reasonably respond to any of the problems I listed about bishop?

    Edit: I went back to read some of the beginning of this discussion. Literally the first response was a jab at the OP point by claiming 2 other characters are problems, without commenting at all on the discussion. There were several other negative, witty, disregarding, whatever you want to call them replies from people that think bishop is fine. So yeah people that feel he is a problem are more prone to biting back when that is the precedent set.
  • jp1
    jp1 Posts: 1,081 Chairperson of the Boards
    tiomono said:
    jp1 said:
    tiomono said:
    Zeofar said:
    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. 

    Another take: After over 20 pages, there's not much agreement on any "side" over what aspects of Bishop are a problem and when those problems manifest, so talking about middle ground or compromises is a bit laughable. You can scan through the thread and see contrasting attitudes like
    • The problem is Bishop vs 5-stars
    • The problem is Bishop + Gritty
    • The problem is Bishop paired with 2 5-stars
    • The problem is Bishop hits back too hard
    • The problem is Bishop stuns too fast
    • The problem is Bishop generates too much AP
    • The problem is Bishop has no counters
    • The problem is Bishop's counters make you a target
    • The problem is Bishops counters are too hard to get
    • The problem is Bishop is badly broken and OP
    • The problem is Bishop feels bad to play with and against
    • The problem is Bishop is a 4-star
    • It's too hard to win against Bishop
    • It's never been about winning. Never. Ever. Never. (???)
    It's not exactly that ALL of these opinions are contradictory or mutually exclusive (though some are), just that there isn't actually a clear, productive direction that this discussion is going in. I'm not sure if thoughts are just this varied or if people are feeling that piling on with anything that pops into their head somehow makes an airtight case. For me though, I'm not seeing a preponderance of evidence that Bishop is ruining the game nor that there is a generally supported problem-solution concept.
    What strikes me is that there tend to be hate threads for every character or team that isn't a dead-weight HP pool on defense, even when those characters aren't nearly the problem they're made out to be. To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure that there is actually much useful feedback the devs could currently take out of this thread beyond general discontent over a strong character. If people are of the mind that Bishop is indeed a special case and would like to demonstrate that there IS something of value to be taken out of this conversation, I think it would be incredibly helpful to work toward these kinds of goals:
    1. Making cogent arguments establishing that Bishop is actually bad for the game. Personally, I don't take it for granted that a utility/defense 4-star seeing play in the 5-star meta is inherently unhealthy. An entire team of 4-stars competing against full 5-star teams would be another issue, but I don't accept that the game's power hierarchy is compromised just because 4-stars are sometimes useful alongside 5-stars. Moreover, unlike characters that I believe actually negatively impact the game, it seems to me that Bishop offers potential to expand the meta by increasing the value of certain characters and mechanics; if you don't agree with this, perhaps explain why this is not the case or how the bad outweighs the good. Lastly, with or without Bishop so far, the endgame is pretty much the definition of degenerate, with little reason to deviate from 2 core teams. If Bishop can be effectively removed from the metagame, is there an actual improvement that will be seen, or is it just a choice between two bad states?
      Side note here: Bishop + Gritty defensive teams have been presented as a major issue in "Nerf Bishop" topics, but Gritty alone has already been the subject of hate threads. If Bishop is truly the problem piece, I think there needs to be a non-chronological argument (Bishop is the most recent addition, therefore he's the biggest offender) as to why, in a game where speed is thought to be the most useful quality a team can have, that a character whose main contribution is slowing the match down is a bigger issue than characters whose strength is accelerating the match.
    2. Finding agreement over what the problematic part of Bishop's kit is. "All of it, every part" rings extremely hollow and doesn't inspire faith that any particular solution would be well received. Break down the mechanics of what's wrong with Bishop. What does Bishop contribute to a match that leads to a loss, moreso than other characters? If the issue is the stunning, why are existing anti-stun mechanics insufficient to stay off that path to defeat? I fully doubt that Bishop is somehow KOing 5-stars singlehandedly, so walk further to what happens after Bishop does his "thing" and explain why is it inescapable or unfair.
    3. Deciding whether a counter is truly an appealing solution, especially considering the dim view that is taken to characters that already interact with Bishop's mechanics. Bishop counters are described as painting a target on your back; in other contexts BSSM is usually described just the same way, yet is still considered a pretty sufficient counter for Gritty (and has even been brought up in this thread as an example of a functional counter). What's the material difference here, and how would "another" counter for Bishop change this dynamic and actually satisfy complaints?
    1. Players in a match 3 game are being punished severely for matching 3.

    2. A 5* player gains 3 ap and does 2k damage at minimum every turn. While Bishop gains 8 ap and does 4k damage vs a 5* character at minimum every turn.

    3. His 5* "counters" are painting a target on your back in the sense that they only address the stun aspect of bishop. Doc ock needs to make a match 4 in turn one or 2 and be in tanking position at the end of turn 2. Silver Surfer needs to be in tanking position at the end of turn 2. Tanking is difficult for both of them because of the power creep of match damage in 5* play.
    His 4* counters primarilay address bypassing his damage threshold for jumping in front, gaining ap, and damaging your team. Using a team of 3 4*'s as a 5* player will make a laughable retal for any 5* player and your score will drop as everyone you hit with that will guaranteed hit you back.

    As a side note I find it funny one player feels the hate toward bishop is "cult mentality" and that's a bad thing. You however want players that hate bishop to have a hive mentality and all speak in one unified voice with the same points so we can be understood. 
    What is a “bad thing” is shouting down every contradictory opinion as though it is ridiculous and acting as if it is so obvious that Bishop needs nerfing that anyone who disagrees with you is just being stupid. While simultaneously being in support of any nerf Bishop post regardless of how pointless or mean spirited it is.

    I don’t mean every person, it was a generalization that could use some clarification for sure. Let’s be real though, read the threads in full. Take note of the snarky comebacks and the “clever” wit with which so many people have been dismissed or shouted down, then find me the rational, well reasoned, good faith debates in which people actually care to hear the other side of the story and consider it for even one second as valid even if they don’t agree with it. 

    They will be in disproportionate amounts. Meanwhile, let’s drop a “like” on snarky posts to encourage such behavior and back up the notion that we don’t have the spine to say such things ourselves, even though we might like to. Because, somehow, that’s productive?

    Look, I’m happy to stay out of it entirely. For many reasons...the least of which is that some of you have your mind so made up that you won’t even engage in polite discourse in a matter fitting a proper discussion.

    it was a well made point that there isn’t much productive to be taken away from this because there is too much “right fighting” going on. Back the two sentence statements of your feelings which are presented as indisputable facts up with something more substantial and then maybe there is something to work with. 



    Point taken. I edited my post.

    Would you like to reasonably respond to any of the problems I listed about bishop?

    Edit: I went back to read some of the beginning of this discussion. Literally the first response was a jab at the OP point by claiming 2 other characters are problems, without commenting at all on the discussion. There were several other negative, witty, disregarding, whatever you want to call them replies from people that think bishop is fine. So yeah people that feel he is a problem are more prone to biting back when that is the precedent set.
    I have to admit I didn’t catch that. I agree that behavior isn’t conducive to a productive environment either. So, when does the quid pro quo end? How much dog piling and the like before it’s okay to say it’s getting out of hand? I don’t support it from either side. 

    The fact is that while I disagree with many (not all) of the points being presented about Bishop, I would actually like to have an environment where we can discuss those points with respect for each other. 

    I’ll own my part in it too, once frustrated I could have bit my tongue and didn’t...with the subsequent post more likely to agitate people than a well thought out response. I don’t agree that the initial bad responses can be a scapegoat for the behavior the entire rest of the discussion across multiple threads though. It’s an emotional topic for some, I get that. Watching legitimate attempts at discussion get tossed away like garbage so bickering can continue is getting old though.

    As for the rest of the post...I will be happy to address it. I’m going to take some time and think about my response and how to best word it as not to ruffle any more feathers.

    I will say this. Everyone plays the game differently, Bishop may  be better suited to the play style of some of us (even those of us in 5* land) than others. Some of us may consider him as a character to be fun, that is a very subjective topic, as is what is “fair”. So, to me, it isn’t as black and white as what many people would like to present it to be.
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,527 Chairperson of the Boards
    The comment referred to was mine about nerfing 5* and it was at time of posting very much a joke and is therefore referred to very much out of context by tiomono above (I even mentioned Okoye). I stated it was a joke a little while afterwards and so I would appreciate that it is not misrepresented literally weeks later here on page whatever this is, please. However, much like jp1 feels, I also felt piled upon so I also got sucked into a snarkiness that this thread took for a turn. I was even told I was being "too emotional". I found none of that very conducive to reasonable discussion. A few weeks later we seem no further along but I am least listening.
  • Therealsmkspy
    Therealsmkspy Posts: 254 Mover and Shaker
    edited September 2019
    Why you don't just stop being the behavior police? Either you're just plain too sensitive and can't handle a little internet snark or you really like being on your high-horse. I really can't yell which, but hoping it is the former.
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,527 Chairperson of the Boards
    Therealsmkspy said:
    Why you don't just stop being the behavior police? Either you're just plain too sensitive and can't handle a little internet snark or you really like being on your high-horse. I really can't which, but hoping it is the former.
    Ha! There you go, reasonable discourse, lol!
  • BigSoftieFF
    BigSoftieFF Posts: 454 Mover and Shaker
    From what I’ve read no one has given any response on how it’s okay to get popped and most likely stunned for matching 3, much less a cascade. All other issues come back to that.

    There is nothing to discuss about the above statement and issue. There is no way around it in its current form and there most likely never will be. An anti Bishop character in the 5* tier would probably be the most OP character in the game and no one wants that.

    A simple one passive trigger per turn would be satisfying to me, not great but much better. I don’t want to get a cascade and feel like I got Bishoped.
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2019
    DAZ0273 said:
    The comment referred to was mine about nerfing 5* and it was at time of posting very much a joke and is therefore referred to very much out of context by tiomono above (I even mentioned Okoye). I stated it was a joke a little while afterwards and so I would appreciate that it is not misrepresented literally weeks later here on page whatever this is, please. However, much like jp1 feels, I also felt piled upon so I also got sucked into a snarkiness that this thread took for a turn. I was even told I was being "too emotional". I found none of that very conducive to reasonable discussion. A few weeks later we seem no further along but I am least listening.
    So who was piling on you when you are the first response in a discussion and you open with a joke and not respond to the topic being raised?

    If you want to talk bishop talk bishop. I'm not going to argue over what intentions of words are when you yourself called your first post "mostly in jest".
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,527 Chairperson of the Boards
    tiomono said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    The comment referred to was mine about nerfing 5* and it was at time of posting very much a joke and is therefore referred to very much out of context by tiomono above (I even mentioned Okoye). I stated it was a joke a little while afterwards and so I would appreciate that it is not misrepresented literally weeks later here on page whatever this is, please. However, much like jp1 feels, I also felt piled upon so I also got sucked into a snarkiness that this thread took for a turn. I was even told I was being "too emotional". I found none of that very conducive to reasonable discussion. A few weeks later we seem no further along but I am least listening.
    So who was piling on you when you are the first response in a discussion with a joke and not respond to the topic being raised?

    If you want to talk bishop talk bishop. I'm not going to argue over what intentions of words are when you yourself called your first post "mostly in jest".
    OK, let's talk Bishop. Despite various Devs being summoned to comment on the thread, none have appeared to comment. On another platform it is reported that he isn't on the radar to be "rebalanced". 
  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 4,025 Chairperson of the Boards
    DAZ0273 said:
    Therealsmkspy said:
    Why you don't just stop being the behavior police? Either you're just plain too sensitive and can't handle a little internet snark or you really like being on your high-horse. I really can't which, but hoping it is the former.
    Ha! There you go, reasonable discourse, lol!
    I know you’re being sarcastic, but I kind of agree with @Therealsmkspy (though it could be stated much much nicer).

    Let’s not act like there haven’t been plenty of valid arguments as to why he should be nerfed. Even jp1 admitted himself that Bishop’s mechanic is not okay (though added the “in a vacuum” qualifier, which I’d love explained more).

    Overall, I think this has been a pretty reasonable well-discussed topic. But I’m also not super-sensitive to the occasional internet snark either. If anyone is feeling emotionally triggered, it’s okay to step away rather than trying to monitor other people’s behavior. Especially if not going off-topic, being abusive, etc. Focusing on who said what to who, who started it, if two wrongs make a right, etc. is just more distraction from the actual topic (Bishop). 

    I appreciate @tiomono cutting through all that and asking @jp1 if he would like to respond to any of his arguments on why Bishop should be nerfed.
  • Neuromancer
    Neuromancer Posts: 203 Tile Toppler
    I don't feel he needs a rebalance, but a hard 5* counter. As of late, the devs release new characters faster than they modify old ones. I think you'll have better luck requesting a counter character.
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    DAZ0273 said:
    tiomono said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    The comment referred to was mine about nerfing 5* and it was at time of posting very much a joke and is therefore referred to very much out of context by tiomono above (I even mentioned Okoye). I stated it was a joke a little while afterwards and so I would appreciate that it is not misrepresented literally weeks later here on page whatever this is, please. However, much like jp1 feels, I also felt piled upon so I also got sucked into a snarkiness that this thread took for a turn. I was even told I was being "too emotional". I found none of that very conducive to reasonable discussion. A few weeks later we seem no further along but I am least listening.
    So who was piling on you when you are the first response in a discussion with a joke and not respond to the topic being raised?

    If you want to talk bishop talk bishop. I'm not going to argue over what intentions of words are when you yourself called your first post "mostly in jest".
    OK, let's talk Bishop. Despite various Devs being summoned to comment on the thread, none have appeared to comment. On another platform it is reported that he isn't on the radar to be "rebalanced". 
    Fair enough. I'm not seeing where it was mentioned that a dev said on discord no nerf was in the books (can someone cited a page number?) I thought it was also mentioned that the dev then went on to theory craft how to handle bishop. So they may realize he is a problem but are thinking of counter strategies instead of rebalancing. Which is very common for these devs.

    Most of the big problem characters that have come around were not immediately rebalanced. They even tried counter characters to gambit before deciding that he was indeed too big of a problem. Its also easy to see they are trying to create counter characters to many meta/common teams.

    You and I both already agreed we do not want a nerf. But that we would like to see counter characters come along and see what shakes out. 

    Do you have an opinion one way or another on bishop being a problem for the 5* tier? Many are saying he is no problem, many others think he is the spawn of Satan lol.

    I strongly feel that a character that makes the most basic aspect of this game, matching 3 tiles, to be a burden on a whole tier of characters needs to be addressed. 

    I also strongly feel that taking your turn and doing 2k damage and earning 3 ap vs an opponent doing 4k damage and gaining 8 ap in the same time span is a problem. 

    I want the devs to know that many players feel that bishop is a problem and one that needs an answer of some form. I have stated why I feel some characters that are listed as counters are not good enough. Other people can disagree with that viewpoint. 

    Now a bit of silliness. Anyone that lists Dr. Ock as a counter needs to realize he is as effective as lumbercap or archangel vs gambit back in the day.
  • wymtime
    wymtime Posts: 3,763 Chairperson of the Boards
    Neuromancer said:
    I don't feel he needs a rebalance, but a hard 5* counter. As of late, the devs release new characters faster than they modify old ones. I think you'll have better luck requesting a counter character.
    But what would a hard counter be?  It would not be just a 5* that cannot be stunned as bishop generates so much AP.  Players could then pair him with a character that can use blue differently.  Think gritty kitty bishop where instead of stun Groot fires his blue and you are double dipping on strike tiles with attack tiles and direct damage.  There are mild nerfs they could do to still make him good for players to be used on offense but not as Daytona on defense.  As it is many players such as myself only put him out for my last match to deter others from attacking reason I do this is because if I use him too much he uses a health pack each match.

    a reasonable nerf is like he has to be in front to gain the AP (no more jumping in front), or if he is attacked directly he does not gain AP (like 3* DP has to jump in front), or he only gains AP one time for total damage from the round so a cascade does not give him 30 AP.  

    Both of these suggestions would still still make him useful but not in my opinion broken.
  • Therealsmkspy
    Therealsmkspy Posts: 254 Mover and Shaker
    edited September 2019
    Daredevil217 said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    Therealsmkspy said:
    Why you don't just stop being the behavior police? Either you're just plain too sensitive and can't handle a little internet snark or you really like being on your high-horse. I really can't which, but hoping it is the former.
    Ha! There you go, reasonable discourse, lol!
    I know you’re being sarcastic, but I kind of agree with @Therealsmkspy (though it could be stated much much nicer).

    Let’s not act like there haven’t been plenty of valid arguments as to why he should be nerfed. Even jp1 admitted himself that Bishop’s mechanic is not okay (though added the “in a vacuum” qualifier, which I’d love explained more).

    Overall, I think this has been a pretty reasonable well-discussed topic. But I’m also not super-sensitive to the occasional internet snark either. If anyone is feeling emotionally triggered, it’s okay to step away rather than trying to monitor other people’s behavior. Especially if not going off-topic, being abusive, etc. Focusing on who said what to who, who started it, if two wrongs make a right, etc. is just more distraction from the actual topic (Bishop). 

    I appreciate @tiomono cutting through all that and asking @jp1 if he would like to respond to any of his arguments on why Bishop should be nerfed.
    Well, being direct is often misconstrued as being mean. I could have written a long tip toe paragraph that eventually said the same thing, but more than likely the point would have been lost in the tip toeing. 

    @daz0273, FWIW, my comment wasn't referring to you, just happened to fall under yours.
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,945 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2019
    I just want a 5 that stops passive AP gain, can't be stunned and responds to powers immediately with their own blast, twice as strong....all passively.

    That should do it.

    This is who Captain Marvel should be instead of what we got.  (as @therightwaye aptly pointed out earlier)

    EDIT:  Snark aside, I find it hard to believe that a character who effectively countered Bishop while not also being a huge target would not soon be the subject of their own nerf thread.......
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2019
    bluewolf said:
    I just want a 5 that stops passive AP gain, can't be stunned and responds to powers immediately with their own blast, twice as strong....all passively.

    That should do it.

    This is who Captain Marvel should be instead of what we got.  (as @therightwaye aptly pointed out earlier)

    EDIT:  Snark aside, I find it hard to believe that a character who effectively countered Bishop while not also being a huge target would not soon be the subject of their own nerf thread.......
    They just model the character after bssm. One really good specific niche strength (stopping ap gain for the opponent during their own turn), and 2 ok to garbage powers. 

    They will be used when someone encounters a bishop team. But not a character they are going to want to run outside of that niche.
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,527 Chairperson of the Boards
    Daredevil217 said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    Therealsmkspy said:
    Why you don't just stop being the behavior police? Either you're just plain too sensitive and can't handle a little internet snark or you really like being on your high-horse. I really can't which, but hoping it is the former.
    Ha! There you go, reasonable discourse, lol!
    I know you’re being sarcastic, but I kind of agree with @Therealsmkspy (though it could be stated much much nicer).

    Let’s not act like there haven’t been plenty of valid arguments as to why he should be nerfed. Even jp1 admitted himself that Bishop’s mechanic is not okay (though added the “in a vacuum” qualifier, which I’d love explained more).

    Overall, I think this has been a pretty reasonable well-discussed topic. But I’m also not super-sensitive to the occasional internet snark either. If anyone is feeling emotionally triggered, it’s okay to step away rather than trying to monitor other people’s behavior. Especially if not going off-topic, being abusive, etc. Focusing on who said what to who, who started it, if two wrongs make a right, etc. is just more distraction from the actual topic (Bishop). 

    I appreciate @tiomono cutting through all that and asking @jp1 if he would like to respond to any of his arguments on why Bishop should be nerfed.
    Right. So let's sum up where we are. Which is nowhere. Let's not act like you are anywhere closer to achieving your goal. By all means throw in some entertaining snark but jp1 is sleeping sound in his bed anyway. And Bishop is still broken. And I'm still crying into my pillow I guess. You guys are such cads.

    You know what, even though I don't think a nerf will go so well, I am on your side. I can see why it benefits you and how, like Bigsoftee fellow said there is no other side to the debate.  So what next then? If Bishop is to be nerfed then I think you need more than however many pages this is that are being ignored by the people who have the power to do it. 

    So Bishop. From the information available nothing will happen regardless of deserving or not. That of course doesn't mean you/we can't continue to force the issue and maybe change the situation. Doesn't seem like much ground is being gained here just by stating loudly that he is broken and so maybe these tactics are simply the wrong ones? Not sure. The Gambit nerf took a long time and a few botched versions, I can only assume that the metrics that the Dev's care about are not kicking in for this. Maybe something can be learned there though, although personally I wouldn,'t wanna go back through all those old threads. I can only say, maybe change tactics? Maybe there could be a Shield Sim where players agree not to use Bishop as some sort of protest? I dunno. Probably the forum is too small a basis to organise that but  could try. Hit the Facebook page? I don't see much Dev interaction there but I am by no means a regular. Boycott other PvP? Organise a protest against Bishop in Simulator PvE by refusing to play that node? Reddit? Not sure where else. Buy them lunch? Maybe they are so afraid of Nerfs because they seem bad at it that Bishop is doomed to be broken forever? Look what they did to Mr. Fantastic...oh wait that was because of Bishop too I think? Not a good sign. 😑 Do you think that if players are still getting to their goals like hitting full progress in Shield Sim then the Dev's see no reason to do anything? I honestly don't know and the radio silence will keep us all in the dark.

    I truly hope something is done to help. I wish you luck. And as much of a sensitive snowflake I am, I am glad that *everything* is back on the table. Did you hear the one about  the 5* player who had to give up playing chess?




Categories