Nerf Bishop

1…2425272930…32

Comments

  • Therealsmkspy
    Therealsmkspy Posts: 254 Mover and Shaker
    edited September 2019
    Member that time Starlord got his rework which created an unbeatable winfinite team, and the devs fixed it in two days?

    Pepperidge Farms remembers.

  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,957 Chairperson of the Boards
    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. 
    I’m different than most. I “want” to hit 1200 in each PVP event. But I’m only doing it about 50% of the time. I don’t use coordination and just go it solo. Often at the end of an event, so I shoot myself in the foot. 900 is guaranteed.  1000 happens maybe 80% of the time. 1200 is tough and happens maybe half the time. 

    I’d argue that Bishop has actually helped me get MORE rewards than I was netting pre-Bish. I’ve gotten some T10 PVP finishes in pick 3 offseason events by manipulating MMR and using Bish, top 50 in Sim, top 50 the last season, and the aforementioned heroics from lightning rounds. Prizes aren’t the end all be all to everyone and I’d happily give up placing better and go back to netting worse rewards so I can enjoy the game again. That’s how much is sucks playing him. 
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 9,439 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2019
    ^same. I’ve actually been unable to hit 2k in sim 2 out of the last 3 seasons because I couldn’t break through it, and I’m barely a 5* player. It’s also no longer a guarantee I can hit 900 in regular PvP, and as often as not I’m just 575 and out because I don’t want to deal with the hassle of it. I could have made a better effort to hit 75 wins in PvP, but it just didn’t work out with my schedule last season.

    ”real” 5* players I assume have more options for brute forcing through it than I do as a transitioner with just 2 not especially synergistic champs and no usable bishop of my own.
  • BigSoftieFF
    BigSoftieFF Posts: 454 Mover and Shaker
    ThaRoadWarrior said:
    ^same. I’ve actually been unable to hit 2k in sim 2 out of the last 3 seasons because I couldn’t break through it, and I’m barely a 5* player. It’s also no longer a guarantee I can hit 900 in regular PvP, and as often as not I’m just 575 and out because I don’t want to deal with the hassle of it. I could have made a better effort to hit 75 wins in PvP, but it just didn’t work out with my schedule last season.

    ”real” 5* players I assume have more options for brute forcing through it than I do as a transitioner with just 2 not especially synergistic champs and no usable bishop of my own.
    I’m quite sure the only reason I do is cause I can mirror with my own Grishop. I have a few more 5*’s than you but I’m still a “little” in general.

    Its absolutely no fun mirroring so I can only imagine what it’s like not being able to.
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,268 Chairperson of the Boards
    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.
  • Zeofar
    Zeofar Posts: 45 Just Dropped In
    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?
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,268 Chairperson of the Boards
    ThaRoadWarrior said:
    ^same. I’ve actually been unable to hit 2k in sim 2 out of the last 3 seasons because I couldn’t break through it, and I’m barely a 5* player. It’s also no longer a guarantee I can hit 900 in regular PvP, and as often as not I’m just 575 and out because I don’t want to deal with the hassle of it. I could have made a better effort to hit 75 wins in PvP, but it just didn’t work out with my schedule last season.

    ”real” 5* players I assume have more options for brute forcing through it than I do as a transitioner with just 2 not especially synergistic champs and no usable bishop of my own.
    I'm genuinely surprised you are experiencing so much Bishop in regular PvP, what sort of teams do you see him on? Shield Sim has been a problem for a long time, the wall of Grittyshop was Grockadusa before, so whilst 5* players are rightly aggrieved at Bishop's unfair mechanics, I guess I have just become accustomed because Shield Sim has been a horrible struggle my entire time playing with a wall of various meta impeding any progress!  Believe it or not I do have the same struggles because I like to run Thor or JJ in Shield Sim and run into the same wall everybody else does - sometimes it has Bishop, it always has Gritty or Kitty + special tile spammer. I have to run Bishop on offence which costs me health packs and I don't even have a functioning Gritty to help. So removing Bishop might solve your problem but not mine because fighting Gritty is no fun either. Still I'd be willing to support it happening simply on the basis that newer 5* players don't have other options and it just seems mostly unfair on such players like you if you can't reach 2000 with Champed 5*. That was the actual purpose of my original question - is this impeding progress? When the scoreboards say otherwise you can appreciate that it seems a bit of a mixed issue but if you genuinely can't get there, something should be done.
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,268 Chairperson of the Boards
    OJSP said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    justsing said:
    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. 
    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.
    I think the response to your quote was just the first paragraph, the second one is more towards everyone.

    From the last sentence, I didn't read that as telling people to shut up. I read that as asking for empathy. Telling someone how they should feel is considered verbal abuse https://goodmenproject.com/sex-relationships/why-its-really-covert-verbal-abuse-when-someone-is-telling-you-how-you-should-feel-dg/ (Add: despite it's under the section of sex-relationships, the article didn't actually talk about sex)

    OK, cool. Hopefully you can understand how it might have been seen that way. I have also been told in this very thread how my feelings about Kitty are wrong, so I am not about to do the same to the 5* players. Bishop is an issue for them but I feel that there are degrees in terms of how much an issue judging by responses seen on the forum. Still an issue though.
  • justsing
    justsing Posts: 510 Critical Contributor
    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. 
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,268 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: 9,439 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: 10,268 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: 10,268 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.

Categories