Bishop sucking the fun out of the game

HoundofShadow

My bringing up of Thor has nothing to do with how easy or difficult he is to beat. Rather, it's his ability that allows players to get 5 free aps at the start of the turn every turn. This 5 free ap gain is the yardstick for new 5*.

I think R4G makes PvEs easy, but a bad board or match against tile movers will slow down your team. As match last longer, your team gets weaker. However, for Thor, your team will get stronger because you would have gotten a lot of free aps for you to fire off your powers. You can't control where your R4Gstrike tiles are placed at the start of the game, but you can control or deny enemies' ap colours.

Because of Thor's 5 free ap gain, it's unlikely for any 5* to dethrone him. Is there any 5* out of the current 36 that can replace him as the meta (or speed)? Under what condition will it take to dethrone 5* Thor?

Bubba3210

HoundofShadow said:

My bringing up of Thor has nothing to do with how easy or difficult he is to beat. Rather, it's his ability that allows players to get 5 free aps at the start of the turn every turn. This 5 free ap gain is the yardstick for new 5*.

I think R4G makes PvEs easy, but a bad board or match against tile movers will slow down your team. As match last longer, your team gets weaker. However, for Thor, your team will get stronger because you would have gotten a lot of free aps for you to fire off your powers. You can't control where your R4Gstrike tiles are placed at the start of the game, but you can control or deny enemies' ap colours.

Because of Thor's 5 free ap gain, it's unlikely for any 5* to dethrone him. Is there any 5* out of the current 36 that can replace him as the meta (or speed)? Under what condition will it take to dethrone 5* Thor?

That’s not what this conversation is about. 

tiomono

HoundofShadow said:

My bringing up of Thor has nothing to do with how easy or difficult he is to beat. Rather, it's his ability that allows players to get 5 free aps at the start of the turn every turn. This 5 free ap gain is the yardstick for new 5*.

I think R4G makes PvEs easy, but a bad board or match against tile movers will slow down your team. As match last longer, your team gets weaker. However, for Thor, your team will get stronger because you would have gotten a lot of free aps for you to fire off your powers. You can't control where your R4Gstrike tiles are placed at the start of the game, but you can control or deny enemies' ap colours.

Because of Thor's 5 free ap gain, it's unlikely for any 5* to dethrone him. Is there any 5* out of the current 36 that can replace him as the meta (or speed)? Under what condition will it take to dethrone 5* Thor?

Then start a discussion in a new topic about thor. Let people discuss and debate. 

jp1

I’ve been to 2000 in SIM every season since Bishop. I really don’t understand the big deal, use your own Bishop/combo when you hit
the wall. No, it isn’t a guaranteed win, but isn’t that supposed to be the point?  

It makes variety less you say? I don’t get that either, without him there is nothing but Gritty and Thorkoye...not really much variety. 

Also, as I mentioned I’ve been taking losses to champed Juggs...I think he will be a big help. I have lost defensively to teams with XFDP/Gritty and Kitty/Valk as well. There are options.

I think he changed the game up and rather than utilizing the new tools to succeed people are just shouting everything else down and want their usual shield hopping single Meta game back in place.

Nothing personal, I know I’m not gaining popularity with that opinion...but that’s what it looks like to me.

jp1

OJSP said:

jp1 said:

Also, as I mentioned I’ve been taking losses to champed Juggs...

Just out of interest.. these champed Juggs aren't happened to be paired with lvl 480+ Kitties and 370 Rockets, are they?

Sure, but that’s expected considering my Kitty and Rocket aren’t that far away from that.

Edit: Returning to the game right after this is a loss from Gritty/Hela with a max level 456. So, add them to the list.

jp1

That’s possible, I lost offensively to that team as well I should mention. On offense it was because the combo of Juggs with Gritty is a hurt machine right from the jump. I think they will be a more effective counter than people assume.

Juggs by himself, I can’t speak to that. I figure people will be pairing him with damage boosters for the best outcome.

Tony_Foot

jp1 said:

I’ve been to 2000 in SIM every season since Bishop. I really don’t understand the big deal, use your own Bishop/combo when you hit
the wall. No, it isn’t a guaranteed win, but isn’t that supposed to be the point?  

Did you think the same about gambit. I didn’t understand the big deal, you could just use your gambit and hope for the best. Yes it wasn’t a guaranteed win but isn’t that the point? If I have your IGN correct I’m pretty sure you didn’t think that same way with gambit. Unless you now think you were wrong about him too?

CharlieCroker

jp1 said:

I think he changed the game up and rather than utilizing the new tools to succeed people are just shouting everything else down and want their usual shield hopping single Meta game back in place.

I think you're missing the point the OP was making - Bishop sucks the fun out of the game.

Yes - we can all start running Bishop (and clearly in the upper reaches of Sim this is what most are doing) but using him isn't in my experience any more fun that facing him.

On offence, using Bishop, you just make a match, stun someone, make another match, stun someone else then repeat until the match is over. If you get real lucky maybe you'll get two fights out of this before having to revive Bishop.

Against Bishop, the opposite is true and you just hope you don't get a 'lucky' cascade that gives the AI 30ap and/or keeps hitting you back for double the damage you've done, likely moreso as he'll be partnered by either Gritty or Okoye.  Oh and then you get stunlocked.

This is all in honesty my biggest issue with Bishop.  It's not just that he's broken and overpowered vs 5*s, it's that he makes the game less fun to play.  Which really isnt something the developers should aspire to when designing new characters.

jp1

I never called for a Gambit nerf. However, I think Gambit was a different beast altogether. For one, he was much harder to acquire. He also didn’t have any other valid options...as I’ve mentioned I’ve taken losses to several teams not including Bishop. 

Your chances are better if you bring your own Bishop, but it isn’t impossible to win without him.

I highly doubt I would have been pro-nerf during Gambit, but it’s hard to say because I wasn’t in the five star game at the time. 

Tony_Foot

jp1 said:

I never called for a Gambit nerf. However, I think Gambit was a different beast altogether. For one, he was much harder to acquire. He also didn’t have any other valid options...as I’ve mentioned I’ve taken losses to several teams not including Bishop. 

Your chances are better if you bring your own Bishop, but it isn’t impossible to win without him.

I highly doubt I would have been pro-nerf during Gambit, but it’s hard to say because I wasn’t in the five star game at the time. 

My mistake, I thought you were Johnny. 

JackDeath666

I don't have an issue with any character negating certain abilities or types of powers, or passives in general. But something that stops you matching 3 a Match 3 game? Come on... That just isn't right. 

BigSoftieFF

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

Daredevil217

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist.  One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead. 

DarthDeVo

jp1 said:

I never called for a Gambit nerf. However, I think Gambit was a different beast altogether. For one, he was much harder to acquire. He also didn’t have any other valid options...as I’ve mentioned I’ve taken losses to several teams not including Bishop. 

Your chances are better if you bring your own Bishop, but it isn’t impossible to win without him.

I highly doubt I would have been pro-nerf during Gambit, but it’s hard to say because I wasn’t in the five star game at the time. 

For much of the time Lord Gambit reigned supreme, I had a single 5* champ: Daredevil. 

Now maybe I'm remembering things differently since we're about 1.5 years removed from his second (actual) nerf. But I'd say I had better rates of success fighting any Gambit team with DD/G4mora than I do fighting Bishop.

With Bishop, I literally expect to lose, and consider it a minor miracle if I win. And if I do win, it's likely because the AI elected to use the blue AP for something else. Or I got supremely lucky removing Grocket's strikes. It rarely has anything to do with my strategy as a player. 

Facing Gambit, I probably won a solid 50 percent of the time, maybe more. I know it never frustrated me to the point I wanted to call it quits. OK, maybe once or twice. But certainly not anywhere dang near as much as Bishop. 

jp1

Daredevil217 said:

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist.  One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead. 

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t. 

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

tiomono

jp1 said:

Daredevil217 said:

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist.  One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead. 

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t. 

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

So it's ok to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn? 

jp1

tiomono said:

jp1 said:

Daredevil217 said:

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist.  One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead. 

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t. 

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

So it's ok to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn? 

In the context of putting that particular scenario in a vacuum, no, it is not okay. I don’t think Bishop is the problem he is being made out to be though, and reducing the entire debate down to one simple factor that fits a desired narrative isn’t productive or fair.

The real question, if I’m being reductive as well, is can Bishop be managed and you are able to still have success in PVP? The answer to that is “yes”. Of course that discounts the points everyone else has brought up, so I would try to make that argument with points of debate to back up my stance, but then I’m just “ignoring the point”. 

I’m not looking to be rude to anyone or discount their outrage at the state of things. It annoys me a bit when I respectfully disagree and accusations are thrown in my direction though.

tiomono

jp1 said:

tiomono said:

jp1 said:

Daredevil217 said:

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist.  One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead. 

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t. 

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

So it's ok to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn? 

In the context of putting that particular scenario in a vacuum, no, it is not okay. I don’t think Bishop is the problem he is being made out to be though, and reducing the entire debate down to one simple factor that fits a desired narrative isn’t productive or fair.

The real question, if I’m being reductive as well, is can Bishop be managed and you are able to still have success in PVP? The answer to that is “yes”. Of course that discounts the points everyone else has brought up, so I would try to make that argument with points of debate to back up my stance, but then I’m just “ignoring the point”. 

I’m not looking to be rude to anyone or discount their outrage at the state of things. It annoys me a bit when I respectfully disagree and accusations are thrown in my direction though.

Then you and I can agree to disagree. 

I will say overall I am impressed with most everyone in these bishop discussions. Similar discussions in the past pretty much always get locked because of not being civil or productive. 

jp1

Fair enough.

I agree that for the most part it has remained civil as well. 

JackDeath666

Now that I understood that this isn't a discussion and it's just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, then... I'M STAYING.