Weekly PVP Meta Nerfs?

shap328

I've seen a lot of complaining about Bishop, HammerCap, Kitty, Grocket, Thor, Okoye, etc. It all boils down to the same complaints, too overpowering, no variety, etc.

Perhaps one way of countering the variety is weekly nerfs? Basically the exact opposite of boosts, a character gets nerfed by X number of levels, down to a minimum of say level 70 (arbitrary number). Rotate the nerf through the metas, where two of the major meta characters?

I dunno, just a thought I had.

ThaRoadWarrior

Would it *only* nerf meta characters? Or would there be a rolling nerf that was walking down the list of characters in the opposite direction to the boosted characters? Going to be a sad day for Talos/Emma/Flaptain where their day in the doghouse arrives...

jp1

I like the idea of boosting the weaker characters better. 

Your suggestion is more like killing the middle class. The ultra elite (with deep hefty 5* rosters) won’t be hurt much by it, but everyone else would suffer.

shap328

ThaRoadWarrior said:

Would it *only* nerf meta characters? Or would there be a rolling nerf that was walking down the list of characters in the opposite direction to the boosted characters? Going to be a sad day for Talos/Emma/Flaptain where their day in the doghouse arrives...

Just the metas. Although bonus points for anyone who wins matches with that team could work too.

shap328

jp1 said:

I like the idea of boosting the weaker characters better. 

Your suggestion is more like killing the middle class. The ultra elite (with deep hefty 5* rosters) won’t be hurt much by it, but everyone else would suffer.

Hasn't the concern, at least with Bishop, been that the stronger the character the more his passives get triggered? Same with Hammercap? My thought process is by nerfing them every so often their thresholds for passives go up, forcing people to use other characters, even if it's just temporary for that PVP.

ThaRoadWarrior

I think implementing such a system requires some acknowledgement that those characters are, in fact, problematic as currently implemented. It would be less work and maintenance to just "fix" them once, rather than adding a system that needs to be curated for the remaining life of the product as new characters get added and fill their roles as meta.

tiomono

shap328 said:

jp1 said:

I like the idea of boosting the weaker characters better. 

Your suggestion is more like killing the middle class. The ultra elite (with deep hefty 5* rosters) won’t be hurt much by it, but everyone else would suffer.

Hasn't the concern, at least with Bishop, been that the stronger the character the more his passives get triggered? Same with Hammercap? My thought process is by nerfing them every so often their thresholds for passives go up, forcing people to use other characters, even if it's just temporary for that PVP.

I think that would end up making the jump in front crew as busted in the 4* tier as they are in the 5* tier.

BriMan2222

I think this would end up hurting newer players.  What if you are new to 4 star land, you only have 3 or 4 champed  four stars and all of them end up on the nerf list for the week?

AXP_isme

I think you just look at the most played characters by star list from the week before - excluding those on the boost list. The top 5 get anti-boosted by 10 levels that week. If they were in the list the week before it’s 20 levels, then 30 levels and so on. The bottom 5 get boosted by 10 levels the next week, 20 the week after etc... that doesn’t require any maintenance but it would show you the right level for the over or underpowered characters relative to their peers. You could even do a permanent rebalance of their numbers every so often, maybe every 3 months or so. You might need to have their boosts / anti-boosts wear off gradually (10 levels per week) so as not to generate an artificial cliff edge but the effect would be to normalise the top and bottom of each tier of characters with respect to the other characters in that tier on a rolling basis with no maintenance required. That would freshen up the meta. Problem solved. 

I’ll take my fee in cash please. None of that digital goods rubbish. 

shap328

AXP_isme said:

I think you just look at the most played characters by star list from the week before - excluding those on the boost list. The top 5 get anti-boosted by 10 levels that week. If they were in the list the week before it’s 20 levels, then 30 levels and so on. The bottom 5 get boosted by 10 levels the next week, 20 the week after etc... that doesn’t require any maintenance but it would show you the right level for the over or underpowered characters relative to their peers. You could even do a permanent rebalance of their numbers every so often, maybe every 3 months or so. You might need to have their boosts / anti-boosts wear off gradually (10 levels per week) so as not to generate an artificial cliff edge but the effect would be to normalise the top and bottom of each tier of characters with respect to the other characters in that tier on a rolling basis with no maintenance required. That would freshen up the meta. Problem solved. 

I’ll take my fee in cash please. None of that digital goods rubbish. 

I like this.