OzarkBoatswain said: There is one character that needs to be nerfed: Kitty Pryde. There aren't any characters or teams that counter the team of Kitty plus a good strike and attack tile placer.4* Bishop and 4* Cap (Worthy) are also really good. They jump in front during virtually everything, and the passives that get activated are also amazing.For buffs, there are two 5*s that have never been any good, and you should know what they are without me saying. There are also a lot of 4*s that used to do competitive damage that have been superceded by more recent characters. Sam Wilson, Kingpin, Thing, Wolverine, Winter Soldier, and Quake are examples. 4*s that are used for purposes other than damage have fared better and are mostly OK.I would like more characters that have both strong match-ups and weak match-ups, as in rock-paper-scissors. As in, Dr. Strange beats a character with cheap powers that get used all the time (say, Karoline Dean if she were any good), but that character beats a character that counters high damage powers, and that third character somehow beats Dr. Strange. I can't think of a good in-game example of this. As it is, there are some characters (like Kitty) that are especially good against certain characters (like, say, 3* Iron Fist), but they don't have any character that counters them in turn.
thedarkphoenix said: nerfing bishop isn't going to make it any easier for any of you.Just like nerfing gambit didn't.There really isn't a point in nerfing Bishop if they plan on re-balancing other characters as they can create a hard counter in 5 land for bishop with some passive and spend time and money on buffing another character instead of nerfing bishop.
Twysta said: Demi should never nerf another character again ever.Mainly because they just don't know how. Any nerfs on any character they deem to be "overused" becomes so brutal that they don't get used at all.Buffs all the way.
Daredevil217 said: Twysta said: Demi should never nerf another character again ever.Mainly because they just don't know how. Any nerfs on any character they deem to be "overused" becomes so brutal that they don't get used at all.Buffs all the way. Again they also struggle to make effective counter characters. Someone pointed out in Sinisters thread that he could be their “answer” to Bishop (drains AP), the way Cap/Angel were answers for Gambit.
bluewolf said: Daredevil217 said: Twysta said: Demi should never nerf another character again ever.Mainly because they just don't know how. Any nerfs on any character they deem to be "overused" becomes so brutal that they don't get used at all.Buffs all the way. Again they also struggle to make effective counter characters. Someone pointed out in Sinisters thread that he could be their “answer” to Bishop (drains AP), the way Cap/Angel were answers for Gambit. Or, you know, they just wanted to make Sinister do something besides dmg people, and he's all about "planning" and traps, so AP steal seemed like a good ability to add to his mix.I kind of doubt they built him with an eye towards a Bishop counter given how meager the AP drain is.I wonder if the devs (considering that the team is at least partly different than the people working on the game when prior nerfs were done) ever get frustrated that we all think they can't nerf effectively, or if that design/concept (nerf to uselessness) remains the core approach.
Spudgutter said: The rockett said: I shared a SS on discord of a SIM match against HE/Hammer Cap with my A team of 516 OK, 505 Thor and 490 JJ. 1st move:Me: match 3 that hit a cascade which I ended with 9 AP. AI: PRE 1st move after all the Hammer Cap tiles do their countdown thing. blue AP:30Red AP:26 Yes that was before AI made 1 move they had over 30 blue and 26 red AP. You cannot make a match against Hammer or Bishop without their passive going off. If that is not broken, then I have no idea what is. C'mon, i don't remember what logical fallacy this falls under, but it is pretty blatant. You think you represent anything resembling the average player? I'm top 50 cl9 pve with 900/1200 pvp. Day 2221 with 10 million Iso sitting in the bank and 400+ pulls waiting on the next 5* so i can champ whomever it is with carbage and brb and add them to my 27 other 5* champs. And even with all that, my best 5* are between 460 and 463, and i only just recently maxed out my second 4* champ literally yesterday. Of course the AI is going to have maximum ap in that scenario. No one is surprised by this. Show me when you do that with 4*, and I'll listen. But just as an example, my 366 Coulson, boosted in pvp right now, does 1137 in his strongest color, just barely enough to trigger the 1059 requirement of my level 297 bishop. But again, the number of people with almost maxed coulsons cannot come close to those that don't. jp1 said:If they do nerf Bishop my life is likely to become less complicated when it comes to PVP, so I stand to gain nothing from coming to his defense. Other people, those in transition with maybe 1 or 2 five star champs or those deeply rooted in 4 star land having to deal with under leveled fives who are still dominating their play experience might need those tools. This right here is what it comes down to, those that are annoyed are only thinking of themselves and not others. Nerfing bishop or hammer does absolutely nothing to me or my game, but I takes away options from others. No offense to those asking for nerfs, but it comes off as kind of selfish, imo. DAZ0273 said: Despite all this talk about nerfs though I don't see any changes in leaderboards. I don't see 5* players not hitting 2000 in Sim. There is still collusion in PvP which makes Bishop etc irrelevant. Bishop isn't even an issue in pick 2 Pvp. I see 5* players who want 4* characters nerfed without their 5* characters touched or treated in equal fashion. I wonder at players talking about healthpacks when they have hundreds stockpiled. This whole thread/poll is a strange exercise which none of us will win I fear, especially when players continue to vote one way but their comments suggest they want to play both ends against the middle. Fun I guess? This right here. Top winners rarely change, even as the meta changes. Taking away tools because it inconveniences you, with no regard to how it impacts those who are trying to come up, is the wrong way to come about.
The rockett said: I shared a SS on discord of a SIM match against HE/Hammer Cap with my A team of 516 OK, 505 Thor and 490 JJ. 1st move:Me: match 3 that hit a cascade which I ended with 9 AP. AI: PRE 1st move after all the Hammer Cap tiles do their countdown thing. blue AP:30Red AP:26 Yes that was before AI made 1 move they had over 30 blue and 26 red AP. You cannot make a match against Hammer or Bishop without their passive going off. If that is not broken, then I have no idea what is.
jp1 said:If they do nerf Bishop my life is likely to become less complicated when it comes to PVP, so I stand to gain nothing from coming to his defense. Other people, those in transition with maybe 1 or 2 five star champs or those deeply rooted in 4 star land having to deal with under leveled fives who are still dominating their play experience might need those tools.
DAZ0273 said: Despite all this talk about nerfs though I don't see any changes in leaderboards. I don't see 5* players not hitting 2000 in Sim. There is still collusion in PvP which makes Bishop etc irrelevant. Bishop isn't even an issue in pick 2 Pvp. I see 5* players who want 4* characters nerfed without their 5* characters touched or treated in equal fashion. I wonder at players talking about healthpacks when they have hundreds stockpiled. This whole thread/poll is a strange exercise which none of us will win I fear, especially when players continue to vote one way but their comments suggest they want to play both ends against the middle. Fun I guess?
Rod5 said: Spudgutter said: The rockett said: I shared a SS on discord of a SIM match against HE/Hammer Cap with my A team of 516 OK, 505 Thor and 490 JJ. 1st move:Me: match 3 that hit a cascade which I ended with 9 AP. AI: PRE 1st move after all the Hammer Cap tiles do their countdown thing. blue AP:30Red AP:26 Yes that was before AI made 1 move they had over 30 blue and 26 red AP. You cannot make a match against Hammer or Bishop without their passive going off. If that is not broken, then I have no idea what is. C'mon, i don't remember what logical fallacy this falls under, but it is pretty blatant. You think you represent anything resembling the average player? I'm top 50 cl9 pve with 900/1200 pvp. Day 2221 with 10 million Iso sitting in the bank and 400+ pulls waiting on the next 5* so i can champ whomever it is with carbage and brb and add them to my 27 other 5* champs. And even with all that, my best 5* are between 460 and 463, and i only just recently maxed out my second 4* champ literally yesterday. Of course the AI is going to have maximum ap in that scenario. No one is surprised by this. Show me when you do that with 4*, and I'll listen. But just as an example, my 366 Coulson, boosted in pvp right now, does 1137 in his strongest color, just barely enough to trigger the 1059 requirement of my level 297 bishop. But again, the number of people with almost maxed coulsons cannot come close to those that don't. jp1 said:If they do nerf Bishop my life is likely to become less complicated when it comes to PVP, so I stand to gain nothing from coming to his defense. Other people, those in transition with maybe 1 or 2 five star champs or those deeply rooted in 4 star land having to deal with under leveled fives who are still dominating their play experience might need those tools. This right here is what it comes down to, those that are annoyed are only thinking of themselves and not others. Nerfing bishop or hammer does absolutely nothing to me or my game, but I takes away options from others. No offense to those asking for nerfs, but it comes off as kind of selfish, imo. DAZ0273 said: Despite all this talk about nerfs though I don't see any changes in leaderboards. I don't see 5* players not hitting 2000 in Sim. There is still collusion in PvP which makes Bishop etc irrelevant. Bishop isn't even an issue in pick 2 Pvp. I see 5* players who want 4* characters nerfed without their 5* characters touched or treated in equal fashion. I wonder at players talking about healthpacks when they have hundreds stockpiled. This whole thread/poll is a strange exercise which none of us will win I fear, especially when players continue to vote one way but their comments suggest they want to play both ends against the middle. Fun I guess? This right here. Top winners rarely change, even as the meta changes. Taking away tools because it inconveniences you, with no regard to how it impacts those who are trying to come up, is the wrong way to come about. C’mon dude, you know fine well that these are not 4* players floating at c.2k in SSim with Cap and Bishop teams out. Unboosted 4* teams would not have the firepower to dispatch 5* teams...instead (again as you well know) these are big 5* players who are choosing to leave out a lvl 300+ Bishop with Okoye/Strange or HammerCap with JJ/Hawkeye. It’s incredibly annoying, anti-competitive and to say otherwise is just being disingenuous.
Spudgutter said: Rod5 said: Spudgutter said: The rockett said: I shared a SS on discord of a SIM match against HE/Hammer Cap with my A team of 516 OK, 505 Thor and 490 JJ. 1st move:Me: match 3 that hit a cascade which I ended with 9 AP. AI: PRE 1st move after all the Hammer Cap tiles do their countdown thing. blue AP:30Red AP:26 Yes that was before AI made 1 move they had over 30 blue and 26 red AP. You cannot make a match against Hammer or Bishop without their passive going off. If that is not broken, then I have no idea what is. C'mon, i don't remember what logical fallacy this falls under, but it is pretty blatant. You think you represent anything resembling the average player? I'm top 50 cl9 pve with 900/1200 pvp. Day 2221 with 10 million Iso sitting in the bank and 400+ pulls waiting on the next 5* so i can champ whomever it is with carbage and brb and add them to my 27 other 5* champs. And even with all that, my best 5* are between 460 and 463, and i only just recently maxed out my second 4* champ literally yesterday. Of course the AI is going to have maximum ap in that scenario. No one is surprised by this. Show me when you do that with 4*, and I'll listen. But just as an example, my 366 Coulson, boosted in pvp right now, does 1137 in his strongest color, just barely enough to trigger the 1059 requirement of my level 297 bishop. But again, the number of people with almost maxed coulsons cannot come close to those that don't. jp1 said:If they do nerf Bishop my life is likely to become less complicated when it comes to PVP, so I stand to gain nothing from coming to his defense. Other people, those in transition with maybe 1 or 2 five star champs or those deeply rooted in 4 star land having to deal with under leveled fives who are still dominating their play experience might need those tools. This right here is what it comes down to, those that are annoyed are only thinking of themselves and not others. Nerfing bishop or hammer does absolutely nothing to me or my game, but I takes away options from others. No offense to those asking for nerfs, but it comes off as kind of selfish, imo. DAZ0273 said: Despite all this talk about nerfs though I don't see any changes in leaderboards. I don't see 5* players not hitting 2000 in Sim. There is still collusion in PvP which makes Bishop etc irrelevant. Bishop isn't even an issue in pick 2 Pvp. I see 5* players who want 4* characters nerfed without their 5* characters touched or treated in equal fashion. I wonder at players talking about healthpacks when they have hundreds stockpiled. This whole thread/poll is a strange exercise which none of us will win I fear, especially when players continue to vote one way but their comments suggest they want to play both ends against the middle. Fun I guess? This right here. Top winners rarely change, even as the meta changes. Taking away tools because it inconveniences you, with no regard to how it impacts those who are trying to come up, is the wrong way to come about. C’mon dude, you know fine well that these are not 4* players floating at c.2k in SSim with Cap and Bishop teams out. Unboosted 4* teams would not have the firepower to dispatch 5* teams...instead (again as you well know) these are big 5* players who are choosing to leave out a lvl 300+ Bishop with Okoye/Strange or HammerCap with JJ/Hawkeye. It’s incredibly annoying, anti-competitive and to say otherwise is just being disingenuous. Again, i don't think i ever said he wasn't annoying. What I'm saying is it's selfish to fix it so that *we* aren't annoyed. I'm still getting to 2k in sim, and i think it is pretty fair to assume that most of the 5* players that are asking for a nerf are still getting there, so what's the problem? Why do you care that someone is floating with jj/bishop or HE/hammer instead of okoye/thor or any other team? It is no more or less anti-competitive than grilling is for regular pvp, imo. And yet, it doesn't stop me from getting rewards, so i don't make a fuss.I'm not being disingenuous when i am making the assumption, based on my knowledge of how the game works and is designed, that the number of people that are helped by bishop outweighs the number of people that are strictly annoyed by him. I would say it even vastly outweighs it. Now, i have no way to prove i am right or wrong, but neither does anyone else. Considering all the people that talk about how he helps them give their examples, while people asking for a nerf overwhelmingly reference "annoying" as a reason, i think i am closer to right than wrong.I had stuff to do today, so i couldn't push to 1200 in pvp, but on my climb to 900, i saw someone with a 370 bishop. I still made it to 900, just went around him. It was pretty easy to avoid. I saw one other bishop in my 19 wins and maybe 2 losses in deadpool pvp. Plus teams i skipped because of low points, i saw at least 35 teams, closer to 40. 2 of them were bishop. Maybe my mmr has me secluded in a safe spot, but i doubt it.
Warbringa said: thedarkphoenix said: nerfing bishop isn't going to make it any easier for any of you.Just like nerfing gambit didn't.There really isn't a point in nerfing Bishop if they plan on re-balancing other characters as they can create a hard counter in 5 land for bishop with some passive and spend time and money on buffing another character instead of nerfing bishop. I would love one or two of the rebalanced 5* to address the jump in front 4* like Bishop and HammerCap. Would make sense in that they don't have to actually nerf either character, just make a hard counter with the new and improved 5* Wasp or 5* Hulk that everyone will now want to chase. Vets should be happy as many will already have covers for these old useless 5*. Also much more revenue possibility for D3 with all the new targeted deals and shards they have been pushing. What about if one of 5* Wasps new passive powers was something like whenever an opposing character jumps in front of her matches, they are stunned for a round? It could also deal a decent bonus damage (like OBW) and she may drain a small amount of AP at 5 covers, once again like OBW.
tdtmf said: , but taking my time and money for a product, and then changing the product is unethical.
IceIX said: Hey all,Wanted to stir up a bit of conversation, this particular time for a subject that many of you know to be near and dear to my heart: Character balancing.Like to get a temperature check as to what people are looking for here and now. I mean, sure. There’s tons of data that we can pull from over the past zillion years, but I’d like to know: How do you feel about character balance right now?
Hey all,
Wanted to stir up a bit of conversation, this particular time for a subject that many of you know to be near and dear to my heart: Character balancing.
Like to get a temperature check as to what people are looking for here and now. I mean, sure. There’s tons of data that we can pull from over the past zillion years, but I’d like to know: How do you feel about character balance right now?
tiomono said: tdtmf said: , but taking my time and money for a product, and then changing the product is unethical. So its unethical to change a product that someone paid for even if said product includes an agreement that the consumer accepts that the product can change anytime or even cease to exist at the whim of the creator of said product? You might not want to pay for anything with updating software ever again if you feel its morally wrong.
BriMan2222 said: tiomono said: tdtmf said: , but taking my time and money for a product, and then changing the product is unethical. So its unethical to change a product that someone paid for even if said product includes an agreement that the consumer accepts that the product can change anytime or even cease to exist at the whim of the creator of said product? You might not want to pay for anything with updating software ever again if you feel its morally wrong. Exactly. Any game with online play does this. Look at any MMO, classes are buffed and nerfed on an almost monthly basis. You could spend literally years building a mage only for them to say mages are too powerful and nerf them. Same thing with any fighting game. Characters have their special moves, speed, and damage tweaked with every single patch.It's common video game practice.