Yet another alternative to "nerf Bishop"

froggerjohn

With the caveat that I'd still prefer a way to leave Bishop alone, and solve the problem the 5* players have with seeing too much of him in PvP another way, here's another option in case that isn't feasible (or is too risky).

What about a way to nerf Bishop only in PvP, without affecting how the character behaves in PvE?

Say there was a companion support that restored whatever behavior you take away from him in the nerf, like the "jump in front" mechanic. Remove that ability from his base power set, and then add it back in as a companion support perk -- and give everyone that support, gratis.

Thus, anyone who relies on Bishop for boss events or high-level PvE can still get essentially the same behavior, but the PvP experience, without the support, is addressed.

Note that if the devs consider this concept of "restore nerfed behavior via support", it would be a great idea to check on the most commonly used support[s] for him right now, and include some of those capabilities as well. The idea being, the companion support is likely a permanent fixture, so including the benefits players are typically already getting with current supports helps more and more people swallow the nerf pill with less penalty against them.

Devs might also want to consider a matchmaking adjustment to reduce the incidents where champed-5* teams can beat down 4*s, if you're taking away one of the best weapons to retaliate against such attacks. Or perhaps, allow support use in retaliation fights only (and those supports aren't part of that team when attacked on defense thereafter).

jredd

all they need to do is increase the damage threshold so that the strongest 5* match 3 doesn't trigger his mechanic, but anything more will. problem solved. do the same with cap. done. 

HoundofShadow

That will make them useless. A 450 deals about 2400 match-3 and a 550 deals about 4500 match-3 damage. So, which level of 5* match-3 should his threshold be based on? 

Even a 370 XFDP takes only 2789 to trigger... 

Just stop him from gaining past 10 blue ap when cascades occur. 

froggerjohn

The point, is that the mechanics as they are can be very useful to a 4* player when we're up against high-level content like late round boss events, or SCL9 PvE.

I get that the characters are annoying to fight as a 5* player, and that they are disproportionately effective against them. A nerf however is a very one-sided response to that scenario. The 5* player gains everything, and the 4* player loses everything, including a valuable tool against PvE content that doesn't hurt anyone (when used in PvE).

Any solution that results in removing the "wall of Bishops" is a 'win' IMO for the 5* player, no matter how that's accomplished. So if it can be done in a way that doesn't hurt the 4* player, or at least lessens the blow, that's worth exploring.

HoundofShadow

I think the mindset of those 5* players need to change. 

Why are there a wall of Bishops?

Because those players choose to use them.

Do those players have a choice to use other characters?

Yes, they have.

Each bracket can accomodate 500 players. If those top players stop using Bishops, then there will be lesser Bishops.

It's the same thing when Thorkoye creates so much boredom in PvPs. They were everywhere.

Why?

The ultimate answer is because competitive players go for meta team(s). META means most efficient tactics available.

That's why players see tons of Thorokoye.

Even if Bishop, Cap Worth get nerfed, competitive players will look for the next meta team and someone else will follow suit.

AXP_isme

A meta that never changed would be boring, certainly. On the other hand the dominance of a certain set of teams doesn’t preclude discussion about people’s opinions of those teams and characters. Countering someone’s position is reasonable debate but telling people to change their minds isn’t fostering discussion, it’s shutting it down. Disagreement and contention are normal in an environment such as this and, to an extent (namely where language and content fall within the bounds defined on the forum as acceptable), should be encouraged. 

bluewolf

AXP_isme said:

A meta that never changed would be boring, certainly. On the other hand the dominance of a certain set of teams doesn’t preclude discussion about people’s opinions of those teams and characters. Countering someone’s position is reasonable debate but telling people to change their minds isn’t fostering discussion, it’s shutting it down. Disagreement and contention are normal in an environment such as this and, to an extent (namely where language and content fall within the bounds defined on the forum as acceptable), should be encouraged. 

What is "never" defined as in a mobile game with a new character every 2 weeks?

Because Bishop has been the same broken set of abilities for 14 months.

His ability to gather 30 blue from cascades etc is not even intended.  Yet he is the same.

Whatever.  Maybe they change him, maybe they don't.

I do know, as you say, it is very stale to see him used all the time.  Just like most of the game.  Stale.

wymtime

here here is the simple fix.  Make it if an ally is going to take X damage Bishop jumps in front and generates 5 blue AP.

if Bishop is in front already he will not generate any any AP.  This would make it so you could target him first like DP, Thing and players could still use him offensively in boss events and in PVP by keeping him in back.

you could also make him the opposite if he just takes X amount of damage he will generate 5 blue AP so if he is in back you can save him till last and one shot him.

the issue is he and hammer cap do both.  Jump in front and if they are in front will activate their OP passive powers

LLohm

I think @wymtime is onto something. Bishop is undiminished if he doesn’t jump in front. Offensively, you can select his colors for him to tank and in doing so, let him generate his blue AP.

it takes nothing away from people trying to punch up. It will stop 5* teams from putting bishop in their teams to float.

as I mentioned in the first few posts of the feedback thread, I really dislike the jump in front mechanic coupled with passive AP generation or countdown tiles generation designs. It makes matching 3 in a match 3 game impossible under circumstances where people are punished for leveling their highest tier characters.

HoundofShadow

I thought of Iceman's passive ability. Instead of generating blue ap immediately, he creates a 1 or 2-turn CD tile that gives him up to 5 blue ap after the CD processes. There can only be a maximum of 1-2 CD on the board. You can play around with the number of blue ap gained, no of turn and  max no. of CD tiles on the board.

Simple and the code already exists for it.

tiomono

HoundofShadow said:

I thought of Iceman's passive ability. Instead of generating blue ap immediately, he creates a 1 or 2-turn CD tile that gives him up to 5 blue ap after the CD processes. There can only be a maximum of 1-2 CD on the board. You can play around with the number of blue ap gained, no of turn and  max no. of CD tiles on the board.

Simple and the code already exists for it.

Or iceman yellow passive. Bishop needs 3 teamup ap to jump in front to protect his team.

froggerjohn

Ok, here's another way to put it.

5Thor is clearly broken, and should be nerfed. Players are exploiting a half-health mechanic by entering a fight that way, which allows him to be OP from turn 1. The developers never intended that behavior, and should fix it.

Unless I've missed something, this argument is not being made. (And I'm not making it either, other than to illustrate a point). It's a defensible argument from the standpoint of exploited behavior and an OP turn 1 dynamic. So WHY aren't lots of people crying to nerf Thor?

The reason, is because this clearly broken behavior doesn't hurt anyone else. In fact, the opposing player in PvP doesn't even experience that anomaly, because the opponent Thor is always full health, and therefore doesn't even have the broken behavior when being faced in PvP.

This kind of outcome is what the proposal here attempts to achieve. Bishop could maintain the same capabilities for the player who wants to use him, as long as those capabilities aren't felt in large numbers by opposing 5* PvP players.

Fix the actual problem. And that problem, is a queue-full of Bishop teams that are annoying to play against for one segment of the player base.

Any solution that clears the multitude of Bishops out of their queues is a good solution for those players. Any such solution that also happens to maintain all of the current OP capabilities, is a good solution for everyone.

It's worth striving for the latter.

Vhailorx

More or less agree froggerjohn, this is why I tend to think that glass cannon teams that excel in offense but aren't quite as scary without a human using them are an ideal meta team for mpq.

MoosePrime

froggerjohn said:
5Thor is clearly broken, and should be nerfed. Players are exploiting a half-health mechanic by entering a fight that way, which allows him to be OP from turn 1. The developers never intended that behavior, and should fix it.

Unless I've missed something, this argument is not being made. (And I'm not making it either, other than to illustrate a point). It's a defensible argument from the standpoint of exploited behavior and an OP turn 1 dynamic. So WHY aren't lots of people crying to nerf Thor?

The reason, is because this clearly broken behavior doesn't hurt anyone else. In fact, the opposing player in PvP doesn't even experience that anomaly, because the opponent Thor is always full health, and therefore doesn't even have the broken behavior when being faced in PvP.

I'm not sure I would agree that Thor is broken.

However, I suspect that the reason many don't complain about him is that even when he starts a battle with 1/2 health on offence, this does not affect him on defence.

HoundofShadow

Context is important.

The fact that Thor collects at least 5ap just by beginning the turn doing nothing makes him broken. The only difference is that defensively, he's a dud and he doesn't begin with 50% health at the start of the match when you face him. If he starts the match with 50% health when you face him, he will be nerfed along with Gambit.

Some whine about characters gaining ap because they made a match-3 that triggers their passives but they are against nerfing Thor when they are gaining 5ap every turn.

Fair? 

LLohm

I was a strong proponent of nerf Thor as I feel auto gain of 5AP per turn is broken and allows people to get away without thinking about the match 3 they’re making.

I’m also a strong proponent of bishop as he is not match 3 friendly.

Give me back match 3 in a match 3 game please.

KGB

MoosePrime said:

froggerjohn said:
5Thor is clearly broken, and should be nerfed. Players are exploiting a half-health mechanic by entering a fight that way, which allows him to be OP from turn 1. The developers never intended that behavior, and should fix it.

Unless I've missed something, this argument is not being made. (And I'm not making it either, other than to illustrate a point). It's a defensible argument from the standpoint of exploited behavior and an OP turn 1 dynamic. So WHY aren't lots of people crying to nerf Thor?

The reason, is because this clearly broken behavior doesn't hurt anyone else. In fact, the opposing player in PvP doesn't even experience that anomaly, because the opponent Thor is always full health, and therefore doesn't even have the broken behavior when being faced in PvP.

I'm not sure I would agree that Thor is broken.

However, I suspect that the reason many don't complain about him is that even when he starts a battle with 1/2 health on offence, this does not affect him on defence.

He may or may not be broken. But he's subtly nerfing much of the rest of the 5* tier. He's doing that because everyone is exploiting the half health mechanic to generate tons of free AP. So what happens virtually every time a new 5* is released is you see the inevitable comments of 'they are not as good/fast as 1/2 health Thor so they are useless/non-meta'. If this exploit didn't exist, how many 5* characters would be a lot more relevant?

It seems to me this exploit is a lot more likely to get fixed in some future release than any other nerf to Okoye/Kitty or whomever else is a a supposed nerf target because this isn't intended behavior.

KGB

Jacklag

HoundofShadow said:

Some whine about characters gaining ap because they made a match-3 that triggers their passives but they are against nerfing Thor when they are gaining 5ap every turn.

Fair? 

The complaint's about Bishop go far beyond him gaining 5ap every turn (which is not even true, depending on cascades or the presence of Defense tiles on the board, he can make 7, 10 or even more). Vulture generates 10 AP every turn, and nobody is calling to nerf him. Because there is a counter. Same way there is a counter to 5* Thor: kill him last. Beat him up to 51% health then nuke him outright. 

The problem with Bishop is the entire set combined that makes it impossible or at least very frustrating to beat. He jumps in front, generate blue, uses blue to deal damage and stun and destroy the little AP you managed to gather from that match. If you make a match with any of your 5*s, you will trigger a chain of events that results in your team being retaliated so bad that it was not even worth fighting.

There is a smart way to fight Thorkoye, there is a smart way to fight Gritty, there is a smart way to fight Vulture, XFDeadpool and Thing. I don't know if there is a smart way to fight Hammercap+Hawkeye. But Hammercap, by himself, is not as broken as Bishop.

But any team that has a Bishop in it is a frustration. And there is just no way around him.

bluewolf

I kind of hope they nerf Thor, as it would be a good reason to retire.

Vhailorx

KGB said:

He may or may not be broken. But he's subtly nerfing much of the rest of the 5* tier. He's doing that because everyone is exploiting the half health mechanic to generate tons of free AP. So what happens virtually every time a new 5* is released is you see the inevitable comments of 'they are not as good/fast as 1/2 health Thor so they are useless/non-meta'. If this exploit didn't exist, how many 5* characters would be a lot more relevant?

It seems to me this exploit is a lot more likely to get fixed in some future release than any other nerf to Okoye/Kitty or whomever else is a a supposed nerf target because this isn't intended behavior.

KGB

People will make that same comparison no matter what the meta is.  Does every meta team subtley nerf the rest of the 5* tier?

KGB

Vhailorx said:

KGB said:

He may or may not be broken. But he's subtly nerfing much of the rest of the 5* tier. He's doing that because everyone is exploiting the half health mechanic to generate tons of free AP. So what happens virtually every time a new 5* is released is you see the inevitable comments of 'they are not as good/fast as 1/2 health Thor so they are useless/non-meta'. If this exploit didn't exist, how many 5* characters would be a lot more relevant?

It seems to me this exploit is a lot more likely to get fixed in some future release than any other nerf to Okoye/Kitty or whomever else is a a supposed nerf target because this isn't intended behavior.

KGB

People will make that same comparison no matter what the meta is.  Does every meta team subtley nerf the rest of the 5* tier?

No. Okoye doesn't subtly nerf the tier because she isn't being exploited. Her powers are being used exactly as designed.

Thor on the other hand is not. He's always being run at half health to exploit 5 free AP + board shake. This isn't that far off from the 3* GamBat exploit. Thor's power is beloved by players while GamBat was hated because it only works on offense so no one has to be hurt by it working on turn 1 on defense.

His power description reads: (PASSIVE) At the beginning of each turn, if Thor is below 50% health, destroys 2 basic Red, Green or Yellow tiles.

So technically D3 could just adjudicate it to the letter of the wording and claim they are fixing a bug and make the power only start working when he's below 50% of his battle starting health as opposed to his maximum health. Then you'd have to have him lose half his health every match before it starts firing.

KGB