Character Updates - September 2020

1457910

Comments

  • thedarkphoenix
    thedarkphoenix Posts: 538 Critical Contributor
    Thanks for the character update , I think  the buffs and or changes should be more aggressive going forward while the nerfs a TAD bit less aggressive.

    For nerfs just change the actual problem, instead of reworking the character. For instance just making bishops passive have a higher numerical trigger would have been more than enough of a nerf, if you could make make "most" matches against him without it triggering his passive 5's would be fine.


  • Michael1957
    Michael1957 Posts: 630 Critical Contributor
    Nibby said:
    Why did they ask us, whether we wanted nerfs or buffs, if they don't listen anyway. A look at the poll shows that most users wanted buffs...What we got is a few minor buffs that no one cares about and Bishop and Worthy Captain destroyed. I would really have preferred a new character that counters Bishop /Worthy, instead of taking away powers. All the time we spent into leveling up these characters are now wasted. 
    That’s like saying all the time and money I spent buying VHS tapes was wasted.  Everything evolves over time thankfully , I’d hate to play the same game every day like an MPQ Groundhog Day .,The vast majority of players are happy with this based on all the responses I’m reading 
  • Michael1957
    Michael1957 Posts: 630 Critical Contributor
    edited September 2020
    Regardless of the new power set on Bishop and Worthy , if some players still want to use them , their low health is going to make them easy targets to take out before any of their CDs resolve . Most players can get 20K damage on someone in roughly 3 turns , Medusa and Chavez being similar examples of being KO’d before they can even get started 
  • NemoAbernnigan
    NemoAbernnigan Posts: 162 Tile Toppler
    edited September 2020
    Well I guess I don't want to get Bishop anymore. I found him highly annoying, and was looking forward to using him myself one day. Kinda wish they had just nerfed him a bit, like if overclock damage had been reduced and the trigger for the jump and the trigger for release had been increased, and if the energy conversion had just had the stun length nerfed some or something. The full rework seems a bit extreme. 

    If they had to rework him I'd rather they had done something like:
    Overclock: If you have 6/5/4 red and an ally would take x damage Bishop jumps to the front and generates 2/3/4 blue.
    Energy Conversion: As long as you have more than 7/6/5 blue, whenever Bishop takes x damage, stun the target for 1/2/3 turns. ACTIVE: 10 blue - Deal x damage to all stunned enemies, if Bishop is beneath 30/50/70 % of his max life cost of this ability is reduced to 7.

    Or something like that. Make it easier to deal with him as an enemy because the AI will be bad at meeting conditions, so you can hard focus him and take him out before he becomes a problem, but still leave him as an amazing ap battery who can stun hard and put out good damage if he is tanking for the team. 
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 5,620 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2020
    I just reread Bishop's reworked Overclocked ability. Based on the wordings, it seems like I can put out multiple Overclocked CDs on the same turn and then multiply the amount of damage. If I have 3 CDs out on the same turn and Bishop took a total 5k damage, his total Overclocked damage would be 3*5000*3.25= 48,750 damage.

    The logic behind this thinking is because it doesn't seem to have the limitation that BRB's Clash of the Worthy has.

    it deals 225% of the damage dealt, not +225%.  So shouldn't it be 5000 * 2.25?  (for a total of closer to 33k)?
    and even so, that's 18 red ap PLUS 3 turns for 33k damage.  with okoye plus sabretooth I can do 6 red ap + 12 teamup (which is even easier to collect than 18 in the same color.  And Karnak can do comparable damage by himself instantly with 10 red + 8 blue.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 739 Critical Contributor
    My 2 cents and analogy:

    Buffs are usually good, even for characters where we weren't looking to get them.  I also agree with everyone pointing out these are fairly minor nudges, while those that are often asked to get nudged remain unchanged.

    Nerfs are rarely good.  In the history of this game, the nerf typically leads to complete lack of usefulness.  The list is long and doesn't bear repeating because someone will just point out the one or two exceptions in an attempt to nullify the overall point.

    For the life of me, I cannot find a logical reason to explain how they can manage minor tweaks, that tend to leave characters slightly better and more useful, but cannot figure out how to do minor tweaks in the opposite direction.  Why does every (I know, exceptions to the rule happen) nerf mean totally gutting them?

    Imagine the game is like a town.  Different roads we can all take, different paths to get from one place to another.  Just because some people don't like a particular road, and are happy when it is closed down, there may still be a very large amount of people who never said anything bad about the road because they either liked it, or didn't even care because they never even used it.  
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 7,141 Chairperson of the Boards
    Oops. It should be 3* 5000 * 2.25 instead. I see where you are coming from but I not going for the most damage/red ap ratio or the ease of getting the most damage. To me, the main source of enjoyment from playing MPQ is figuring out different synergies, concepts or strategies to play with. Since Bishop will not be the blue ap generator and stun machine anymore, I think the ability that stands out the most now is Overclocked and putting out protect tile. It definitely means he will be a healthpack sponge, but I think playing two or three matches with him in Simulator won't be too much of a trouble. 
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 5,620 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2020
    My 2 cents and analogy:

    Buffs are usually good, even for characters where we weren't looking to get them.  I also agree with everyone pointing out these are fairly minor nudges, while those that are often asked to get nudged remain unchanged.

    Nerfs are rarely good.  In the history of this game, the nerf typically leads to complete lack of usefulness.  The list is long and doesn't bear repeating because someone will just point out the one or two exceptions in an attempt to nullify the overall point.

    For the life of me, I cannot find a logical reason to explain how they can manage minor tweaks, that tend to leave characters slightly better and more useful, but cannot figure out how to do minor tweaks in the opposite direction.  Why does every (I know, exceptions to the rule happen) nerf mean totally gutting them?

    Imagine the game is like a town.  Different roads we can all take, different paths to get from one place to another.  Just because some people don't like a particular road, and are happy when it is closed down, there may still be a very large amount of people who never said anything bad about the road because they either liked it, or didn't even care because they never even used it.  
    It's not that demi can't make incremental changes, it's just a matter of incentives. reworking characters costs dev time, so multiple reworks are undesirable (each one means fewer resources to devote to anything else like new pve events or features).  So when they know that a character is bad for the game long term and finally decide to fix the problem with a nerf, I can understand that they want to be absolutely sure they only have to do the job once and err on the side of too much.  Similarly, when bumping characters up, they don't want to be forced to follow up with a subsequent nerf because they overshot the mark and made someone OP.  So they do tiny bumps up.
  • thedarkphoenix
    thedarkphoenix Posts: 538 Critical Contributor
    I'm not sure if the same person that does re balances does character and power designs also but who did Rogue, 4 Punisher, legion, 4 and 5 window and  5 iHulk, and killmonger did an excellent job.

    Especially with ihulk, rogue and punisher.




  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 739 Critical Contributor
    Vhailorx said:
    My 2 cents and analogy:

    Buffs are usually good, even for characters where we weren't looking to get them.  I also agree with everyone pointing out these are fairly minor nudges, while those that are often asked to get nudged remain unchanged.

    Nerfs are rarely good.  In the history of this game, the nerf typically leads to complete lack of usefulness.  The list is long and doesn't bear repeating because someone will just point out the one or two exceptions in an attempt to nullify the overall point.

    For the life of me, I cannot find a logical reason to explain how they can manage minor tweaks, that tend to leave characters slightly better and more useful, but cannot figure out how to do minor tweaks in the opposite direction.  Why does every (I know, exceptions to the rule happen) nerf mean totally gutting them?

    Imagine the game is like a town.  Different roads we can all take, different paths to get from one place to another.  Just because some people don't like a particular road, and are happy when it is closed down, there may still be a very large amount of people who never said anything bad about the road because they either liked it, or didn't even care because they never even used it.  
    It's not that demi can't make incremental changes, it's just a matter of incentives. reworking characters costs dev time, so multiple reworks are undesirable (each one means fewer resources to devote to anything else like new pve events or features).  So when they know that a character is bad for the game long term and finally decide to fix the problem with a nerf, I can understand that they want to be absolutely sure they only have to do the job once and err on the side of too much.  Similarly, when bumping characters up, they don't want to be forced to follow up with a subsequent nerf because they overshot the mark and made someone OP.  So they do tiny bumps up.
    I mean, maybe?  Not a bad guess, but there are still some flaws there.  

    While one could argue that is the principle they are aiming for is what you described, at a certain point, wouldn't someone say "Hey, usually when we turn this knob from a 3 to a 4, people point out we are just putting lipstick on a pig.  Lets aim for turning it up to 5 or 6 when we run our test/simulations.  Aim for the middle, not just a little bit higher than they are."

    Also, we have seen them make slight tweaks from when the numbers are posted and when a character comes out.  The inference there is that they have the capacity to do small scale tests on short time periods.  Is it really that much more cost prohibitive to look at the least used characters and plug them in the machine, and just let it run?  Come back in a week or two, when you have a spare minute and check the results?

    Lastly, lets say it is cost prohibitive to do this.  Why go though the effort, spend the time an energy to make the changes, and then what?  The usage on the character didn't go up at all because they went from the bottom of the mid tier, to just a little higher then the bottom of the mid tier.  If you aren't really making them better, then how can you say you are making them better?
  • jp1
    jp1 Posts: 968 Critical Contributor
    MPQ is the product of a business. Literally the only thing they care about is meeting and ideally exceeding KPIs. I think any other theory that isn’t first through the scope of this lens is flawed.

    There is nothing wrong with that by the way, that’s not my insinuation at all. Real world facts is that is the only way for this to even exist much less stick around. The problem is approach in my opinion.

    There are less problematic ways to encourage engagement and spending. However, there seems to be no interest in this philosophy. 

    Trashing characters into oblivion that you have previously sold in HFH bundles straight up as a purchase is....problematic. Further, if you buffed a trash tier 5* to something special and open a special store for more than 48 hours you can bet it will drive revenue. 
    Pissing off a large section of customers is short sighted. Which is why when some companies make changes that don’t favor a customer base they “grandfather you in” to reward loyalty and present some sort of semblance of integrity as a company. Since that isn’t an option at MPQ, they should, IMHO, do changes with the same intent. Then again, what do I know? You are all happy 😆. 
    My company would surely fold if we took payment and put in work on a deal and then changed the terms whenever we see fit. 

    Want good will? Let us change the coverage of our WCap and/or Bishop for Polaris. I’m betting that would never happen. Second to that, do some buffs that aren’t ridiculous trash that is useless to the player base you are screwing over with your heavy nerf.

    OK. That’s all, I promise I’m done this time for real. Y’all enjoy your 10 inch foot long subs.
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 8,075 Chairperson of the Boards
     Buffs do seem like they would add value if they were then made available to chase or for purchase.

    also I think Thing could have used something else in his buff; maybe start with defends out like BRB does, or lower his defend threshold to more Valkyrie like numbers with or without the jump in front. 
  • jp1
    jp1 Posts: 968 Critical Contributor
    @Daredevil217

    Fair enough, I mean it’s clear a lot of people feel that way here on the board. Personally I’m not a fan of that approach, but it seems to be successful, so it clearly won’t change. I’ll go grab my cartridge based games and relive the good ole days to comfort myself. ;)


  • krakenoon
    krakenoon Posts: 355 Mover and Shaker
    @jp1
    Everyone in 5land was “grandfathered in” in rewards restructuring.

    @Daredevil217
    So what you’re saying is nerf-murder is the new vaulting?
  • jp1
    jp1 Posts: 968 Critical Contributor
    edited September 2020
    @krakenoon So...when they made us grind harder for roughly the same rewards we used to get in SCL 9? Ok, well I play the same and until now, spend the same, and my fives are now 20 levels lower when they leave LL if they are even covered. Go figure that’s the reward.
  • Mr_F
    Mr_F Posts: 547 Critical Contributor
    edited September 2020
    Yep. But for players like me, overall I have 4&5* bonanza of covers. Double pre-shard era (so basically double the 2019). Not to mention that playing SCL7 PVE and SCL10 in PVP equals to 2 and 1 cover respectivetly. That is 7 4* covers a week just for progression rewards. And not counting token pulls, champion rewards ect. I have 4.3M ISO dept solelly to shards and 4* covers who enter my roster from every, possible hole. I usually got 3-4 covers at new 4* release now it is 6-7.
    Also: If we have double the 4* covers income then we - overall - need less time to champ/max champ them which equals to faster classic 5*. Yes,  I agree not everybody will be happy because of that.Yes, I agree non classic or LL are harder to get. Yes, SCL 10 is more time consuming ect. I totally agree. But I just how the opposite side of the coin: for me (and propably not only me) rewards were upgraded.
  • jp1
    jp1 Posts: 968 Critical Contributor
    Mr_F said:
    Yep. But for players like me, overall I have 4&5* bonanza of covers. Double pre-shard era (so basically double the 2019). Not to mention that playing SCL7 PVE and SCL10 in PVP equals to 2 and 1 cover respectivetly. That is 7 4* covers a week just for progression rewards. And not counting token pulls, champion rewards ect. I have 4.3M ISO dept solelly to shards and 4* covers who enter my roster from every, possible hole. I usually got 3-4 covers at new 4* release now it is 6-7.
    Also: If we have double the 4* covers income then we - overall - need less time to champ/max champ them which equals to faster classic 5*. Yes,  I agree not everybody will be happy because of that.Yes, I agree non classic or LL are harder to get. Yes, SCL 10 is more time consuming ect. I totally agree. But I just how the opposite side of the coin: for me (and propably not only me) rewards were upgraded.
    Oh, for sure. I’m not trying to postulate that my experience is the definitive experience. I just happen to fall into that group of players were nearly all the changes have been net negative. The nerf thing is totally separate and didn’t actually have any impact on my game at all, I just don’t like the idea of it. 

    Anyway, I appreciate your point of view as well. I didn’t mean to make it seam as though my opinion is any more important than anyone else, just trying to give a voice to those in my boat as well.
  • krakenoon
    krakenoon Posts: 355 Mover and Shaker
    The point I was trying to make is that anyone not in 5land before the restructuring has had the goalposts moved. Yes, overall there are “more” rewards, but anyone not reaping the benefits of a roster featuring numerous champed 4*s are not able to keep up rostering costs without paying or playing way too much. Before the restructure, players could ride out filling their roster with a variety of methods.
    Now, it could be argued that with dilution now moving into the 5* tier, the 2000 HP rostering cost will catch up to vets sooner, it is still an obstacle anyone looking to roster all non-limiteds will eventually have to face.
    Also, I don’t see how the only viable method of getting specific 5* shards is roughly the same rewards.
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 5,620 Chairperson of the Boards
    krakenoon said:
    The point I was trying to make is that anyone not in 5land before the restructuring has had the goalposts moved. Yes, overall there are “more” rewards, but anyone not reaping the benefits of a roster featuring numerous champed 4*s are not able to keep up rostering costs without paying or playing way too much. Before the restructure, players could ride out filling their roster with a variety of methods.
    Now, it could be argued that with dilution now moving into the 5* tier, the 2000 HP rostering cost will catch up to vets sooner, it is still an obstacle anyone looking to roster all non-limiteds will eventually have to face.
    Also, I don’t see how the only viable method of getting specific 5* shards is roughly the same rewards.
    You are right that 5* dilution is a long term issue.  But 2k HP roster slots is still a top 1% issue that only affects those with more than 75 duplicate characters.