Nerf culture

Akoni

In the forum, the word "nerf" keeps getting thrown around. It appears the common arguments for a character getting nerfed are

• The character is difficult to deal with because the player doesn't have the resources
• The character is seen often as it is top tier and, therefore, used by many, if not, most players
• The character can be dealt with, but drains valuable resources (i.e. health packs)

The above points do not mean that the character is overpowered or broken in anyway. The first point can occur when a player decides to streamline their character pool to focus on meta characters. The second point is merely a best tool scenario. Hammers are a very common tool, because they are perfect for the job they are used for. If I'm a carpenter, I'm going to see hammers. In MPQ, I'm going to see X character. As for the last point, if I "exercise" my characters in a battle, I am expected to rest (recovery time) or feed (health pack) my characters.

Like a hammer, nerfing is a very powerful, blunt tool for fixing a problem. It should be used as a last resort in situations where devs had an "oops" moment. Characters like Bishop who obviously dominated in a way that was completely unintentional should have been nerfed. Characters that do exactly what they're supposed to do by speeding up the game, or enabling characters to "punch up" should not be nerfed. I don't think disliking a character for any of the points above means there is a "problem" with that character requiring a nerf.

When/why do you think a character should be nerfed?

TheEyeDoctorsWife

This will never happen/ be popular, but being I like roster diversity, I’d like any character showing up 75-80% of the time in top 100 SCLs 9,10 to be either nerfed or made ineligible for PVP play in the next season . 

fight4thedream

@Akoni: Interesting argument. It begs the question though: What do you consider to be an OP or "broken" character? I only ask because presumably an OP character would check off all the points on your list since they would be head and shoulders above the rest of its tier and would thus be ubiquitous in game. So where do you draw the line?

@TheEyeDoctorsWife: I also support roster diversity but would prefer the dev team develop strong, viable counter characters as opposed to nerfs. Locking out certain characters for a season would certainly shake things up a bit but I don't think it directly addresses the problem and those characters would be back for the next season. 

Nerfs should always be a last resort, when the dev team has reached the conclusion that a character does too much for its tier and viable counters would only be more "broken". 

Anon

I agree with @fight4thedream that nerfs should always be a last resort. Nerf discussion is always a hot button issue. 

Counters are the way to go in my opinion and a nerf should only be warranted if there is no way to counter a character reasonably.

entrailbucket

Have they ever given us a counter to a dominant meta that's actually worked?

The only one I can think of right now is Hulk countering Thor, but that doesn't seem like it was intentional.  Every time I can think of that a character was obviously targeted with a counter, it's had no particular impact on the metagame.

I don't know if that means they're bad at designing counters or if it says something larger about the game.

fractalvisions

A related question is, when the devs decide to nerf a character, why do they nerf them so much that they often become useless? Surely they could find some more minor adjustments that would still leave the character as one of the best or at least average, but no longer make them feel overpowered?

HoundofShadow

Whether a character should be nerfed is largely subjective. It depends on that player's critieria, where he is at in the game etc.

Using Bishop as an example, only a handful of 5* players were against his nerf. The frame being used for his nerf is "5* players are being punished for making matches". Were there counters? Silver Surfer was a counter. However, he was dismissed as a counter because you would be eaten alive if you use him in PvP. Or Silver Surfer was weak. I think Black Panther was also a decent counter and it worked for some 5* players. It was also dismissed as a counter. On the other hand, Bishop helped 4* players to punch up because they are sick of getting targeted by 5* players in pvps. 

To conclude, for some, a counter must be strong and be able to demonstrate a scarecrow effect. 

Next, speed and healthpack usage have been part of the criteria as to whether a counter is effective or not. Naturally, like many other games with RPG elements, a character is meta mainly because of  their speed of winning the game. 

Kitty/BRB was a counter to IHulk, but the main complain is they are slow.

So, as you see, as long as the players always have speed in their mind as the main criteria of a "workable" counter, almost all counters that the dev put out will be useless to this group of players.

Given that many players in this forum seem to be rushing to finish the game all the time, that's probably why speed is always their only criteria. Luckily, there's a thread about fun teams where speed is not the focus.

When I thought about the past nerfs, I realised that they are both offensively and defensively good and it's "mandatory" to use them as a counter. Also, it's typically X-Men who get the call for nerf.

Case in Point: Gambit, Bishop.

I can't remember why CapWorth got nerfed.

Romanshi

HoundofShadow said:

Case in Point: Gambit, Bishop.

I can't remember why CapWorth got nerfed.

Because he created so many countdown tiles and tremendously boosted Blue and Red AP gain on enemy's match-4/5 while defending weak chars as well jumping in front of them.

Kolence

Yes, I too would like to hear from OP what would be considered broken.

Especially on that 3rd point. How many health (packs) should we expect to lose each fight? If fighting one team with many other teams results in barely winning and all 3 characters limping after the fight, but the attacking teams fighting each other can win with one or no health packs needed afterwards, there seems to be some discrepancy in power levels there. 

One thing that's kinda looked over here so far is how the game favors speed in all competitive modes (with placement rewards, both versus and story).

Some characters I wouldn't call broken on their own, mechanically. But paired with someone else, they suddenly can beat teams 100 levels stronger and win fights twice as fast as the next best thing? Of course everyone has to use that same team then, at the very top. 

Pretty much agree with what Fight4thedream said about nerfs.
Even though he was fine with Bishop playing among 5-stars...  

Polares

Nerfs are not bad in a lot of games, they keep the balance of the game in check and help deal with outliers.

Nerfs are bad in this game because of two reasons:
- First, in this game Devs overnerf, they dont nerf slightly, they nerf to the ground! Once a char is nerfed in this game it usually goes from broken good to trash, completely useless.
- Second, and this is specially true for 5s, it is pretty hard to max chars in this game. So when a char is nerfed, it is hard to move to the next meta. If Okoye would be nerfed tomorrow, it would not be easy for people with 480+ Okoyes to move to the next meta char, in most cases it would require years to build the next meta char to that level.

Compare this to other games like LoL, Street fighter, Overwatch or Destiny, if a char/class/weapon is nerfed because it was too good, people complain, but most of the time they adapt. They can either move to other chars or simply keep playing with the same one because usually those chars are still useful/good.


So, all in all, nerfs are super useful in other games, they help keep the meta alive. Sadly in this game, nerfs should be as little as possible, and counters is a much more preferred option (even when Devs are most of the time pretty bad at creating counters).

ammenell

fractalvisions said:

A related question is, when the devs decide to nerf a character, why do they nerf them so much that they often become useless? 

my guess is laziness and greed.
if you don't want to spend money for testing you just go and do it yourself. 

or hire a cheap intern and tell him to "balance it a bit". tadaaa, intern nerfbat

DAZ0273

The Devs don't nerf, they "rebalance". Now this would imply that the character had "balance" to begin with which is c!early not the case. Achieving this new level of "balance" seems to have been a struggle over the last few attempts when it comes to taking stuff away. The Devs have had some OK results when "balancing" the other way around - 4* Wasp comes to mind. The Devs don't seem to like tweaking stuff, it is usually a redesign when addressing "problematic" cbaracters. I guess the idea of just shifting numbers about is less appealing than redesigning powers.

DAZ0273

The above said though, you could argue that Polaris for example does have "balance" - she has 3 great powers which compliment each other. On the other hand, you could argue that Okoye is completely out of balance with her boost and true heal to the point where she can be run with under levelled iHulk and 1/2 health Thor. And no I am not asking for any "balancing"!

entrailbucket

The idea that they overnerf comes from characters they've hit in the past, and it's mostly a question of degrees.  Often the guys they target are so far out ahead of the pack that returning them to the pack is a massive correction.

When they nerfed Gambit he changed from literally the best character in the history of the game, completely meta-warping, unbeatable if you didn't have him, to merely an average 5*.  Post-nerf, he's absolutely an average 5* for that time period, but the correction from "literally the best ever" to "average" was a huge change that made it feel worse than it was.

DAZ0273

OML is the one that stands out to me. Everybody knew which power made him so widely used but they savaged him completely - it was a bizarre choice. Gambit had multiple powers that made him the best so I can see how returning him to the pack was always more difficult.

St_Bernadus

Trouble is, average 5 in this game means "never played".
What is needed if something is nerfed is from greatest ever to still good. That is a tricky line to walk. Their first nerf of Gambit actually made him better.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

When I thought about the past nerfs, I realised that they are both offensively and defensively good and it's "mandatory" to use them as a counter. Also, it's typically X-Men who get the call for nerf.

Case in Point: Gambit, Bishop.

I can't remember why CapWorth got nerfed.

There have been a mix of nerfs based on offense and defense but they've mostly targeted characters that are too good on offense. 

I think I can run them all down, let's see:

3* Loki - offense/defense

3* Ragnarok - offense/defense

2* Thor/Wolverine - offense

3* Magneto - offense

3* Spiderman - offense

3* Sentry - offense

4* Wolverine/Thor - offense

5* OML - offense/defense

5* Gambit - offense/defense

4* Bishop/Cap - defense

Did I miss anybody?  I think that's everyone.

Zalasta

Generally not a fan of nerfs, but sometimes it's really needed (Gambit/Bishop/Cap).  The problem is, it's usually over done.  I will say, is that the Devs seem to be more resistant to nerf characters than they once were, and that's a good thing. 

I also agree that the average five stars are rarely played.  I look at my roster of unfinished five stars to consider who to pursue next. The reality is, once championed, most of them would never get used. I remember when five stars came out, they were so much better than any of the four stars.  Now we have four stars that are so much better than many of the older five stars (and even some of the new ones). I also remember a time when the Devs were committed to reworking the old characters to make them more relevant again.  That seems to have gone by the wayside, like so many other game changes (feeders, supports).
 

HoundofShadow

Most of the nerfs that you mentioned happened early in the game where it's common to make adjustments often. From late 2017 onwards, you seldom see many nerfs. From 2018 til now, there are only 3 nerfs. All three involved are good on offense/defense.

Polaris and her teammate, like Thorokoye, are great on offense, but are glass cannon on defense. So, those hoping for her to be nerfed, will be disappointed.

Srheer0

Akoni said:

In the forum, the word "nerf" keeps getting thrown around. It appears the common arguments for a character getting nerfed are

• The character is difficult to deal with because the player doesn't have the resources
• The character is seen often as it is top tier and, therefore, used by many, if not, most players
• The character can be dealt with, but drains valuable resources (i.e. health packs)

The above points do not mean that the character is overpowered or broken in anyway. The first point can occur when a player decides to streamline their character pool to focus on meta characters. The second point is merely a best tool scenario. Hammers are a very common tool, because they are perfect for the job they are used for. If I'm a carpenter, I'm going to see hammers. In MPQ, I'm going to see X character. As for the last point, if I "exercise" my characters in a battle, I am expected to rest (recovery time) or feed (health pack) my characters.

Like a hammer, nerfing is a very powerful, blunt tool for fixing a problem. It should be used as a last resort in situations where devs had an "oops" moment. Characters like Bishop who obviously dominated in a way that was completely unintentional should have been nerfed. Characters that do exactly what they're supposed to do by speeding up the game, or enabling characters to "punch up" should not be nerfed. I don't think disliking a character for any of the points above means there is a "problem" with that character requiring a nerf.

When/why do you think a character should be nerfed?

Characters need nerfing when they are too strong. Broad and sweeping statement yes, sorry :P.  

So you win MPQ by getting enemy team HP to 0 most of the time.

And you can only move when it is your turn.

Passive parts of powers
Healing
Stunning
AP generation
Free tile creation
Powers firing for free.
Free matches
Free tile destruction or board manipulation.
Boosting your allies match damage or damage of their own powers

I feel that when some of lots of the above is on ONE character, it pushes them into the stronger end of the spectrum.  

Ignoring PVE, I feel that nerfs are more intended for PVP. 

Is everyone using the same 3 or 4 characters in pvp? Yes, it means they are strong. Are they like g5mbit where they get too much free AP generation, or like Bishop where you had to hit him first, get stunned, enemy team get too much blue AP and your whole team get stunned and you lose? That's overpowered. Not fun to play against. And has no place in a pvp setting.  

Sure give a character "jump in front" mechanics. Like rogue, d3adpool etc. Those are just "jump infront". Not "jump infront, block damage, generate AP and deal damage in return". There's a big difference.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

Most of the nerfs that you mentioned happened early in the game where it's common to make adjustments often. From late 2017 onwards, you seldom see many nerfs. From 2018 til now, there are only 3 nerfs. All three involved are good on offense/defense.

Polaris and her teammate, like Thorokoye, are great on offense, but are glass cannon on defense. So, those hoping for her to be nerfed, will be disappointed.

Yeah...I mean, we have had nerfs based purely on offense though, when characters crossed a line.  

Sentry/Hood ended every single fight in 2-3 turns on offense, and was awful on defense.  The Sentrybomb meta was a pretty ridiculous time -- scoring was off the charts because every fight only took a minute or two at most.

A lot of people argued at the time that Sentry shouldn't be nerfed, precisely because he was a "glass cannon" who provided no resistance whatsoever on defense.  A ton of people quit when he was nerfed.

Actually, *every single nerf* they've ever done has been extremely unpopular, even if in retrospect a lot of them make sense and aren't controversial at all now.  I can't even count the number of immediate "I quit" comments and threatened class-action lawsuits.