MPQ Halloween 2021 Activities

DAZ0273

Sekilicious said:

HoundofShadow said:

Players who accepted those dev's reasons for OML's nerf are few and rare. 

I wish we had data on this sort of thing, not just OML’s nerf but trending developer conspiracy theories in general.  I suspect most, like you, are happy to accept the developer’s explanations but there is a vocal minority that drown out reasoned explanations for whatever reason, skewing our perceptions. I want to say much like Covid vaccines but I do not want to open that can of worms here. There are enough pages dedicated to that on the cesspool that is Reddit.

With OML, it is probably because his nerf came/was driven from the Dev side rather than the players (unlike Gambit, Bishop, etc) who were quite happy with his true healing. He wasn't particularly OP otherwise. A lot of players were angry, especially as this was a 5* character which was the first nerf at that tier that I can recall and so in the circumstances were looking for nefarious reasons to attach as motives. However - you only needed to see the gnashing and wailing every time Enemy of the State came around and OML was locked out to see how much players relied on him to coast through.

I did love my 2 cover yellow OML though - you could hide behind him quite nicely!

DAZ0273

Anyway - back to Halloween and in the characters named as having cover swaps we have:

Wolfsbane (Ronnie Sinclair)

Has there been some sort of development in the comic books with Wolfsbane's name or is this a mistake? Rahne Sinclair is who we have in game?

MegaBee

DAZ0273 said:

Anyway - back to Halloween and in the characters named as having cover swaps we have:

Wolfsbane (Ronnie Sinclair)

Has there been some sort of development in the comic books with Wolfsbane's name or is this a mistake? Rahne Sinclair is who we have in game?

I spent way too long trying to figure out who that was before realizing that it was probably autocorrect.

ThaRoadWarrior

On the topic of OML and data in general, they provided a metric to us, but they didn’t really say a) why were players using OML so heavily and b) why was that statistic actually problematic. Simply looking at numbers doesn’t tell you the whole story. So, naturally, players looked at their own play habits and then what actually got nerfed about OML and said “they didn’t like his true heal, ergo it must have been cutting into healthpack usage.”

 I think it’s fair to say that if it were strictly based on usage, we may have seen a rebalance to 4* Rocket and Groot by now, but since that character seems just fine, there must be something else factoring in to why that was the reason then and not now.

as for Gambit, his nerf came when it was discovered players were deliberately rostering a 0/0/5 build as a battery and eschewing complete builds. The rationale given was that a partially built character should never be superior to a fully built character.

BlackBoltRocks

For 1st-edition OML, his heal was unconditional.

For 1st- and 2nd-edition Gambit, his AP generation was unconditional. 2nd-edition Gambit also had unconditional enemy AP destruction.

There's the keyword. Even the meta characters these days don't have effects that can be safely termed "unconditional". For example, Bill's Blue - which is a bit OP to me - only generates protects when Bill or his teammates take damage, and the countdown needs to be present. iHulk's AOE requires a certain number of Green basic tiles. Don't be fooled by terms such as "usage" or "user metrics". If that were the case, Polaris, R4G, iHulk, Okoye, Apocalypse, Wanda etc etc should be very afraid. Bishop and WorthyCap got nerfed because they also broke the fundamental aspect of the game: punishing 5* players for making a simple match-3. In a game that is, well, based on matching three tiles, that could not and cannot be allowed to stand.

And yes back to the topic of Halloween. It would have been nice if we had gotten a Halloween-themed CP store with Knull, Green Goblin, Hela or the like.

Godzillafan67

DAZ0273 said:

<snikt> His yellow power adversely affected all tier levels like no other character in the game. A 2* player could use a forever healing OML meatshield at 1 cover to progress far beyond their 2* roster. I know I did! <snikt>

Ditto! My first account had a two-cover OML healer, and it was great being able to take him back to the story mode so that he could heal back to full.

Just a nostalgia aside: One of my favorite uses of the day was paring him 2* BW to double-tap on his strike tiles.

Sekilicious

DAZ0273 said:

Sekilicious said:

HoundofShadow said:

Players who accepted those dev's reasons for OML's nerf are few and rare. 

I wish we had data on this sort of thing, not just OML’s nerf but trending developer conspiracy theories in general.  I suspect most, like you, are happy to accept the developer’s explanations but there is a vocal minority that drown out reasoned explanations for whatever reason, skewing our perceptions. I want to say much like Covid vaccines but I do not want to open that can of worms here. There are enough pages dedicated to that on the cesspool that is Reddit.

With OML, it is probably because his nerf came/was driven from the Dev side rather than the players (unlike Gambit, Bishop, etc) who were quite happy with his true healing. He wasn't particularly OP otherwise. A lot of players were angry, especially as this was a 5* character which was the first nerf at that tier that I can recall and so in the circumstances were looking for nefarious reasons to attach as motives. However - you only needed to see the gnashing and wailing every time Enemy of the State came around and OML was locked out to see how much players relied on him to coast through.

I did love my 2 cover yellow OML though - you could hide behind him quite nicely!

I started playing just before his nerf. I remember wanting his yellow for that very reason, and I remember the forum posts about quitting because someone spent thousands to cover him. 

DAZ0273

ThaRoadWarrior said:

On the topic of OML and data in general, they provided a metric to us, but they didn’t really say a) why were players using OML so heavily and b) why was that statistic actually problematic. Simply looking at numbers doesn’t tell you the whole story. So, naturally, players looked at their own play habits and then what actually got nerfed about OML and said “they didn’t like his true heal, ergo it must have been cutting into healthpack usage.”

 I think it’s fair to say that if it were strictly based on usage, we may have seen a rebalance to 4* Rocket and Groot by now, but since that character seems just fine, there must be something else factoring in to why that was the reason then and not now.

as for Gambit, his nerf came when it was discovered players were deliberately rostering a 0/0/5 build as a battery and eschewing complete builds. The rationale given was that a partially built character should never be superior to a fully built character.

A 2 cover unlevelled R4G in yellow isn't really going to do anything for a 2* player. Not even as a meatshield. A 2 cover in yellow OML was like the Duracel bunny. I ended up selling mine when nerfed so I never even got to experience what his other powers did pre-nerf and I completely did not care!

DAZ0273

Oh and Gambit's black being Gambatt was driven by the 3* character as much as the 5* because rostering a dupe 5* Gambit with 5 in black was out of reach of most players but the 3* build was pretty easy to put together. Thing was there to protect and Gwen dished out the stuns and nukes.

 

Bad

Sekilicious said:

I wish we had data on this sort of thing, not just OML’s nerf but trending developer conspiracy theories in general.  I suspect most, like you, are happy to accept the developer’s explanations but there is a vocal minority that drown out reasoned explanations for whatever reason, skewing our perceptions. I want to say much like Covid vaccines but I do not want to open that can of worms here. There are enough pages dedicated to that on the cesspool that is Reddit.

And there are also players who are happier to run conspiracy theories than to believe any other reasoned explanation. There is no need to reasoning anything when there could be a tasty rumored conspirancy that everyone talks about, and that proves its truth just by itself. 
The game is better now then ever, teams are more balanced, more modes then ever, more free rewards too. Being the same as it always was, however it's better.
Talking about can of worms, I can recall quite a bit of anti vaccine influencers dying like maggots. And their parents recomending to take it and in any case not to follow their son.

HoundofShadow

You can't celebrate Halloween without pumpkins. So, Green Goblin has to be in the special store with GR. As for the third, i have a feeling Ghostpool will be in it.

As for the Halloween vault, I wonder which 5* shards will be inside. Two more days. 

Tony_Foot

Bad said:

Sekilicious said:

I wish we had data on this sort of thing, not just OML’s nerf but trending developer conspiracy theories in general.  I suspect most, like you, are happy to accept the developer’s explanations but there is a vocal minority that drown out reasoned explanations for whatever reason, skewing our perceptions. I want to say much like Covid vaccines but I do not want to open that can of worms here. There are enough pages dedicated to that on the cesspool that is Reddit.

And there are also players who are happier to run conspiracy theories than to believe any other reasoned explanation. There is no need to reasoning anything when there could be a tasty rumored conspirancy that everyone talks about, and that proves its truth just by itself. 
The game is better now then ever, teams are more balanced, more modes then ever, more free rewards too. Being the same as it always was, however it's better.
Talking about can of worms, I can recall quite a bit of anti vaccine influencers dying like maggots. And their parents recomending to take it and in any case not to follow their son.

I have no idea what you’re blithering on about or what anti vax has to do with this game or character design.

entrailbucket

ThaRoadWarrior said:

On the topic of OML and data in general, they provided a metric to us, but they didn’t really say a) why were players using OML so heavily and b) why was that statistic actually problematic. Simply looking at numbers doesn’t tell you the whole story. So, naturally, players looked at their own play habits and then what actually got nerfed about OML and said “they didn’t like his true heal, ergo it must have been cutting into healthpack usage.”

 I think it’s fair to say that if it were strictly based on usage, we may have seen a rebalance to 4* Rocket and Groot by now, but since that character seems just fine, there must be something else factoring in to why that was the reason then and not now.

I agree, and that's what I've been saying!  What is the something else, or what has changed about their design philosophy between then and now? 

Why can't they just tell us?  Why does this stuff have to be a secret?

DAZ0273

entrailbucket said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

On the topic of OML and data in general, they provided a metric to us, but they didn’t really say a) why were players using OML so heavily and b) why was that statistic actually problematic. Simply looking at numbers doesn’t tell you the whole story. So, naturally, players looked at their own play habits and then what actually got nerfed about OML and said “they didn’t like his true heal, ergo it must have been cutting into healthpack usage.”

 I think it’s fair to say that if it were strictly based on usage, we may have seen a rebalance to 4* Rocket and Groot by now, but since that character seems just fine, there must be something else factoring in to why that was the reason then and not now.

I agree, and that's what I've been saying!  What is the something else, or what has changed about their design philosophy between then and now? 

Why can't they just tell us?  Why does this stuff have to be a secret?

I would be interested in why can't they do "soft" character rebalances when addressing overpowered characters. They do it with buffs and I expect GRRR to receive modest chanages that probably don't elevate him too much up the pecking order. But every nerf is a hard piledrive into the dust.

entrailbucket

DAZ0273 said:

entrailbucket said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

On the topic of OML and data in general, they provided a metric to us, but they didn’t really say a) why were players using OML so heavily and b) why was that statistic actually problematic. Simply looking at numbers doesn’t tell you the whole story. So, naturally, players looked at their own play habits and then what actually got nerfed about OML and said “they didn’t like his true heal, ergo it must have been cutting into healthpack usage.”

 I think it’s fair to say that if it were strictly based on usage, we may have seen a rebalance to 4* Rocket and Groot by now, but since that character seems just fine, there must be something else factoring in to why that was the reason then and not now.

I agree, and that's what I've been saying!  What is the something else, or what has changed about their design philosophy between then and now? 

Why can't they just tell us?  Why does this stuff have to be a secret?

I would be interested in why can't they do "soft" character rebalances when addressing overpowered characters. They do it with buffs and I expect GRRR to receive modest chanages that probably don't elevate him too much up the pecking order. But every nerf is a hard piledrive into the dust.

I strongly suspect that they've changed their philosophy and are no longer doing nerfs at all, or are trying to avoid them at all costs. 

It looks to me like their new philosophy is to create counters to characters that they consider problematic in some way.  From all the special tile/Polaris counters at the 4* tier, to Scarlet Witch solving Hulk, to Gamora as an attempt at countering Scarlet Witch and Colossus, a lot of the new characters seem to be specifically made to counter others.

This is good!   Players have asked for this kind of strategy.  But why don't we know that this is officially the new direction?  Why don't we know that SW was made to counter Hulk?  Why don't we know if they consider Polaris a problem and are trying to create counters to "solve" her, or if they think she's fine and they just want the 4* tier to be a special tile meta?

HoundofShadow

I don't know why there's a need to know such things in advance.  What advantages, benefits od pros do you get from knowing such things in advance and not knowing in advance?

Waddles_Pines

Quick question about GR.  His red power, how would you have had multiple tiles out at the same time?  I guess if there was another GR you're facing... Never understood the "remove all tiles" element of the alternate skill.

ThaRoadWarrior

It works the same as Gladiator THor's yellow - fire it the first time to do one thing, then fire it a second time to do damage. If you lock that tile with like invisible woman or something, you used to and maybe still can throw down a second one.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

I don't know why there's a need to know such things in advance.  What advantages, benefits od pros do you get from knowing such things in advance and not knowing in advance?

If you knew that they considered Hulk to be a problem character and were planning to introduce counters for him, would you invest a lot of your resources in him?

Likewise, if you knew that they considered Polaris to be at an acceptable power level, then it would be safe to invest a lot of your resources into her.

Maybe they can't make such definitive statements.  What if they said something like "currently we think Polaris is ok, and we are trying to avoid rebalancing anyone, but we're going to be watching her performance closely as we introduce counters for her."

That tells players that A. she is ok now, and B. she might not be ok in the future.  If a new counter like Mantis "solves" the problem from their perspective, then knowing that would also be really important.

Without this kind of communication, players can't plan their resource allocation at all, because they have no idea what the future might hold.  

Sekilicious

entrailbucket said:

HoundofShadow said:

I don't know why there's a need to know such things in advance.  What advantages, benefits od pros do you get from knowing such things in advance and not knowing in advance?

If you knew that they considered Hulk to be a problem character and were planning to introduce counters for him, would you invest a lot of your resources in him?

Likewise, if you knew that they considered Polaris to be at an acceptable power level, then it would be safe to invest a lot of your resources into her.

Maybe they can't make such definitive statements.  What if they said something like "currently we think Polaris is ok, and we are trying to avoid rebalancing anyone, but we're going to be watching her performance closely as we introduce counters for her."

That tells players that A. she is ok now, and B. she might not be ok in the future.  If a new counter like Mantis "solves" the problem from their perspective, then knowing that would also be really important.

Without this kind of communication, players can't plan their resource allocation at all, because they have no idea what the future might hold.  

With Polaris being a 4* she is more readily available than, say, Okoye and Apocalypse. I got her about a month after I came back from my hiatus, though already had Grocket and his second best partner way back in 2018, Gamora. Some 3* transitoners and 4*s who punch up to SCL10 (like me) may be annoyed with her nerf, but it would not set us years back. If they nerfed Shang-Chi in five months maybe some of us might have more trouble pivoting.