Character Rebalance - ***** Jean Grey (Phoenix) *****

ThaRoadWarrior

Tony_Foot said:

9 covers on my Jean but won’t chase covers for a numbers boost. Good to see them buffing like this, I much prefer this to making her suddenly meta and having you split focus between latest and a rework out of left field. Which tbh if I ran the game I would do and bleed your hoards dry!

Can we have old gambit back now please? 1.0 or 2.0 I’m not fussed which.

I’m very curious what would happen if OML and Gambit just had their nerfs rolled back at this point in the game.

DAZ0273

I don't think OML's healing could keep pace with modern(ish) power damage levels but Gambit might be interesting (although I think his health was on the low side also?)

Tony_Foot

ThaRoadWarrior said:

Tony_Foot said:

9 covers on my Jean but won’t chase covers for a numbers boost. Good to see them buffing like this, I much prefer this to making her suddenly meta and having you split focus between latest and a rework out of left field. Which tbh if I ran the game I would do and bleed your hoards dry!

Can we have old gambit back now please? 1.0 or 2.0 I’m not fussed which.

I’m very curious what would happen if OML and Gambit just had their nerfs rolled back at this point in the game.

Yeah I don’t think either would be a problem or even top tier anymore. God boosted gambit might be annoying but he would be easy to counter these days. Shame it will never happen, I loved using gambit just for his tile over write. He couldn’t keep pace anymore.

entrailbucket

OML was secretly pretty low-tier at the time of his nerf.  People used him but they were using him out of habit, or because they didn't have a better option, or to save health packs.  He healed a lot but never did much else, and by the time of the nerf, 5* match damage wasn't enough anymore -- you needed to have some sort of useful powers.  He would be awful now.

I think Gambit would also be pretty bad now.  When Gambit showed up, characters had to save up AP and cast powers to win.  His passive AP drain completely shut down anyone who had to cast anything, which quickly forced the metagame into Gambit vs Gambit.  Right now the game is dominated by characters who do passive, totally free damage, so I don't think Gambit would have much impact.

Godzillafan67

I really enjoyed the in-depth analysis and documentation that accompanies these rebalance notifications. Though 5* rebalances don't affect me (outside of I might reconsider Jean teams now), I think that it's great that older characters are getting a fresh lick of paint.

Sekilicious

entrailbucket said:

OML was secretly pretty low-tier at the time of his nerf.  People used him but they were using him out of habit, or because they didn't have a better option, or to save health packs.  He healed a lot but never did much else, and by the time of the nerf, 5* match damage wasn't enough anymore -- you needed to have some sort of useful powers.  He would be awful now.

I think Gambit would also be pretty bad now.  When Gambit showed up, characters had to save up AP and cast powers to win.  His passive AP drain completely shut down anyone who had to cast anything, which quickly forced the metagame into Gambit vs Gambit.  Right now the game is dominated by characters who do passive, totally free damage, so I don't think Gambit would have much impact.

I started just before OMLs nerf so was not a regular lurker on this site as of yet, but I thought the main reason he got nerfed was because as a 2* or 3* player he could drive your PvP if you had one yellow cover. So he had a high usage rate because it was driven by low tier players. Of course, I guess by the same logic Shang-Chi needs a swipe with the nerf hammer. 

Speaking of nerfs. I do not miss the nerf Okoye and Polaris posts that were pretty regular prior to boosted 5*s. I am a little surprised we did not get a DoA post about Drabby Bland but maybe those posters quit after posting about Ultron.

DAZ0273

Sekilicious said:

entrailbucket said:

OML was secretly pretty low-tier at the time of his nerf.  People used him but they were using him out of habit, or because they didn't have a better option, or to save health packs.  He healed a lot but never did much else, and by the time of the nerf, 5* match damage wasn't enough anymore -- you needed to have some sort of useful powers.  He would be awful now.

I think Gambit would also be pretty bad now.  When Gambit showed up, characters had to save up AP and cast powers to win.  His passive AP drain completely shut down anyone who had to cast anything, which quickly forced the metagame into Gambit vs Gambit.  Right now the game is dominated by characters who do passive, totally free damage, so I don't think Gambit would have much impact.

I started just before OMLs nerf so was not a regular lurker on this site as of yet, but I thought the main reason he got nerfed was because as a 2* or 3* player he could drive your PvP if you had one yellow cover. So he had a high usage rate because it was driven by low tier players. Of course, I guess by the same logic Shang-Chi needs a swipe with the nerf hammer. 

Speaking of nerfs. I do not miss the nerf Okoye and Polaris posts that were pretty regular prior to boosted 5*s. I am a little surprised we did not get a DoA post about Drabby Bland but maybe those posters quit after posting about Ultron.

This was certainly true for my OML (PvE too). With 2 yellow covers I could hide my champed 3* Iron Man & Thor team and he would heal all day and it was great! I did actually sell him after his nerf and it was ages before I re-rostered him and finally found out what his other powers did as I gathered covers (I still never experienced them pre-Nerf!)

ThaRoadWarrior

Sekilicious said:

entrailbucket said:

OML was secretly pretty low-tier at the time of his nerf.  People used him but they were using him out of habit, or because they didn't have a better option, or to save health packs.  He healed a lot but never did much else, and by the time of the nerf, 5* match damage wasn't enough anymore -- you needed to have some sort of useful powers.  He would be awful now.

I think Gambit would also be pretty bad now.  When Gambit showed up, characters had to save up AP and cast powers to win.  His passive AP drain completely shut down anyone who had to cast anything, which quickly forced the metagame into Gambit vs Gambit.  Right now the game is dominated by characters who do passive, totally free damage, so I don't think Gambit would have much impact.

I started just before OMLs nerf so was not a regular lurker on this site as of yet, but I thought the main reason he got nerfed was because as a 2* or 3* player he could drive your PvP if you had one yellow cover. So he had a high usage rate because it was driven by low tier players. Of course, I guess by the same logic Shang-Chi needs a swipe with the nerf hammer. 

Speaking of nerfs. I do not miss the nerf Okoye and Polaris posts that were pretty regular prior to boosted 5*s. I am a little surprised we did not get a DoA post about Drabby Bland but maybe those posters quit after posting about Ultron.

The reason given of extremely high usage rate (10% of ALL battles won featured an OML they said at the time) has been a metric many of us have long wondered as to whether or not it still matters to them when it comes to character balance. There was a time when I would have been pretty confident more than 10% of all battles won had 4* Rocket on them, similarly Bishop after that. That rocket was never adjusted and it took a VERY long time for Bishop to be adjusted is why it felt like the observed behavior (high usage) was not the problem, but a symptom of the fact that players could ride that (at the time) excessively effective heal without burning healthpacks. This inference seems hotly contested though, so I don't necessarily want to re-open that can of worms, just explain the mindset I suppose.

Also the rational for the Gambit nerf was given at the time as being a partially built Gambit was superior to a completely built gambit, meaning if you had a 0/0/5 you got rampant ap gain with no power lockouts and it was being exploited pretty heavily. But now there are loads of characters as Entrailbucket says who do all that and more passively, so I suspect neither character would suddenly become a nightmare if just restored to launch condtion and even given a number buff.

DAZ0273

Bishop wouldn't have been that useful at 2 or 3* level play - he wasn't really all that important at 4* play outside of SHIELD Sim. R4G a bit more and has managed to last a long time in usefulness. OML was absolutely brilliant if you were a starter 2* player and especially as a baby champed 3* player. So across the tiers, I can easily see that 10% of battles is a LOT of battles.

ThaRoadWarrior

For sure, and as players we can really only see our own behavior and whatever MMR decides to show us, and then compare notes with a relatively small subset of the larger player base who are more than likely seeing about what we see. Plato's cave and all that.

entrailbucket

ThaRoadWarrior said:

Sekilicious said:

entrailbucket said:

OML was secretly pretty low-tier at the time of his nerf.  People used him but they were using him out of habit, or because they didn't have a better option, or to save health packs.  He healed a lot but never did much else, and by the time of the nerf, 5* match damage wasn't enough anymore -- you needed to have some sort of useful powers.  He would be awful now.

I think Gambit would also be pretty bad now.  When Gambit showed up, characters had to save up AP and cast powers to win.  His passive AP drain completely shut down anyone who had to cast anything, which quickly forced the metagame into Gambit vs Gambit.  Right now the game is dominated by characters who do passive, totally free damage, so I don't think Gambit would have much impact.

I started just before OMLs nerf so was not a regular lurker on this site as of yet, but I thought the main reason he got nerfed was because as a 2* or 3* player he could drive your PvP if you had one yellow cover. So he had a high usage rate because it was driven by low tier players. Of course, I guess by the same logic Shang-Chi needs a swipe with the nerf hammer. 

Speaking of nerfs. I do not miss the nerf Okoye and Polaris posts that were pretty regular prior to boosted 5*s. I am a little surprised we did not get a DoA post about Drabby Bland but maybe those posters quit after posting about Ultron.

The reason given of extremely high usage rate (10% of ALL battles won featured an OML they said at the time) has been a metric many of us have long wondered as to whether or not it still matters to them when it comes to character balance. There was a time when I would have been pretty confident more than 10% of all battles won had 4* Rocket on them, similarly Bishop after that. That rocket was never adjusted and it took a VERY long time for Bishop to be adjusted is why it felt like the observed behavior (high usage) was not the problem, but a symptom of the fact that players could ride that (at the time) excessively effective heal without burning healthpacks. This inference seems hotly contested though, so I don't necessarily want to re-open that can of worms, just explain the mindset I suppose.

Also the rational for the Gambit nerf was given at the time as being a partially built Gambit was superior to a completely built gambit, meaning if you had a 0/0/5 you got rampant ap gain with no power lockouts and it was being exploited pretty heavily. But now there are loads of characters as Entrailbucket says who do all that and more passively, so I suspect neither character would suddenly become a nightmare if just restored to launch condtion and even given a number buff.

That was the explanation for 3* Gambit's nerf, and that happened way before 5* Gambit got hit. 

Nobody ever used 5* Gambit as an 0/0/5 -- at the time he had the best red and one of the best purple powers in the game, so it would've been counterproductive to use him to feed someone else.

5* Gambit got killed because he forced every other character out of the metagame, and at that time balance was still something the devs cared about.  If you had Gambit at 450 you could win every match, up to and including Gambit at 550.  If you didn't have Gambit at 450 he was essentially unbeatable.

DAZ0273

The Gambatt team was Thing, Spider Gwen & 0/0/5 3* Gambit and that thing was ridiculous to fight against. Thing protected the other two whilst Gwen constantly battered you with stuns and Cherry Bombs and Gambit just fed them AP. Again that team probably wouldn't be as problematic these days I imagine.

ThaRoadWarrior

No, that would be a nothing team now if you used Apocalypse + Mutant, but an un-tethered original gambit would make Shang-Chi + Gambattery about the same offensively. Defensively, the AI limit on power spamming would make it a pushover i think.

ThaRoadWarrior

entrailbucket said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

Sekilicious said:

entrailbucket said:

OML was secretly pretty low-tier at the time of his nerf.  People used him but they were using him out of habit, or because they didn't have a better option, or to save health packs.  He healed a lot but never did much else, and by the time of the nerf, 5* match damage wasn't enough anymore -- you needed to have some sort of useful powers.  He would be awful now.

I think Gambit would also be pretty bad now.  When Gambit showed up, characters had to save up AP and cast powers to win.  His passive AP drain completely shut down anyone who had to cast anything, which quickly forced the metagame into Gambit vs Gambit.  Right now the game is dominated by characters who do passive, totally free damage, so I don't think Gambit would have much impact.

I started just before OMLs nerf so was not a regular lurker on this site as of yet, but I thought the main reason he got nerfed was because as a 2* or 3* player he could drive your PvP if you had one yellow cover. So he had a high usage rate because it was driven by low tier players. Of course, I guess by the same logic Shang-Chi needs a swipe with the nerf hammer. 

Speaking of nerfs. I do not miss the nerf Okoye and Polaris posts that were pretty regular prior to boosted 5*s. I am a little surprised we did not get a DoA post about Drabby Bland but maybe those posters quit after posting about Ultron.

The reason given of extremely high usage rate (10% of ALL battles won featured an OML they said at the time) has been a metric many of us have long wondered as to whether or not it still matters to them when it comes to character balance. There was a time when I would have been pretty confident more than 10% of all battles won had 4* Rocket on them, similarly Bishop after that. That rocket was never adjusted and it took a VERY long time for Bishop to be adjusted is why it felt like the observed behavior (high usage) was not the problem, but a symptom of the fact that players could ride that (at the time) excessively effective heal without burning healthpacks. This inference seems hotly contested though, so I don't necessarily want to re-open that can of worms, just explain the mindset I suppose.

Also the rational for the Gambit nerf was given at the time as being a partially built Gambit was superior to a completely built gambit, meaning if you had a 0/0/5 you got rampant ap gain with no power lockouts and it was being exploited pretty heavily. But now there are loads of characters as Entrailbucket says who do all that and more passively, so I suspect neither character would suddenly become a nightmare if just restored to launch condtion and even given a number buff.

That was the explanation for 3* Gambit's nerf, and that happened way before 5* Gambit got hit. 

Nobody ever used 5* Gambit as an 0/0/5 -- at the time he had the best red and one of the best purple powers in the game, so it would've been counterproductive to use him to feed someone else.

5* Gambit got killed because he forced every other character out of the metagame, and at that time balance was still something the devs cared about.  If you had Gambit at 450 you could win every match, up to and including Gambit at 550.  If you didn't have Gambit at 450 he was essentially unbeatable.

Right on; I seem to recall reading that the Gambit matches basically just went to whoever fired his red second and got the ball rolling with charge tiles in the mix, but i was for sure a 3* player in those days and only getting that intel downstream on the forums.

entrailbucket

Interestingly, the massive crazy player reaction to the Gambit nerf is what caused the devs to *intentionally stop* caring about balance, and it's why I suspect they'll never nerf a 5* ever again.

I've seen a ton of people say that that nerf wasn't controversial, that everyone knew he had it coming and that it was deserved.  This is revisionist history -- at the time it prompted a full-on rebellion among the players who depended on him.  Most of them are gone now (it prompted a massive wave of retirements) so that history is also gone.

BlackBoltRocks

Sekilicious said:

I am a little surprised we did not get a DoA post about Drabby Bland but maybe those posters quit after posting about Ultron.

Don’t worry, there are several such posts in her character thread.

Sekilicious

BlackBoltRocks said:

Sekilicious said:

I am a little surprised we did not get a DoA post about Drabby Bland but maybe those posters quit after posting about Ultron.

Don’t worry, there are several such posts in her character thread.

Oh yeah I saw those, lol. Ultron got his own thread bashing him and the developers whom made him but maybe they were annoyed that Shang-Chi didn't get a meta character in his LL store, though I have seen reference to Odin, Wanda, SC as a decent defensive team. I did notice one reference to how much 'better' Doc Ock would have been than her as a 5*. I personally find that ironic as with 5* people often only notice the shortcomings and not the strengths. 

HoundofShadow

I've been through SpiderGwen/Thing/3* Gambit. It's infinite stun. If your Polaris got stun (67% probability), it's as good as over. 2-turn stun to two of  your characters every 3rd turn and The Thing can stun with his red for 2 turns as well. Unless you luck into a cascades or use +4blue aps at the start of the game, else it's difficult to win with Polaris.

ThaRoadWarrior

entrailbucket said:

I[...] it's why I suspect they'll never nerf a 5* ever again.[...]

Still waiting on an explanation for the secret Danver5 nerf myself.

To me it kind of felt like it introduced a bit of a timidity to make truly good 5*s as well. We've seen a few since then to be sure, but not quite like that I'd say.

entrailbucket

ThaRoadWarrior said:

entrailbucket said:

I[...] it's why I suspect they'll never nerf a 5* ever again.[...]

Still waiting on an explanation for the secret Danver5 nerf myself.

To me it kind of felt like it introduced a bit of a timidity to make truly good 5*s as well. We've seen a few since then to be sure, but not quite like that I'd say.

Honestly until I came back to the forum, I had no idea the change to 5* Carol even happened.  In hours upon hours of discussions about the game with lots of high level players it was never even brought up.  Nobody I knew used her before or after the change.


The 3* Gambit/Gwen team was a curiosity at the time, at higher tiers, but it was only playable for us when Gwen was boosted.  Otherwise it'd die easily to 5* match damage, and they had very little in the way of offense against 5* health.  You could stunlock the enemy but it'd take you 2 hours to kill them.

Polaris/Beta Ray Bill is a much stronger and more usable stunlock team than the 3* Gambit teams ever were.  If that team existed 5 years ago it would've been killed off by now, but they just don't do that anymore.