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