***** Thor (Mighty Thor) *****

shardwick

For Thanos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swcBWOBZMho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL8CPIA09Qk

Vhailorx

MoosePrime said:

Vhailorx said:

jsmjsmjsm00 said:

Not a nerf and not based on forum feedback (I doubt they'd ever consider the forum accurate at assessing character power pre-release with 0 play testing).

Dev said clearly it was a typo. 
"Came to our attention that we were using the wrong scalar" 

That definitely does not say "it was a typo."

I read that sentence as saying "We playtested her and she was comically overpowered.  Whoops!  here's a fix. . ."

Is it a problem if they change a character's numbers before she is released?

Not in a vacuum. Sometimes the last minute revisions have been good, and sometimes bad.  I think it's probably better to pre-nerf a stupidly OP character before release, rather than end up with an original gambit scenario.

IceIX

Vhailorx said:

MoosePrime said:

Vhailorx said:

jsmjsmjsm00 said:

Not a nerf and not based on forum feedback (I doubt they'd ever consider the forum accurate at assessing character power pre-release with 0 play testing).

Dev said clearly it was a typo. 
"Came to our attention that we were using the wrong scalar" 

That definitely does not say "it was a typo."

I read that sentence as saying "We playtested her and she was comically overpowered.  Whoops!  here's a fix. . ."

Is it a problem if they change a character's numbers before she is released?

Not in a vacuum. Sometimes the last minute revisions have been good, and sometimes bad.  I think it's probably better to pre-nerf a stupidly OP character before release, rather than end up with an original gambit scenario.

This was pretty simply a case of me putting the numbers out there, blinking, looking at it again and going, "That can't be right, those numbers are too high, but I gotta get this info out so *post*." Then hitting up the designer who looked at it and said "Yep. That's the wrong scalar. Fixed and here you go." It would very likely have been changed if I hadn't caught it via QA, so no shooting the messenger/me for that please. Nothing nefarious, no attempts to sway or not sway anyone, just a typo/bug that got fixed pre-launch but after it hit time for our character reveal.

Bad

IceIX said:

This was pretty simply a case of me putting the numbers out there, blinking, looking at it again and going, "That can't be right, those numbers are too high, but I gotta get this info out so *post*." Then hitting up the designer who looked at it and said "Yep. That's the wrong scalar. Fixed and here you go." It would very likely have been changed if I hadn't caught it via QA, so no shooting the messenger/me for that please. Nothing nefarious, no attempts to sway or not sway anyone, just a typo/bug that got fixed pre-launch but after it hit time for our character reveal.

Thanks for the explanation!
Have in mind that we players are the people on Plato's cave and our reality's insight is only limited to shadows, fires, and our deduction.

Vhailorx

IceIX said:

Vhailorx said:

MoosePrime said:

Vhailorx said:

jsmjsmjsm00 said:

Not a nerf and not based on forum feedback (I doubt they'd ever consider the forum accurate at assessing character power pre-release with 0 play testing).

Dev said clearly it was a typo. 
"Came to our attention that we were using the wrong scalar" 

That definitely does not say "it was a typo."

I read that sentence as saying "We playtested her and she was comically overpowered.  Whoops!  here's a fix. . ."

Is it a problem if they change a character's numbers before she is released?

Not in a vacuum. Sometimes the last minute revisions have been good, and sometimes bad.  I think it's probably better to pre-nerf a stupidly OP character before release, rather than end up with an original gambit scenario.

This was pretty simply a case of me putting the numbers out there, blinking, looking at it again and going, "That can't be right, those numbers are too high, but I gotta get this info out so *post*." Then hitting up the designer who looked at it and said "Yep. That's the wrong scalar. Fixed and here you go." It would very likely have been changed if I hadn't caught it via QA, so no shooting the messenger/me for that please. Nothing nefarious, no attempts to sway or not sway anyone, just a typo/bug that got fixed pre-launch but after it hit time for our character reveal.

It appears as if everyone interpreted my posts on this topic as some sort of criticism of D3/BCS for changing Thor, or conspiracy theorizing about the game.  That really was not my intent. While I think this pre-release nerf does reduce Thor's value (as a damage dealer) significantly, I still think she looks to be a good-or-better character for support and I look forward to trying her out. And in general it's better to make necessary changes to the game to preserve the delicate balance necessary to keep a freemium game like this working, even if they make one character less fun.

re: typos v. errors, the point I was trying to make is that it appeared to me as if the change to Thor was made on the game-code level (i.e., the numbers in your announcement from Tuesday accurately reflected the performance of the character on the test server), as opposed to someone making a typo when preparing the announcement such that the numbers in your post did not match the character in game (in which case the only necessary change would have been on the forums and similar public announcement spaces). 

I further interpreted your statement, IceIX that her initial build was "catastrophic"  as an indication that playtesting (either the formal QA pass or your own informal experimentation) revealed that she was extremely OP (and that makes sense to me; an uncapped damage boost of several thousand damage per charged tile destroyed on a 6ap power on a character that destroys charged tiles is probably OP)

I certainly don't object to D3 or BCS identifying and resolving errors with a character, before or after the release announcement, and I apologize if my commentary felt like an attack against you or d3/bcs.

[To be fair, I should probably add a disclaimer that I have criticized D3/Demi on other topics in the past and will likely do so again in future, so guilty-as-charged in a sense, but I do (and will continue to) try to keep it polite and constructive.]

skittledaddy

Thoughts on a best build for She-Thor?
5/3/5, maybe?

cronos

Escriba su skittledaddy said: Thoughts on a best build for She-Thor?
5/3/5, maybe?
the best build is 4-5-4 the passive at 5 is always destructive.

TheEyeDoctorsWife

skittledaddy said:

Thoughts on a best build for She-Thor?
5/3/5, maybe?

Please not that name . Isn’t there someone else in charge of coining dumb character names ? What happened to the BeardCap guy?

Timemachinego

TheEyeDoctorsWife said:

skittledaddy said:

Thoughts on a best build for She-Thor?
5/3/5, maybe?

Please not that name . Isn’t there someone else in charge of coining dumb character names ? What happened to the BeardCap guy?

Ladythor already refers to the 4*, hmmm. Jor? Dot (Doctor of Thunder?) Thorster? it's a rough one, lol.

Bzhai

Jane Forsthor?
Nathorlie?

dianetics

Thorsche

Tiger_Wong

LATThor
Love And Thunder Thor

MadScientist

Thorina

Thoress

TheEyeDoctorsWife

I’m leaning to DocThor, keep it short

Vhailorx

I am nor a big fan of the "Lady X" or "She-X" names as they imply the characrer isn't the "real X".  But there are clearly too many thors in the game to just call her thor.  Maybe 5* Thor? since we usually call the other 5* Thor halfthor.

MoosePrime

How about Porthor or Padmethor?

Daredevil217

Vhailorx said:

I am nor a big fan of the "Lady X" or "She-X" names as they imply the characrer isn't the "real X".  But there are clearly too any thors in the game to just call her thor.  Maybe 5* Thor? since we usually call the other 5* Thor halfthor.

I mean, he was Thor before Jane in the comics, in the MCU, and in the game.  Also, his real name is Thor Odinson. So even without the hammer, he’s still “Thor”.

Jane is a “real Thor” but she’s not the OG. If anything I think the she-Thor name implies a derivation from the original more than anything else.

We call Miles, Yelena (even though there are two in the game), Peggy, Kate Bishop, etc. by their real names.  5* Foster or 5* Jane is probably what I’ll go with. Though with the above examples the game also categorizes them by their names and the superhero name (Spider-Man, Black Widow, Captain America, and Hawkeye respectively) are in parentheses. So if the devs followed suit and called her “Jane Foster (Mighty Thor)” we’d be all good. Except they can’t because the 4* would need to be changed to “Jane Foster (Goddess of Thunder)” for continuity. And that seems like too much work. Though they did this kind of name change for the caps once I recall. I think 3* Cap used to be 3* Steve (with Cap in parentheses). 

658_2

Janey 5

DAZ0273

Mighty Jane seems to be very good, even the loaner can hit hard.

CHRISJN

Since she will hold the name THOR now, might as well call her J.F. Thor