The ChaHulk meta

1…3233353738…43

Comments

  • Tony_Foot
    Tony_Foot Posts: 1,812 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Bowgentle said:
    Yeah they learned their lesson after the not so great OML compensation and gave out tokens to a 5* only store containing all 5s excluding Gambit for every cover you had.

    That’s not compensation. That’s giving you tokens for a mass of RNG. I have never been a victim of a big nerf really. But the only just compensation when someone has poured thousands of pulls into a character is to let them take those 100 covers and put them on any other character of their choice. Through not fault of their own why should they go through another layer of rng.

    Who made the mistake?

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,826 Chairperson of the Boards

    @KGB said:

    @Bowgentle said:
    Yeah they learned their lesson after the not so great OML compensation and gave out tokens to a 5* only store containing all 5s excluding Gambit for every cover you had.

    Yes. Except back then there were only about 10 5* in total so a 550 changed in for 113 covers gave you ~11 covers for every other 5*. Now that wouldn't even be 2 covers for every 5* so it would be a horrible idea take the compensation even if Chasm was nerfed to oblivion.

    KGB

    I'd love 2 covers for every 5*!

    The lesson of a nerf is not to go all in, and to build your roster evenly...and somehow players are, like, determined to not ever learn that. Trading a nerfed character for 100 covers of the next guy who's going to be nerfed seems like a bad plan.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,826 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Tony_Foot said:

    @Bowgentle said:
    Yeah they learned their lesson after the not so great OML compensation and gave out tokens to a 5* only store containing all 5s excluding Gambit for every cover you had.

    That’s not compensation. That’s giving you tokens for a mass of RNG. I have never been a victim of a big nerf really. But the only just compensation when someone has poured thousands of pulls into a character is to let them take those 100 covers and put them on any other character of their choice. Through not fault of their own why should they go through another layer of rng.

    Who made the mistake?

    Who made the mistake? The player who wasted thousands of pulls on one character, when the game has made abundantly clear that they can nerf any character at any time.

  • Codex
    Codex Posts: 304 Mover and Shaker

    @Tony_Foot said:

    @Bowgentle said:
    Yeah they learned their lesson after the not so great OML compensation and gave out tokens to a 5* only store containing all 5s excluding Gambit for every cover you had.

    That’s not compensation. That’s giving you tokens for a mass of RNG. I have never been a victim of a big nerf really. But the only just compensation when someone has poured thousands of pulls into a character is to let them take those 100 covers and put them on any other character of their choice. Through not fault of their own why should they go through another layer of rng.

    Who made the mistake?

    Why should ppl that hoard for 550 benefit? The developer are against hoarding, 100 covers of the player choice is laughable. I would be praying for a nerf every single time.

    My idea is a vault with all 5* released in 2022 or if the developers are generous the 5* from the "our first characters" vault.

    There is no perfect solution. Everyone will need to adjust to the decisions they and the developers have made.

  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2023

    Proper and balanced is subjective. If you remember the thread spanning over 10 or 20 pages containing players' suggestions made to Gambit's nerf, where some were implemented, you would see that other players disagree with the balance and others were fine or happy with it.

    It's the same with the reactions towards Chasm/iHulk counters. The definition of a counter to a meta team is subjective because it contains players' personal opinion of what a counter should be (the attribute it should contain) and some other personal biases that would make their gameplay "easy" and "smooth".

    The only way to resolve these difference is to ask the dev what a "viable" counter to meta team means to them because they are the gamemaster afterall.

  • Borstock
    Borstock Posts: 2,733 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2023

    I don't necessarily agree that it is subjective. There are plenty of really good characters in the game right now that no one asks to be nerfed. Remember, before Chasm, PvP was never more diverse. Many characters got a lot of use, but without the endless "kill this toon" threads. It shouldn't be that difficult to match their relative power and sim it out.

    There's also no reason they can't make a small change and see what happens. If he registers as balanced, great. If he doesn't, they can tweak him again. They literally just did this with Jubilee. The new devs have a lot of goodwill built up among the player base. Maybe it's time to cash in some chips.

  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards

    A lot of good characters don't get nerf threads is because they are glass cannon. When Thorokoye was ruling pvp, the only complain that they got was because it was boring seeing only them despite them being easy to beat. Fast forward the meta after them, the common complains are they made players eat healthpacks or winning matches is slow.

    When Silver Surfer or Black Panther was suggested as a counter to Bishop, the second rebuttal was it put a target on their back. The third one was it was a classic 5* and it's impossible to champ them. The number one rebuttal was players were "punished" for making match-3.

    I believe the current dev has said that they will create counters, analyse the situation before deciding whether nerf is necessary. I think Jubilee is not a good example because she's only relevant after the buff, not nerf. Before that, she wasn't even talked about among 5* players. She simply disappears into the void

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,826 Chairperson of the Boards

    Seems like they already decided. Someone asked if they'd rule out a nerf to Chasm and they said no. When they murder him it's gonna be so satisfying.

  • MrPlow
    MrPlow Posts: 240 Tile Toppler

    If too many are using Chasm as a defensive shield instead of HP then they'll nerf him.

  • Sekilicious
    Sekilicious Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2023

    I’m pretty sure that 550 Chasm cost many more than 100 pulls, considering mine cost around 250. If I spent two years hoarding then they changed the optimal strategy for competing in this game I’m not sure what I would do. 100 choices sounds fair, since the player optimized their strategy to fit the rules of the game to achieve their goals and we’re rewarded by choosing the character they wanted. Suddenly changing the rules to optimize entrailbucket’s roster would be the worst thing possible for literally everyone but entrailbucket (as an example, changing the rules to optimize my own strategy would be worse) and I would have to ban everyone from the forum ensuing fallout (yes all five of you). On the other hand, I would only expect compensation if they nerfed him to the ground. Just getting rid of his ap drain might be a fair compromise. Still meta but manageable with current counters.

    I will believe that a nerf is coming when I see it. All y’all are reading what you want into those comments.

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,275 Chairperson of the Boards

    It seems to me that the problem is less Chasm and more Chasm + revive characters. So possibly they can alter him in someway that it affects that synergy? Seems like you can try and take him sideways instead of down. Although the AP drain is a tedious power to deal with, I won't lie, so if that got altered I wouldn't exactly cry.

  • Sekilicious
    Sekilicious Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards

    Oh yeah, I only mentioned ap drain to keep the synergy with iHulk but create a broader swath of characters that can deal with it. Since firing powers would seem more manageable ( I say seem because I had no problem firing BRB’s blue last PvP in spite of running him with and against Chasm).

  • dianetics
    dianetics Posts: 1,641 Chairperson of the Boards

    They could totally make an immortal affiliation and only allow 1 immortal character per team.
    That would probably fix this issue over night.

  • Sekilicious
    Sekilicious Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2023

    Another example of a minor change that would address the problem without changing rules to eliminate strategic targeting. I would expect Shulk to have her limits removed if that option was adopted.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,826 Chairperson of the Boards

    Again with this...I do not want them to "change the rules" to "optimize my roster."

    There is only one rule, and that rule is "the developers can change any character they want, for any reason, at any time." They've turned the best character into the worst, and the worst into the best, many times over the years. They're in charge, not the players, and the decisions they make are arbitrary and capricious.

    The only way to optimize for that "rule" is to make sure you have everyone and they're all high level. If you skip a guy, you risk them buffing him into the best character. If you go all in, you risk them nerfing him into the worst.

    Minmaxing is, and has always been, a way to win in the short term, but it never pays off in the long term.

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,275 Chairperson of the Boards

    @HoundofShadow said:
    A lot of good characters don't get nerf threads is because they are glass cannon.

    To be fair I have said on more than one occasion that Shang Chi should really be nerfed because he really is far too OP. He might not deserve it but then again

  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2023

    @entrailbucket said:
    Again with this...I do not want them to "change the rules" to "optimize my roster."

    There is only one rule, and that rule is "the developers can change any character they want, for any reason, at any time." They've turned the best character into the worst, and the worst into the best, many times over the years. They're in charge, not the players, and the decisions they make are arbitrary and capricious.

    The only way to optimize for that "rule" is to make sure you have everyone and they're all high level. If you skip a guy, you risk them buffing him into the best character. If you go all in, you risk them nerfing him into the worst.

    Minmaxing is, and has always been, a way to win in the short term, but it never pays off in the long term.

    I don't know.
    Demiurge did the nerfing, BCS has done the buffing, so far.
    The only guy Demiurge buffed was X-Force, and that was a million years ago.
    Then they nerfed him, BCS brought him back.

    I don't remember Demiurge buffing any 5s that were top tier afterwards.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,826 Chairperson of the Boards

    Xforce was the big one, and that's when I decided I was never going to get caught out again. They did do some other ones in the early days, and there have been a few cases where a new character turned somebody old into a key combo piece.

    Mostly the nerfs are what causes it though -- when they kill the top guy the new meta is unpredictable and fun.

    Anyway what has changed about the "rule" now that there are new developers? They still have the absolute right, and the ability, to change any character in any way they want at any time. Are you willing to trust that they won't use that power? Would you trust it to the tune of thousands of dollars or years of hoarding?

    We are not in charge. That's what makes it fun!

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,275 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Bowgentle said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    Again with this...I do not want them to "change the rules" to "optimize my roster."

    There is only one rule, and that rule is "the developers can change any character they want, for any reason, at any time." They've turned the best character into the worst, and the worst into the best, many times over the years. They're in charge, not the players, and the decisions they make are arbitrary and capricious.

    The only way to optimize for that "rule" is to make sure you have everyone and they're all high level. If you skip a guy, you risk them buffing him into the best character. If you go all in, you risk them nerfing him into the worst.

    Minmaxing is, and has always been, a way to win in the short term, but it never pays off in the long term.

    I don't know.
    Demiurge did the nerfing, BCS has done the buffing, so far.
    The only guy Demiurge buffed was X-Force, and that was a million years ago.
    Then they nerfed him, BCS brought him back.

    I don't remember Demiurge buffing any 5s that were top tier afterwards.

    When Demiurge buffed 4* Kingpin they sort'a nerfed him, lol! So they struggled a bit in this area.

Categories