The ChaHulk meta

1…3637394142

Comments

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,992 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2023

    @Bowgentle said:
    Lol bucket, you're the antithesis to "buffs, not nerfs!".
    Your answer is to simply make every character mediocre at best.

    If they're all mediocre, aren't they all good?

    If you have a few 15 out of 10s, a whole ton of 7s, 8s, and 9s, and a few 3s and 4s, and you want balance, you can either make them all 15s or make them all 7-9s. One option seems more realistic than the other.

    Edit: if you do make them all 15s, then by definition, everyone is mediocre.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,992 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Daredevil217 said:

    There is a whole lot of projection and straw armies in this thread. It’s actually been entertaining to read but geez.

    I got a little carried away, so thanks for this. I agree.

    One thing, though -- the leaderboards will always be full of minmaxers because being at the top of the leaderboard requires using a certain set of strategies (cupcake eating, PvE optimization), and all the players who do that stuff are minmaxers. Basically those two things are highly correlated but we can't assume causation.

    We don't really know if a balanced-roster strategy can be as successful, because there aren't any high-level balanced-roster players trying to compete.

  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Bowgentle said:
    Lol bucket, you're the antithesis to "buffs, not nerfs!".
    Your answer is to simply make every character mediocre at best.

    If they're all mediocre, aren't they all good?

    If you have a few 15 out of 10s, a whole ton of 7s, 8s, and 9s, and a few 3s and 4s, and you want balance, you can either make them all 15s or make them all 7-9s. One option seems more realistic than the other.

    Edit: if you do make them all 15s, then by definition, everyone is mediocre.

    Ideally, you aim to have everyone at 10, not 7 or 15.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,992 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Bowgentle said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Bowgentle said:
    Lol bucket, you're the antithesis to "buffs, not nerfs!".
    Your answer is to simply make every character mediocre at best.

    If they're all mediocre, aren't they all good?

    If you have a few 15 out of 10s, a whole ton of 7s, 8s, and 9s, and a few 3s and 4s, and you want balance, you can either make them all 15s or make them all 7-9s. One option seems more realistic than the other.

    Edit: if you do make them all 15s, then by definition, everyone is mediocre.

    Ideally, you aim to have everyone at 10, not 7 or 15.

    Right...and to get there, you need to bring those 15s down to 10...sooooooo

  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards

    iHulk isn't a 15, though, he does exactly what he's supposed to do.
    You don't nerf all previous characters because a new one creates toxic interactions.

    Which was your point, I know, congratulations for getting me to make it for you.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,992 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Bowgentle said:
    iHulk isn't a 15, though, he does exactly what he's supposed to do.
    You don't nerf all previous characters because a new one creates toxic interactions.

    Which was your point, I know, congratulations for getting me to make it for you.

    I'd never do such a thing!

    I actually think there are some characters who do stuff that's just too good, and they limit what kinds of things new characters can do without being broken.

    Take Hawkeye. Nobody thinks Hawkeye is overpowered as a whole, but his AP generation ability absolutely is. Whenever they make a new guy who does anything with CD tiles, you have to do really extensive testing to make sure you haven't created an infinite or broken combo with Hawkeye. Like objectively the old 4cap design was fine, it's just that Hawkeye exists, so now you can't do that anymore without it being broken.

    In Hulk's case, you've got a guy who might be ok on his own, but he has a small every-turn passive AOE and he resurrects forever unless you kill him last. That means you have to be really careful about making other mass-resurrectors, and also anybody who can provide a big, flat damage boost. A character like Chasm might be ok in a vacuum, but you just can't do him and Hulk in the same game.

    As they make more characters, and especially more novel designs, a few of these older guys just really restrict their design space.

  • revskip
    revskip Posts: 1,022 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Bowgentle said:
    Not everyone, and mostly people who have no imagination.
    I ran Apoc Archangel the whole pvp.

    Saw a lot of that. I ran Black Bolt/Apoc since I don't have Archangel champed yet. Easy climb, Chasm is a breeze when he doesn't have a reviving partner so I ate up plenty of Apoc/Chasm, BB/Chasm & Yelena/Chasm teams when they popped up. Didn't see a single iHulk/Chasm on my climb but did see a couple of She-Hulk/Chasm teams.

    On the other hand I decided to put out a drop cake in Simulator to get my last 10 wins without having to wade through the revivers for the last leg. Could have climbed with a mirror match but much quicker to just drop a little and then eat easier teams on retals.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,992 Chairperson of the Boards

    He's one of the extremely rare cases where the game rewards you for casting stuff. If you use his powers in a puzzley way, you can get, like, 150,000 damage for 7ap. This is how it should work.

    The problem isn't that all these passives exist, necessarily, the problem is that they're way better than every active ability. Why am I saving up 8ap to cast some power for 40,000 when Chasm does that much passively in 2 turns? Why bother powering up for an AOE power that does 30k when I can bring Okoye/Hulk, make 1 team up match, and get the same for free?

    Always-on (or conditional passives where the condition is very easy to meet) need to be weaker than all active powers, or there's no point in having active powers at all.

  • _TrashPanda
    _TrashPanda Posts: 101 Tile Toppler

    I really like Chasm and don't think he needs to be nerfed. Although I am fully aware of my bias as well. For pvp, I like characters that are good on defense over glass cannons that are fast and hit hard but are terrible on defense. It's fun to hit the fat teams that others tend to skip. However, that being said, Auto-Regen characters could use a hard counter. Make a new 5* that's a tank (like Colossus) but that prevents ALL other characters from (1) reviving and (2) prevents ap theft/ loss (this includes attacking team) and don't give them a big nuke power. That way they aren't overpowered but they're a solid hard counter against all revive characters.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,992 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Tony_Foot said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    He's one of the extremely rare cases where the game rewards you for casting stuff. If you use his powers in a puzzley way, you can get, like, 150,000 damage for 7ap. This is how it should work.

    The problem isn't that all these passives exist, necessarily, the problem is that they're way better than every active ability. Why am I saving up 8ap to cast some power for 40,000 when Chasm does that much passively in 2 turns? Why bother powering up for an AOE power that does 30k when I can bring Okoye/Hulk, make 1 team up match, and get the same for free?

    Always-on (or conditional passives where the condition is very easy to meet) need to be weaker than all active powers, or there's no point in having active powers at all.

    In the rare cases I’m using chasm I’m clearly doing it wrong. Explain how I do 40k passive damage.

    Put 100 more levels on him?

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,992 Chairperson of the Boards

    It's a bit comical at this point. Remember when like 12 4* in a row were bad Polaris counters?

    There's exactly one example of a successful counter character in this game (SW vs Hulk), and SW ended up being successful because she was a hard counter to "doing damage more than once a turn."

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

    I won't be affected by Chasm's nerf since I rarely use him in pvps. :p

    On the flip side, the dev is probably tired of the cries for nerf and this is the counter that every player want: anti-revive and anti-ap drain. Bad is/will probably be busy holding a celebration somewhere after seeing Kang's release.

    Let's see what other excuses players are going to give with Kang's release.

  • Bad
    Bad Posts: 3,146 Chairperson of the Boards

    It wasn't easy to track down, but here it is: page 16 on this very thread, early november. I suggested a character preventing AP loss.
    https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/993974/#Comment_993974
    It only took devs 3 whole months in order to release a character truly countering chasm.
    I will only say that if they paid attention to this thread and actually they heard my suggestion, they are wise.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,992 Chairperson of the Boards

    Ah, finally we have our rock-paper-scissors metagame. Kang beats Chasm, except Chasm beats Kang (and also literally everyone else).

    What's the game called where you throw rock every time and win every time? Is it just "Rock?"

  • Codex
    Codex Posts: 321 Mover and Shaker

    @entrailbucket said:
    Ah, finally we have our rock-paper-scissors metagame. Kang beats Chasm, except Chasm beats Kang (and also literally everyone else).

    What's the game called where you throw rock every time and win every time? Is it just "Rock?"

    It is difficult to tell on paper. But hit-monkey Kang may be the paper to your rock problem.

  • dianetics
    dianetics Posts: 1,656 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Codex said:
    It is difficult to tell on paper. But hit-monkey Kang may be the paper to your rock problem.

    The problem with that pair is no damage reduction.
    So you will win with that pair, but you will still end up eating a ton of damage, and using 1-2 health packs per match.
    Wanda Kang might be a better pair since she does retaliation damage, has damage reduction, and can help generate blue for Kang.

  • ViralCore
    ViralCore Posts: 168 Tile Toppler

    Hey devs,

    Kang is a poor counter too. Just make Chasm's self-damage, permanent damage and be done with it already. That way he remains largely unchanged and still gets a limited number of revivals.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 5,992 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Codex said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    Ah, finally we have our rock-paper-scissors metagame. Kang beats Chasm, except Chasm beats Kang (and also literally everyone else).

    What's the game called where you throw rock every time and win every time? Is it just "Rock?"

    It is difficult to tell on paper. But hit-monkey Kang may be the paper to your rock problem.

    Seems like Chasm/Hulk would be able to trivially beat Hit-Monkey/Kang, what am I missing?

Categories