@DrClever said: Yeah I think the Chasm nerf will come after we all moved on to a different team. Like EVERY meta nerf they've ever done. So none of the other nerfs were necessary, and this won't be either because they fix things in other ways?
@DrClever said:
Yeah I think the Chasm nerf will come after we all moved on to a different team. Like EVERY meta nerf they've ever done.
So none of the other nerfs were necessary, and this won't be either because they fix things in other ways?
Well let's see:
OML - From a player perspective this nerf was definitely not necessary> @GrimSkald said:
@DAZ0273 said: @DrClever said: Yeah I think the Chasm nerf will come after we all moved on to a different team. Like EVERY meta nerf they've ever done. So none of the other nerfs were necessary, and this won't be either because they fix things in other ways? Well let's see (not gonna speak to the VERY early ones as I was not here for them): OML - From a player perspective this nerf was definitely not necessary but I guess the Devs thought otherwise Gambit - This nerf was "necessary" due to 5* players complaining Bishop - This nerf was "necessary" due to 5* players complaining Worthy Cap - Well if ya gonna nerf Bishop then what the hell...I mean it was literally one team but... Since these nerfs (and even during and before them) we have had: 1.) Abilities that undo healing or cause permanent damage. Would this have stopped OML? Well...he sort of didn't really need stopping so I don't think it made any difference. 2.) Abilities that drain AP and explode the board and punish charge tiles. Would this have stopped Gambit? It would have slowed him down probably and made him manageable so I am going to say yes. 3.) Anti-stun and pre-opening turn stun. Chasm would have completely nerfed Bishop allowing you to get in a significant first hit whilst he was stunned with no consequences making it easier to kill Bishop before he could do anything. Apocalypse and others are immune to stun, Kamala can clear stun statis. Would this have stopped Bishop? Hmm...it is hard to tell without trying but I think it would have had a level of impact that reduced the use of Bishop. Of course the easiest thing to have done would have been adjust his damage threshold/blue AP generation but nah... 4.) As above but Worthy Cap - I think MThor would have been able to blow up the countdowns and again we have anti-stun so I am going to say yes. Ok. We can not talk about the nerfs previous to this because they were early in the game and weren't 5*s -- for myself I think some nerf was necessary for them, but the actual nerfs were too harsh. In order: The devs stated that at the time OML was nerfed, he was in a substantial number of matches in the game. Something like 70-90%, and that's across all player levels. Most of how they acted was to make him less useful to non 5* players. He probably should have even got a boost at the 3-5 levels in each color, but what have you, that was the old set of devs. Gambit had an absolute reign of both PVP and PVE. He was just plain too good. He made most of the 5* tier obsolete. Now this was before boosted 5*s, and that may have changed things somewhat, but I guarantee if he was never nerfed people would still be using him frequently today (yes, even against Chasm,) that is if the game survived at all. Bishop was way too effective against 5* teams. It was really hard to face any kind of Bishop team without getting stun-locked. Literally match damage would have him leaping in front, gaining blue, and stunning you next turn. It just plain sucked. WorthyCap probably didn't need a nerf since he was much easier to avoid triggering his passive, but I guess they decided they didn't like the mechanic and he was kind of "part and parcel" with Bishop. Regarding your other points, permanent damage is still overcosted and not terribly effective, but as you say OML didn't really need a nerf because of how good he was when champed. AP drain would hurt Gambit, but he also had pretty good AP gain as well in both his passive and his red. He'd be a good anti-Chasm, and would probably pair great with MThor. The only real anti-charged power I can think of is Cosmo, and while he's good at that one thing, he doesn't bring enough else to justify bringing a 4* to a 5* fight. Apocalypse is only immune to stun sometimes, as is Doc Ock. I'm pretty sure I've never used Kamala's "clear stun" ability effectively, I can't even remember what power it's on, it's not really significant. Worthy Cap was never really an issue, I think they just didn't like that he could winfinite with CoulHawk in PVE.
@DAZ0273 said: @DrClever said: Yeah I think the Chasm nerf will come after we all moved on to a different team. Like EVERY meta nerf they've ever done. So none of the other nerfs were necessary, and this won't be either because they fix things in other ways? Well let's see (not gonna speak to the VERY early ones as I was not here for them): OML - From a player perspective this nerf was definitely not necessary but I guess the Devs thought otherwise Gambit - This nerf was "necessary" due to 5* players complaining Bishop - This nerf was "necessary" due to 5* players complaining Worthy Cap - Well if ya gonna nerf Bishop then what the hell...I mean it was literally one team but... Since these nerfs (and even during and before them) we have had: 1.) Abilities that undo healing or cause permanent damage. Would this have stopped OML? Well...he sort of didn't really need stopping so I don't think it made any difference. 2.) Abilities that drain AP and explode the board and punish charge tiles. Would this have stopped Gambit? It would have slowed him down probably and made him manageable so I am going to say yes. 3.) Anti-stun and pre-opening turn stun. Chasm would have completely nerfed Bishop allowing you to get in a significant first hit whilst he was stunned with no consequences making it easier to kill Bishop before he could do anything. Apocalypse and others are immune to stun, Kamala can clear stun statis. Would this have stopped Bishop? Hmm...it is hard to tell without trying but I think it would have had a level of impact that reduced the use of Bishop. Of course the easiest thing to have done would have been adjust his damage threshold/blue AP generation but nah... 4.) As above but Worthy Cap - I think MThor would have been able to blow up the countdowns and again we have anti-stun so I am going to say yes.
@DAZ0273 said:
Well let's see (not gonna speak to the VERY early ones as I was not here for them):
OML - From a player perspective this nerf was definitely not necessary but I guess the Devs thought otherwise Gambit - This nerf was "necessary" due to 5* players complaining Bishop - This nerf was "necessary" due to 5* players complaining Worthy Cap - Well if ya gonna nerf Bishop then what the hell...I mean it was literally one team but...
Since these nerfs (and even during and before them) we have had:
1.) Abilities that undo healing or cause permanent damage. Would this have stopped OML? Well...he sort of didn't really need stopping so I don't think it made any difference. 2.) Abilities that drain AP and explode the board and punish charge tiles. Would this have stopped Gambit? It would have slowed him down probably and made him manageable so I am going to say yes. 3.) Anti-stun and pre-opening turn stun. Chasm would have completely nerfed Bishop allowing you to get in a significant first hit whilst he was stunned with no consequences making it easier to kill Bishop before he could do anything. Apocalypse and others are immune to stun, Kamala can clear stun statis. Would this have stopped Bishop? Hmm...it is hard to tell without trying but I think it would have had a level of impact that reduced the use of Bishop. Of course the easiest thing to have done would have been adjust his damage threshold/blue AP generation but nah... 4.) As above but Worthy Cap - I think MThor would have been able to blow up the countdowns and again we have anti-stun so I am going to say yes.
Ok. We can not talk about the nerfs previous to this because they were early in the game and weren't 5*s -- for myself I think some nerf was necessary for them, but the actual nerfs were too harsh. In order:
The devs stated that at the time OML was nerfed, he was in a substantial number of matches in the game. Something like 70-90%, and that's across all player levels. Most of how they acted was to make him less useful to non 5* players. He probably should have even got a boost at the 3-5 levels in each color, but what have you, that was the old set of devs.
Gambit had an absolute reign of both PVP and PVE. He was just plain too good. He made most of the 5* tier obsolete. Now this was before boosted 5*s, and that may have changed things somewhat, but I guarantee if he was never nerfed people would still be using him frequently today (yes, even against Chasm,) that is if the game survived at all.
Bishop was way too effective against 5* teams. It was really hard to face any kind of Bishop team without getting stun-locked. Literally match damage would have him leaping in front, gaining blue, and stunning you next turn. It just plain sucked.
WorthyCap probably didn't need a nerf since he was much easier to avoid triggering his passive, but I guess they decided they didn't like the mechanic and he was kind of "part and parcel" with Bishop.
Regarding your other points, permanent damage is still overcosted and not terribly effective, but as you say OML didn't really need a nerf because of how good he was when champed.
AP drain would hurt Gambit, but he also had pretty good AP gain as well in both his passive and his red. He'd be a good anti-Chasm, and would probably pair great with MThor. The only real anti-charged power I can think of is Cosmo, and while he's good at that one thing, he doesn't bring enough else to justify bringing a 4* to a 5* fight.
Apocalypse is only immune to stun sometimes, as is Doc Ock. I'm pretty sure I've never used Kamala's "clear stun" ability effectively, I can't even remember what power it's on, it's not really significant.
Worthy Cap was never really an issue, I think they just didn't like that he could winfinite with CoulHawk in PVE.
It is pretty handy that Bishop is a mutant so I think we know who might have been Apocalypse buddy against other Bishop teams.
The point with charged tiles isn't so much it would stop Gambit on its own but that it was another thing in the game that didn't exist before.
In reality the only way to really know is to un-nerf these guys and have at it.
@Bowgentle said: @StanleyBurrell said: @Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: I think his status as a staple in PvP or PvE very much depends on what else you've got, and what else is boosted that week. He's not a Chasm or Okoye. We also need to see what Omega Red looks like when not boosted -- he's benefiting quite a bit from a longer-than-normal boost. Unless you're rocking 550 Bill Apoc Polaris, he SHOULD be faster with Gorrkoye than iHulk - Assuming a 500+ Okoye. I'm not beating the really crazy PVE people, but it's keeping the Shang clown rosters at bay. Of course if you're using a turn 0 kill team, this won't move the needle for you. I believe he has a place even unboosted. There is a lot to be said about damage that is good with boosts only, no supports required. From a PvP standpoint he’s an offensive tool. He can be hit but my hope is he’s another cog in the wheel of the float meta coming to an end. With 10 cover Omega and Apoc I had no losses against 550 Hulkasm. That’s good enough for me. Yeah I think the Chasm nerf will come after we all moved on to a different team. Like EVERY meta nerf they've ever done.
@Bowgentle said:
@StanleyBurrell said: @Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: I think his status as a staple in PvP or PvE very much depends on what else you've got, and what else is boosted that week. He's not a Chasm or Okoye. We also need to see what Omega Red looks like when not boosted -- he's benefiting quite a bit from a longer-than-normal boost. Unless you're rocking 550 Bill Apoc Polaris, he SHOULD be faster with Gorrkoye than iHulk - Assuming a 500+ Okoye. I'm not beating the really crazy PVE people, but it's keeping the Shang clown rosters at bay. Of course if you're using a turn 0 kill team, this won't move the needle for you. I believe he has a place even unboosted. There is a lot to be said about damage that is good with boosts only, no supports required. From a PvP standpoint he’s an offensive tool. He can be hit but my hope is he’s another cog in the wheel of the float meta coming to an end. With 10 cover Omega and Apoc I had no losses against 550 Hulkasm. That’s good enough for me.
@StanleyBurrell said:
@Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: I think his status as a staple in PvP or PvE very much depends on what else you've got, and what else is boosted that week. He's not a Chasm or Okoye. We also need to see what Omega Red looks like when not boosted -- he's benefiting quite a bit from a longer-than-normal boost. Unless you're rocking 550 Bill Apoc Polaris, he SHOULD be faster with Gorrkoye than iHulk - Assuming a 500+ Okoye. I'm not beating the really crazy PVE people, but it's keeping the Shang clown rosters at bay. Of course if you're using a turn 0 kill team, this won't move the needle for you.
@entrailbucket said: I think his status as a staple in PvP or PvE very much depends on what else you've got, and what else is boosted that week. He's not a Chasm or Okoye. We also need to see what Omega Red looks like when not boosted -- he's benefiting quite a bit from a longer-than-normal boost.
@entrailbucket said: I think his status as a staple in PvP or PvE very much depends on what else you've got, and what else is boosted that week. He's not a Chasm or Okoye.
We also need to see what Omega Red looks like when not boosted -- he's benefiting quite a bit from a longer-than-normal boost.
Unless you're rocking 550 Bill Apoc Polaris, he SHOULD be faster with Gorrkoye than iHulk - Assuming a 500+ Okoye. I'm not beating the really crazy PVE people, but it's keeping the Shang clown rosters at bay.
Of course if you're using a turn 0 kill team, this won't move the needle for you.
I believe he has a place even unboosted. There is a lot to be said about damage that is good with boosts only, no supports required. From a PvP standpoint he’s an offensive tool. He can be hit but my hope is he’s another cog in the wheel of the float meta coming to an end. With 10 cover Omega and Apoc I had no losses against 550 Hulkasm. That’s good enough for me.
Yeah at this point he’s handled. I do think there should be some kind of adjustment to the undying trait (iHulk, Chasm) but after that, meh
That was the team I started using after apocs release but before Bishops nerf. It was great.
I liked OML back in the day. He was a staple of my PvE teams to minimise health pack usage (even with only 1 in Yellow at the time) and he did much higher damage than everyone else in my roster (when he was first released). Perm damage only lasts the current match so you can always pop into another round and heal him up before going again.
I still use him for DDQ every day.
I also appreciate I'm in a minority of one.
This thread has drifted so much that I figured I would drift back to one of the other drifted discussions in this thread:
First PVE with Okoye and OR unboosted. Ran Okoye/OR/Gorr. Still a very, very solid team when not boosted. I bring +2 R/Y and +2 TU. They cleared the first level of nodes fine. Will be interested to see how they do tomorrow on my first finish and as the PVE gets a bit more challenging. But OR is way more reliable than IHulk for me.
So I'm trying Vulture, Heimdall and Archangel. It works but is this the best PVE team I can get from 5* Vulture? I want to put OR in there but not sure if losing Archangel's 5 ranked passive for airborne enemies is worth it.
Keep experimenting, that’s the fun part of the game!
@Falconfreak said: So I'm trying Vulture, Heimdall and Archangel. It works but is this the best PVE team I can get from 5* Vulture? I want to put OR in there but not sure if losing Archangel's 5 ranked passive for airborne enemies is worth it.
Having tried both vulture/AA and Vulture/Heimdall, I feel Vulture/Heimdall is simply better as AA’s passive, while it does do good damage and stuns, it cuts off Vulture’s damage potential so you’re not getting the best of both worlds. Heimdall otoh, really gifts your team a bunch of AP by only sending Vulture up for just one turn.
I’m still looking for a good, synegertic 3rd for them tho.
I have to ask: where in the Armor Wars did Vulture get this 5* armor in the comics? I don't remember him at all in the original Armor Wars Iron Man comics.
@Falconfreak said: I have to ask: where in the Armor Wars did Vulture get this 5* armor in the comics? I don't remember him at all in the original Armor Wars Iron Man comics.
He didn't. This Vulture is an MPQ original.
@entrailbucket said: @Falconfreak said: I have to ask: where in the Armor Wars did Vulture get this 5* armor in the comics? I don't remember him at all in the original Armor Wars Iron Man comics. He didn't. This Vulture is an MPQ original.
@entrailbucket said:
It's because Marvel doesn't have enough characters or versions of their characters.
Yup. Definitely, why.
Kind of surprised we didn't get (minor across the spiderverse spoilers) da Vinci sketch vulture or any other character from that movie aside from spider-rex (and 3* gwen, which hardly counts as new since she appears to be the same costume/version as the existing 4* which was already pretty close to the spider-verse design). Or am I missing someone?
Was Spider-Rex even in the movie? I thought he and Venom-Rex were a tie-in to one of their (current best-selling) comic book titles.
@entrailbucket said: Was Spider-Rex even in the movie? I thought he and Venom-Rex were a tie-in to one of their (current best-selling) comic book titles.
Appears in the chase scene. Don’t think that’s too spoiler-y.
@ArchusMonk said: @entrailbucket said: Was Spider-Rex even in the movie? I thought he and Venom-Rex were a tie-in to one of their (current best-selling) comic book titles. Appears in the chase scene. Don’t think that’s too spoiler-y.
@ArchusMonk said:
If it's just a brief appearance, then we'll need an independent arbitrator to determine whether he officially counts as a "comic book" or a "movie" tie-in.
The definition of a cameo, but he is in there.
I mostly follow this forum to see what teams people suggest for characters. Currently using Vulture to feed Okoye and OR, but I figure OR will tank over too many colors for Okoye for that to work. Any suggestions?
Would use OR with Apocalypse, but it seems a shame to overlap on such good red multi taps.
@Jinx said: I mostly follow this forum to see what teams people suggest for characters. Currently using Vulture to feed Okoye and OR, but I figure OR will tank over too many colors for Okoye for that to work. Any suggestions?
Emma could be a good partner there.
@Tiger_Wong said: @Falconfreak said: So I'm trying Vulture, Heimdall and Archangel. It works but is this the best PVE team I can get from 5* Vulture? I want to put OR in there but not sure if losing Archangel's 5 ranked passive for airborne enemies is worth it. Having tried both vulture/AA and Vulture/Heimdall, I feel Vulture/Heimdall is simply better as AA’s passive, while it does do good damage and stuns, it cuts off Vulture’s damage potential so you’re not getting the best of both worlds. Heimdall otoh, really gifts your team a bunch of AP by only sending Vulture up for just one turn. I’m still looking for a good, synegertic 3rd for them tho.
@Tiger_Wong said:
Heim/Vulture are near rainbow. They just need black. What about Deadpool? He has a great black and his passive is another source of AP gen. Defensively you could use Colossus to provide some added protection and a black nuke. Elektro feels like the move against the Chasm wall. You will get more yellow AP than you know what to do with to send Vulture/Elektro airborne.