Upcoming Character Rebalance - Chasm (9/21/23)

Bowgentle

@HuracanDolor said:
Glad they addressed the threshold for the infinite revivals, that was the biggest pain. Kang solved everything else. I’m not sure if this will address the infinite Chasm vs Chasm matches though.
Two things I still would have like to see done with him:
1. Instead of an instant revival, have just one turn inserted (we have other characters that have revival mechanics but has never been a problem in the game i.e. Phoenix, Loki. The commonality that they both share is that you get at least one turn to possibly down them to prevent the revival.
2. A passive that prevents Chasm from creating web tiles if he is the last character on the team standing. (I think this completely stops the infinite Chasm vs Chasm matches)

Nobody will run Chasm vs Chasm anymore.
He's dead with the higher abyss tiles threshold and lower health on revive.

Bad

The problem is that BCS has to fix what demi never did. And it isn't a small problem.
All rebalances but fixing their broken character are in that direction.
And they have a long, long way to go.
And at the same time they have to design their own characters and be careful about it (magik it's a case of overcautioness).
I'd like all useless characters to be rebalanced tomorrow.
But the reality is what we have, it's not possible to everything stops in order to get that goal.
And half baked tweak numbers won't work. If I'm not mistaken cap america got just that buff type,increased numbers and a bit less AP and I don't see him in pvp at all.
It must be a rebalance truly according to present standars in order to give a character a chance to get used.

Kolence

@HuracanDolor said:

@Kolence said:

@revskip said:
Seems reasonable. Glad he wasn't ground into dust. Now when is the nerf coming for Shang-Chi and mThor?

Don't forget Kang!

Speak for yourself…… Kang is fine.

I try to. Sometimes I'll post more jokingly, like there. Still, for the joke to be funny, there's a kernel of truth?
Like I've said somewhere here in between that quoted post and this one, Kang is only mostly fine. And I explained why I think so. To be fair, I also believe he's like that by design.
No need to worry about any of your favorite characters in game, no matter what I or anyone else for that matter, on this forum, posts about them. Unless the poster's name is in red...

entrailbucket

@Bad said:
The problem is that BCS has to fix what demi never did. And it isn't a small problem.
All rebalances but fixing their broken character are in that direction.
And they have a long, long way to go.
And at the same time they have to design their own characters and be careful about it (magik it's a case of overcautioness).
I'd like all useless characters to be rebalanced tomorrow.
But the reality is what we have, it's not possible to everything stops in order to get that goal.
And half baked tweak numbers won't work. If I'm not mistaken cap america got just that buff type,increased numbers and a bit less AP and I don't see him in pvp at all.
It must be a rebalance truly according to present standars in order to give a character a chance to get used.

Captain America is actually pretty good now, and I use him when he's boosted. Nobody else seems to have noticed, but that's ok I guess.

And yeah, like I said, I've pretty much given up hope that they'll ever actually do small, frequent rebalancing. The reality appears to be that they can't or won't do things that way, and...like... whatever. I'm not going to scream at them about it, or send them death threats, or quit the game over it.

But to suggest that it would be a bad thing, or that players shouldn't want that? Come on. You can be fine with the way things are now and also recognize that there's a better way to go about it.

Daredevil217

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:
I personally like the Magneto rework a lot. If the red wasn’t buggy it’d be even better. I think Wasp was a miss though. Stark as well. I have four whole tiers of characters rostered (plus dupes) that only really get used for essentials. I’m not doing back flips but I’m also okay that some of my fives fall into that territory as well and they get to them when they get to them. I also am not going to lie, I prefer this approach because it’s like getting a brand new toy whenever a new rebalance drops. I was legit excited to try new Fatpin and take him for a spin. If they just upped Fatpin, Banner and Jeans’s match damage 10% and lowered AP costs by 1, I probably would not have played them at all, and if I did I would not have the type of enthusiasm I do when it’s an overhaul. Even the Angel/YJ/Star-Lord that are more big numbers tweaks (what I call rebalances versus reworks where the powers actually change) I’ve been excited about.

So, no I don’t think it’s crazy to prefer it this way, and do think it probably takes less time than having to batch update the top/bottom 10% across all tiers. There just feels like more care given to this approach.

And if anything I’ve written feels hostile or offense to any poster, please let me more specifically what I’ve said (you can out me publicly or take it to PM, either way) that you’ve struggled with, because that’s not my intention.

But you're still not getting it. Frequent, small changes. They're not going to make a small change to Kingpin then give up forever. If that change isn't enough, then go back and change more.

There is no chance that this philosophy change would take longer to make meaningful updates. Kingpin was bad for literally YEARS, and he sat unchanged and totally useless for all of them. Under a scheme like this he'd have had dozens of updates. Chasm dominated the game for what, a full year? And now he's going to go from everywhere to nowhere instantly, rather than a slow, steady step-down process.

Why would you want them to make big disruptive changes like that in one shot? I like chaos too, and I LOVE seeing the all-in players get demolished, but it's probably not healthy.

Again, I get the concept. Just because I or another poster actually like how they do things currently, it doesn’t mean we don’t understand your proposition lol. I spelt out why I like the current system (it’s like getting a new toy). I like the idea of getting what feels like a new character to use and not having to grind out rostering them. In the example I posited earlier, if Kingpin gets a 10% buff to match damage and a 1 AP reduction to his costs, I probably won’t even play him to even see if I like the new kingpin. I imagine most won’t. I definitely wouldn’t be excited to do so. After months of tweaks, maybe I’d play him boosted and be like, eh he’s not bad. But that excitement I get when the devs drop a rebalance and break down the reasons for the shift- I like that much more. And I think it’s okay for someone to think differently.

jp1

I still can’t fathom how it isn’t obvious to everyone that Metas are intentional, they last for a while to squeeze all the juice they can from them and then they rotate in a new one. Balance isn’t a goal, generating revenue is a goal.

It’s been an ongoing theme for years and I doubt it would ever change. It’s the nature of the beast.

entrailbucket

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:
I personally like the Magneto rework a lot. If the red wasn’t buggy it’d be even better. I think Wasp was a miss though. Stark as well. I have four whole tiers of characters rostered (plus dupes) that only really get used for essentials. I’m not doing back flips but I’m also okay that some of my fives fall into that territory as well and they get to them when they get to them. I also am not going to lie, I prefer this approach because it’s like getting a brand new toy whenever a new rebalance drops. I was legit excited to try new Fatpin and take him for a spin. If they just upped Fatpin, Banner and Jeans’s match damage 10% and lowered AP costs by 1, I probably would not have played them at all, and if I did I would not have the type of enthusiasm I do when it’s an overhaul. Even the Angel/YJ/Star-Lord that are more big numbers tweaks (what I call rebalances versus reworks where the powers actually change) I’ve been excited about.

So, no I don’t think it’s crazy to prefer it this way, and do think it probably takes less time than having to batch update the top/bottom 10% across all tiers. There just feels like more care given to this approach.

And if anything I’ve written feels hostile or offense to any poster, please let me more specifically what I’ve said (you can out me publicly or take it to PM, either way) that you’ve struggled with, because that’s not my intention.

But you're still not getting it. Frequent, small changes. They're not going to make a small change to Kingpin then give up forever. If that change isn't enough, then go back and change more.

There is no chance that this philosophy change would take longer to make meaningful updates. Kingpin was bad for literally YEARS, and he sat unchanged and totally useless for all of them. Under a scheme like this he'd have had dozens of updates. Chasm dominated the game for what, a full year? And now he's going to go from everywhere to nowhere instantly, rather than a slow, steady step-down process.

Why would you want them to make big disruptive changes like that in one shot? I like chaos too, and I LOVE seeing the all-in players get demolished, but it's probably not healthy.

Again, I get the concept. Just because I or another poster actually like how they do things currently, it doesn’t mean we don’t understand your proposition lol. I spelt out why I like the current system (it’s like getting a new toy). I like the idea of getting what feels like a new character to use and not having to grind out rostering them. In the example I posited earlier, if Kingpin gets a 10% buff to match damage and a 1 AP reduction to his costs, I probably won’t even play him to even see if I like the new kingpin. I imagine most won’t. I definitely wouldn’t be excited to do so. After months of tweaks, maybe I’d play him boosted and be like, eh he’s not bad. But that excitement I get when the devs drop a rebalance and break down the reasons for the shift- I like that much more. And I think it’s okay for someone to think differently.

Gotta think this is a minority opinion, though...I mean, I'm really making an argument here that would probably make things much worse for me personally.

Like, when they stomped Gambit into unusable garbage, that was HILARIOUS. A bunch of players had spent 5 figures on maxing him out, then in one shot he went from the undisputed best to one of the worst, and they all absolutely deserved it.

Chasm will be the same -- although nobody really spends that kind of money now, players cashed out years of progress to max him out and now he's going to disappear overnight. Those players deserve this, I'm really going to savor their misery, and will probably gloat about it a bunch...but I don't think it's good long-term to do stuff like this to them over and over again.

entrailbucket

@jp1 said:
I still can’t fathom how it isn’t obvious to everyone that Metas are intentional, they last for a while to squeeze all the juice they can from them and then they rotate in a new one. Balance isn’t a goal, generating revenue is a goal.

It’s been an ongoing theme for years and I doubt it would ever change. It’s the nature of the beast.

Eh, you give them far too much credit. Also, how did Okoye dominate for like 3 full years? If that was the plan they'd have killed her way before then.

Bad

@entrailbucket said:

But to suggest that it would be a bad thing, or that players shouldn't want that? Come on. You can be fine with the way things are now and also recognize that there's a better way to go about it.

You are the one here saying that a numbers tweak is a better way although you are recognizing that nobody uses a character who went through that.
Also devs said to a similar question that a numbers tweak is not that easy as it sounds.
So I think it's not my personal opinion (and actually I rather like rebalances better), it's just plain facts.

entrailbucket

@Bad said:

@entrailbucket said:

But to suggest that it would be a bad thing, or that players shouldn't want that? Come on. You can be fine with the way things are now and also recognize that there's a better way to go about it.

You are the one here saying that a numbers tweak is a better way although you are recognizing that nobody uses a character who went through that.
Also devs said to a similar question that a numbers tweak is not that easy as it sounds.
So I think it's not my personal opinion (and actually I rather like rebalances better), it's just plain facts.

Nobody uses Cap because they didn't bother to invest any resources into him. They didn't invest any resources into him because he was bad, and because they believed (supported by quite a bit of evidence) that bad characters would stay bad forever. Devs should work to change the perception that bad characters will be bad forever, by making more frequent changes.

Daredevil217

@Bad said:

@entrailbucket said:

But to suggest that it would be a bad thing, or that players shouldn't want that? Come on. You can be fine with the way things are now and also recognize that there's a better way to go about it.

You are the one here saying that a numbers tweak is a better way although you are recognizing that nobody uses a character who went through that.
Also devs said to a similar question that a numbers tweak is not that easy as it sounds.
So I think it's not my personal opinion (and actually I rather like rebalances better), it's just plain facts.

To your first point, Cap was a one and done numbers tweak and in entrails system he would get numbers bumps monthly because no one uses him. So what you’re saying isn’t entirely fair because you’re saying “that didn’t work”, but it also wasn’t implemented the way he’s suggesting.

The second point you make is an important one. If shifting the numbers is as labor intensive as they say it is, then what is being proposed isn’t really feasible. If that’s the case, then it makes sense that they’d really want to take their time with rebalances because they want to “get it right” the first time. This team is simply put also way better at rebalances than their predecessors. I think the frequency with which they’ve dropped and their success rate has been pretty good.

@entrailbucket said:

@Bad said:

@entrailbucket said:

But to suggest that it would be a bad thing, or that players shouldn't want that? Come on. You can be fine with the way things are now and also recognize that there's a better way to go about it.

You are the one here saying that a numbers tweak is a better way although you are recognizing that nobody uses a character who went through that.
Also devs said to a similar question that a numbers tweak is not that easy as it sounds.
So I think it's not my personal opinion (and actually I rather like rebalances better), it's just plain facts.

Nobody uses Cap because they didn't bother to invest any resources into him. They didn't invest any resources into him because he was bad, and because they believed (supported by quite a bit of evidence) that bad characters would stay bad forever. Devs should work to change the perception that bad characters will be bad forever, by making more frequent changes.

At your level that’s true. At my level (champ em all 450) everyone has Cap. He’s old enough that most people have stumbled into champing him even if he wasn’t chased directly. I’m a big fan of him (in the top half of 5s in my rankings). The reason people don’t use him is because he’s not better than what people have currently. Whatever the event is, a meta forms and most just flock to whatever people deem to be the best for that event. For people to use Cap he’d have to be better than Chasm/IHulk. And if you tweak him until he’s better than them, then the other 90 characters in the tier ride the bench in favor of Cap. What they’ve done masterfully with these rebalances is made them them strong but not meta and viable (often times dominant) boosted. That seems to be the aim and I believe Jean, Banner, Kingpin, Surfer, Star-Lord, Yellowjacket, Magneto, Magik and Archangel all hit the mark. Stark and Wasp I usually still don’t play even boosted.

The real problem, and I’ve said this ever sense his release is that he makes even boosted characters obsolete because he is a BETTER option than them and that shouldn’t be the case. Thor, Okoye, and Kang are just characters that allow you to “punch up” and because that’s their thing, they’ll be in queues because not everyone champs them all or has every tool at their disposal. So it makes sense that they play their best unboosted 5*s or the ones that allow them a fighting chance to take down a 650 Captain America. These characters are balanced by the fact that they suck on defense and so are an easy retal. Chasm was unfun, great on defense and could win any match, so was very unbalanced.

Punisher5784

@entrailbucket said:

Those players deserve this, I'm really going to savor their misery

I'm sensing some Villain vibes here 😆

entrailbucket

@Daredevil217 I agree with just about everything you've got there. And I am happy with the rebalances they've done so far (I even use Iron Man when he's lvl672 -- his powers are bad but the health and match damage are overwhelming) but they seem to have stalled out on the pace they were on, they picked a few pretty odd targets, and there are a LOT that still need updating.

They're spending an awful lot of time and effort on these reworks, and it's appreciated, but there just has to be some way to get improvements done more quickly, even if they're smaller.

entrailbucket

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

Those players deserve this, I'm really going to savor their misery

I'm sending some Villain vibes here 😆

😈😈😈😈😈😈😈

talleman

Btw, regarding this:

"For anyone interested, we will be offering the standard sellback increase for the next couple weeks after this goes Live for any player that feels that they don’t want Chasm rostered as a result of these changes."

What is the standard sellback? And how does it work?

entrailbucket

@talleman said:
Btw, regarding this:

"For anyone interested, we will be offering the standard sellback increase for the next couple weeks after this goes Live for any player that feels that they don’t want Chasm rostered as a result of these changes."

What is the standard sellback? And how does it work?

The sell back for Gambit and OML was a 1-1 conversion of their covers to random 5*.

So if you have a lvl460 Chasm and you sell him, you get back 13 + 10 = 23 tokens to a token pool that contains all the other 5*, and only them.

LavaManLee

The Gambit sell back had (obviously) a much, much smaller pool of 5*s. I'm curious if BCS is going to have a similar smaller pool or just go with all of them. And if they go with a smaller pool, how they determine it. I imagine they will go with all of them which would make the sellback not a very great deal. IMHO

entrailbucket

@LavaManLee said:
The Gambit sell back had (obviously) a much, much smaller pool of 5*s. I'm curious if BCS is going to have a similar smaller pool or just go with all of them. And if they go with a smaller pool, how they determine it. I imagine they will go with all of them which would make the sellback not a very great deal. IMHO

The pool of 5* back then was also much, MUCH worse. Remember they hadn't buffed anyone yet, and a lot of the strongest guys hadn't been released.

People still sold their Gambits anyway, though!

LavaManLee

@entrailbucket said:
People still sold their Gambits anyway, though!

I sold him. It was the best decision I made. Got into 5* land much quicker than if I just had kept him. I didn't have any champs besides Gambit (IIRC) and that got me a 5* Thor and 5*Okoye champed which, at the time, was quite helpful. That nerf Gambit took was horrific and it took me years to champ another one.

WhiteBomber

Hopefully it turns out this nerf won't be as bad as what I hear happened ol Remy. Here's the current feels from the poll. Seems relatively balanced, but I am one of the ones who hopes it didn't go too far: https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/89093/chasm-nerf-poll