Prevalence of MThor and could she be the target of a rebalance?

gamecat235

@Bowgentle said:

@WilliamK1983 said:
Is anybody taking PVE into consideration?

Leave Jane alone.

She's... Not great in PVE.
Not fast, at least.

She’s not fast, but when your fast team fails, she’s a great back-up plan of attack.

Bad

It must be really frustrating to continue wanting a nerf for the character most played in pvp this year, the one in second place with high % on losses, and whose toolkit is being developed by new releases in all tiers.
But cheers with it.

entrailbucket

The "nerf " debates are basically worthless at this point. No one remembers now, but the Gambit and Bishop nerfs were highly controversial, with tons of players arguing that those guys were fine. The OBW/true healing change generated like a 100-page thread of outrage here. Now, those changes are recognized as being good for the game.

In a month, we're all going to forget how many people strenuously argued that Chasm was fine, and we'll all recognize that THAT was good for the game.

The arguments against nerfing all those other characters are exactly the same arguments being made in this thread, and so are the arguments in favor of nerfing them!

Vhailorx

This is a pretty easy one: No. Almost no nerf has ever been productive in MPQ history as they take so long to implement that the meta has basically moved past the problematic character by the time the nerf comes along.

There is the obvious exception is gambit, who was an utterly dominant, single-character meta from the moment he went love until his nerf. And even then, I think he would have reeled back in to the meta pack by late 2019 or early 2020 had he been left alone. He certainly would not dominate the game now, even in his original form.

Mthor is fine as she is: a very strong, dangerous-but-not-unbeatable character that works with a large number of partners.

entrailbucket

@Vhailorx said:
This is a pretty easy one: No. Almost no nerf has ever been productive in MPQ history as they take so long to implement that the meta has basically moved past the problematic character by the time the nerf comes along.

There is the obvious exception is gambit, who was an utterly dominant, single-character meta from the moment he went love until his nerf. And even then, I think he would have reeled back in to the meta pack by late 2019 or early 2020 had he been left alone. He certainly would not dominate the game now, even in his original form.

Mthor is fine as she is: a very strong, dangerous-but-not-unbeatable character that works with a large number of partners.

This says more about how slow the devs are to nerf than it does about the necessity or utility of those changes.

Vhailorx

@entrailbucket said:

@Vhailorx said:
This is a pretty easy one: No. Almost no nerf has ever been productive in MPQ history as they take so long to implement that the meta has basically moved past the problematic character by the time the nerf comes along.

There is the obvious exception is gambit, who was an utterly dominant, single-character meta from the moment he went love until his nerf. And even then, I think he would have reeled back in to the meta pack by late 2019 or early 2020 had he been left alone. He certainly would not dominate the game now, even in his original form.

Mthor is fine as she is: a very strong, dangerous-but-not-unbeatable character that works with a large number of partners.

This says more about how slow the devs are to nerf than it does about the necessity or utility of those changes.

If, after 10 years and 2 developers, these nerfs still take this long (either for programming or financial reasons) I think we can pretty safely assume this will comtinue.

Omegased

I don't think she's that powerful on her own.

The second you add Riri, she's a menace.

I see her a little like Prof X, or Onslaught. sure you can get a lucky cascade that'll stuff you, but generally not toooo difficult. Just target her first.

Vhailorx

@Omegased said:
I don't think she's that powerful on her own.

The second you add Riri, she's a menace.

I see her a little like Prof X, or Onslaught. sure you can get a lucky cascade that'll stuff you, but generally not toooo difficult. Just target her first.

Prof X and Onslaught are definitely not in "must nerf" territory.

Omegased

@Vhailorx said:

Prof X and Onslaught are definitely not in "must nerf" territory.

Absolutely - and I guess that was my point. Yes mThor is tricky, but she's very managable. you may lose with an unlucky cascade, but that's rare.

entrailbucket

@Vhailorx said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Vhailorx said:
This is a pretty easy one: No. Almost no nerf has ever been productive in MPQ history as they take so long to implement that the meta has basically moved past the problematic character by the time the nerf comes along.

There is the obvious exception is gambit, who was an utterly dominant, single-character meta from the moment he went love until his nerf. And even then, I think he would have reeled back in to the meta pack by late 2019 or early 2020 had he been left alone. He certainly would not dominate the game now, even in his original form.

Mthor is fine as she is: a very strong, dangerous-but-not-unbeatable character that works with a large number of partners.

This says more about how slow the devs are to nerf than it does about the necessity or utility of those changes.

If, after 10 years and 2 developers, these nerfs still take this long (either for programming or financial reasons) I think we can pretty safely assume this will comtinue.

The financial aspect is kind of weird because for the most part, they never sold those guys. I don't think Chasm was ever featured beyond his stint in Latest, and I don't think Gambit was either. Thor is obviously a very different story.

Zalasta

mThor isn’t even in the same universe as pre-nerf Gambit, Bishop, or Chasm. Nerf mThor and the Karen’s of MPQ will next be screeching to nerf Okoye, Kitty, or whatever character offends their delicate sensibilities. The meta marches on. mThor will be replaced by someone newer and shinier soon enough, and the Karen’s will have a new thing to screech about.

WilliamK1983

@Zalasta said:
mThor isn’t even in the same universe as pre-nerf Gambit, Bishop, or Chasm. Nerf mThor and the Karen’s of MPQ will next be screeching to nerf Okoye, Kitty, or whatever character offends their delicate sensibilities. The meta marches on. mThor will be replaced by someone newer and shinier soon enough, and the Karen’s will have a new thing to screech about.

Well said

entrailbucket

I don't even think anybody's calling for a Thor nerf here. I'm sort of picking at some of the arguments to leave her alone, but I'm not there yet at all.

I could see her becoming a problem in the future, though, and I don't think anything should get ruled out preemptively.

LavaManLee

@entrailbucket said:
The "nerf " debates are basically worthless at this point. No one remembers now, but the Gambit and Bishop nerfs were highly controversial, with tons of players arguing that those guys were fine.

I totally remember.

Highly controversial? Not really. Especially not Bishop. He was totally hated by almost everyone until nerfed (and by hated, I mean that those who had him on defense LOVED him but playing him as a 5* player was atrocious). Gambit was a little more nuanced but was also WAY overpowered for the time.

I don't recall a ton of hatred at all for both of them being nerfed. Were there people who didn't want them nerfed? Absolutely. But was it "controversial"? I don't think so.

Vhailorx

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:
The "nerf " debates are basically worthless at this point. No one remembers now, but the Gambit and Bishop nerfs were highly controversial, with tons of players arguing that those guys were fine.

I totally remember.

Highly controversial? Not really. Especially not Bishop. He was totally hated by almost everyone until nerfed (and by hated, I mean that those who had him on defense LOVED him but playing him as a 5* player was atrocious). Gambit was a little more nuanced but was also WAY overpowered for the time.

I don't recall a ton of hatred at all for both of them being nerfed. Were there people who didn't want them nerfed? Absolutely. But was it "controversial"? I don't think so.

I agree. To the extend people griped about the bishop nerf it was largely (i) he was nerfed into the ground even in 4-only play, and (ii) people complaining about worthy being nerfed too since he wasn't really a problem. By the end everyone knew that bishop was broken in 5 play, but ONLY in 5* play when there was no way to avoid proc'ing his passive because 5* match damage is so high.

Gambit was the closest to timely that they ever nerfed a dominant character. Although he was almost a year old. He was still utterly dominant in pvp, to the point that a gambit-only roster could pretty easily get 1200 in every event, often without shielding at all. There have other meta-dominant pairings that were at or near that level of strength, but never a single character (unless you want to go WAY back to infinite ragnarok n 2013). People didn't like that he was also nerfed into oblivion, especially since a relatively large number of people had Gambit + 4* rosters and their pvp experience suffered quite bit. But I would not describe it as "very controversial."

entrailbucket

I'll dredge up those threads. It's all on here somewhere.

Vhailorx

@entrailbucket said:
I'll dredge up those threads. It's all on here somewhere.

Great, i can't wait until this devolves into a meta-argument about what constitutes "controversial"!

Daredevil217

You can always find people who called for or were against any nerf. I was for sure anti gambit nerf (just like I am Jane), but was a 4* player at the time I believe. But those “Karens” Zalasta speaks of, while vocal, are a very small minority. I believe those are the players who will cry nerf for any character that is powerful or used a lot. Chasm and Bishop were entirely different animals and by no means “controversial”. While there were some against their nerfs or nerfs in general, MOST could hardly wait and were excited about it.

And I believe more credit needs to be given to Chasm’s rebalance. I still think he’s VERY good and easily the one I struggle to beat most when running Jane. The first turn stun means lots of damage and no charged tiles for cascades and the AP drain. He’s still rough. Just not the free shield he once was.

Vhailorx

@Daredevil217 said:
You can always find people who called for or were against any nerf. I was for sure anti gambit nerf (just like I am Jane), but was a 4* player at the time I believe. But those “Karens” Zalasta speaks of, while vocal, are a very small minority. I believe those are the players who will cry nerf for any character that is powerful or used a lot. Chasm and Bishop were entirely different animals and by no means “controversial”. While there were some against their nerfs or nerfs in general, MOST could hardly wait and were excited about it.

And I believe more credit needs to be given to Chasm’s rebalance. I still think he’s VERY good and easily the one I struggle to beat most when running Jane. The first turn stun means lots of damage and no charged tiles for cascades and the AP drain. He’s still rough. Just not the free shield he once was.

I think a large part of the general community acceptance of the bishop and chasm nerfs was because both characters just aren't fun to play against. other nerfed meta characters like 4* thorverine or OML were pretty easy to fight (if you had the mirror team), so while they were quite dominant, they didn't create a bad user experience for end game players. Even gambit wasn't too bad to fight if you had your own gambit.

Conversely bishop and chasm were both absolute tinykitty to fight. They both produced grindy, frustrating, and/or very dull matches. No surprise that most people were ready to move on to more enjoyable experiences.

revskip

@Vhailorx said:

@Daredevil217 said:
You can always find people who called for or were against any nerf. I was for sure anti gambit nerf (just like I am Jane), but was a 4* player at the time I believe. But those “Karens” Zalasta speaks of, while vocal, are a very small minority. I believe those are the players who will cry nerf for any character that is powerful or used a lot. Chasm and Bishop were entirely different animals and by no means “controversial”. While there were some against their nerfs or nerfs in general, MOST could hardly wait and were excited about it.

And I believe more credit needs to be given to Chasm’s rebalance. I still think he’s VERY good and easily the one I struggle to beat most when running Jane. The first turn stun means lots of damage and no charged tiles for cascades and the AP drain. He’s still rough. Just not the free shield he once was.

I think a large part of the general community acceptance of the bishop and chasm nerfs was because both characters just aren't fun to play against. other nerfed meta characters like 4* thorverine or OML were pretty easy to fight (if you had the mirror team), so while they were quite dominant, they didn't create a bad user experience for end game players. Even gambit wasn't too bad to fight if you had your own gambit.

Conversely bishop and chasm were both absolute tinykitty to fight. They both produced grindy, frustrating, and/or very dull matches. No surprise that most people were ready to move on to more enjoyable experiences.

What is enjoyable to one person is anathema to another. I liked Chasm. Each match with and against him felt like a puzzle where managing healthpools, AP and when abilities and team ups were fired were crucial for success. Winning a fight against a Chasm felt good because it took some doing and it wasn't just random cascades. Finding new counters to him was fun because again it added elements to the puzzle. I enjoyed matches that might take a couple of minutes but were interesting gameplay-wise.

Conversely, I find mThor to be boring as hell. She passively makes constant cascades. Matches require 0 thought and mirror matches are often just a case of who got the first lucky cascade in their colors.

Both characters are (were in Chasm's case) massively OP compared to the rest of the field. Free board shake is a massively OP power and mThor does it passively not just every turn but with every single firing of her powers. Other characters have passive board shake but it is conditional and tied to their other powers (Onslaught is a great example).

Nerfs are fine when they bring characters who are overtuned back into balance with other characters. It happened to Chasm and should happen to all the other characters who are lapping the field. mThor is absolutely top of that list. Her kit is fine if you remove the board shake.