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

entrailbucket

I mean, there were several multi-page threads here, over a period of several months, all arguing repeatedly about whether Chasm should be nerfed at all. Do you not remember the endless "don't nerf, make counters" and "he's fine, just use the counters they gave us" digressions?

To say now that it wasn't controversial, or that very few players defended him...that's absolutely revisionist. You're dismissing all those players' views because they didn't agree with you.

LavaManLee

The point I was referring to above isn't Chasm. It's that you mentioned Bishop and Gambit were controversial. The way their nerfs were handled was quite heavy handed, but whether or not to nerf them wasn't overly controversial at the time.

Bowgentle

There were like 3 players saying Chasm was fine, while the remaining 15 who still post here were pro nerf.

entrailbucket

@LavaManLee said:
The point I was referring to above isn't Chasm. It's that you mentioned Bishop and Gambit were controversial. The way their nerfs were handled was quite heavy handed, but whether or not to nerf them wasn't overly controversial at the time.

Do a search here for "nerf Bishop" or "nerf Gambit" and read through what you find. There were not "just a few" defenders for those characters, in the lead-up to the changes. It was split close to 50/50.

Of course it's easy to dismiss those arguments now -- it turns out that those changes were correct, the defenders were wrong AND they lost.

If tons of players are making arguments in favor of obviously broken characters (and by the way, they're all the same arguments made for Thor, and they'll be the same arguments made for the next broken guy), then there's no point in these debates.

Vhailorx

@entrailbucket said:
It was split close to 50/50.

Was it split 50/50 in terms of people, or was it split 50/50 in terms of posts, but one or two posters engaged in every single nerf discussion on the anti-nerf side? I really don't remember.

entrailbucket

@Vhailorx said:

@entrailbucket said:
It was split close to 50/50.

Was it split 50/50 in terms of people, or was it split 50/50 in terms of posts, but one or two posters engaged in every single nerf discussion on the anti-nerf side? I really don't remember.

I'm not sure I can really say... like, I'd have to go count or something and I'm not going to do that. Do the search on here and look through the results. There were even more defenders than I remembered!

Anon

Nerf every 5* until they're as bad as Wasp. And then nerf Wasp again.

entrailbucket

@Anon said:
Nerf every 5* until they're as bad as Wasp. And then nerf Wasp again.

What they should actually do is buff every single character until they're better than Thor. Raise everyone else's HP, match damage and power damage by 100% (including all PvE enemies).

Vhailorx

@entrailbucket said:

@Anon said:
Nerf every 5* until they're as bad as Wasp. And then nerf Wasp again.

What they should actually do is buff every single character until they're better than Thor. Raise everyone else's HP, match damage and power damage by 100% (including all PvE enemies).

Demi more or less did this to the true healers back in day with the great 3* health shift. It did effectively bury 3* daken and patch. Although the game moved way past a 3* endgame very shortly thereafter, so it's a little hard to separate signal from noise.

entrailbucket

@Vhailorx said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Anon said:
Nerf every 5* until they're as bad as Wasp. And then nerf Wasp again.

What they should actually do is buff every single character until they're better than Thor. Raise everyone else's HP, match damage and power damage by 100% (including all PvE enemies).

Demi more or less did this to the true healers back in day with the great 3* health shift. It did effectively bury 3* daken and patch. Although the game moved way past a 3* endgame very shortly thereafter, so it's a little hard to separate signal from noise.

And as far as I can remember, nobody cried about that "nerf." Balance changes are just shifts in the character power rankings. That's why it's so bizarre that any character nerf, or any discussion of a character nerf, or any implication of a character nerf, or the word "nerf" makes everyone go ballistic, but nobody cares about other changes that have exactly the same effect.

When they released Scarlet Witch, for example, Hulk immediately became useless in PvP. That was a nerf! But the text on Hulk's character card didn't change, so nobody cared. Why? Why isn't that the same thing?

Zalasta

A counter is not the same as a nerf. We’re basically focusing on PvP in this discussion. iHulk was only ineffective if the opponent had and used SW, which not all players did. iHulk continues to be quite effective in PvE, which he wouldn’t have been if nerfed.

entrailbucket

@Zalasta said:
A counter is not the same as a nerf. We’re basically focusing on PvP in this discussion. iHulk was only ineffective if the opponent had and used SW, which not all players did. iHulk continues to be quite effective in PvE, which he wouldn’t have been if nerfed.

So if Thor was made significantly worse, but only in PvP, nobody would complain?

I don't buy it for a second.

Bad

Ihulk had a second homecoming with chasm. He'd never had it if he was nerfed.
And about Mthor, she simply is fine.
A cascade will put you in trouble if the board is unfriendly. But a cascade can happen with her or without her, that's how this game works.
Match the charged tiles and she will be pretty useless. A dead slot.
That's the difference between her and all the characters nerfed: with her there is an already checked win ratio and players can defeat her with almost any character, not like all the nerfeds ones.

658_2

Why does a character who has Thor’s heavy damage and board shake/ap gen need to hit specials (particularly repeaters and countdowns)? If they removed that part of her blue, it’d be an extremely modest nerf that would open up a significant amount of high level gameplay and you’d still see 25 pages here of “she’s so easy to beat, so no need to touch her”

KGB

@658_2 said:
Why does a character who has Thor’s heavy damage and board shake/ap gen need to hit specials (particularly repeaters and countdowns)? If they removed that part of her blue, it’d be an extremely modest nerf that would open up a significant amount of high level gameplay and you’d still see 25 pages here of “she’s so easy to beat, so no need to touch her”

That would be a huge nerf to her PvE value since she is very handy against CD spawning goons and mindless ones etc.

We just need a support that has LockJaw's 'dog that bit you' power that does heavy damage when a special or CD is matched or destroyed. Then once supports are in PvP you can use that to tear her apart when you use a team that relies on specials.

KGB

Vhailorx

@658_2 said:
Why does a character who has Thor’s heavy damage and board shake/ap gen need to hit specials (particularly repeaters and countdowns)? If they removed that part of her blue, it’d be an extremely modest nerf that would open up a significant amount of high level gameplay and you’d still see 25 pages here of “she’s so easy to beat, so no need to touch her”

The blue is the reason she stands out. she would be good without any damage dealing powers so long as she has that blue. leave the nukes and take away the blue and she becomes havok.

And KGB has the right idea for a character to counter fosthor: a 5* who spams special tiles and then punishes the enemy every time a friendly special is destroyed (not matched).

entrailbucket

@Vhailorx said:

@658_2 said:
Why does a character who has Thor’s heavy damage and board shake/ap gen need to hit specials (particularly repeaters and countdowns)? If they removed that part of her blue, it’d be an extremely modest nerf that would open up a significant amount of high level gameplay and you’d still see 25 pages here of “she’s so easy to beat, so no need to touch her”

The blue is the reason she stands out. she would be good without any damage dealing powers so long as she has that blue. leave the nukes and take away the blue and she becomes havok.

So why do the other characters who focus on boardshake or tile removal lack massive damage?

Why doesn't Havok passively remove all enemy special tiles every turn? Should he? Should Kitty Pryde get a 6ap nuke that does 120,000 damage?

entrailbucket

@Vhailorx said:

@658_2 said:
Why does a character who has Thor’s heavy damage and board shake/ap gen need to hit specials (particularly repeaters and countdowns)? If they removed that part of her blue, it’d be an extremely modest nerf that would open up a significant amount of high level gameplay and you’d still see 25 pages here of “she’s so easy to beat, so no need to touch her”

The blue is the reason she stands out. she would be good without any damage dealing powers so long as she has that blue. leave the nukes and take away the blue and she becomes havok.

And KGB has the right idea for a character to counter fosthor: a 5* who spams special tiles and then punishes the enemy every time a friendly special is destroyed (not matched).

That counter exists. Ascended 4* Deadpool purple does a great job of punishing her. One cast should kill her. The problem (as always with counters) is that he's only good against her, and she's good against literally everyone else.

Bowgentle

@entrailbucket said:

@Vhailorx said:

@658_2 said:
Why does a character who has Thor’s heavy damage and board shake/ap gen need to hit specials (particularly repeaters and countdowns)? If they removed that part of her blue, it’d be an extremely modest nerf that would open up a significant amount of high level gameplay and you’d still see 25 pages here of “she’s so easy to beat, so no need to touch her”

The blue is the reason she stands out. she would be good without any damage dealing powers so long as she has that blue. leave the nukes and take away the blue and she becomes havok.

And KGB has the right idea for a character to counter fosthor: a 5* who spams special tiles and then punishes the enemy every time a friendly special is destroyed (not matched).

That counter exists. Ascended 4* Deadpool purple does a great job of punishing her. One cast should kill her. The problem (as always with counters) is that he's only good against her, and she's good against literally everyone else.

Medusa would like a word.
So would Bill.

Vhailorx

@Bowgentle said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Vhailorx said:

@658_2 said:
Why does a character who has Thor’s heavy damage and board shake/ap gen need to hit specials (particularly repeaters and countdowns)? If they removed that part of her blue, it’d be an extremely modest nerf that would open up a significant amount of high level gameplay and you’d still see 25 pages here of “she’s so easy to beat, so no need to touch her”

The blue is the reason she stands out. she would be good without any damage dealing powers so long as she has that blue. leave the nukes and take away the blue and she becomes havok.

And KGB has the right idea for a character to counter fosthor: a 5* who spams special tiles and then punishes the enemy every time a friendly special is destroyed (not matched).

That counter exists. Ascended 4* Deadpool purple does a great job of punishing her. One cast should kill her. The problem (as always with counters) is that he's only good against her, and she's good against literally everyone else.

Medusa would like a word.
So would Bill.

Bill is a good counter to fosthor (when paired with polaris to stun her). But Medusa only procs on special matches, right? And neither one deals direct damage, so they must survive a turn to actually be effective.

Ascended X-pool purple is closer to the mark, but it would be better as a passive to counter fosthor (or if his own passive didn't have stupidly high damage threshold when ascended).