Nerf.... some people (split from Cover Swap thread)

DAZ0273

Let's also not forget that when they created that turn 0 win character they already knew that the Supports existed to make it possible. So they didn't do that in a vacuum - either they did it on purpose or they didn't see the consequences which I find hard to believe. So again these very avoidable problems arise through choice as much as accident.

DAZ0273

Also - apologies to @Hammer3001 as his thread seems to have turned into a Nerf debate thread of which I am definitely guilty. Sorry matey.

Scofie

@Daredevil217 said:
We will see if they actually nerf all of the top characters in the game that they oversold, people explicitly chased, that improved players’ clear times and quality of life. If so, I’m sure that will go over really well.

Also, I appreciate posting the actual quote but I think it’s important to add the very next two Ice posted for context:

"The sky is falling!" "Oh, it was just a test. Never mind."

“Never ever ever take data mined content as real”.

(Those feel kind of important lol).

Anyway, @Scofie would it be possible to take this discussion to any of the other nerf-X threads or start a new one? As per usual a troll post that has nothing to do with the topic derails the thread. I’m hoping devs are wanting to collect actual feedback on the new cover exchange system and splitting this topic could be helpful for them.

Your wish is my command @Daredevil217 ! Sorry it took so long. Busy day at work...

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: 2025: We Know What’s Coming.

Scofie

@DAZ0273 said:
Also - apologies to @Hammer3001 as his thread seems to have turned into a Nerf debate thread of which I am definitely guilty. Sorry matey.

I have split this one out too! Please can someone point me to a 3rd thread derailed by nerf- chat? I need a hat-trick.

concillado

Polaris is a fun glass canon, why nerf her if she is not (dominance)meta in PVP????

concillado

A lot of unlucky dev decissions lately imo.

LavaManLee

I know a good nerf that wouldn't even involve anything difficult. Remove supports from PVP. There. Solved. Now MT/SC combo isn't nearly as hard to defeat. :-)

entrailbucket

@DAZ0273 said:
Let's also not forget that when they created that turn 0 win character they already knew that the Supports existed to make it possible. So they didn't do that in a vacuum - either they did it on purpose or they didn't see the consequences which I find hard to believe. So again these very avoidable problems arise through choice as much as accident.

I choose to believe it was an accident.

That's, admittedly...not great. It means they don't really understand their own game well enough to see that she creates a guaranteed turn 0 win.

But the alternative is way worse. If they purposely created a chase character that did this, knowing they'd eventually have to fix it...well, I don't want to play a game that's made by people who would do that.

We're never going to get the real answer anyway, because both answers make them look pretty bad. So I choose to believe the one that lets me keep playing and supporting them.

entrailbucket

@concillado said:
Polaris is a fun glass canon, why nerf her if she is not (dominance)meta in PVP????

4* Polaris is a glass cannon with like 15,000 HP.

5* Polaris has like 120,000 HP and can pretty trivially do 100,000+ passive damage per turn when paired with m'Thor.

concillado

I still dont see much 5* Polaris in pvp meta very often during 5* gameplay.

entrailbucket

@concillado said:
I still dont see much 5* Polaris in pvp meta very often during 5* gameplay.

I see her occasionally, and a few times I've gotten trapped in fights where those two randomly cascade away 400,000+ health and you have to watch for like 10 minutes while you slowly lose.

I think it just speaks to the issues ascension introduced. If they're ok with 4* Polaris but not ok with 5* Polaris, I guess they can just change the 5*, but it's sort of weird.

DAZ0273

@Scofie said:

@DAZ0273 said:
Also - apologies to @Hammer3001 as his thread seems to have turned into a Nerf debate thread of which I am definitely guilty. Sorry matey.

I have split this one out too! Please can someone point me to a 3rd thread derailed by nerf- chat? I need a hat-trick.

If need be I can create one and then encourage derailment which to be fair I am sort of a bit good at...

DAZ0273

@concillado said:
Polaris is a fun glass canon, why nerf her if she is not (dominance)meta in PVP????

If she wasn't in sooooo many SHIELD SIM teams I might agree but nah.

DAZ0273

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:
Let's also not forget that when they created that turn 0 win character they already knew that the Supports existed to make it possible. So they didn't do that in a vacuum - either they did it on purpose or they didn't see the consequences which I find hard to believe. So again these very avoidable problems arise through choice as much as accident.

I choose to believe it was an accident.

That's, admittedly...not great. It means they don't really understand their own game well enough to see that she creates a guaranteed turn 0 win.

But the alternative is way worse. If they purposely created a chase character that did this, knowing they'd eventually have to fix it...well, I don't want to play a game that's made by people who would do that.

We're never going to get the real answer anyway, because both answers make them look pretty bad. So I choose to believe the one that lets me keep playing and supporting them.

I don't know which one is worst but both are bad.

entrailbucket

@DAZ0273 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:
Let's also not forget that when they created that turn 0 win character they already knew that the Supports existed to make it possible. So they didn't do that in a vacuum - either they did it on purpose or they didn't see the consequences which I find hard to believe. So again these very avoidable problems arise through choice as much as accident.

I choose to believe it was an accident.

That's, admittedly...not great. It means they don't really understand their own game well enough to see that she creates a guaranteed turn 0 win.

But the alternative is way worse. If they purposely created a chase character that did this, knowing they'd eventually have to fix it...well, I don't want to play a game that's made by people who would do that.

We're never going to get the real answer anyway, because both answers make them look pretty bad. So I choose to believe the one that lets me keep playing and supporting them.

I don't know which one is worst but both are bad.

Eh. Designing this stuff is hard. If we want them to occasionally push the power level (and we do, because the alternative is Demiurge's awful run of post-Gambit characters) then they're going to make mistakes sometimes.

I can accept that they'll occasionally go to far when they do this, by accident, and then need to rein something in after the fact.

But I can't support a company that deliberately runs pump-and-dump schemes on their players, and you shouldn't either. If they purposely make pushed characters to generate sales, knowing they plan to nerf them down the line, then they're evil and I will quit and find a game that's made by people who aren't evil.

Again, we're never going to know the real answer anyway, so I'll choose to believe the answer that lets me keep playing.

DAZ0273

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:
Let's also not forget that when they created that turn 0 win character they already knew that the Supports existed to make it possible. So they didn't do that in a vacuum - either they did it on purpose or they didn't see the consequences which I find hard to believe. So again these very avoidable problems arise through choice as much as accident.

I choose to believe it was an accident.

That's, admittedly...not great. It means they don't really understand their own game well enough to see that she creates a guaranteed turn 0 win.

But the alternative is way worse. If they purposely created a chase character that did this, knowing they'd eventually have to fix it...well, I don't want to play a game that's made by people who would do that.

We're never going to get the real answer anyway, because both answers make them look pretty bad. So I choose to believe the one that lets me keep playing and supporting them.

I don't know which one is worst but both are bad.

Eh. Designing this stuff is hard. If we want them to occasionally push the power level (and we do, because the alternative is Demiurge's awful run of post-Gambit characters) then they're going to make mistakes sometimes.

I can accept that they'll occasionally go to far when they do this, by accident, and then need to rein something in after the fact.

But I can't support a company that deliberately runs pump-and-dump schemes on their players, and you shouldn't either. If they purposely make pushed characters to generate sales, knowing they plan to nerf them down the line, then they're evil and I will quit and find a game that's made by people who aren't evil.

Again, we're never going to know the real answer anyway, so I'll choose to believe the answer that lets me keep playing.

Designing stuff is super hard. But we aren't talking about unknown quantities here in terms of Supports that give free AP. If you give the rocket launcher to the 5 year old who is gonna definitely fire the rocket launcher then you can't scratch your head when the shed explodes.

TheXMan

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:
Let's also not forget that when they created that turn 0 win character they already knew that the Supports existed to make it possible. So they didn't do that in a vacuum - either they did it on purpose or they didn't see the consequences which I find hard to believe. So again these very avoidable problems arise through choice as much as accident.

I choose to believe it was an accident.

That's, admittedly...not great. It means they don't really understand their own game well enough to see that she creates a guaranteed turn 0 win.

But the alternative is way worse. If they purposely created a chase character that did this, knowing they'd eventually have to fix it...well, I don't want to play a game that's made by people who would do that.

We're never going to get the real answer anyway, because both answers make them look pretty bad. So I choose to believe the one that lets me keep playing and supporting them.

I don't know which one is worst but both are bad.

Eh. Designing this stuff is hard. If we want them to occasionally push the power level (and we do, because the alternative is Demiurge's awful run of post-Gambit characters) then they're going to make mistakes sometimes.

I can accept that they'll occasionally go to far when they do this, by accident, and then need to rein something in after the fact.

But I can't support a company that deliberately runs pump-and-dump schemes on their players, and you shouldn't either. If they purposely make pushed characters to generate sales, knowing they plan to nerf them down the line, then they're evil and I will quit and find a game that's made by people who aren't evil.

Again, we're never going to know the real answer anyway, so I'll choose to believe the answer that lets me keep playing.

Didn't you repeatedly say the only point of this game is for them to make money? Wouldn't pump-and-dump be a valid strategy?

entrailbucket

@TheXMan said:

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:
Let's also not forget that when they created that turn 0 win character they already knew that the Supports existed to make it possible. So they didn't do that in a vacuum - either they did it on purpose or they didn't see the consequences which I find hard to believe. So again these very avoidable problems arise through choice as much as accident.

I choose to believe it was an accident.

That's, admittedly...not great. It means they don't really understand their own game well enough to see that she creates a guaranteed turn 0 win.

But the alternative is way worse. If they purposely created a chase character that did this, knowing they'd eventually have to fix it...well, I don't want to play a game that's made by people who would do that.

We're never going to get the real answer anyway, because both answers make them look pretty bad. So I choose to believe the one that lets me keep playing and supporting them.

I don't know which one is worst but both are bad.

Eh. Designing this stuff is hard. If we want them to occasionally push the power level (and we do, because the alternative is Demiurge's awful run of post-Gambit characters) then they're going to make mistakes sometimes.

I can accept that they'll occasionally go to far when they do this, by accident, and then need to rein something in after the fact.

But I can't support a company that deliberately runs pump-and-dump schemes on their players, and you shouldn't either. If they purposely make pushed characters to generate sales, knowing they plan to nerf them down the line, then they're evil and I will quit and find a game that's made by people who aren't evil.

Again, we're never going to know the real answer anyway, so I'll choose to believe the answer that lets me keep playing.

Didn't you repeatedly say the only point of this game is for them to make money? Wouldn't pump-and-dump be a valid strategy?

Of course not. If I run a store, the only point of that store is to make money. Everything I do is in service of that goal. There's nothing evil about that, I'm running a business.

A scheme like what's being described here would be selling merchandise that I knew was defective. There's no way I'd shop at a store if I knew they were doing that.

DAZ0273

@entrailbucket said:

@TheXMan said:

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:
Let's also not forget that when they created that turn 0 win character they already knew that the Supports existed to make it possible. So they didn't do that in a vacuum - either they did it on purpose or they didn't see the consequences which I find hard to believe. So again these very avoidable problems arise through choice as much as accident.

I choose to believe it was an accident.

That's, admittedly...not great. It means they don't really understand their own game well enough to see that she creates a guaranteed turn 0 win.

But the alternative is way worse. If they purposely created a chase character that did this, knowing they'd eventually have to fix it...well, I don't want to play a game that's made by people who would do that.

We're never going to get the real answer anyway, because both answers make them look pretty bad. So I choose to believe the one that lets me keep playing and supporting them.

I don't know which one is worst but both are bad.

Eh. Designing this stuff is hard. If we want them to occasionally push the power level (and we do, because the alternative is Demiurge's awful run of post-Gambit characters) then they're going to make mistakes sometimes.

I can accept that they'll occasionally go to far when they do this, by accident, and then need to rein something in after the fact.

But I can't support a company that deliberately runs pump-and-dump schemes on their players, and you shouldn't either. If they purposely make pushed characters to generate sales, knowing they plan to nerf them down the line, then they're evil and I will quit and find a game that's made by people who aren't evil.

Again, we're never going to know the real answer anyway, so I'll choose to believe the answer that lets me keep playing.

Didn't you repeatedly say the only point of this game is for them to make money? Wouldn't pump-and-dump be a valid strategy?

Of course not. If I run a store, the only point of that store is to make money. Everything I do is in service of that goal. There's nothing evil about that, I'm running a business.

A scheme like what's being described here would be selling merchandise that I knew was defective. There's no way I'd shop at a store if I knew they were doing that.

Not sure this is true. The equipment works fine to begin with but doesn't have an unending guarantee. That sounds like most things in life?