6-Star Characters

LavaManLee

I guess nerfs needed, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. At some point, depending on how one plays the game, are there really any problem characters or teams to face? Especially in PVP. Heck, some of the teams in PVE FU node are way worse than any PVP team where I'm worried about a nerf. I can totally expect that different people feel differently so completely respect other decisions; I just don't see a huge need for nerfs in the game I play (again, totally understand others feel differently).

bluewolf

@BriMan2222 said:

@bluewolf said:
Thank you for pointing out some of the nerfs they absolutely need to push into the game to make 6s, and spending, matter.

Somehow break Kangveil.
Nerf Polaris’ stun - maybe 1 or 2 turns.

Idk about Multiple Man since he takes forever to win, and he might be killed before you get enough dupes out. Maybe they’ll nerf asc Coulson.

Mthor may be no more (ubiquitous). Maybe a limit to her ability use per turn?

MM takes forever, if you consider 2 turns forever. I guess if you're one of those pve maniacs running cosmic aunt may then allowing the enemy team to make one match is much slower.

Yeah it’s not about the number of turns, it’s about waiting for dozens of CDs to resolve.

An easy nerf to stop, or reduce the effectiveness of, a few winfinite teams would be if asc Coulson only make one CD per ally power fired like the 4 does, instead of five.

entrailbucket

@LavaManLee said:
I guess nerfs needed, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. At some point, depending on how one plays the game, are there really any problem characters or teams to face? Especially in PVP. Heck, some of the teams in PVE FU node are way worse than any PVP team where I'm worried about a nerf. I can totally expect that different people feel differently so completely respect other decisions; I just don't see a huge need for nerfs in the game I play (again, totally understand others feel differently).

It's not about the game now. It's about what happens after 6*. If all these teams can easily beat 6* characters, then why chase them?

There's also the PvE problem. They're going to give us a new CL10 that's two levels higher than the current one, and it won't actually be any more difficult because we have so many strong characters/combos.

BriMan2222

@bluewolf said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@bluewolf said:
Thank you for pointing out some of the nerfs they absolutely need to push into the game to make 6s, and spending, matter.

Somehow break Kangveil.
Nerf Polaris’ stun - maybe 1 or 2 turns.

Idk about Multiple Man since he takes forever to win, and he might be killed before you get enough dupes out. Maybe they’ll nerf asc Coulson.

Mthor may be no more (ubiquitous). Maybe a limit to her ability use per turn?

MM takes forever, if you consider 2 turns forever. I guess if you're one of those pve maniacs running cosmic aunt may then allowing the enemy team to make one match is much slower.

Yeah it’s not about the number of turns, it’s about waiting for dozens of CDs to resolve.

An easy nerf to stop, or reduce the effectiveness of, a few winfinite teams would be if asc Coulson only make one CD per ally power fired like the 4 does, instead of five.

In lightning rounds the featured 3 stars boosted to like lvl 700 have 1 million health. If the new scl 10 is gonna be against opponents like that, I'm thinking waiting for his CD to resolve will be much faster than trying to deplete 3 million health.

LavaManLee

@entrailbucket said:

@LavaManLee said:
I guess nerfs needed, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. At some point, depending on how one plays the game, are there really any problem characters or teams to face? Especially in PVP. Heck, some of the teams in PVE FU node are way worse than any PVP team where I'm worried about a nerf. I can totally expect that different people feel differently so completely respect other decisions; I just don't see a huge need for nerfs in the game I play (again, totally understand others feel differently).

It's not about the game now. It's about what happens after 6*. If all these teams can easily beat 6* characters, then why chase them?

There's also the PvE problem. They're going to give us a new CL10 that's two levels higher than the current one, and it won't actually be any more difficult because we have so many strong characters/combos.

I get what you are saying but instead of nerfing, couldn't you just figure out the max 550 for those teams and make the new CL levels accordingly? Why go through the nerf process to make it harder when you could just make the CL levels harder?

Seems like it is over complicating things that don't need to be overcomplicated.

entrailbucket

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:

@LavaManLee said:
I guess nerfs needed, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. At some point, depending on how one plays the game, are there really any problem characters or teams to face? Especially in PVP. Heck, some of the teams in PVE FU node are way worse than any PVP team where I'm worried about a nerf. I can totally expect that different people feel differently so completely respect other decisions; I just don't see a huge need for nerfs in the game I play (again, totally understand others feel differently).

It's not about the game now. It's about what happens after 6*. If all these teams can easily beat 6* characters, then why chase them?

There's also the PvE problem. They're going to give us a new CL10 that's two levels higher than the current one, and it won't actually be any more difficult because we have so many strong characters/combos.

I get what you are saying but instead of nerfing, couldn't you just figure out the max 550 for those teams and make the new CL levels accordingly? Why go through the nerf process to make it harder when you could just make the CL levels harder?

Seems like it is over complicating things that don't need to be overcomplicated.

There are actually two separate issues here that I conflated in my other post.

The PvE problem is due to instant-win characters: Kang and Multiple Man, specifically (Darkveil, Coulson, others are just accelerators for those two). They could make PvE enemies have, like, a billion health and it wouldn't matter at all because everybody would just instawin the fights with those guys.

Those two characters also contribute to a "6* won't be worth chasing" problem, along with some of the other overpowered guys. They have to make 6* really, really good, and I think it's difficult to do that when characters at other tiers are already so strong.

LavaManLee

@entrailbucket said:

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:

@LavaManLee said:
I guess nerfs needed, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. At some point, depending on how one plays the game, are there really any problem characters or teams to face? Especially in PVP. Heck, some of the teams in PVE FU node are way worse than any PVP team where I'm worried about a nerf. I can totally expect that different people feel differently so completely respect other decisions; I just don't see a huge need for nerfs in the game I play (again, totally understand others feel differently).

It's not about the game now. It's about what happens after 6*. If all these teams can easily beat 6* characters, then why chase them?

There's also the PvE problem. They're going to give us a new CL10 that's two levels higher than the current one, and it won't actually be any more difficult because we have so many strong characters/combos.

I get what you are saying but instead of nerfing, couldn't you just figure out the max 550 for those teams and make the new CL levels accordingly? Why go through the nerf process to make it harder when you could just make the CL levels harder?

Seems like it is over complicating things that don't need to be overcomplicated.

There are actually two separate issues here that I conflated in my other post.

The PvE problem is due to instant-win characters: Kang and Multiple Man, specifically (Darkveil, Coulson, others are just accelerators for those two). They could make PvE enemies have, like, a billion health and it wouldn't matter at all because everybody would just instawin the fights with those guys.

Those two characters also contribute to a "6* won't be worth chasing" problem, along with some of the other overpowered guys. They have to make 6* really, really good, and I think it's difficult to do that when characters at other tiers are already so strong.

Ahhhh. Thanks. That explains it. I don't use any of those characters you mentioned so have never experienced it. I think they must take longer to resolve than using some of the other faster PVE teams that I use. But I could be wrong.

KGB

@entrailbucket said:

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:

@LavaManLee said:
I guess nerfs needed, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. At some point, depending on how one plays the game, are there really any problem characters or teams to face? Especially in PVP. Heck, some of the teams in PVE FU node are way worse than any PVP team where I'm worried about a nerf. I can totally expect that different people feel differently so completely respect other decisions; I just don't see a huge need for nerfs in the game I play (again, totally understand others feel differently).

It's not about the game now. It's about what happens after 6*. If all these teams can easily beat 6* characters, then why chase them?

There's also the PvE problem. They're going to give us a new CL10 that's two levels higher than the current one, and it won't actually be any more difficult because we have so many strong characters/combos.

I get what you are saying but instead of nerfing, couldn't you just figure out the max 550 for those teams and make the new CL levels accordingly? Why go through the nerf process to make it harder when you could just make the CL levels harder?

Seems like it is over complicating things that don't need to be overcomplicated.

There are actually two separate issues here that I conflated in my other post.

The PvE problem is due to instant-win characters: Kang and Multiple Man, specifically (Darkveil, Coulson, others are just accelerators for those two). They could make PvE enemies have, like, a billion health and it wouldn't matter at all because everybody would just instawin the fights with those guys.

Those two characters also contribute to a "6* won't be worth chasing" problem, along with some of the other overpowered guys. They have to make 6* really, really good, and I think it's difficult to do that when characters at other tiers are already so strong.

Unless it requires specific things to happen in order kill such characters. Like maybe they can only be downed via single damage hit that exceeds 20K type thing. Or can only be damaged by certain character affiliations etc.

We've seen examples of this in the monthly puzzle Ops so maybe this will directly be a passive on 6 star characters.

KGB

BlixTheFrog

Hey maybe 6 stars will replace stones as rewards in superior SCL tiers. Imagine that. 😱

HuracanDolor

6 star characters would spell the end of my mpq days…… supports in pvp has already pushed me to limited play. That would be completely unenjoyable.

entrailbucket

@BlixTheFrog said:
Hey maybe 6 stars will replace stones as rewards in superior SCL tiers. Imagine that. 😱

This would be AWESOME. Improving PvP placement rewards will give players incentive to fight for placement again, and will likely lead to some of the big "friendly" groups crashing and burning.

I remember a monthslong multi-alliance war fought over someone taking a 4* PX cover, given for first place in a PvP event. We need this kind of gameplay back!

LavaManLee

@entrailbucket said:

@BlixTheFrog said:
Hey maybe 6 stars will replace stones as rewards in superior SCL tiers. Imagine that. 😱

This would be AWESOME. Improving PvP placement rewards will give players incentive to fight for placement again, and will likely lead to some of the big "friendly" groups crashing and burning.

I remember a monthslong multi-alliance war fought over someone taking a 4* PX cover, given for first place in a PvP event. We need this kind of gameplay back!

Definitely all for that. PVP has been boring the past several months if not years.

Waddles_Pines

Since a lot of us will have to go down in scl now, why not make the new 6* locked to the new scl10? That way the strong players/whales get their shiny new toy, and it doesn't really affect the rest of us.

bluewolf

It's going to be very interesting to see how they balance out the need to make the shiny new tier powerful enough to need and yet somehow not make your time focused on lower tiers, ascending them etc, feel like wasted time.

6s may force a re-evaluation of ascension approach depending on what resources can be used, whether they obliterate lower tiers etc.

(Not to mention the upcoming rebalances).

GrimSkald

@bluewolf said:
It's going to be very interesting to see how they balance out the need to make the shiny new tier powerful enough to need and yet somehow not make your time focused on lower tiers, ascending them etc, feel like wasted time.

6s may force a re-evaluation of ascension approach depending on what resources can be used, whether they obliterate lower tiers etc.

(Not to mention the upcoming rebalances).

This is going to be key. If the 6★s are far and away better than anything, then there's really no point in working up the rest of your Roster -- it will take too long to get anything other than 1★s there, so the top end will be dominated by native 6★s and 1|6★s (as noted above, when they allow ascension, which will almost certainly not be day 1.) At that point the top end can use cover swaps to bring up the top end 5★s there (many of us have dupe MThors, for example,) but it will still be pretty rare.

I can't help but think that a fully covered 6★ won't be better than a 550 5★ (even not boosted, but we'll see, it could be closer to a 672.) Otherwise it badly exacerbates the "only a few characters are usable" problem.

Read_Only

The game doesn't survive doubling the clear times. You cannot roll that back, it's their problem for not jumping on the speed and turn 1 meta as soon as it started.

I'm all for nerfing those characters but it's a tightrope to walk after people spent money to speed up a character using their ascension model.

Same with pvp, I used to play to 800-900 but after playing these seed teams for 2 seasons to 50 wins when it changes I cannot see me doing more than 12 wins going forward. It's just enjoyable enough to care.

Borstock

Surely, there are other games that have something comparable to what 6* characters will be for this game. Everyone rips off everyone else. Games are re-packaged, but stay essentially the same thing. Do we know how other games have handled it? Is there a 6* success story out there?

toecutter3095

The post mentions that the arrival of 6s will change how you acquire and build characters, which could be innocuous hyperbole for something as simple as a new token/currency or maybe you unlock them and build them Voltron-style by having characters from lower tiers ascended and/or levelled to certain milestones. If it was the latter, this could jump-start spending across the board and make more characters valuable, thus breaking the narrow tip-of-the-spear style approach where you only need to invest in a select few characters to top the leaderboards. It would also keep all the lower tiers relevant and quell any outrage at "wasted" effort and resources.

entrailbucket

@GrimSkald said:

@bluewolf said:
It's going to be very interesting to see how they balance out the need to make the shiny new tier powerful enough to need and yet somehow not make your time focused on lower tiers, ascending them etc, feel like wasted time.

6s may force a re-evaluation of ascension approach depending on what resources can be used, whether they obliterate lower tiers etc.

(Not to mention the upcoming rebalances).

This is going to be key. If the 6★s are far and away better than anything, then there's really no point in working up the rest of your Roster -- it will take too long to get anything other than 1★s there, so the top end will be dominated by native 6★s and 1|6★s (as noted above, when they allow ascension, which will almost certainly not be day 1.) At that point the top end can use cover swaps to bring up the top end 5★s there (many of us have dupe MThors, for example,) but it will still be pretty rare.

I can't help but think that a fully covered 6★ won't be better than a 550 5★ (even not boosted, but we'll see, it could be closer to a 672.) Otherwise it badly exacerbates the "only a few characters are usable" problem.

We can really only compare to the 5* rollout. They were extremely difficult to get at launch, so they were kind of irrelevant except for the most insane whales. They were beatable with top tier 4* but required a lot of effort, strategy, or luck.

We did catch up eventually but by that time there was more of a tier. Of course, only a few of them were usable, so it didn't really matter that there were more 5*. Hopefully they avoid that problem this time.

BriMan2222

@Borstock said:
Surely, there are other games that have something comparable to what 6* characters will be for this game. Everyone rips off everyone else. Games are re-packaged, but stay essentially the same thing. Do we know how other games have handled it? Is there a 6* success story out there?

Marvel contest of champions started about the same time as MPQ, and has a very similar character system (although much different game play) with star ranked characters and the ability to ascend characters from 1 star tier to another.

COC used to only have 1 to 4 stars, then introduced 5 stars, then 6 stars, and now are up to 7 stars. In COC though characters are not native to any star tier, any character can start at any star tier and the only difference is that numbers get much bigger as you rank up in stars.

I don't play COC nearly as much as mpq, but it's still going so I assume they must be doing well enough.