These characters need to be nerfed

bluewolf

@entrailbucket said:

@bluewolf said:

@LavaManLee said:
Ahhh. Thanks. I definitely don't see him played by everybody but I did see him on a few teams. Seen a lot of Tanaka Nova and 5* Deadpool also. And Juggs/Sam still on about every other team I meet. Fairly easy to beat so that's fine with me.

It probably reaaalllyy depends on your MMR. And slice.

I did see a good number of Hawkeyes this week because he's boosted, and I used him in the first PVP with the actual week's boost list.

The prior week...well, they stopped publishing the boost list lately, so I can't remember exactly who they were but I was getting extremely frustrated trying to use them. Like I said, 4-5 jugg and 4-5 rocket got the job done. I did toss my 550 1-5 Venom onto some teams but he's not exactly great in pick-2.

IDK why we keep having this argument, lol. They can't balance the game, not for a long time, if ever.

The worst time to nerf a bunch of characters - being used especially by more casual folks - would be "game is unreliable both in not-crashing and in events being put up as I am used to".

They just nerfed both m'Thor and Polaris, like, a few months ago, and nothing happened. The game didn't die.

Fair enough, but the game’s average review on Google Play fell to 3.9 averaged over 323k reviews (phone version, by far the most common review).

I check them out fairly often as a way to see what average (maybe not on socials etc) players think and a lot of low ratings resulted from the Polaris and Thor nerfs.

Nerf more popular characters, I’d expect the same result.

Just seems like a bad idea to me.

DAZ0273

@bluewolf said:

@entrailbucket said:

@bluewolf said:

@LavaManLee said:
Ahhh. Thanks. I definitely don't see him played by everybody but I did see him on a few teams. Seen a lot of Tanaka Nova and 5* Deadpool also. And Juggs/Sam still on about every other team I meet. Fairly easy to beat so that's fine with me.

It probably reaaalllyy depends on your MMR. And slice.

I did see a good number of Hawkeyes this week because he's boosted, and I used him in the first PVP with the actual week's boost list.

The prior week...well, they stopped publishing the boost list lately, so I can't remember exactly who they were but I was getting extremely frustrated trying to use them. Like I said, 4-5 jugg and 4-5 rocket got the job done. I did toss my 550 1-5 Venom onto some teams but he's not exactly great in pick-2.

IDK why we keep having this argument, lol. They can't balance the game, not for a long time, if ever.

The worst time to nerf a bunch of characters - being used especially by more casual folks - would be "game is unreliable both in not-crashing and in events being put up as I am used to".

They just nerfed both m'Thor and Polaris, like, a few months ago, and nothing happened. The game didn't die.

Fair enough, but the game’s average review on Google Play fell to 3.9 averaged over 323k reviews (phone version, by far the most common review).

I check them out fairly often as a way to see what average (maybe not on socials etc) players think and a lot of low ratings resulted from the Polaris and Thor nerfs.

Nerf more popular characters, I’d expect the same result.

Just seems like a bad idea to me.

Knee jerk situation probably. The internet loves a good old instant reaction without time to think it through. It also rarely bothers to correct itself when things aren't so bad.

entrailbucket

@bluewolf said:

@entrailbucket said:

@bluewolf said:

@LavaManLee said:
Ahhh. Thanks. I definitely don't see him played by everybody but I did see him on a few teams. Seen a lot of Tanaka Nova and 5* Deadpool also. And Juggs/Sam still on about every other team I meet. Fairly easy to beat so that's fine with me.

It probably reaaalllyy depends on your MMR. And slice.

I did see a good number of Hawkeyes this week because he's boosted, and I used him in the first PVP with the actual week's boost list.

The prior week...well, they stopped publishing the boost list lately, so I can't remember exactly who they were but I was getting extremely frustrated trying to use them. Like I said, 4-5 jugg and 4-5 rocket got the job done. I did toss my 550 1-5 Venom onto some teams but he's not exactly great in pick-2.

IDK why we keep having this argument, lol. They can't balance the game, not for a long time, if ever.

The worst time to nerf a bunch of characters - being used especially by more casual folks - would be "game is unreliable both in not-crashing and in events being put up as I am used to".

They just nerfed both m'Thor and Polaris, like, a few months ago, and nothing happened. The game didn't die.

Fair enough, but the game’s average review on Google Play fell to 3.9 averaged over 323k reviews (phone version, by far the most common review).

I check them out fairly often as a way to see what average (maybe not on socials etc) players think and a lot of low ratings resulted from the Polaris and Thor nerfs.

Nerf more popular characters, I’d expect the same result.

Just seems like a bad idea to me.

Fell to 3.9 from what score? Over what period of time? How many reviews specifically mentioned those characters?

entrailbucket

Just out of curiosity, how many here have MPQ rated a 1 in your app store?

Years ago I took a poll in one of the big Line rooms and I think like 90% of everybody had it rated 1, and always answered 1 on the "would you recommend MPQ?" poll question. My rating has been 5* since the first month or so when I rated it.

MegaBee

@entrailbucket said:
Just out of curiosity, how many here have MPQ rated a 1 in your app store?

Years ago I took a poll in one of the big Line rooms and I think like 90% of everybody had it rated 1, and always answered 1 on the "would you recommend MPQ?" poll question. My rating has been 5* since the first month or so when I rated it.

Still rated 5.

Grantosium

I can't see it if I go to Google Play now, but I'm sure the last time I visited the page there was an AI review that prominently said "users express frustration at constant nerfs". What that says to prospective players I don't know, although we obviously do know that nerfs are far from constant.

Also the average review has now dropped to 3.8

MegaBee

@Grantosium said:
I can't see it if I go to Google Play now, but I'm sure the last time I visited the page there was an AI review that prominently said "users express frustration at constant nerfs". What that says to prospective players I don't know, although we obviously do know that nerfs are far from constant.

Also the average review has now dropped to 3.8

"The progression system is engaging, though some character nerfs impede advancement" is a sentence in the Google AI summary.

entrailbucket

@Grantosium said:
I can't see it if I go to Google Play now, but I'm sure the last time I visited the page there was an AI review that prominently said "users express frustration at constant nerfs". What that says to prospective players I don't know, although we obviously do know that nerfs are far from constant.

Also the average review has now dropped to 3.8

This just feels like grasping at straws.

They can do balance stuff without killing the game, because they just did balance stuff without killing the game.

Blackstone

1*Hawkeye, in his current state, is the puzzle piece that balances the game as much as it can be balanced.

That's just my opinion, of course, but I'll explain why I believe it to be absolutely true.

There are several options for zero turn wins. The moment one existed balance between different characters was destroyed. The fact that there are several options to win without ever taking a full turn means that any character that can't fit into such a team is next to useless when it comes to competing with those teams.

And many of these teams can also be a pain on defense making them that much stronger.

They buffed multiple characters to do hundreds of thousands of damage with a cheap power... And it didn't matter because more damage can be done passively with matches.

I'm not going to list them all here but @WhiteBomber has a great write up on PVP meta that explains things in detail if you're curious or don't believe me.

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/91879/pvp-meta-counter/p1

May makes some of those possible, but not all, while presenting a target on defense to down first on retaliation. She makes others stronger while remaining vulnerable. Remove her and the zero turn teams that don't need her just get stronger.

Back to OG Clint (1* Hawkeye)

......... He's very slow.

Can you win on turn zero by repeatedly firing his powers... If the supports activate? Yes.

So what? It takes forever and it's useless on defense.

Want him to hit harder? You need to use the same teammates that would empower others that would win faster and with much less effort.

Hawkeye isn't doing winfinite better than others that do winfinite. He's just allowing access to a winfinite that those without a full roster wouldn't have.

And that's where he balances the game. Not between characters, but between players.

The average player now has a tool they can use chase progression rewards and event quests.

That levels the field in a meaningful way without breaking anything.

If you're seeing Hawkeye in your PVP.. Just attack him. Get those points.

If you're concerned you're seeing him a lot... Use a faster option to beat the player relying on Hawkeye in placement.

If you're worried about HE being OP... Refer to the link to the meta thread above. He's not too tier... He's just a guy with no powers finding a way to compete against gods. And that's the most comic accurate Hawkeye there is.

entrailbucket

@Blackstone I agree with some of what you said here, and I think we agree in general about turn0 wins (you didn't say it, but I don't think they should exist and I think you think that too).

The problem is that not all turn0 wins are equal. We've actually had them in PvP since 5* match damage became a thing -- seed teams! You can also climb till you only see 5-pointers, and get very low level player teams. So "punching down" turn0 wins have been a thing for a long time, and I think those are ok. When I'm punching down by hundreds of levels, those fights should be really fast and easy.

Supports (post-leapfrog) have enabled tons of teams that can reliably turn0 your peers, and I think those are more problematic, but I guess PvP has been getting faster anyway and maybe we'd have gotten there anyway. I don't like this, but I guess I can understand a case for it.

Hawkeye and May are something new though, because they enable "punching up" turn0 wins, and I just think that's something different entirely. Should a lower level player be able to beat any team of any level (except Galactus I guess!) without ever giving them a turn? I guess I don't understand the case for that one. Why is that good?

Read_Only

No one really cares, it's a cover collection game with a tiny bit of match 3 thrown in. What difference is pvp being turn 0 or pve. PVE is still an absolute cake walk and yet we all do that day after day after day.

Yes some days I play a character like peggy and reminisce about better times when you had to collect AP to fire powers and build synergy but we are so beyond that now with passives and auto AP collection that it's pointless giving it more than a seconds thought.

If it bothers you find another game because the overhaul to give us an AP collection game would take MPQ 2 or releases so wildly over powered with AP collection.

Grantosium

@entrailbucket said:

@Grantosium said:
I can't see it if I go to Google Play now, but I'm sure the last time I visited the page there was an AI review that prominently said "users express frustration at constant nerfs". What that says to prospective players I don't know, although we obviously do know that nerfs are far from constant.

Also the average review has now dropped to 3.8

This just feels like grasping at straws.

They can do balance stuff without killing the game, because they just did balance stuff without killing the game.

Hey, I'm just reporting something I saw for balance and intrigue. To be clutching at straws I'd have to be on the side of the argument that wants to prevent nerfs. Unless you're accusing the AI summary of clutching at straws? I could be wrong but I don't think AI has an agenda yet... At least not one that cares about balance in MPQ.

I do think turn 1 wins need to be axed from the game. That has to start with turn 1 defensive wins though. I don't think it's impossible to do. Turning off supports might do it, and nerfing Iron May would certainly be a start.

Once we eliminate turn 1 defensive wins then we can crack down on turn 1 offensive wins.

Blackstone

@entrailbucket said:
@Blackstone I agree with some of what you said here, and I think we agree in general about turn0 wins (you didn't say it, but I don't think they should exist and I think you think that too).

The problem is that not all turn0 wins are equal. We've actually had them in PvP since 5* match damage became a thing -- seed teams! You can also climb till you only see 5-pointers, and get very low level player teams. So "punching down" turn0 wins have been a thing for a long time, and I think those are ok. When I'm punching down by hundreds of levels, those fights should be really fast and easy.

Supports (post-leapfrog) have enabled tons of teams that can reliably turn0 your peers, and I think those are more problematic, but I guess PvP has been getting faster anyway and maybe we'd have gotten there anyway. I don't like this, but I guess I can understand a case for it.

Hawkeye and May are something new though, because they enable "punching up" turn0 wins, and I just think that's something different entirely. Should a lower level player be able to beat any team of any level (except Galactus I guess!) without ever giving them a turn? I guess I don't understand the case for that one. Why is that good?

I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it's how it is.

I don't think any match should ever end without each side being able to move.

I understand the argument for preventing lower level players from doing this to high level players who have invested more time into their roster...

I just think the argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny because those high level players can retaliate quickly and earn points more quickly that anyone relying on HE can't compete with.

If turn zero wins are going to remain in the game, and the game is expected to grow with new players, there must be a turn zero option for those new players.

That option being slower and less reliable on defense meets that need while not truly competing with the rest of the zero turn meta.

LennoxHC

@Blackstone said:

If you're worried about HE being OP... Refer to the link to the meta thread above. He's not too tier... He's just a guy with no powers finding a way to compete against gods. And that's the most comic accurate Hawkeye there is.

I doubt that whoever designed this Hawkeye rebalance gave it this much thought, but flavor wise, I just found this sentiment wonderful.

Hawkeye has always been one of my favorite Avengers in the comics. In the 80s, they ret-conned his origin to play up his background as a carnie, and then the Matt Fraction run played up his grounded roots, and I just find the idea that a guy who shoots arrows can take out Galactus is freakin' hilarious.

entrailbucket

@Blackstone said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Blackstone I agree with some of what you said here, and I think we agree in general about turn0 wins (you didn't say it, but I don't think they should exist and I think you think that too).

The problem is that not all turn0 wins are equal. We've actually had them in PvP since 5* match damage became a thing -- seed teams! You can also climb till you only see 5-pointers, and get very low level player teams. So "punching down" turn0 wins have been a thing for a long time, and I think those are ok. When I'm punching down by hundreds of levels, those fights should be really fast and easy.

Supports (post-leapfrog) have enabled tons of teams that can reliably turn0 your peers, and I think those are more problematic, but I guess PvP has been getting faster anyway and maybe we'd have gotten there anyway. I don't like this, but I guess I can understand a case for it.

Hawkeye and May are something new though, because they enable "punching up" turn0 wins, and I just think that's something different entirely. Should a lower level player be able to beat any team of any level (except Galactus I guess!) without ever giving them a turn? I guess I don't understand the case for that one. Why is that good?

I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it's how it is.

I don't think any match should ever end without each side being able to move.

I understand the argument for preventing lower level players from doing this to high level players who have invested more time into their roster...

I just think the argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny because those high level players can retaliate quickly and earn points more quickly that anyone relying on HE can't compete with.

If turn zero wins are going to remain in the game, and the game is expected to grow with new players, there must be a turn zero option for those new players.

That option being slower and less reliable on defense meets that need while not truly competing with the rest of the zero turn meta.

Well, I'd point out that "less reliable on defense" is pretty meaningless when 672s lose to 4* 100% of the time.

I also don't understand the argument that brand new players need access to turn0 wins against any team of any level. It's a roster-building game, right? Why should you have an endgame roster that fast?

But the biggest problem here is that the Hawkeye teams aren't slow. We've always had slow infinite teams that take like an hour to win a fight. Those are fine because they're not practical. Hawkeye is WAY faster than that stuff.

entrailbucket

@Read_Only said:
No one really cares, it's a cover collection game with a tiny bit of match 3 thrown in. What difference is pvp being turn 0 or pve. PVE is still an absolute cake walk and yet we all do that day after day after day.

Yes some days I play a character like peggy and reminisce about better times when you had to collect AP to fire powers and build synergy but we are so beyond that now with passives and auto AP collection that it's pointless giving it more than a seconds thought.

If it bothers you find another game because the overhaul to give us an AP collection game would take MPQ 2 or releases so wildly over powered with AP collection.

I think "no one really cares" is inaccurate given that somebody spent the time to write this post.

Also I think Hawkeye is pretty clearly an outlier, even among all the other overpowered characters.

Blackstone

@entrailbucket said:

@Blackstone said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Blackstone I agree with some of what you said here, and I think we agree in general about turn0 wins (you didn't say it, but I don't think they should exist and I think you think that too).

The problem is that not all turn0 wins are equal. We've actually had them in PvP since 5* match damage became a thing -- seed teams! You can also climb till you only see 5-pointers, and get very low level player teams. So "punching down" turn0 wins have been a thing for a long time, and I think those are ok. When I'm punching down by hundreds of levels, those fights should be really fast and easy.

Supports (post-leapfrog) have enabled tons of teams that can reliably turn0 your peers, and I think those are more problematic, but I guess PvP has been getting faster anyway and maybe we'd have gotten there anyway. I don't like this, but I guess I can understand a case for it.

Hawkeye and May are something new though, because they enable "punching up" turn0 wins, and I just think that's something different entirely. Should a lower level player be able to beat any team of any level (except Galactus I guess!) without ever giving them a turn? I guess I don't understand the case for that one. Why is that good?

I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it's how it is.

I don't think any match should ever end without each side being able to move.

I understand the argument for preventing lower level players from doing this to high level players who have invested more time into their roster...

I just think the argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny because those high level players can retaliate quickly and earn points more quickly that anyone relying on HE can't compete with.

If turn zero wins are going to remain in the game, and the game is expected to grow with new players, there must be a turn zero option for those new players.

That option being slower and less reliable on defense meets that need while not truly competing with the rest of the zero turn meta.

Well, I'd point out that "less reliable on defense" is pretty meaningless when 672s lose to 4* 100% of the time.

I also don't understand the argument that brand new players need access to turn0 wins against any team of any level. It's a roster-building game, right? Why should you have an endgame roster that fast?

But the biggest problem here is that the Hawkeye teams aren't slow. We've always had slow infinite teams that take like an hour to win a fight. Those are fine because they're not practical. Hawkeye is WAY faster than that stuff.

HE is faster than some but way slower than others. So I guess his speed depends on who he's being compared to.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't know that it matters.

I don't think turn zero wins should exists. I also think that if they do exists, everyone should have access in one form or another.

I don't rely on HE for PVP wins because I have faster options and I target three HE teams when I see them. Maybe that changes my perspective.

Where I get value from HE is from looking the character so I enjoy seeing him be effective, and he's a huge help I'm completing certain quests.

I just don't see the point in nerfing him when their are more effective options.

Blackstone

@LennoxHC said:

@Blackstone said:

If you're worried about HE being OP... Refer to the link to the meta thread above. He's not too tier... He's just a guy with no powers finding a way to compete against gods. And that's the most comic accurate Hawkeye there is.

I doubt that whoever designed this Hawkeye rebalance gave it this much thought, but flavor wise, I just found this sentiment wonderful.

Hawkeye has always been one of my favorite Avengers in the comics. In the 80s, they ret-conned his origin to play up his background as a carnie, and then the Matt Fraction run played up his grounded roots, and I just find the idea that a guy who shoots arrows can take out Galactus is freakin' hilarious.

Same. I grew up with Clint. I'm certain his kits effectiveness of an accident, but it's so fitting to the character.

bluewolf

IDK why we keep going in circles, but a game this old has to find a way to make new players be able to do well quickly and beat hard teams.

They onramp to high tier play is much shorter than before due to selling 1-5s or 5s in bundles etc so you can pretty easily get straight into 5* MMR within....whatever estimate I make will be too long. Months. Target someone, open and don't care about saving covers as much, you can champ some 5 pretty fast.

Once you're there you need a way to let those noobs win at least sometimes or they'll just get frustrated. PVP is a mess with people complaining constantly about the teams they run into once they're not in like 3*land.

The game turned into the reduced turn arms race, that genie is out of the bottle, making it slower just makes more people throw in the towel which some will argue is good but that's probably not desirable to the devs.

So yeah, you need to let newer players who want to spend a bit have a way to get competitive in the 5* MMR very quickly.

By the way, the real impediment to noobs winning more is supports, which the devs pulled back access to when Heroic bosses went away. Nothing new exists there except some shards in PVP and the fave ones in bosses, but you still need to pull tokens and luck out to have it at all.

Pretending that new player who buys 1-5 hawkeye will just autowin vs any team full of high level 5s is ignoring the need to start with purple.

The main goal of roster building now is to access more stuff in PVE (you need to roster about 383 characters to have ensured access to every node you see) and allow more reward churn to open more stuff because you have lots of champs vs wasting covers. If you're newer you're never, ever catching up to the level of people who have been here for even 6 years or half the game's life in terms of pure pull churn and how many ascended you have, etc.

entrailbucket

I dunno, the nerf debates are pretty pointless anyway. Nobody is changing their mind about a character ever.

Plus they're going to do whatever they want no matter what anyone here thinks. Ultimately I don't think a nerf has ever really caused problems in the long run -- I bet a bunch of players here didn't even remember the Polaris and m'Thor changes. We get a short-term "I am so angry!!!" reaction and then everybody moves on.