These characters need to be nerfed

124»

Comments

  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 6,966 Chairperson of the Boards

    @entrailbucket said:

    @bluewolf said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @LuxAurae said:
    I think the larger issue at hand here is playstyle. Defenders are wins only players, within likely a growing roster arguing against veterans with very wide, very deep rosters they built over countless of years and likely are used to shielding and playing for placement. Yes, even the Clochards.

    Seeing a 1star you can buy for 20$ skip the entire mid game to compete with years of grind is not only a feel bad, but also economic suicide. That said the entire game repeatedly tries to kill its economy over and over..

    Maybe one day we can get back to a place where rarity and grind matters, but it won’t be until 6s become achievable.

    Thank you

    Actually my only hesitation with Hawkeye etc is the $20. Lots of players are spending the $20, and that should give them an advantage over somebody who spends nothing at all ever -- even if the player who spent nothing was super "smart" and hoarded for years or whatever.

    As for May, it's really 6* that signed her death warrant. They need to fix her somehow before 6* start running around, because Galactus plus May will torch the metagame immediately.

    We will find out soon enough as the only player with a legit Galactus finished him with the No Pants Bundle.

    I'd run Galactus plus May with Omnipotence City on him. If the third is a Godlike his HP should be around a million, and he can still only take 40k damage per turn. So sure, Hawkeye can still go infinite and generate infinite AP, but all those crits after the first will be doing zero damage.

    Is it good? I'm not sure. But it'll take you at least 25 turns to kill him, and if the enemy team is getting to move the board at least 25 times, a LOT of things can go wrong for you. He also heals, which can set you back even further!

    You may want to consider your numbers as G's post says that at 700 with 3-5 in blue (it stops going up after 3) his dmg stop is 154,067. So it's more like 8-9 turns....if your team is running high enough to hit that threshold every turn. And likely he can grab enough ap to nuke you down and his match dmg is 42-54k per match 3 in strong colors.

    You still would much rather run cheese teams of Kang or MM than going toe-to-toe.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,128 Chairperson of the Boards

    @bluewolf said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @bluewolf said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @LuxAurae said:
    I think the larger issue at hand here is playstyle. Defenders are wins only players, within likely a growing roster arguing against veterans with very wide, very deep rosters they built over countless of years and likely are used to shielding and playing for placement. Yes, even the Clochards.

    Seeing a 1star you can buy for 20$ skip the entire mid game to compete with years of grind is not only a feel bad, but also economic suicide. That said the entire game repeatedly tries to kill its economy over and over..

    Maybe one day we can get back to a place where rarity and grind matters, but it won’t be until 6s become achievable.

    Thank you

    Actually my only hesitation with Hawkeye etc is the $20. Lots of players are spending the $20, and that should give them an advantage over somebody who spends nothing at all ever -- even if the player who spent nothing was super "smart" and hoarded for years or whatever.

    As for May, it's really 6* that signed her death warrant. They need to fix her somehow before 6* start running around, because Galactus plus May will torch the metagame immediately.

    We will find out soon enough as the only player with a legit Galactus finished him with the No Pants Bundle.

    I'd run Galactus plus May with Omnipotence City on him. If the third is a Godlike his HP should be around a million, and he can still only take 40k damage per turn. So sure, Hawkeye can still go infinite and generate infinite AP, but all those crits after the first will be doing zero damage.

    Is it good? I'm not sure. But it'll take you at least 25 turns to kill him, and if the enemy team is getting to move the board at least 25 times, a LOT of things can go wrong for you. He also heals, which can set you back even further!

    You may want to consider your numbers as G's post says that at 700 with 3-5 in blue (it stops going up after 3) his dmg stop is 154,067. So it's more like 8-9 turns....if your team is running high enough to hit that threshold every turn. And likely he can grab enough ap to nuke you down and his match dmg is 42-54k per match 3 in strong colors.

    You still would much rather run cheese teams of Kang or MM than going toe-to-toe.

    Interesting, dunno where I got that number from. But 8-9 turns is still a lot more than 0 turns, and it's definitely enough for the AI to get up to something terrible.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,128 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:
    The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

    We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

    I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

    I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

    Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

    Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

    I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

    There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

    Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

    Then they need to change how they do the tiers. Currently the game tells you which characters are better by the number of stars. If that's not the case, and some 4* are supposed to be better than 5*, they need to find some new way to tell players that.

    Eh. I've never looked at them that way. That's their rarity. That tells me how hard it is to get more covers. One star covers flow freely. Five star covers are a trickle. Six star covers are....non existent?

    Why would a bad character be harder to get than a good character?

    And more importantly, why would a character of higher level be worse than the same character at a lower level? None of this is intuitive, and it's not reversible either.

    She's clearly an accident. The 4* version buffs more, because she's meant to be buffing 4*. The 5* version buffs less because she's meant to be buffing 5*. They didn't design her to be used with 672s (or 700s, and that's coming). Yes, it's stupid, because whoever designed her was stupid. It's absolutely fine to acknowledge that this is sort of thing is nonsense and like it anyway, but I don't get how you can pretend that it makes sense.

    Because we play a game where Okoye and Silver Surfer are in the same tier...and she's somehow better than he is (or at least was). The tiers are literally called rarities.

    Lore never mattered, and the in game power gap is smaller than it's ever been anyway.

    Besides, I asked for other examples of characters at lower tiers being better than ones at higher tiers, or characters getting worse as you level them up. Do you seriously think they intended for 4* May to be better than the 5*?

  • MegaBee
    MegaBee Posts: 1,361 Chairperson of the Boards

    @ViralCore said:
    I know the game has a lot of other problems right now, but the recent buff to Hawkeye's abilities is insane - way too overpowered. These characters see massive amounts of play, even consistently beating level 672 5* characters while remaining under level 266.

    1* Hawkeye
    3* Iron May

    No, thank you.

  • Borstock
    Borstock Posts: 3,266 Chairperson of the Boards

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:
    The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

    We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

    I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

    I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

    Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

    Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

    I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

    There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

    Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

    Then they need to change how they do the tiers. Currently the game tells you which characters are better by the number of stars. If that's not the case, and some 4* are supposed to be better than 5*, they need to find some new way to tell players that.

    Eh. I've never looked at them that way. That's their rarity. That tells me how hard it is to get more covers. One star covers flow freely. Five star covers are a trickle. Six star covers are....non existent?

    Why would a bad character be harder to get than a good character?

    And more importantly, why would a character of higher level be worse than the same character at a lower level? None of this is intuitive, and it's not reversible either.

    She's clearly an accident. The 4* version buffs more, because she's meant to be buffing 4*. The 5* version buffs less because she's meant to be buffing 5*. They didn't design her to be used with 672s (or 700s, and that's coming). Yes, it's stupid, because whoever designed her was stupid. It's absolutely fine to acknowledge that this is sort of thing is nonsense and like it anyway, but I don't get how you can pretend that it makes sense.

    Because we play a game where Okoye and Silver Surfer are in the same tier...and she's somehow better than he is (or at least was). The tiers are literally called rarities.

    Lore never mattered, and the in game power gap is smaller than it's ever been anyway.

    Besides, I asked for other examples of characters at lower tiers being better than ones at higher tiers, or characters getting worse as you level them up. Do you seriously think they intended for 4* May to be better than the 5*?

    I think the tiers are literally called rarities. I don't feel the need to guess at the intentions of a dev team that lost their jobs.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,128 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:
    The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

    We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

    I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

    I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

    Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

    Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

    I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

    There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

    Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

    Then they need to change how they do the tiers. Currently the game tells you which characters are better by the number of stars. If that's not the case, and some 4* are supposed to be better than 5*, they need to find some new way to tell players that.

    Eh. I've never looked at them that way. That's their rarity. That tells me how hard it is to get more covers. One star covers flow freely. Five star covers are a trickle. Six star covers are....non existent?

    Why would a bad character be harder to get than a good character?

    And more importantly, why would a character of higher level be worse than the same character at a lower level? None of this is intuitive, and it's not reversible either.

    She's clearly an accident. The 4* version buffs more, because she's meant to be buffing 4*. The 5* version buffs less because she's meant to be buffing 5*. They didn't design her to be used with 672s (or 700s, and that's coming). Yes, it's stupid, because whoever designed her was stupid. It's absolutely fine to acknowledge that this is sort of thing is nonsense and like it anyway, but I don't get how you can pretend that it makes sense.

    Because we play a game where Okoye and Silver Surfer are in the same tier...and she's somehow better than he is (or at least was). The tiers are literally called rarities.

    Lore never mattered, and the in game power gap is smaller than it's ever been anyway.

    Besides, I asked for other examples of characters at lower tiers being better than ones at higher tiers, or characters getting worse as you level them up. Do you seriously think they intended for 4* May to be better than the 5*?

    I think the tiers are literally called rarities. I don't feel the need to guess at the intentions of a dev team that lost their jobs.

    So you still don't have any other examples, or any actual evidence to counter the mountain of evidence that she's a mistake?

  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 6,966 Chairperson of the Boards

    @entrailbucket said:

    @bluewolf said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @bluewolf said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @LuxAurae said:
    I think the larger issue at hand here is playstyle. Defenders are wins only players, within likely a growing roster arguing against veterans with very wide, very deep rosters they built over countless of years and likely are used to shielding and playing for placement. Yes, even the Clochards.

    Seeing a 1star you can buy for 20$ skip the entire mid game to compete with years of grind is not only a feel bad, but also economic suicide. That said the entire game repeatedly tries to kill its economy over and over..

    Maybe one day we can get back to a place where rarity and grind matters, but it won’t be until 6s become achievable.

    Thank you

    Actually my only hesitation with Hawkeye etc is the $20. Lots of players are spending the $20, and that should give them an advantage over somebody who spends nothing at all ever -- even if the player who spent nothing was super "smart" and hoarded for years or whatever.

    As for May, it's really 6* that signed her death warrant. They need to fix her somehow before 6* start running around, because Galactus plus May will torch the metagame immediately.

    We will find out soon enough as the only player with a legit Galactus finished him with the No Pants Bundle.

    I'd run Galactus plus May with Omnipotence City on him. If the third is a Godlike his HP should be around a million, and he can still only take 40k damage per turn. So sure, Hawkeye can still go infinite and generate infinite AP, but all those crits after the first will be doing zero damage.

    Is it good? I'm not sure. But it'll take you at least 25 turns to kill him, and if the enemy team is getting to move the board at least 25 times, a LOT of things can go wrong for you. He also heals, which can set you back even further!

    You may want to consider your numbers as G's post says that at 700 with 3-5 in blue (it stops going up after 3) his dmg stop is 154,067. So it's more like 8-9 turns....if your team is running high enough to hit that threshold every turn. And likely he can grab enough ap to nuke you down and his match dmg is 42-54k per match 3 in strong colors.

    You still would much rather run cheese teams of Kang or MM than going toe-to-toe.

    Interesting, dunno where I got that number from. But 8-9 turns is still a lot more than 0 turns, and it's definitely enough for the AI to get up to something terrible.

    The number you pulled is from a low level one, like 500. The more levels you add the higher the dmg threshold gets until that cap. I presume the goal is to have approximately the same number of hits - as you level him up - needed to take him out, although obviously the more dmg he takes, the harder it would be to do enough to hit the threshold.

  • TheXMan
    TheXMan Posts: 287 Mover and Shaker

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:
    The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

    We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

    I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

    I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

    Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

    Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

    I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

    There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

    Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

    Then they need to change how they do the tiers. Currently the game tells you which characters are better by the number of stars. If that's not the case, and some 4* are supposed to be better than 5*, they need to find some new way to tell players that.

    Eh. I've never looked at them that way. That's their rarity. That tells me how hard it is to get more covers. One star covers flow freely. Five star covers are a trickle. Six star covers are....non existent?

    Why would a bad character be harder to get than a good character?

    And more importantly, why would a character of higher level be worse than the same character at a lower level? None of this is intuitive, and it's not reversible either.

    She's clearly an accident. The 4* version buffs more, because she's meant to be buffing 4*. The 5* version buffs less because she's meant to be buffing 5*. They didn't design her to be used with 672s (or 700s, and that's coming). Yes, it's stupid, because whoever designed her was stupid. It's absolutely fine to acknowledge that this is sort of thing is nonsense and like it anyway, but I don't get how you can pretend that it makes sense.

    Because we play a game where Okoye and Silver Surfer are in the same tier...and she's somehow better than he is (or at least was). The tiers are literally called rarities.

    Lore never mattered, and the in game power gap is smaller than it's ever been anyway.

    Besides, I asked for other examples of characters at lower tiers being better than ones at higher tiers, or characters getting worse as you level them up. Do you seriously think they intended for 4* May to be better than the 5*?

    I think the tiers are literally called rarities. I don't feel the need to guess at the intentions of a dev team that lost their jobs.

    So you still don't have any other examples, or any actual evidence to counter the mountain of evidence that she's a mistake?

    I don't think it was a mistake. They realized she would be too good as a 5 so they lowered her boost. It is a trade-off. Isn't this why they released the ascensions in batches? Isn't there a whole thread about who is better or worse when ascending?

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,128 Chairperson of the Boards

    @TheXMan said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:

    @Borstock said:

    @DAZ0273 said:
    The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

    We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

    I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

    I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

    Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

    Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

    I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

    There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

    Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

    Then they need to change how they do the tiers. Currently the game tells you which characters are better by the number of stars. If that's not the case, and some 4* are supposed to be better than 5*, they need to find some new way to tell players that.

    Eh. I've never looked at them that way. That's their rarity. That tells me how hard it is to get more covers. One star covers flow freely. Five star covers are a trickle. Six star covers are....non existent?

    Why would a bad character be harder to get than a good character?

    And more importantly, why would a character of higher level be worse than the same character at a lower level? None of this is intuitive, and it's not reversible either.

    She's clearly an accident. The 4* version buffs more, because she's meant to be buffing 4*. The 5* version buffs less because she's meant to be buffing 5*. They didn't design her to be used with 672s (or 700s, and that's coming). Yes, it's stupid, because whoever designed her was stupid. It's absolutely fine to acknowledge that this is sort of thing is nonsense and like it anyway, but I don't get how you can pretend that it makes sense.

    Because we play a game where Okoye and Silver Surfer are in the same tier...and she's somehow better than he is (or at least was). The tiers are literally called rarities.

    Lore never mattered, and the in game power gap is smaller than it's ever been anyway.

    Besides, I asked for other examples of characters at lower tiers being better than ones at higher tiers, or characters getting worse as you level them up. Do you seriously think they intended for 4* May to be better than the 5*?

    I think the tiers are literally called rarities. I don't feel the need to guess at the intentions of a dev team that lost their jobs.

    So you still don't have any other examples, or any actual evidence to counter the mountain of evidence that she's a mistake?

    I don't think it was a mistake. They realized she would be too good as a 5 so they lowered her boost. It is a trade-off. Isn't this why they released the ascensions in batches? Isn't there a whole thread about who is better or worse when ascending?

    I guess we'll see. The number of characters who get worse when ascending is, like, 2, out of hundreds. If they were doing that intentionally, wouldn't there be a lot more?

    But in general, assuming that the weird stuff they do is intentional has a terrible track record. I remember arguing with someone about Polaris years ago -- they said that Polaris was created intentionally to be way better than everyone else, because they wanted 4* players to be able to win really hard fights.

    Well, when they announced her nerf, they explained that the person who designed her just straight-up disregarded their balancing spreadsheet or whatever, and she was actually way better than she should've been. It was the same thing with m'Thor. It was the same thing with Sidewinder, and Chasm, and Gambit, and with almost everyone who's ended up eating a nerf.

    This cargo cult stuff you guys do with them has been proven wrong over and over. They don't make good or bad characters on purpose, they just don't know what they're doing.

Categories