Pylgrim wrote: Yep, this PVP would have been eye-opening if the issue was not so obvious from the beginning. Beyond 700 points, 350+ Hulkbusters all the way the eye can see. 33k HP, almost 1.2k+ per red AP on Repulsor Punch. For contrast, my level 300 Colossus (only 50 levels below) can deal at most 5.5k damage with Colossal Punch. I need 6 of those (66 AP) in order to down him. He only needs 19 AP to kill my Colossus. But hey, 3*s are overpowered, ain't I right? Maybe another nerf is necessary?
atomzed wrote: Pylgrim wrote: Yep, this PVP would have been eye-opening if the issue was not so obvious from the beginning. Beyond 700 points, 350+ Hulkbusters all the way the eye can see. 33k HP, almost 1.2k+ per red AP on Repulsor Punch. For contrast, my level 300 Colossus (only 50 levels below) can deal at most 5.5k damage with Colossal Punch. I need 6 of those (66 AP) in order to down him. He only needs 19 AP to kill my Colossus. But hey, 3*s are overpowered, ain't I right? Maybe another nerf is necessary? I know your opinion about this topic. But I didn't really probe... I just want to find out what you think the gap should be between the star levels. I e. How should the gap be like between a buffed 1* and non-buffed 2*, buffed 2* vs non buffed 3*? From what I see, d3 is developing 4* tier to be the backbone of the roster. This has happened before, when they shift the meta from a 2* to a 3* meta. When this happened in the past, there was a gap between 2* and 3*. And this was before the rotating buff happened. Nerf or no nerf, there needs to be a gap between the backbone of the roster (in the past it was 3* and now it will be 4*). Question is, what do you think the gap should be?
RoboDuck wrote: If 4 stars are the new backbone of the game, shouldn't there be a viable means to build a 4 stat roster first? The "easiest" option currently is pve progression, but the LT reward is pure luck. Every other option is pretty much unobtainable for the majority of the gamerbase.
Chrono_Tata wrote: Well, since the devs did ask for specific feedback about how this change have affected us, and since Real Steel is running right now: a level 170, boosted to 295, Colossus only does around 3.5k damage to the enemy in front with Colossal Punch when he's out front. That's pitiful damage for a boosted character in his own featured event. Meanwhile, you have weekly-boosted Hulkbuster doing 10k damage with only a 9AP. Yes, this is a boosted levelled 4-star character, but wasn't the whole point of boosting to let lower rarity characters compete with higher rarity characters? The whole fun with boosted character events was to get people to use characters they probably wouldn't use normally and try to build a supporting team around it, as those featured characters get boosted to a point where they can punch well above their weights. With the new change, the featured characters are so weak for people already playing at the 4-star level (i.e. most vets) that I just end up using Jeanbuster all the time, cause the fully levelled boosted 3-star are basically deadweight.
dr tinykittylove wrote: Chrono_Tata wrote: Well, since the devs did ask for specific feedback about how this change have affected us, and since Real Steel is running right now: a level 170, boosted to 295, Colossus only does around 3.5k damage to the enemy in front with Colossal Punch when he's out front. That's pitiful damage for a boosted character in his own featured event. Meanwhile, you have weekly-boosted Hulkbuster doing 10k damage with only a 9AP. Yes, this is a boosted levelled 4-star character, but wasn't the whole point of boosting to let lower rarity characters compete with higher rarity characters? The whole fun with boosted character events was to get people to use characters they probably wouldn't use normally and try to build a supporting team around it, as those featured characters get boosted to a point where they can punch well above their weights. With the new change, the featured characters are so weak for people already playing at the 4-star level (i.e. most vets) that I just end up using Jeanbuster all the time, cause the fully levelled boosted 3-star are basically deadweight. That cannot be right. My 176 Colossus boosted to 301 does 2220+3700 when in front, plus 1481 to others. That should be enough to deal with a maxed but non-boosted 4*. It probably seems worse this week because so many people have HB covered and levelled and he's one of the top 4*s while covering red and black - and yes his black is better than Colossus. Plus he has 50+ levels on Colossus with the weekly boost. For me, the featured 3*s have been about equal to a maxed 4*, which seems like what the boosts seem to have intended. I generally avoid taking on high level 5*s with my 4*s as well.
Pylgrim wrote: Someone above answered in the same general sense I would have, but I guess I'll still give it to you straight of the horse's mouth. The 1k PVP progression reward is the /only/ way in the whole game to get a certain, specific 4* that most people can theoretically achieve. PVE now gives specific 4*s as well, but only the 0.1% of players in a bracket will get them. So what should the gap be? I'm not sure, it would require tons of testing but the general answer is "whatever allows 3* players to reach 1K in PVP reliably and without excessive expense or pains". Thinking about it, (thanks for asking this question), I realise that if that 1K reward wasn't the thing at stake (or if it wasn't so unique and damned necessary), perhaps I wouldn't mind the nerf half as much. As it is, the problem is that the gap is keeping people away from their most certain path to go over the gap!
atomzed wrote: Pylgrim wrote: Someone above answered in the same general sense I would have, but I guess I'll still give it to you straight of the horse's mouth. The 1k PVP progression reward is the /only/ way in the whole game to get a certain, specific 4* that most people can theoretically achieve. PVE now gives specific 4*s as well, but only the 0.1% of players in a bracket will get them. So what should the gap be? I'm not sure, it would require tons of testing but the general answer is "whatever allows 3* players to reach 1K in PVP reliably and without excessive expense or pains". Thinking about it, (thanks for asking this question), I realise that if that 1K reward wasn't the thing at stake (or if it wasn't so unique and damned necessary), perhaps I wouldn't mind the nerf half as much. As it is, the problem is that the gap is keeping people away from their most certain path to go over the gap! Thanks for the answer! So what you are saying is that as long as you can use your 3* to get 1k, you will be happy with whatever gap it is? Hmm... I seen players who get to 1.3k with just 3* alone. I really didn't think that it is impossible to get to 1k with 3* alone. It seems that there is a differences with what you experience and what I see experience. Someone pointed out to me that when you fully champ a 3*, you will see a level 465 3*. With that cap level in mind, I can see why d3 has to ensure that the ability damage for 3* is not excessively high.
Pylgrim wrote: I can get to 1.3k points with 3*s alone. It just takes a crapload of boosts, shields, luck and the use of Line to find cupcakes and warn truce-allies not to hit you, which is a necessity, due to the fact that a fight against maxed, boosted (and championed) 4*s can easily take 5 minutes (or be lost, altogether) [/b] So if that's the case, isn't the current situation fits the criteria that you have mentioned? Pylgrim wrote: Also it cannot be right that 3*s go all the way up to 465* since a max championed 3* doesn't even get to the max level of an unboosted, unchampioned 4*. So it should boost to under 350? Not to mention that answers that imply months and months of investment championing 3*s to return them to former power levels are automatically dismissable.
Pylgrim wrote: Also it cannot be right that 3*s go all the way up to 465* since a max championed 3* doesn't even get to the max level of an unboosted, unchampioned 4*. So it should boost to under 350? Not to mention that answers that imply months and months of investment championing 3*s to return them to former power levels are automatically dismissable.
atomzed wrote: Pylgrim wrote: I can get to 1.3k points with 3*s alone. It just takes a crapload of boosts, shields, luck and the use of Line to find cupcakes and warn truce-allies not to hit you, which is a necessity, due to the fact that a fight against maxed, boosted (and championed) 4*s can easily take 5 minutes (or be lost, altogether) [/b] So if that's the case, isn't the current situation fits the criteria that you have mentioned?
Pylgrim wrote: I can get to 1.3k points with 3*s alone. It just takes a crapload of boosts, shields, luck and the use of Line to find cupcakes and warn truce-allies not to hit you, which is a necessity, due to the fact that a fight against maxed, boosted (and championed) 4*s can easily take 5 minutes (or be lost, altogether) [/b]
Pylgrim wrote: Also it cannot be right that 3*s go all the way up to 465* since a max championed 3* doesn't even get to the max level of an unboosted, unchampioned 4*. So it should boost to under 350? Not to mention that answers that imply months and months of investment championing 3*s to return them to former power levels are automatically dismissable. Tbh I am not sure. Maybe kingdreadnaught will know. In any case, you missed the point. They still want a gap between champ 3* and max 4*. If they keep it to the pre-nerf level, then champ 3* may be more effective than 4*, that its not worth it to level 4*. Especially when you consider how expensive it is to level 4*.
Pylgrim wrote: Also, there needs to be mentioned that your support for this change comes from someone in a position that greatly benefited from it. You cannot expect those who paid the cost for said benefit at their expense to agree with you since you are not experiencing their newly acquired hardships.
atomzed wrote: You mentioned the criteria in a few posts above when I ask you about how big the gap is. Your answer was that the gap should be small enough that 3* can consistently hit 1000 for the 4* reward. And subsequently we both agree that with 3* it is possible to hit 1000 and above. The question is whether you deem it reasonable effort... This part is where we have to agree to disagree.
Pylgrim wrote: Also, there needs to be mentioned that your support for this change comes from someone in a position that greatly benefited from it. You cannot expect those who paid the cost for said benefit at their expense to agree with you since you are not experiencing their newly acquired hardships. Well, pylgrim, if you play this card, you are basically saying that I cannot comment on this issue since i "benefited from it".
My argument is simple: 1) Between any star levels, there needs to be a gap. 2) The gap is bigger between the backbone level and the lower star levels. In the past it was 3*, and hence the gap between the 3* and 2* was quite big. Now it has shifted to 4*. 3) Max Champ 3*, when buffed, will reach a sufficiently high level as unbuffed 4*. 4) If 3* remains as the previous trajectory, then 3* will be stronger than 4*, and point number 2 won't hold any more.
Whether I have a 4* or 5* roster is irrelevant to my argument.
Pylgrim wrote: Yes, I've hit 1.3k, but I also have NOT hit 1k a few times after being barraged almost 200 points while doing a last hop to go from 950 to 1k or by unexpectedly losing a fight which demanded an additional shield-hop and I didn't have the HP for it. And "losing a fight", you see, is something that has become much more common now that each battle takes significantly longer than before. You can only deny red and black to Hulkbuster for so many turns.
Now if you said "4*s should comfortably, even easily, beat 3*s in PVP" I'll agree with you, but not without pointing that it was already the case pre-nerf and that the buff to boosted 4* levels alone was a more than sufficient measure to guarantee it kept being that way for the foreseeable future.
Dauthi wrote: Pylgrim wrote: Yes, I've hit 1.3k, but I also have NOT hit 1k a few times after being barraged almost 200 points while doing a last hop to go from 950 to 1k or by unexpectedly losing a fight which demanded an additional shield-hop and I didn't have the HP for it. And "losing a fight", you see, is something that has become much more common now that each battle takes significantly longer than before. You can only deny red and black to Hulkbuster for so many turns. As a 4* transitioner that had around 4-5 4*s for a long time, I have had the same experience of not getting the 1k prize because I am being eaten alive by attacks. This means very little for both of us though since this is affected by all kinds of variables (bracket, time etc). You also can't assume everyone has the best 4*s, other 4*s aren't nearly as menacing as HB, and offer little protection from 3*s attacking you. Now if you said "4*s should comfortably, even easily, beat 3*s in PVP" I'll agree with you, but not without pointing that it was already the case pre-nerf and that the buff to boosted 4* levels alone was a more than sufficient measure to guarantee it kept being that way for the foreseeable future. This is the problem, it really wasn't. If you had say a maxed Antman, 3*s would eat you alive still. An Antman pre-3* nerf was horridly worse than any given buffed 3* that week. You many not have experienced it, but people in your tier above you like myself did. It made me feel like there was no point to having 4*s, except the top 3. Even buffed "middle of the road" 4*s would be a joke to any buffed top 3*.
I agree that the buff to 4*s helped, but, as far as I can tell, it was to everyone not to just 4*s. Around 300 3*s will feel it too, this just means they have to be championed and buffed to get there.
Lemminkäinen wrote: Also worth noticing IMO is that a max champed 3* is an order of magnitude more work to get than a max non-champed 4*.
chamber44 wrote: Lemminkäinen wrote: Also worth noticing IMO is that a max champed 3* is an order of magnitude more work to get than a max non-champed 4*. quoted because it bears repeating. And, because at the end of the day, players that have maxed 270's aren't stopping there. They'll champion those and keep going -- which is fine. but, i felt a lot better about using my maxed 3Clops, IF, and SW/Daken/whomever even against lower level 4's in PvP before the nerf.