Bishop sucking the fun out of the game

Bubba3210 · September 2019

HoundofShadow said:

My bringing up of Thor has nothing to do with how easy or difficult he is to beat. Rather, it's his ability that allows players to get 5 free aps at the start of the turn every turn. This 5 free ap gain is the yardstick for new 5*.

I think R4G makes PvEs easy, but a bad board or match against tile movers will slow down your team. As match last longer, your team gets weaker. However, for Thor, your team will get stronger because you would have gotten a lot of free aps for you to fire off your powers. You can't control where your R4Gstrike tiles are placed at the start of the game, but you can control or deny enemies' ap colours.

Because of Thor's 5 free ap gain, it's unlikely for any 5* to dethrone him. Is there any 5* out of the current 36 that can replace him as the meta (or speed)? Under what condition will it take to dethrone 5* Thor?

That’s not what this conversation is about.

tiomono · September 2019

HoundofShadow said:

My bringing up of Thor has nothing to do with how easy or difficult he is to beat. Rather, it's his ability that allows players to get 5 free aps at the start of the turn every turn. This 5 free ap gain is the yardstick for new 5*.

I think R4G makes PvEs easy, but a bad board or match against tile movers will slow down your team. As match last longer, your team gets weaker. However, for Thor, your team will get stronger because you would have gotten a lot of free aps for you to fire off your powers. You can't control where your R4Gstrike tiles are placed at the start of the game, but you can control or deny enemies' ap colours.

Because of Thor's 5 free ap gain, it's unlikely for any 5* to dethrone him. Is there any 5* out of the current 36 that can replace him as the meta (or speed)? Under what condition will it take to dethrone 5* Thor?

Then start a discussion in a new topic about thor. Let people discuss and debate.

jp1 · September 2019

I’ve been to 2000 in SIM every season since Bishop. I really don’t understand the big deal, use your own Bishop/combo when you hit
the wall. No, it isn’t a guaranteed win, but isn’t that supposed to be the point?

It makes variety less you say? I don’t get that either, without him there is nothing but Gritty and Thorkoye...not really much variety.

Also, as I mentioned I’ve been taking losses to champed Juggs...I think he will be a big help. I have lost defensively to teams with XFDP/Gritty and Kitty/Valk as well. There are options.

I think he changed the game up and rather than utilizing the new tools to succeed people are just shouting everything else down and want their usual shield hopping single Meta game back in place.

Nothing personal, I know I’m not gaining popularity with that opinion...but that’s what it looks like to me.

jp1 · September 2019

OJSP said:

show previous quotes

jp1 said:

Also, as I mentioned I’ve been taking losses to champed Juggs...

Just out of interest.. these champed Juggs aren't happened to be paired with lvl 480+ Kitties and 370 Rockets, are they?

Sure, but that’s expected considering my Kitty and Rocket aren’t that far away from that.

Edit: Returning to the game right after this is a loss from Gritty/Hela with a max level 456. So, add them to the list.

jp1 · September 2019

That’s possible, I lost offensively to that team as well I should mention. On offense it was because the combo of Juggs with Gritty is a hurt machine right from the jump. I think they will be a more effective counter than people assume.

Juggs by himself, I can’t speak to that. I figure people will be pairing him with damage boosters for the best outcome.

CharlieCroker · September 2019

jp1 said:

I think he changed the game up and rather than utilizing the new tools to succeed people are just shouting everything else down and want their usual shield hopping single Meta game back in place.

I think you're missing the point the OP was making - Bishop sucks the fun out of the game.

Yes - we can all start running Bishop (and clearly in the upper reaches of Sim this is what most are doing) but using him isn't in my experience any more fun that facing him.

On offence, using Bishop, you just make a match, stun someone, make another match, stun someone else then repeat until the match is over. If you get real lucky maybe you'll get two fights out of this before having to revive Bishop.

Against Bishop, the opposite is true and you just hope you don't get a 'lucky' cascade that gives the AI 30ap and/or keeps hitting you back for double the damage you've done, likely moreso as he'll be partnered by either Gritty or Okoye. Oh and then you get stunlocked.

This is all in honesty my biggest issue with Bishop. It's not just that he's broken and overpowered vs 5*s, it's that he makes the game less fun to play. Which really isnt something the developers should aspire to when designing new characters.

jp1 · September 2019

I never called for a Gambit nerf. However, I think Gambit was a different beast altogether. For one, he was much harder to acquire. He also didn’t have any other valid options...as I’ve mentioned I’ve taken losses to several teams not including Bishop.

Your chances are better if you bring your own Bishop, but it isn’t impossible to win without him.

I highly doubt I would have been pro-nerf during Gambit, but it’s hard to say because I wasn’t in the five star game at the time.

JackDeath666 · September 2019

I don't have an issue with any character negating certain abilities or types of powers, or passives in general. But something that stops you matching 3 a Match 3 game? Come on... That just isn't right.

BigSoftieFF · September 2019

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

Daredevil217 · September 2019

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist. One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead.

DarthDeVo · September 2019

jp1 said:

I never called for a Gambit nerf. However, I think Gambit was a different beast altogether. For one, he was much harder to acquire. He also didn’t have any other valid options...as I’ve mentioned I’ve taken losses to several teams not including Bishop.

Your chances are better if you bring your own Bishop, but it isn’t impossible to win without him.

I highly doubt I would have been pro-nerf during Gambit, but it’s hard to say because I wasn’t in the five star game at the time.

For much of the time Lord Gambit reigned supreme, I had a single 5* champ: Daredevil.

Now maybe I'm remembering things differently since we're about 1.5 years removed from his second (actual) nerf. But I'd say I had better rates of success fighting any Gambit team with DD/G4mora than I do fighting Bishop.

With Bishop, I literally expect to lose, and consider it a minor miracle if I win. And if I do win, it's likely because the AI elected to use the blue AP for something else. Or I got supremely lucky removing Grocket's strikes. It rarely has anything to do with my strategy as a player.

Facing Gambit, I probably won a solid 50 percent of the time, maybe more. I know it never frustrated me to the point I wanted to call it quits. OK, maybe once or twice. But certainly not anywhere dang near as much as Bishop.

jp1 · September 2019

Daredevil217 said:

show previous quotes

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist. One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead.

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t.

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

tiomono · September 2019

jp1 said:

show previous quotes

Daredevil217 said:

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist. One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead.

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t.

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

So it's ok to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn?

jp1 · September 2019

tiomono said:

show previous quotes

jp1 said:

Daredevil217 said:

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist. One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead.

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t.

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

So it's ok to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn?

In the context of putting that particular scenario in a vacuum, no, it is not okay. I don’t think Bishop is the problem he is being made out to be though, and reducing the entire debate down to one simple factor that fits a desired narrative isn’t productive or fair.

The real question, if I’m being reductive as well, is can Bishop be managed and you are able to still have success in PVP? The answer to that is “yes”. Of course that discounts the points everyone else has brought up, so I would try to make that argument with points of debate to back up my stance, but then I’m just “ignoring the point”.

I’m not looking to be rude to anyone or discount their outrage at the state of things. It annoys me a bit when I respectfully disagree and accusations are thrown in my direction though.

tiomono · September 2019

jp1 said:

show previous quotes

tiomono said:

jp1 said:

Daredevil217 said:

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist. One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead.

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t.

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

So it's ok to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn?

In the context of putting that particular scenario in a vacuum, no, it is not okay. I don’t think Bishop is the problem he is being made out to be though, and reducing the entire debate down to one simple factor that fits a desired narrative isn’t productive or fair.

The real question, if I’m being reductive as well, is can Bishop be managed and you are able to still have success in PVP? The answer to that is “yes”. Of course that discounts the points everyone else has brought up, so I would try to make that argument with points of debate to back up my stance, but then I’m just “ignoring the point”.

I’m not looking to be rude to anyone or discount their outrage at the state of things. It annoys me a bit when I respectfully disagree and accusations are thrown in my direction though.

Then you and I can agree to disagree.

I will say overall I am impressed with most everyone in these bishop discussions. Similar discussions in the past pretty much always get locked because of not being civil or productive.

jp1 · September 2019

Fair enough.

I agree that for the most part it has remained civil as well.

JackDeath666 · September 2019

Now that I understood that this isn't a discussion and it's just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, then... I'M STAYING.

Daredevil217 · September 2019

jp1 said:

show previous quotes

tiomono said:

jp1 said:

Daredevil217 said:

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist. One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead.

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t.

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

So it's ok to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn?

In the context of putting that particular scenario in a vacuum, no, it is not okay. I don’t think Bishop is the problem he is being made out to be though, and reducing the entire debate down to one simple factor that fits a desired narrative isn’t productive or fair.

The real question, if I’m being reductive as well, is can Bishop be managed and you are able to still have success in PVP? The answer to that is “yes”. Of course that discounts the points everyone else has brought up, so I would try to make that argument with points of debate to back up my stance, but then I’m just “ignoring the point”.

I’m not looking to be rude to anyone or discount their outrage at the state of things. It annoys me a bit when I respectfully disagree and accusations are thrown in my direction though.

That scenario is not some corner case or something happening in a “vacuum”. It’s what happens every time a 5* player makes a match. It only ends up much much worse if you happen into a cascade. By your own admission, this is not okay, and all we are asking is that it’s fixed.

Nobody called you out or attacked you personally. We’ve had people argue that (paraphrasing)

“if Bishop is nerfed then Kitty should be nerfed”
”if Bishop is nerfed Thor should be nerfed”
”5* players just don’t want to use health packs!”
”5* players just don’t want to lose their spots on top”
”Just use low level characters that don’t trigger him”
”My Bishop team was beaten by a non-Bishop team, so he can be defeated”

and probably other arguments that I can’t think of now (the original thread was super long). Some of those arguments are completely off-topic others just miss the point completely. But when we make the issue something different, (like whether or not Thor should be nerfed), then we can debate that point a lot easier.

And people aren’t boiling the Bishop issue down to one point that occurs in a vacuum. There are several reasons to nerf him including...

“It’s not okay to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn”

”A character should not be able to passively shut down the entire tier above him”

”The only true counter is weak and stuck in Classics hell (Surfer)”

”He’s not fun for 5* players to play with or against”

”There is no real counter in match or way to stop his mechanic (like attacking his teammates)”

”His existence could promote people not advancing their rosters as the Bishop problem is a 5* problem”

“Many people are less engaged with the game, playing less and giving up in PVP thanks to his presence”

Honestly, that initial reason that you yourself said wasn’t okay, should be enough to change him. But if you need more reasons to nerf... there you go.

By the way... with the right amount of luck and at similar levels, any team can win or lose. Someone lucking into beating Bishop does not undo any of the above points. When nerfing Gambit was discussed, the biggest and best counter argument was that he could be beaten with or without Gambit. People posted all sorts of teams that they tried and succeeded with (way more teams than I’ve seen when discussing Bishop counters). And you know what? None of it mattered. He could be beaten, but was still nerfed because the developers thought he had a broken mechanic. I think and hope that eventually the developers will understand that Bishop does as well.

tiomono · September 2019

Daredevil217 said:

show previous quotes

jp1 said:

tiomono said:

jp1 said:

Daredevil217 said:

BigSoftieFF said:

I give up...people avoid the actual point just to argue.

Like Jack said, there is no way to avoid matching 3. I can bring Bishop but quite frankly hate him so much I don’t have any desire to.

I agree about people missing the point and arguing just to argue, in both threads actually. There’s a reason though. When you make the argument about something else, you can actually start to argue. But when you stay focused on the actual problems/issues, then it’s indefensible. A character that does what he does should not exist. One who punishes doing the one thing you have to do to play the game (match gems), is unfun to play with and against, who can generate 30 AP in a turn, who can stun lock your team, and who you cannot avoid by targeting his partners... that character should not exist as is. We all know it. And since we can’t really argue against those points, we make the issue about something else and argue those points instead.

This is a pretty dismissive attitude to take with people who simply don’t agree with you. The fact is that you (and others) would like to make the “argument” so reductive that you can boil it down to right and wrong, of course with your side being right, and this just isn’t a good faith discussion.

In much the same way, any counterpoint is simply dismissed with a “you’re missing the whole point”. To be frank, the complete disregard for any differing opinion speaks more about the people who want the change than those who don’t.

It’s all good though. Now that I understand that this isn’t a discussion and it’s just a place to talk about how we all hate Bishop and how broken he is, I’ll see my way out.

So it's ok to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn?

In the context of putting that particular scenario in a vacuum, no, it is not okay. I don’t think Bishop is the problem he is being made out to be though, and reducing the entire debate down to one simple factor that fits a desired narrative isn’t productive or fair.

The real question, if I’m being reductive as well, is can Bishop be managed and you are able to still have success in PVP? The answer to that is “yes”. Of course that discounts the points everyone else has brought up, so I would try to make that argument with points of debate to back up my stance, but then I’m just “ignoring the point”.

I’m not looking to be rude to anyone or discount their outrage at the state of things. It annoys me a bit when I respectfully disagree and accusations are thrown in my direction though.

That scenario is not some corner case or something happening in a “vacuum”. It’s what happens every time a 5* player makes a match. It only ends up much much worse if you happen into a cascade. By your own admission, this is not okay, and all we are asking is that it’s fixed.

Nobody called you out or attacked you personally. We’ve had people argue that (paraphrasing)

“if Bishop is nerfed then Kitty should be nerfed”
”if Bishop is nerfed Thor should be nerfed”
”5* players just don’t want to use health packs!”
”5* players just don’t want to lose their spots on top”
”Just use low level characters that don’t trigger him”
”My Bishop team was beaten by a non-Bishop team, so he can be defeated”

and probably other arguments that I can’t think of now (the original thread was super long). Some of those arguments are completely off-topic others just miss the point completely. But when we make the issue something different, (like whether or not Thor should be nerfed), then we can debate that point a lot easier.

And people aren’t boiling the Bishop issue down to one point that occurs in a vacuum. There are several reasons to nerf him including...

“It’s not okay to match 3 and do 2k damage to an opponent and they get to passively gain 5 ap and do 4k damage and then take their own turn”

”A character should not be able to passively shut down the entire tier above him”

”The only true counter is weak and stuck in Classics hell (Surfer)”

”He’s not fun for 5* players to play with or against”

”There is no real counter in match or way to stop his mechanic (like attacking his teammates)”

”His existence could promote people not advancing their rosters as the Bishop problem is a 5* problem”

“Many people are less engaged with the game, playing less and giving up in PVP thanks to his presence”

Honestly, that initial reason that you yourself said wasn’t okay, should be enough to change him. But if you need more reasons to nerf... there you go.

By the way... with the right amount of luck and at similar levels, any team can win or lose. Someone lucking into beating Bishop does not undo any of the above points. When nerfing Gambit was discussed, the biggest and best counter argument was that he could be beaten with or without Gambit. People posted all sorts of teams that they tried and succeeded with (way more teams than I’ve seen when discussing Bishop counters). And you know what? None of it mattered. He could be beaten, but was still nerfed because the developers thought he had a broken mechanic. I think and hope that eventually the developers will understand that Bishop does as well.

I would like to point out that listing surfer as a true counter feels off to me. He has to tank to stop the stun. I also feel it is possible to cover characters from classic tokens, just slow. I have a 12 cover surfer but have yet to dump the iso in to raise him to 435. Right now he is at 365 and it will cost 229,851 to max his level out. But he still would struggle to tank much in a team of 2 other 5's. Maybe I will just take the plunge and level home up to see how good he is vs champed bishop.

For me the stun is not the issue. The issue is Bishop doing 4k damage to my 2k while gaining 5 ap to my 3. Then taking his own turn.

bluewolf · September 2019

On average, you would spend 2200 CP to get one cover for all the 5's in Classics at the moment. (It will go up when Rescue enters.) So yes, it's possible to cover people from Classics but my estimate for doing anyone from scratch who you don't bonus (as much as that helps) is between 29-35K CP. Hopefully you'd get some covers from feeders or something.....

I finished Surfer with the help of Reed pretty recently (he is 450) and as has been pointed out numerous times, his match damage is very weak (he is 36th out of all the 5's) so he'd need to be ginormous to be tanking reliably over the power-crept newer members in the tier.

Not to mention that Surfer all around is pretty weak and ineffective, but at least he can't be stunned.

Bishop sucking the fun out of the game

Comments

Welcome!

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories