Feedback Wanted: Character Balance

djarcanus · January 2020

Some characters could use a dusting of nerf powder

Why does it have to be one or the other? You can nerf a few characters while improving others.

Here is why I'm against only improving characters.

If you only improve characters, you're making them more useful compared to the best characters. That doesn't necessarily address the issues the meta characters present. Second, this only benefits people who already have these characters (probably have to champ). For those who don't have them, they will continue to suffer against the meta characters. You will NOT be helping those players. Releasing new characters to counter specific characters creates a chase mechanic to get these characters. Fine for those of us who champ new characters quickly, but again, for people who can't champ them, they are stuck in the situation above where the game does not work for them.

At present, there is a cycle of play at high levels where people have Gritty (Kitty + 4* Grocket), Thorkoye (5* Thor + Okoye), 5* Professor X, Okoye + many characters, HammerHawk (4* Cap + 5* Hawkeye), Bishop + whoever.

Gritty is a super pain, but there are lots of easy counters with BSSM (Black Suit SpiderMan), Sabretooth, Bishop, 4* Cap, Thorkoye if you're fast enough.

Thorkoye is super fast, but terrible on defense. this team is great for climbing, but there's a point where players switch to teams with more defense to fend off attacks.

Prof X can cause massive game ending cascades or a long slog to defeat. His team up is possibly the best non-stun team up in the game. huge damage vs. 1 opponent, AoE, destroy chosen row, etc. No one can beat that versatility.

Whenever there is discussion of a new character, tons of people say "they'd go great with Okoye." DUH! Her black power makes all friendly powers do ridiculous damage so of course they pair well with her. Losing 1 team up if she's not in front is no big deal. People generally tank her then fire her yellow to heal AND gain more team ups.

HammerHawk has a problem similar to Bishop. It's almost as bad, only because his countdown (CD) tiles don't automatically give AP unless he paired with someone like Hawkeye. For people looking for counters, spiderverse team will stunlock HammerHawk's team though if HH has JJ as a 3rd in SSIM, her trap tile may take someone out. Use SpiderGwen + Mile Morales + SM2099 or Iron Spider. Since it's a 4* star, you won't do enough damage to trigger cap unless a big cascade happens.

Bishop is the worst. You either need to kill him in 2 turns or have high enough health to survive long enough to stun/kill him. I'm sure half the posts are about how terrible he is to fight. I'm not going to rehash all of that.

I have something different to say. This applies to both bishop and cap. Until these 2 characters came along, MPQ had a randomly generated board that may or may not work so well in your favor when you start; however, you want to match what you think is best to build up AP to power your 3 characters. Players evaluate the board and have choices like: a) do I match my highest damage color? b) is this match 4+ worth it or should I match 3 to ruin that bigger match because the 3 is worth more to me and the bigger match is worth more to them? c) do I set up the AI to make a match 4 that sucks for them? d) etc. These are by and large POSITIVE choices you make about the game. Cap and Bishop have turned this paradigm on its head. You want to make sure your matches don't do enough damage to trigger either one of their jump in front power/ Bishop stores his hits and reflects them back, but that's generally not a game-ending situation. If you're fielding a team with Cap or Bishop to counter, your only good choice is: what is a **** match I can make with the smallest possibly chance of a cascade? All it takes is 1 extra match of a "good" color and it's over. You play this stupid chicken game until you either trigger their Cap/Bishop or they trigger yours. Then it's stunlock hell, probably to the end of the match. While playing this game of chicken, you intentionally, desperately rack up useless AP. It is NOT fun. It also doesn't help that most of the recent AP generating characters give blue AP, the color with the most stuns (Cap/Bishop/Strange/Iceman). Giving either Iceman all that blue for cheap powers makes stuns even faster.

Regarding new characters to counter the meta, if those characters are specialized in defeating 1 team, they're likely going paint themselves as target. Because people play with the meta teams in PVP, any characters who deviate from them get targeted immediately. If anyone uses BSSM or Sabretooth against Gritty, better be fast in switching to a more defensive team after as those 2 are terrible against all other metas. 4* Cap and Bishop look like they were going to be an answer against 5* teams, but you made them so good that they're better if the other team rarely gets to go (or go so you generate more blue to continue stunning them). A recent example of a decent 4* is Juggernaut. Pain to fight with damage reduction and team damage. You really have to think about the order of characters to attack. He's way above average and not meta. May cause high level players to skip once in a while. Just about all other recent 4*s are considered fodder against any meta. Retooling old characters to be a bit strong and/or more health just prolongs the inevitable.

I'm writing all of this as someone who's been playing since launch, with everyone champed except the 2 latest 5*s and 4* Northstar. I have and use all the meta characters listed above so nerfing them would "hurt" me, but I'd rather have a game that is more balanced for EVERYONE. I'm also a commander in a family of alliances. We have alliances with different goals. It's increasingly difficult to find players who want to be in the competitive hybrid alliances. When we ask our players from less competitive alliances if they want to move up or if outside players want to join, the answer is almost always "NO!" They don't play PVP because of Gritty, 4* Cap, and especially Bishop or they'll play until they hit that wall of teams. These characters have turned off wide swathes of players from PVP. I hear this repeatedly.

So please do some of both. Scale back some of the meta characters and make useless characters better.

Thanks for reading.

DeNappa · January 2020

Some characters could use super soldier serum

thedarkphoenix said:

nerfing bishop isn't going to make it any easier for any of you.

Just like nerfing gambit didn't.

There really isn't a point in nerfing Bishop if they plan on re-balancing other characters as they can create a hard counter in 5 land for bishop with some passive and spend time and money on buffing another character instead of nerfing bishop.

The nerf wouldn't be about 'making it easier'. It would be to fix a broken character. Just like 'nerfing' Gambit was to fix a completely broken character.

Twysta · January 2020

Some characters could use super soldier serum

Demi should never nerf another character again ever.
Mainly because they just don't know how.
Any nerfs on any character they deem to be "overused" becomes so brutal that they don't get used at all.

Buffs all the way.

Daredevil217 · January 2020

Twysta said:

Demi should never nerf another character again ever.
Mainly because they just don't know how.
Any nerfs on any character they deem to be "overused" becomes so brutal that they don't get used at all.

Buffs all the way.

Again they also struggle to make effective counter characters. Someone pointed out in Sinisters thread that he could be their “answer” to Bishop (drains AP), the way Cap/Angel were answers for Gambit.

bluewolf · January 2020

Some characters could use a dusting of nerf powder

Daredevil217 said:

show previous quotes

Twysta said:

Demi should never nerf another character again ever.
Mainly because they just don't know how.
Any nerfs on any character they deem to be "overused" becomes so brutal that they don't get used at all.

Buffs all the way.

Again they also struggle to make effective counter characters. Someone pointed out in Sinisters thread that he could be their “answer” to Bishop (drains AP), the way Cap/Angel were answers for Gambit.

Or, you know, they just wanted to make Sinister do something besides dmg people, and he's all about "planning" and traps, so AP steal seemed like a good ability to add to his mix.

I kind of doubt they built him with an eye towards a Bishop counter given how meager the AP drain is.

I wonder if the devs (considering that the team is at least partly different than the people working on the game when prior nerfs were done) ever get frustrated that we all think they can't nerf effectively, or if that design/concept (nerf to uselessness) remains the core approach.

Daredevil217 · January 2020

bluewolf said:

show previous quotes

Daredevil217 said:

Twysta said:

Demi should never nerf another character again ever.
Mainly because they just don't know how.
Any nerfs on any character they deem to be "overused" becomes so brutal that they don't get used at all.

Buffs all the way.

Again they also struggle to make effective counter characters. Someone pointed out in Sinisters thread that he could be their “answer” to Bishop (drains AP), the way Cap/Angel were answers for Gambit.

Or, you know, they just wanted to make Sinister do something besides dmg people, and he's all about "planning" and traps, so AP steal seemed like a good ability to add to his mix.

I kind of doubt they built him with an eye towards a Bishop counter given how meager the AP drain is.

I wonder if the devs (considering that the team is at least partly different than the people working on the game when prior nerfs were done) ever get frustrated that we all think they can't nerf effectively, or if that design/concept (nerf to uselessness) remains the core approach.

Not saying I agree necessarily. We didn't know Gambit/Angel were attempts at countering Gambit until way after he was nerfed. Because they were so far from effective that we wouldn't have thought that they were legit attempts as counters until we were explicitly told.

Rod5 · January 2020

Some characters could use a dusting of nerf powder

Spudgutter said:

show previous quotes

The rockett said:

I shared a SS on discord of a SIM match against HE/Hammer Cap with my A team of 516 OK, 505 Thor and 490 JJ.

1st move:
Me: match 3 that hit a cascade which I ended with 9 AP.
AI: PRE 1st move after all the Hammer Cap tiles do their countdown thing.
blue AP:30
Red AP:26

Yes that was before AI made 1 move they had over 30 blue and 26 red AP. You cannot make a match against Hammer or Bishop without their passive going off. If that is not broken, then I have no idea what is.

C'mon, i don't remember what logical fallacy this falls under, but it is pretty blatant. You think you represent anything resembling the average player? I'm top 50 cl9 pve with 900/1200 pvp. Day 2221 with 10 million Iso sitting in the bank and 400+ pulls waiting on the next 5* so i can champ whomever it is with carbage and brb and add them to my 27 other 5* champs. And even with all that, my best 5* are between 460 and 463, and i only just recently maxed out my second 4* champ literally yesterday.

Of course the AI is going to have maximum ap in that scenario. No one is surprised by this. Show me when you do that with 4*, and I'll listen. But just as an example, my 366 Coulson, boosted in pvp right now, does 1137 in his strongest color, just barely enough to trigger the 1059 requirement of my level 297 bishop. But again, the number of people with almost maxed coulsons cannot come close to those that don't.

show previous quotes

jp1 said:

If they do nerf Bishop my life is likely to become less complicated when it comes to PVP, so I stand to gain nothing from coming to his defense. Other people, those in transition with maybe 1 or 2 five star champs or those deeply rooted in 4 star land having to deal with under leveled fives who are still dominating their play experience might need those tools.

This right here is what it comes down to, those that are annoyed are only thinking of themselves and not others. Nerfing bishop or hammer does absolutely nothing to me or my game, but I takes away options from others. No offense to those asking for nerfs, but it comes off as kind of selfish, imo.

show previous quotes

DAZ0273 said:

Despite all this talk about nerfs though I don't see any changes in leaderboards. I don't see 5* players not hitting 2000 in Sim. There is still collusion in PvP which makes Bishop etc irrelevant. Bishop isn't even an issue in pick 2 Pvp. I see 5* players who want 4* characters nerfed without their 5* characters touched or treated in equal fashion. I wonder at players talking about healthpacks when they have hundreds stockpiled. This whole thread/poll is a strange exercise which none of us will win I fear, especially when players continue to vote one way but their comments suggest they want to play both ends against the middle. Fun I guess?

This right here. Top winners rarely change, even as the meta changes. Taking away tools because it inconveniences you, with no regard to how it impacts those who are trying to come up, is the wrong way to come about.

C’mon dude, you know fine well that these are not 4* players floating at c.2k in SSim with Cap and Bishop teams out. Unboosted 4* teams would not have the firepower to dispatch 5* teams...instead (again as you well know) these are big 5* players who are choosing to leave out a lvl 300+ Bishop with Okoye/Strange or HammerCap with JJ/Hawkeye.

It’s incredibly annoying, anti-competitive and to say otherwise is just being disingenuous.

Spudgutter · January 2020

Some characters could use super soldier serum

Rod5 said:

show previous quotes

Spudgutter said:

The rockett said:

I shared a SS on discord of a SIM match against HE/Hammer Cap with my A team of 516 OK, 505 Thor and 490 JJ.

1st move:
Me: match 3 that hit a cascade which I ended with 9 AP.
AI: PRE 1st move after all the Hammer Cap tiles do their countdown thing.
blue AP:30
Red AP:26

Yes that was before AI made 1 move they had over 30 blue and 26 red AP. You cannot make a match against Hammer or Bishop without their passive going off. If that is not broken, then I have no idea what is.

C'mon, i don't remember what logical fallacy this falls under, but it is pretty blatant. You think you represent anything resembling the average player? I'm top 50 cl9 pve with 900/1200 pvp. Day 2221 with 10 million Iso sitting in the bank and 400+ pulls waiting on the next 5* so i can champ whomever it is with carbage and brb and add them to my 27 other 5* champs. And even with all that, my best 5* are between 460 and 463, and i only just recently maxed out my second 4* champ literally yesterday.

Of course the AI is going to have maximum ap in that scenario. No one is surprised by this. Show me when you do that with 4*, and I'll listen. But just as an example, my 366 Coulson, boosted in pvp right now, does 1137 in his strongest color, just barely enough to trigger the 1059 requirement of my level 297 bishop. But again, the number of people with almost maxed coulsons cannot come close to those that don't.

jp1 said:

If they do nerf Bishop my life is likely to become less complicated when it comes to PVP, so I stand to gain nothing from coming to his defense. Other people, those in transition with maybe 1 or 2 five star champs or those deeply rooted in 4 star land having to deal with under leveled fives who are still dominating their play experience might need those tools.

This right here is what it comes down to, those that are annoyed are only thinking of themselves and not others. Nerfing bishop or hammer does absolutely nothing to me or my game, but I takes away options from others. No offense to those asking for nerfs, but it comes off as kind of selfish, imo.

DAZ0273 said:

Despite all this talk about nerfs though I don't see any changes in leaderboards. I don't see 5* players not hitting 2000 in Sim. There is still collusion in PvP which makes Bishop etc irrelevant. Bishop isn't even an issue in pick 2 Pvp. I see 5* players who want 4* characters nerfed without their 5* characters touched or treated in equal fashion. I wonder at players talking about healthpacks when they have hundreds stockpiled. This whole thread/poll is a strange exercise which none of us will win I fear, especially when players continue to vote one way but their comments suggest they want to play both ends against the middle. Fun I guess?

This right here. Top winners rarely change, even as the meta changes. Taking away tools because it inconveniences you, with no regard to how it impacts those who are trying to come up, is the wrong way to come about.

C’mon dude, you know fine well that these are not 4* players floating at c.2k in SSim with Cap and Bishop teams out. Unboosted 4* teams would not have the firepower to dispatch 5* teams...instead (again as you well know) these are big 5* players who are choosing to leave out a lvl 300+ Bishop with Okoye/Strange or HammerCap with JJ/Hawkeye.

It’s incredibly annoying, anti-competitive and to say otherwise is just being disingenuous.

Again, i don't think i ever said he wasn't annoying. What I'm saying is it's selfish to fix it so that *we* aren't annoyed. I'm still getting to 2k in sim, and i think it is pretty fair to assume that most of the 5* players that are asking for a nerf are still getting there, so what's the problem? Why do you care that someone is floating with jj/bishop or HE/hammer instead of okoye/thor or any other team? It is no more or less anti-competitive than grilling is for regular pvp, imo. And yet, it doesn't stop me from getting rewards, so i don't make a fuss.

I'm not being disingenuous when i am making the assumption, based on my knowledge of how the game works and is designed, that the number of people that are helped by bishop outweighs the number of people that are strictly annoyed by him. I would say it even vastly outweighs it. Now, i have no way to prove i am right or wrong, but neither does anyone else. Considering all the people that talk about how he helps them give their examples, while people asking for a nerf overwhelmingly reference "annoying" as a reason, i think i am closer to right than wrong.

I had stuff to do today, so i couldn't push to 1200 in pvp, but on my climb to 900, i saw someone with a 370 bishop. I still made it to 900, just went around him. It was pretty easy to avoid. I saw one other bishop in my 19 wins and maybe 2 losses in deadpool pvp. Plus teams i skipped because of low points, i saw at least 35 teams, closer to 40. 2 of them were bishop. Maybe my mmr has me secluded in a safe spot, but i doubt it.

BriMan2222 · January 2020

Some characters could use a dusting of nerf powder

Spudgutter said:

show previous quotes

Rod5 said:

Spudgutter said:

The rockett said:

I shared a SS on discord of a SIM match against HE/Hammer Cap with my A team of 516 OK, 505 Thor and 490 JJ.

1st move:
Me: match 3 that hit a cascade which I ended with 9 AP.
AI: PRE 1st move after all the Hammer Cap tiles do their countdown thing.
blue AP:30
Red AP:26

Yes that was before AI made 1 move they had over 30 blue and 26 red AP. You cannot make a match against Hammer or Bishop without their passive going off. If that is not broken, then I have no idea what is.

C'mon, i don't remember what logical fallacy this falls under, but it is pretty blatant. You think you represent anything resembling the average player? I'm top 50 cl9 pve with 900/1200 pvp. Day 2221 with 10 million Iso sitting in the bank and 400+ pulls waiting on the next 5* so i can champ whomever it is with carbage and brb and add them to my 27 other 5* champs. And even with all that, my best 5* are between 460 and 463, and i only just recently maxed out my second 4* champ literally yesterday.

Of course the AI is going to have maximum ap in that scenario. No one is surprised by this. Show me when you do that with 4*, and I'll listen. But just as an example, my 366 Coulson, boosted in pvp right now, does 1137 in his strongest color, just barely enough to trigger the 1059 requirement of my level 297 bishop. But again, the number of people with almost maxed coulsons cannot come close to those that don't.

jp1 said:

If they do nerf Bishop my life is likely to become less complicated when it comes to PVP, so I stand to gain nothing from coming to his defense. Other people, those in transition with maybe 1 or 2 five star champs or those deeply rooted in 4 star land having to deal with under leveled fives who are still dominating their play experience might need those tools.

This right here is what it comes down to, those that are annoyed are only thinking of themselves and not others. Nerfing bishop or hammer does absolutely nothing to me or my game, but I takes away options from others. No offense to those asking for nerfs, but it comes off as kind of selfish, imo.

DAZ0273 said:

Despite all this talk about nerfs though I don't see any changes in leaderboards. I don't see 5* players not hitting 2000 in Sim. There is still collusion in PvP which makes Bishop etc irrelevant. Bishop isn't even an issue in pick 2 Pvp. I see 5* players who want 4* characters nerfed without their 5* characters touched or treated in equal fashion. I wonder at players talking about healthpacks when they have hundreds stockpiled. This whole thread/poll is a strange exercise which none of us will win I fear, especially when players continue to vote one way but their comments suggest they want to play both ends against the middle. Fun I guess?

This right here. Top winners rarely change, even as the meta changes. Taking away tools because it inconveniences you, with no regard to how it impacts those who are trying to come up, is the wrong way to come about.

C’mon dude, you know fine well that these are not 4* players floating at c.2k in SSim with Cap and Bishop teams out. Unboosted 4* teams would not have the firepower to dispatch 5* teams...instead (again as you well know) these are big 5* players who are choosing to leave out a lvl 300+ Bishop with Okoye/Strange or HammerCap with JJ/Hawkeye.

It’s incredibly annoying, anti-competitive and to say otherwise is just being disingenuous.

Again, i don't think i ever said he wasn't annoying. What I'm saying is it's selfish to fix it so that *we* aren't annoyed. I'm still getting to 2k in sim, and i think it is pretty fair to assume that most of the 5* players that are asking for a nerf are still getting there, so what's the problem? Why do you care that someone is floating with jj/bishop or HE/hammer instead of okoye/thor or any other team? It is no more or less anti-competitive than grilling is for regular pvp, imo. And yet, it doesn't stop me from getting rewards, so i don't make a fuss.

I'm not being disingenuous when i am making the assumption, based on my knowledge of how the game works and is designed, that the number of people that are helped by bishop outweighs the number of people that are strictly annoyed by him. I would say it even vastly outweighs it. Now, i have no way to prove i am right or wrong, but neither does anyone else. Considering all the people that talk about how he helps them give their examples, while people asking for a nerf overwhelmingly reference "annoying" as a reason, i think i am closer to right than wrong.

I had stuff to do today, so i couldn't push to 1200 in pvp, but on my climb to 900, i saw someone with a 370 bishop. I still made it to 900, just went around him. It was pretty easy to avoid. I saw one other bishop in my 19 wins and maybe 2 losses in deadpool pvp. Plus teams i skipped because of low points, i saw at least 35 teams, closer to 40. 2 of them were bishop. Maybe my mmr has me secluded in a safe spot, but i doubt it.

All of this was true of Gambit as well. People who were against nerfing gambit made this exact argument. Gambit can be beat, people can still reach the amount of points, people who spent cp on him will be mad if he's nerfed, etc. All of this is true, both with gambit and with Bishop.

The point is not whether the character can be beat or if they stop you from reaching the points you want in pvp. The point is, is the character broken? Is the character too powerful?

I believe with bishop as I did with gambit that the answer is yes. It's not about not being able to get the points I want in pvp, it's that pre nerf gambit and current bishop are a one character wrecking ball that overpowers even the strongest 5 stars.

It was seen as a problem that 5 star players would rather use a 450 newly champed gambit than any level 500 plus 5 star. Were now seeing the same type of problem with bishop, 5 star players would rather use a lower lvl 4 star in favor of a much higher lvl 5 star.

Warbringa · January 2020

Some characters could use super soldier serum

thedarkphoenix said:

nerfing bishop isn't going to make it any easier for any of you.

Just like nerfing gambit didn't.

There really isn't a point in nerfing Bishop if they plan on re-balancing other characters as they can create a hard counter in 5 land for bishop with some passive and spend time and money on buffing another character instead of nerfing bishop.

I would love one or two of the rebalanced 5* to address the jump in front 4* like Bishop and HammerCap. Would make sense in that they don't have to actually nerf either character, just make a hard counter with the new and improved 5* Wasp or 5* Hulk that everyone will now want to chase. Vets should be happy as many will already have covers for these old useless 5*. Also much more revenue possibility for D3 with all the new targeted deals and shards they have been pushing. What about if one of 5* Wasps new passive powers was something like whenever an opposing character jumps in front of her matches, they are stunned for a round? It could also deal a decent bonus damage (like OBW) and she may drain a small amount of AP at 5 covers, once again like OBW.

thedarkphoenix · January 2020

Some characters could use super soldier serum

Warbringa said:

show previous quotes

thedarkphoenix said:

nerfing bishop isn't going to make it any easier for any of you.

Just like nerfing gambit didn't.

There really isn't a point in nerfing Bishop if they plan on re-balancing other characters as they can create a hard counter in 5 land for bishop with some passive and spend time and money on buffing another character instead of nerfing bishop.

I would love one or two of the rebalanced 5* to address the jump in front 4* like Bishop and HammerCap. Would make sense in that they don't have to actually nerf either character, just make a hard counter with the new and improved 5* Wasp or 5* Hulk that everyone will now want to chase. Vets should be happy as many will already have covers for these old useless 5*. Also much more revenue possibility for D3 with all the new targeted deals and shards they have been pushing. What about if one of 5* Wasps new passive powers was something like whenever an opposing character jumps in front of her matches, they are stunned for a round? It could also deal a decent bonus damage (like OBW) and she may drain a small amount of AP at 5 covers, once again like OBW.

Yeah I just really don't see the point in making any current characters worse when they are going back and readjusting characters.

Why nerf great characters in there own right that can have niche uses, when you can easily buff up other ones that can directly counter it that alone shakes the meta up all kinda ways.

They could literally fix older characters and also have each one directly counter the meta in some fashion...seems weird to suggest nerfs to me, I don't understand the point of it. The only reason bishop is even consider OP is because of 5 star match damage and his passive. You throw in a 5 that counters that and he isn't a bad character and still good at what he does when attacks are beefed up or when not up against the counter.....

Taganov · January 2020

Some characters could use super soldier serum

Someone made a compelling post about all the tools in Bishop's kit: stun, AP drain, AP gain, and retaliation. Yet for all of that, Bishop teams are still completely beatable. The problem very few seem willing to acknowledge is that these teams are an annoyance because they take long to win against, and the PvP meta is speed. It's not that Bishop teams aren't beatable, it's that you need to pick the right tools and spend time to beat them.

That's not a reason for a character nerf. That's a reason to fix the underlying issues with PvP.

Either way, Bishop's counter character is easy, frankly. Adjust widow to counter stun the stunner + 1 random enemy. Adjust Angel to send stunning characters airborne for stun duration. Adjust banner so Hulk form is unstunnable/comes out automatically when Banner is stunned. Adjust Silver Surfer, who's already unstunnable, to be worth rostering. Oh yeah, again, no nerfs.

Notwen · January 2020

Some characters could use super soldier serum

As a 4-star player, I use Gamora - R&G - Juggs in pve constantly because they are so much faster than any other team. Boosting other characters is unlikely to change that. I think a nerf on R&G (like generating one strike tile per turn rather than six to start match) would fix a lot of balance issues in the game (including for pvp). I would miss my super-speedy pve clears but still think it would improve the game.

The situation for pvp is similar, some characters are just too fast and boosting other characters will not help the game until and unless those too-fast characters are slowed. The more I've thought about it the more I've come to think the nerfs are needed more than the boosts and that I voted wrong (but there are a whole lot of characters desperately needing boosts).

tiomono · January 2020

Some characters could use a dusting of nerf powder

tdtmf said:

, but taking my time and money for a product, and then changing the product is unethical.

So its unethical to change a product that someone paid for even if said product includes an agreement that the consumer accepts that the product can change anytime or even cease to exist at the whim of the creator of said product? You might not want to pay for anything with updating software ever again if you feel its morally wrong.

Sm0keyJ0e · January 2020

IceIX said:

Hey all,
Wanted to stir up a bit of conversation, this particular time for a subject that many of you know to be near and dear to my heart: Character balancing.
Like to get a temperature check as to what people are looking for here and now. I mean, sure. There’s tons of data that we can pull from over the past zillion years, but I’d like to know: How do you feel about character balance right now?

Howdy IceIX. You want to know how I feel about character balance right now? Well, many smarter and more articulate people have already expressed anything I could say about Bishop, so I won't rehash that ad nauseam.

But I do want to talk about character rebalancing and your methods/thought processes/internal communications regarding this. Frankly, you guys stink at this. And I mean that with all due respect. Your track record here is mostly... not good. There are any number of threads discussing characters like OML, Gambit, Kingpin, Mr. Fantastic, to name a few, getting "rebalanced" to be no longer useful at all. I don't understand the strategy behind this and this is why many, many people are skeptical of nerfs.

Your track record for buffs has been really good: Carnage, Wasp, Riri, again only to name a few, all had very well-received buffs. The player base universally loved these reworks.

So again, I ask--why does a toon have to be made unusable when getting nerfed? Because that is the fear of most of those that chased Bishop. I sympathize with those who like the character and want to continue to use him, even an 80% version of him, but odds are he will be reduced to 20% of himself.

Personally, you can throw him in the trash as far as I'm concerned or make him the first retired character, but that's a selfish opinion on my part.

BriMan2222 · January 2020

Some characters could use a dusting of nerf powder

tiomono said:

show previous quotes

tdtmf said:

, but taking my time and money for a product, and then changing the product is unethical.

So its unethical to change a product that someone paid for even if said product includes an agreement that the consumer accepts that the product can change anytime or even cease to exist at the whim of the creator of said product? You might not want to pay for anything with updating software ever again if you feel its morally wrong.

Exactly. Any game with online play does this. Look at any MMO, classes are buffed and nerfed on an almost monthly basis. You could spend literally years building a mage only for them to say mages are too powerful and nerf them. Same thing with any fighting game. Characters have their special moves, speed, and damage tweaked with every single patch.

It's common video game practice.

jp1 · January 2020

Some characters could use super soldier serum

BriMan2222 said:

show previous quotes

tiomono said:

tdtmf said:

, but taking my time and money for a product, and then changing the product is unethical.

So its unethical to change a product that someone paid for even if said product includes an agreement that the consumer accepts that the product can change anytime or even cease to exist at the whim of the creator of said product? You might not want to pay for anything with updating software ever again if you feel its morally wrong.

Exactly. Any game with online play does this. Look at any MMO, classes are buffed and nerfed on an almost monthly basis. You could spend literally years building a mage only for them to say mages are too powerful and nerf them. Same thing with any fighting game. Characters have their special moves, speed, and damage tweaked with every single patch.

It's common video game practice.

So, common equates to ethical? I don’t think so. Those “agreements” are completely one sided and have at times resulted in class action suits when people got tired enough of being screwed over.

Just because something is common doesn’t mean you as a consumer have to agree with the practice or accept it at face value. Maybe if there were a few more independent thinkers out there we would be treated with a little more respect in regarding our dollars.

Hive mentality has completely destroyed the integrity of this and many other industries. Micro transactions galore, because we are conditioned to accept it. Even then...don’t expect to keep what you paid for, that’s not part of the arrangement. How badly should we be treated as consumers before we start to say something about it?

If a nerf blast destroys your toon that costs you hundreds or thousands of dollars/hours to get...you should get to choose the exact replacement. Not placated with some silly tokens that are diluted to the point of uselessness.

BriMan2222 · January 2020

Some characters could use a dusting of nerf powder

jp1 said:

show previous quotes

BriMan2222 said:

tiomono said:

tdtmf said:

, but taking my time and money for a product, and then changing the product is unethical.

So its unethical to change a product that someone paid for even if said product includes an agreement that the consumer accepts that the product can change anytime or even cease to exist at the whim of the creator of said product? You might not want to pay for anything with updating software ever again if you feel its morally wrong.

Exactly. Any game with online play does this. Look at any MMO, classes are buffed and nerfed on an almost monthly basis. You could spend literally years building a mage only for them to say mages are too powerful and nerf them. Same thing with any fighting game. Characters have their special moves, speed, and damage tweaked with every single patch.

It's common video game practice.

So, common equates to ethical? I don’t think so. Those “agreements” are completely one sided and have at times resulted in class action suits when people got tired enough of being screwed over.

Just because something is common doesn’t mean you as a consumer have to agree with the practice or accept it at face value. Maybe if there were a few more independent thinkers out there we would be treated with a little more respect in regarding our dollars.

Hive mentality has completely destroyed the integrity of this and many other industries. Micro transactions galore, because we are conditioned to accept it. Even then...don’t expect to keep what you paid for, that’s not part of the arrangement. How badly should we be treated as consumers before we start to say something about it?

If a nerf blast destroys your toon that costs you hundreds or thousands of dollars/hours to get...you should get to choose the exact replacement. Not placated with some silly tokens that are diluted to the point of uselessness.

It wouldnt be ethical if they just did it with no warning, but you've ignored the fact that tiomono pointed out that YOU AGREED TO THIS. When you play any of these games there is a disclosure that by playing the game you agree to their terms. Part of those terms are that as tiomono pointed out "the product can change or shutdown completely"
You agree to these terms when you install the game.

You can't complain about the terms after you agreed to the terms.

i could also make the argument that it would be unethical and boring not to adjust characters in online games. It would be unethical if they had allowed an obviously broken character like gambit to be unchanged and just let the lucky people who had him dominate pvp, and also boring as pvp would just be gambit and friends.

If everyone played a mage and there were no fighter, rogues, healers,etc. because mages were OP that would be super boring. It was super boring in Mortal Kombat 11 when every single online player was playing Jax because he was OP. It's not unethical, it's good game balance.

jp1 · January 2020

Some characters could use super soldier serum

I guess everything governments do is also “ethical” since we have no choice but to agree with it. That’s one way to look at it. It’s not the way I see it though.

Sure, you could not play the game at all, I wonder how much they would like us to choose that option instead of asking for a fair shake.

BriMan2222 · January 2020

Some characters could use a dusting of nerf powder

jp1 said:

I guess everything governments do is also “ethical” since we have no choice but to agree with it. That’s one way to look at it. It’s not the way I see it though.

Sure, you could not play the game at all, I wonder how much they would like us to choose that option instead of asking for a fair shake.

Comparing a game that you are in no way obligated to play to a government that you have "no choice" but to live under, even though you do have a choice because no one is preventing you from moving to another country, is comparing apples to watermelon.

You've also completely ignored the valid reasons that adjusting OP characters in any game is necessary for the health of the game. You're complaining about fairness while ignoring that these nerfs are done for the sake of fairness.

Feedback Wanted: Character Balance

Comments

Welcome!

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories