Nibby said: Why did they ask us, whether we wanted nerfs or buffs, if they don't listen anyway. A look at the poll shows that most users wanted buffs...What we got is a few minor buffs that no one cares about and Bishop and Worthy Captain destroyed. I would really have preferred a new character that counters Bishop /Worthy, instead of taking away powers. All the time we spent into leveling up these characters are now wasted.
HoundofShadow said: I just reread Bishop's reworked Overclocked ability. Based on the wordings, it seems like I can put out multiple Overclocked CDs on the same turn and then multiply the amount of damage. If I have 3 CDs out on the same turn and Bishop took a total 5k damage, his total Overclocked damage would be 3*5000*3.25= 48,750 damage.The logic behind this thinking is because it doesn't seem to have the limitation that BRB's Clash of the Worthy has.
Spudgutter said: My 2 cents and analogy:Buffs are usually good, even for characters where we weren't looking to get them. I also agree with everyone pointing out these are fairly minor nudges, while those that are often asked to get nudged remain unchanged.Nerfs are rarely good. In the history of this game, the nerf typically leads to complete lack of usefulness. The list is long and doesn't bear repeating because someone will just point out the one or two exceptions in an attempt to nullify the overall point.For the life of me, I cannot find a logical reason to explain how they can manage minor tweaks, that tend to leave characters slightly better and more useful, but cannot figure out how to do minor tweaks in the opposite direction. Why does every (I know, exceptions to the rule happen) nerf mean totally gutting them?Imagine the game is like a town. Different roads we can all take, different paths to get from one place to another. Just because some people don't like a particular road, and are happy when it is closed down, there may still be a very large amount of people who never said anything bad about the road because they either liked it, or didn't even care because they never even used it.
Vhailorx said: Spudgutter said: My 2 cents and analogy:Buffs are usually good, even for characters where we weren't looking to get them. I also agree with everyone pointing out these are fairly minor nudges, while those that are often asked to get nudged remain unchanged.Nerfs are rarely good. In the history of this game, the nerf typically leads to complete lack of usefulness. The list is long and doesn't bear repeating because someone will just point out the one or two exceptions in an attempt to nullify the overall point.For the life of me, I cannot find a logical reason to explain how they can manage minor tweaks, that tend to leave characters slightly better and more useful, but cannot figure out how to do minor tweaks in the opposite direction. Why does every (I know, exceptions to the rule happen) nerf mean totally gutting them?Imagine the game is like a town. Different roads we can all take, different paths to get from one place to another. Just because some people don't like a particular road, and are happy when it is closed down, there may still be a very large amount of people who never said anything bad about the road because they either liked it, or didn't even care because they never even used it. It's not that demi can't make incremental changes, it's just a matter of incentives. reworking characters costs dev time, so multiple reworks are undesirable (each one means fewer resources to devote to anything else like new pve events or features). So when they know that a character is bad for the game long term and finally decide to fix the problem with a nerf, I can understand that they want to be absolutely sure they only have to do the job once and err on the side of too much. Similarly, when bumping characters up, they don't want to be forced to follow up with a subsequent nerf because they overshot the mark and made someone OP. So they do tiny bumps up.
jp1 said: MPQ is the product of a business. Literally the only thing they care about is meeting and ideally exceeding KPIs. I think any other theory that isn’t first through the scope of this lens is flawed.There is nothing wrong with that by the way, that’s not my insinuation at all. Real world facts is that is the only way for this to even exist much less stick around. The problem is approach in my opinion.There are less problematic ways to encourage engagement and spending. However, there seems to be no interest in this philosophy. Trashing characters into oblivion that you have previously sold in HFH bundles straight up as a purchase is....problematic. Further, if you buffed a trash tier 5* to something special and open a special store for more than 48 hours you can bet it will drive revenue. Pissing off a large section of customers is short sighted. Which is why when some companies make changes that don’t favor a customer base they “grandfather you in” to reward loyalty and present some sort of semblance of integrity as a company. Since that isn’t an option at MPQ, they should, IMHO, do changes with the same intent. Then again, what do I know? You are all happy 😆. My company would surely fold if we took payment and put in work on a deal and then changed the terms whenever we see fit. Want good will? Let us change the coverage of our WCap and/or Bishop for Polaris. I’m betting that would never happen. Second to that, do some buffs that aren’t ridiculous trash that is useless to the player base you are screwing over with your heavy nerf.OK. That’s all, I promise I’m done this time for real. Y’all enjoy your 10 inch foot long subs.
Mr_F said: @jp1 Yep. But for players like me, overall I have 4&5* bonanza of covers. Double pre-shard era (so basically double the 2019). Not to mention that playing SCL7 PVE and SCL10 in PVP equals to 2 and 1 cover respectivetly. That is 7 4* covers a week just for progression rewards. And not counting token pulls, champion rewards ect. I have 4.3M ISO dept solelly to shards and 4* covers who enter my roster from every, possible hole. I usually got 3-4 covers at new 4* release now it is 6-7.Also: If we have double the 4* covers income then we - overall - need less time to champ/max champ them which equals to faster classic 5*. Yes, I agree not everybody will be happy because of that.Yes, I agree non classic or LL are harder to get. Yes, SCL 10 is more time consuming ect. I totally agree. But I just how the opposite side of the coin: for me (and propably not only me) rewards were upgraded.
krakenoon said: The point I was trying to make is that anyone not in 5land before the restructuring has had the goalposts moved. Yes, overall there are “more” rewards, but anyone not reaping the benefits of a roster featuring numerous champed 4*s are not able to keep up rostering costs without paying or playing way too much. Before the restructure, players could ride out filling their roster with a variety of methods.Now, it could be argued that with dilution now moving into the 5* tier, the 2000 HP rostering cost will catch up to vets sooner, it is still an obstacle anyone looking to roster all non-limiteds will eventually have to face.Also, I don’t see how the only viable method of getting specific 5* shards is roughly the same rewards.