Akoni said: To your, and others', point, adding supports to PvP or adding PvP-only supports could become very complicated (and frustrating) very fast. My suggestion would be to keep things very simple by keeping the same supports, but add a single power for PvP. During PvE, this PvP-specific power would be disabled. During PvP, all of the other powers are disabled. This way, players can use the same support, without it becoming complicated. This also solves the "too powerful/unfair for PvP" argument.
KGB said: Akoni said: To your, and others', point, adding supports to PvP or adding PvP-only supports could become very complicated (and frustrating) very fast. My suggestion would be to keep things very simple by keeping the same supports, but add a single power for PvP. During PvE, this PvP-specific power would be disabled. During PvP, all of the other powers are disabled. This way, players can use the same support, without it becoming complicated. This also solves the "too powerful/unfair for PvP" argument. I think your wrong about PvP supports in addition to PvE supports being too complex. I don't see that being too complex at all. All they'd need to do is allow you to equip 2 supports on a character, 1 PvE and 1 PvP support.Also just randomly dropping a new power onto existing supports is going to cause some issues. We as players won't get to vote what power goes where and we know they won't all be equal so it's going to cause resentment if they drop good powers onto **** supports no one chased or drop good powers onto supports that people have at rank 1 as opposed to rank 5. Or even worse a great power on a support that is locked to 1 character/classification.It's better to create new supports for PvP only and gradually release them like they do with new characters. In fact the new release schedule could be 4*, 5*, PvP Support. This gives all players a shot at new supports and we all start at the same place (not having the support). Also it would be cool if PvP supports had 2 powers, one on offense and 1 on defense so you had to make some decisions on what to equip to who (if you care about defense). Plus the new PvP supports would not be locked to 1 character/classification.KGB
DAZ0273 said: Nobody wanted another Cap Marv5l...not even the DEVS.
HoundofShadow said: Some of the nerfed Bishop's abilities came from players' feedbacks. Look for the thread spanning over 10 pages where you see Bishop's nerfed abilities being suggested by those players.
Bad said: Wanda's hard counter to ihulk has appeared after extensive feedback about hulkoye teams and how it is needed to counter it with a passive.Morbius appeared after many complaints about polaris hegemony.Puzzle ops running for a week appeared after suggestions to do gauntlets running a month.New UI design appeared after revealing the exploits and has explicity changed by players feedback.
DAZ0273 said: You can see other obvious counters implemented that will have had some level of player base feedback. An example is Hela's punishment of Green AP which was clearly designed to try and clip Half-Thor's wings a bit - a topic of discussion on these boards with some even claiming God of Thunder was an exploit. If they can make it make sense (Hela shooting down Thor does) then great but if not they also have no issue of just throwing it out there even if it fails - like Infini-War Cap being an attempt at a Gambit counter. There is no logical reason to have this character be Gambit's counter which suggests it was player feedback based rather than natural design choice. "Give us a counter and give it now!" - Fine, who is next up? Right then.I also think that Wanda almost had to be an iHulk counter, nothing else would have been entertained because she was so highly sought by the player base to have a 5* version and that version must absolutely not be anything but good. That is player base lead as much as anything else. Nobody wanted another Cap Marv5l...not even the DEVS.
MegaBee said: DAZ0273 said: Nobody wanted another Cap Marv5l...not even the DEVS. Still annoyed that they stealth nerfed her...
Akoni said: I apologize for any confusion. What I meant was although devs use feedback to implement changes, what they do not use is direct recommendations. For example, Bishop should have X power written "this" way. Players have provided feedback regarding Bishop, but devs did not ask players what should happen with that particular character's powers. Are there any examples of situations where a player has made a very specific recommendation regarding a character design that was taken by devs and implemented?
jp1 said: Another solution would be to only let supports be active on offense.
DeNappa said: * The infinity stone supports.... Why are they here? Let's face it, they will probably only be attainable for at most 1% of the player base, and I think of the few people who DO have them, they got them by coordinating and cheesing it by getting into flipped brackets. Either get rid of them or provide a better way to obtain them too.* I'm okay with supports not active in PVP, especially if the system to obtain/level them is so random.
I think they can allow Supports in PvPs. If they disable Support for AI, the effects are players will be beaten even faster. Currently, players with the right Supports can frequently fire Apocalypse's yellow and black powers, and BRB's blue power on Turn 0. In a Pick-3. BRB can fire his Green Power on Turn 0 too.
Which supports?
New Support: Back from the dead!
Lvl 1: This thread looks like a new comment on...
Lvl 2: Waitaminute!
Lvl 3: 2021...
Lvl 4: Really?
Lvl 5: Man...I guess this thread has socially distanced itself long enough that we might not get COVID 19 from it?
Synergy Perk: Attaching this Support to any character allows them to time travel back to a time when there was absolutely no whining about Chasm which hang on...is sort of useless as there is no whining about Chasm now also? Oh and also +5 AP in every colour.