MPQ 12th Anniversary Celebrations

ThisisClemFandango

Are you....do you mean me?

Scofie

@ThisisClemFandango said:
Are you....do you mean me?

No, sorry, the real one... 😜

ThisisClemFandango

Yeah i guessed i walked straight into that one

BriMan2222

@Seph1roth5 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Seph1roth5 they should nerf/buff based completely on usage rates. The best characters get used the most, the worst get used the least. It's really easy to figure it out on their side.

They need to actually do rebalances frequently though. In the past they'd nerf someone good into the ground then let them sit at the bottom forever.

I'm a fan of small, frequent changes. If they're hitting m'Thor, hit her a tiny bit, and if it doesn't reduce usage but her again the next month. Repeat until her usage rate looks like everyone else.

I meant more they shouldn't ONLY look at usage. Most used doesn't mean OP, it could mean ease as well. Like...I'm sure rocket is used a ton, in 4 and 5* land, but I don't think he needs a nerf.

Same with Shang. SC is undoubtedly very strong, but I would fight him all day in pvp lol. He's easy to manage. Part of that is that his powers let you choose what to break and sort of where a crit goes, and the AI will use it randomly.

Juggs/Sam...yeah I can see that being a problem lol. But was juggs a problem without sam? The devs would probably nerf both hard, like chasm, and ruin both, like chasm. Because instead of looking at the interaction and figuring out why they're strong together, would just see them at the top of the list and hit them with the nerf bat.

On what planet did they ruin chasm? He's still extremely useful and on nearly every pvp team in shield sim. He's still great, just not the overpowered dominant monster he used to be. I thought the consensus was that the nerf to Chams was a great example of how we would all like to see nerfs be done.

Borstock

@BriMan2222 said:

@Seph1roth5 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Seph1roth5 they should nerf/buff based completely on usage rates. The best characters get used the most, the worst get used the least. It's really easy to figure it out on their side.

They need to actually do rebalances frequently though. In the past they'd nerf someone good into the ground then let them sit at the bottom forever.

I'm a fan of small, frequent changes. If they're hitting m'Thor, hit her a tiny bit, and if it doesn't reduce usage but her again the next month. Repeat until her usage rate looks like everyone else.

I meant more they shouldn't ONLY look at usage. Most used doesn't mean OP, it could mean ease as well. Like...I'm sure rocket is used a ton, in 4 and 5* land, but I don't think he needs a nerf.

Same with Shang. SC is undoubtedly very strong, but I would fight him all day in pvp lol. He's easy to manage. Part of that is that his powers let you choose what to break and sort of where a crit goes, and the AI will use it randomly.

Juggs/Sam...yeah I can see that being a problem lol. But was juggs a problem without sam? The devs would probably nerf both hard, like chasm, and ruin both, like chasm. Because instead of looking at the interaction and figuring out why they're strong together, would just see them at the top of the list and hit them with the nerf bat.

On what planet did they ruin chasm? He's still extremely useful and on nearly every pvp team in shield sim. He's still great, just not the overpowered dominant monster he used to be. I thought the consensus was that the nerf to Chams was a great example of how we would all like to see nerfs be done.

I actually still think that stun is broken. But otherwise, I agree.

entrailbucket

@Seph1roth5 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Seph1roth5 they should nerf/buff based completely on usage rates. The best characters get used the most, the worst get used the least. It's really easy to figure it out on their side.

They need to actually do rebalances frequently though. In the past they'd nerf someone good into the ground then let them sit at the bottom forever.

I'm a fan of small, frequent changes. If they're hitting m'Thor, hit her a tiny bit, and if it doesn't reduce usage but her again the next month. Repeat until her usage rate looks like everyone else.

I meant more they shouldn't ONLY look at usage. Most used doesn't mean OP, it could mean ease as well. Like...I'm sure rocket is used a ton, in 4 and 5* land, but I don't think he needs a nerf.

Same with Shang. SC is undoubtedly very strong, but I would fight him all day in pvp lol. He's easy to manage. Part of that is that his powers let you choose what to break and sort of where a crit goes, and the AI will use it randomly.

Juggs/Sam...yeah I can see that being a problem lol. But was juggs a problem without sam? The devs would probably nerf both hard, like chasm, and ruin both, like chasm. Because instead of looking at the interaction and figuring out why they're strong together, would just see them at the top of the list and hit them with the nerf bat.

I do think they need to be smarter about the way they adjust characters. In the past I think the philosophy was often "let's make sure we don't have to do this again," which resulted in nerfs so big they ended up having to buff the character later!

But the most used characters are the strongest, because, like, of course they are? Players aren't in the habit of using bad characters all the time. I think the devs should just let the data tell them who needs fixing. If Rocket is on 50% of all PvP teams and Spider-woman is on 1% of them, then the data says to nerf Rocket and buff Spider-woman until there's less of a disparity.

The key is to not mess up the rebalances, so that Rocket goes to 1% usage and Spider-woman goes to 50%. That's just as bad! And that's where they've done a bad job in the past.

LavaManLee

@entrailbucket said:

@Seph1roth5 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Seph1roth5 they should nerf/buff based completely on usage rates. The best characters get used the most, the worst get used the least. It's really easy to figure it out on their side.

They need to actually do rebalances frequently though. In the past they'd nerf someone good into the ground then let them sit at the bottom forever.

I'm a fan of small, frequent changes. If they're hitting m'Thor, hit her a tiny bit, and if it doesn't reduce usage but her again the next month. Repeat until her usage rate looks like everyone else.

I meant more they shouldn't ONLY look at usage. Most used doesn't mean OP, it could mean ease as well. Like...I'm sure rocket is used a ton, in 4 and 5* land, but I don't think he needs a nerf.

Same with Shang. SC is undoubtedly very strong, but I would fight him all day in pvp lol. He's easy to manage. Part of that is that his powers let you choose what to break and sort of where a crit goes, and the AI will use it randomly.

Juggs/Sam...yeah I can see that being a problem lol. But was juggs a problem without sam? The devs would probably nerf both hard, like chasm, and ruin both, like chasm. Because instead of looking at the interaction and figuring out why they're strong together, would just see them at the top of the list and hit them with the nerf bat.

I do think they need to be smarter about the way they adjust characters. In the past I think the philosophy was often "let's make sure we don't have to do this again," which resulted in nerfs so big they ended up having to buff the character later!

But the most used characters are the strongest, because, like, of course they are? Players aren't in the habit of using bad characters all the time. I think the devs should just let the data tell them who needs fixing. If Rocket is on 50% of all PvP teams and Spider-woman is on 1% of them, then the data says to nerf Rocket and buff Spider-woman until there's less of a disparity.

The key is to not mess up the rebalances, so that Rocket goes to 1% usage and Spider-woman goes to 50%. That's just as bad! And that's where they've done a bad job in the past.

I really hope any metric they use isn't just solely on usage. There are many characters used in DDQ purely for speed that probably have high usage but in no way need to be nerfed. Same thing in PVP/PVE. Just because someone has high usage doesn't mean they automatically should be nerfed.

entrailbucket

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Seph1roth5 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Seph1roth5 they should nerf/buff based completely on usage rates. The best characters get used the most, the worst get used the least. It's really easy to figure it out on their side.

They need to actually do rebalances frequently though. In the past they'd nerf someone good into the ground then let them sit at the bottom forever.

I'm a fan of small, frequent changes. If they're hitting m'Thor, hit her a tiny bit, and if it doesn't reduce usage but her again the next month. Repeat until her usage rate looks like everyone else.

I meant more they shouldn't ONLY look at usage. Most used doesn't mean OP, it could mean ease as well. Like...I'm sure rocket is used a ton, in 4 and 5* land, but I don't think he needs a nerf.

Same with Shang. SC is undoubtedly very strong, but I would fight him all day in pvp lol. He's easy to manage. Part of that is that his powers let you choose what to break and sort of where a crit goes, and the AI will use it randomly.

Juggs/Sam...yeah I can see that being a problem lol. But was juggs a problem without sam? The devs would probably nerf both hard, like chasm, and ruin both, like chasm. Because instead of looking at the interaction and figuring out why they're strong together, would just see them at the top of the list and hit them with the nerf bat.

I do think they need to be smarter about the way they adjust characters. In the past I think the philosophy was often "let's make sure we don't have to do this again," which resulted in nerfs so big they ended up having to buff the character later!

But the most used characters are the strongest, because, like, of course they are? Players aren't in the habit of using bad characters all the time. I think the devs should just let the data tell them who needs fixing. If Rocket is on 50% of all PvP teams and Spider-woman is on 1% of them, then the data says to nerf Rocket and buff Spider-woman until there's less of a disparity.

The key is to not mess up the rebalances, so that Rocket goes to 1% usage and Spider-woman goes to 50%. That's just as bad! And that's where they've done a bad job in the past.

I really hope any metric they use isn't just solely on usage. There are many characters used in DDQ purely for speed that probably have high usage but in no way need to be nerfed. Same thing in PVP/PVE. Just because someone has high usage doesn't mean they automatically should be nerfed.

I'm not sure DDQ usage is something they'd bother with -- I wouldn't. It has a lot of roster restrictions that make it complicated to analyze.

Otherwise...the whole game is speed. If someone is the fastest, they're the best. Who's a character who's super fast but not good?

KGB

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Seph1roth5 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Seph1roth5 they should nerf/buff based completely on usage rates. The best characters get used the most, the worst get used the least. It's really easy to figure it out on their side.

They need to actually do rebalances frequently though. In the past they'd nerf someone good into the ground then let them sit at the bottom forever.

I'm a fan of small, frequent changes. If they're hitting m'Thor, hit her a tiny bit, and if it doesn't reduce usage but her again the next month. Repeat until her usage rate looks like everyone else.

I meant more they shouldn't ONLY look at usage. Most used doesn't mean OP, it could mean ease as well. Like...I'm sure rocket is used a ton, in 4 and 5* land, but I don't think he needs a nerf.

Same with Shang. SC is undoubtedly very strong, but I would fight him all day in pvp lol. He's easy to manage. Part of that is that his powers let you choose what to break and sort of where a crit goes, and the AI will use it randomly.

Juggs/Sam...yeah I can see that being a problem lol. But was juggs a problem without sam? The devs would probably nerf both hard, like chasm, and ruin both, like chasm. Because instead of looking at the interaction and figuring out why they're strong together, would just see them at the top of the list and hit them with the nerf bat.

I do think they need to be smarter about the way they adjust characters. In the past I think the philosophy was often "let's make sure we don't have to do this again," which resulted in nerfs so big they ended up having to buff the character later!

But the most used characters are the strongest, because, like, of course they are? Players aren't in the habit of using bad characters all the time. I think the devs should just let the data tell them who needs fixing. If Rocket is on 50% of all PvP teams and Spider-woman is on 1% of them, then the data says to nerf Rocket and buff Spider-woman until there's less of a disparity.

The key is to not mess up the rebalances, so that Rocket goes to 1% usage and Spider-woman goes to 50%. That's just as bad! And that's where they've done a bad job in the past.

I really hope any metric they use isn't just solely on usage. There are many characters used in DDQ purely for speed that probably have high usage but in no way need to be nerfed. Same thing in PVP/PVE. Just because someone has high usage doesn't mean they automatically should be nerfed.

It's not just speed, but also whom you have on your roster and the disparity between levels of those you have rostered. An enormous number of Rocket users will simply be newer players who only have a handful of 4's rostered and of course Rocket is one of them because he really helps their game play. So that's going to skew the usage metrics.

The only valid usage metrics that make sense would be to look at just veteran rosters where they have everyone rostered AND all the characters at roughly the same level. That's the only place where you'll find usage metrics that are semi-meaningful because the player could reasonably choose any character from the roster to make a team.

KGB

PiMacleod

On what planet did they ruin chasm? He's still extremely useful and on nearly every pvp team in shield sim. He's still great, just not the overpowered dominant monster he used to be. I thought the consensus was that the nerf to Chams was a great example of how we would all like to see nerfs be done.

I actually still think that stun is broken. But otherwise, I agree.

Ugh, I hate joining in this sort of banter, but I feel the need to weigh in...

I don't think Chasm was nerfed enough, either. BUT -- I HATE nerfs... I'd rather more solutions/buffs/whatever be made. However, to the point, this is why I believe he's still crazy strong...

Turn 1 team stun. Obvi. Don't need to describe that further.
Ability to revive. Sure, it got nerfed... but its still something that has to be factored in when it comes to defeating the opposing team. To make sure that you keep the abyss tiles low/nonexistent one way or another, while managing whatever threat his teammates are posing...
And then there's the big extra amount of match damage he gets early game (i.e. when his team has low amounts of AP).

To sum it up, a team stun, early big match damage, and if the fight lasts long enough, you might have to deal with him reviving and popping up again with ANOTHER TEAM STUN. This is while you deal with the other enemy threats. This ONE GUY is dealing you a team stun, physical up-front extra match damage, and the potential to keep coming back to life. Meanwhile, a good 90% of the roster doesn't pose that many threats at once... usually, that sort of threat is a combination of multiple characters' abilities. Colossus/Wanda was a crazy team to fight when that was part of the meta -- reduced match damage, and reduced ability damage, all while amplifying match and ability damage! But that was TWO characters abilities combined, and neither caused stuns, or revived themselves.

Anyways, TL;DR -- I expect Chasm is on the chopping block, because there's nobody else on the roster I can think of where I see him on the PvP screen and I automatically start thinking about the scant few characters that I could use to combat this threat. Every other opponent, there's plenty of options. Chasm? Gotta change my whole mentality because of his team stun, match damage bonus, and ability to regen/revive.

...its kinda funny when I think further about it... I've fought 3Namor/MBaku teams and have won... same with Juggs/5Sam.... but its only when Chasm is their 3rd that I greatly roll my eyes and question if its worth the migraine.

entrailbucket

@KGB said:

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Seph1roth5 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Seph1roth5 they should nerf/buff based completely on usage rates. The best characters get used the most, the worst get used the least. It's really easy to figure it out on their side.

They need to actually do rebalances frequently though. In the past they'd nerf someone good into the ground then let them sit at the bottom forever.

I'm a fan of small, frequent changes. If they're hitting m'Thor, hit her a tiny bit, and if it doesn't reduce usage but her again the next month. Repeat until her usage rate looks like everyone else.

I meant more they shouldn't ONLY look at usage. Most used doesn't mean OP, it could mean ease as well. Like...I'm sure rocket is used a ton, in 4 and 5* land, but I don't think he needs a nerf.

Same with Shang. SC is undoubtedly very strong, but I would fight him all day in pvp lol. He's easy to manage. Part of that is that his powers let you choose what to break and sort of where a crit goes, and the AI will use it randomly.

Juggs/Sam...yeah I can see that being a problem lol. But was juggs a problem without sam? The devs would probably nerf both hard, like chasm, and ruin both, like chasm. Because instead of looking at the interaction and figuring out why they're strong together, would just see them at the top of the list and hit them with the nerf bat.

I do think they need to be smarter about the way they adjust characters. In the past I think the philosophy was often "let's make sure we don't have to do this again," which resulted in nerfs so big they ended up having to buff the character later!

But the most used characters are the strongest, because, like, of course they are? Players aren't in the habit of using bad characters all the time. I think the devs should just let the data tell them who needs fixing. If Rocket is on 50% of all PvP teams and Spider-woman is on 1% of them, then the data says to nerf Rocket and buff Spider-woman until there's less of a disparity.

The key is to not mess up the rebalances, so that Rocket goes to 1% usage and Spider-woman goes to 50%. That's just as bad! And that's where they've done a bad job in the past.

I really hope any metric they use isn't just solely on usage. There are many characters used in DDQ purely for speed that probably have high usage but in no way need to be nerfed. Same thing in PVP/PVE. Just because someone has high usage doesn't mean they automatically should be nerfed.

It's not just speed, but also whom you have on your roster and the disparity between levels of those you have rostered. An enormous number of Rocket users will simply be newer players who only have a handful of 4's rostered and of course Rocket is one of them because he really helps their game play. So that's going to skew the usage metrics.

The only valid usage metrics that make sense would be to look at just veteran rosters where they have everyone rostered AND all the characters at roughly the same level. That's the only place where you'll find usage metrics that are semi-meaningful because the player could reasonably choose any character from the roster to make a team.

KGB

Totally disagree. If Rocket (for example) is "the one character" that new players need to rely on, that's a massive problem. It indicates that not only is he overpowered, there are fundamental problems with the early game that need to be addressed. New players should be able to compete using Drax, or Spider-woman, or Silk, if that's the character they choose. Maybe those other guys won't be 100% as good, and that's ok. But they shouldn't be, like, 10% as good!

I'd also disagree that you can't meaningfully assess usage unless a player has every character at the same level. Players aren't stupid -- they're going to level up the strongest characters and ignore the weakest ones. Level disparity is actually a great way to tell who's too strong compared to everyone else.

I know everyone hates nerfs, but they're really just a faster way to accomplish balance. You could do exactly the same thing by giving hundreds of characters a massive buff, and I'd be just as happy with that. I'm not totally clear on why that'd be preferable to you guys though. Like, say they increase the damage 500% on every single character but m'Thor -- that is a nerf in all but name. Why is that better?

entrailbucket

@PiMacleod currently the refreshment cart support is broken...it makes your entire team immune to stun. I don't know if it's permanent or intended, but it's a good support in general so it's worth having. Bring that somewhere on your team and Chasm is like 75% less annoying (plus it works on defense, so it makes it harder for Chasm teams to beat you).

BriMan2222

@entrailbucket said:
@PiMacleod currently the refreshment cart support is broken...it makes your entire team immune to stun. I don't know if it's permanent or intended, but it's a good support in general so it's worth having. Bring that somewhere on your team and Chasm is like 75% less annoying (plus it works on defense, so it makes it harder for Chasm teams to beat you).

Unless we're experiencing different things due to unity (which is entirely possible) it does not work on defense. My cart prevents me from being stunned on offense but opponents carts don't stop my chasm.

KGB

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Seph1roth5 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Seph1roth5 they should nerf/buff based completely on usage rates. The best characters get used the most, the worst get used the least. It's really easy to figure it out on their side.

They need to actually do rebalances frequently though. In the past they'd nerf someone good into the ground then let them sit at the bottom forever.

I'm a fan of small, frequent changes. If they're hitting m'Thor, hit her a tiny bit, and if it doesn't reduce usage but her again the next month. Repeat until her usage rate looks like everyone else.

I meant more they shouldn't ONLY look at usage. Most used doesn't mean OP, it could mean ease as well. Like...I'm sure rocket is used a ton, in 4 and 5* land, but I don't think he needs a nerf.

Same with Shang. SC is undoubtedly very strong, but I would fight him all day in pvp lol. He's easy to manage. Part of that is that his powers let you choose what to break and sort of where a crit goes, and the AI will use it randomly.

Juggs/Sam...yeah I can see that being a problem lol. But was juggs a problem without sam? The devs would probably nerf both hard, like chasm, and ruin both, like chasm. Because instead of looking at the interaction and figuring out why they're strong together, would just see them at the top of the list and hit them with the nerf bat.

I do think they need to be smarter about the way they adjust characters. In the past I think the philosophy was often "let's make sure we don't have to do this again," which resulted in nerfs so big they ended up having to buff the character later!

But the most used characters are the strongest, because, like, of course they are? Players aren't in the habit of using bad characters all the time. I think the devs should just let the data tell them who needs fixing. If Rocket is on 50% of all PvP teams and Spider-woman is on 1% of them, then the data says to nerf Rocket and buff Spider-woman until there's less of a disparity.

The key is to not mess up the rebalances, so that Rocket goes to 1% usage and Spider-woman goes to 50%. That's just as bad! And that's where they've done a bad job in the past.

I really hope any metric they use isn't just solely on usage. There are many characters used in DDQ purely for speed that probably have high usage but in no way need to be nerfed. Same thing in PVP/PVE. Just because someone has high usage doesn't mean they automatically should be nerfed.

It's not just speed, but also whom you have on your roster and the disparity between levels of those you have rostered. An enormous number of Rocket users will simply be newer players who only have a handful of 4's rostered and of course Rocket is one of them because he really helps their game play. So that's going to skew the usage metrics.

The only valid usage metrics that make sense would be to look at just veteran rosters where they have everyone rostered AND all the characters at roughly the same level. That's the only place where you'll find usage metrics that are semi-meaningful because the player could reasonably choose any character from the roster to make a team.

KGB

Totally disagree. If Rocket (for example) is "the one character" that new players need to rely on, that's a massive problem. It indicates that not only is he overpowered, there are fundamental problems with the early game that need to be addressed. New players should be able to compete using Drax, or Spider-woman, or Silk, if that's the character they choose. Maybe those other guys won't be 100% as good, and that's ok. But they shouldn't be, like, 10% as good!

I'd say it indicates an entirely different fundamental problem. That of incredible dilution facing new players. With 150+ 4 star characters it's essentially impossible to reasonably try and acquire them all in a normal time frame. New players are forced into hard decisions regarding which characters to roster and so they can only choose the best. Doesn't matter if that 'best' is 10% better or 100% better or 1000% better, they are going to have to choose the best. So choosing the best does not give a great idea of how much better that character is or whether that character needs a nerf, it just indicates the character is better.

I'd also disagree that you can't meaningfully assess usage unless a player has every character at the same level. Players aren't stupid -- they're going to level up the strongest characters and ignore the weakest ones. Level disparity is actually a great way to tell who's too strong compared to everyone else.

This is where I think you nailed it. It's not usage. Instead it's roster level. They could ignore usage entirely and just look at roster levels. When you see rosters with a handful of 550s and all the rest in the 450-460 range it's clear indication that those handful of 550s are outliers. The same goes for which characters are ascended into 5s. You don't need to check usage at all.

I know everyone hates nerfs, but they're really just a faster way to accomplish balance. You could do exactly the same thing by giving hundreds of characters a massive buff, and I'd be just as happy with that. I'm not totally clear on why that'd be preferable to you guys though. Like, say they increase the damage 500% on every single character but m'Thor -- that is a nerf in all but name. Why is that better?

That's an easy question to answer. Time. If you boosted every other character by 500% you'd massively reduce the time required to clear in PvE or win matches in PvP. Players LOVE increasing their rewards/time played. This is one big reason why nerfing is going to be despised if they nerf characters and suddenly PvE clear times double or worse (especially with 2 new PvE CL's coming).

KGB

entrailbucket

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Seph1roth5 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Seph1roth5 they should nerf/buff based completely on usage rates. The best characters get used the most, the worst get used the least. It's really easy to figure it out on their side.

They need to actually do rebalances frequently though. In the past they'd nerf someone good into the ground then let them sit at the bottom forever.

I'm a fan of small, frequent changes. If they're hitting m'Thor, hit her a tiny bit, and if it doesn't reduce usage but her again the next month. Repeat until her usage rate looks like everyone else.

I meant more they shouldn't ONLY look at usage. Most used doesn't mean OP, it could mean ease as well. Like...I'm sure rocket is used a ton, in 4 and 5* land, but I don't think he needs a nerf.

Same with Shang. SC is undoubtedly very strong, but I would fight him all day in pvp lol. He's easy to manage. Part of that is that his powers let you choose what to break and sort of where a crit goes, and the AI will use it randomly.

Juggs/Sam...yeah I can see that being a problem lol. But was juggs a problem without sam? The devs would probably nerf both hard, like chasm, and ruin both, like chasm. Because instead of looking at the interaction and figuring out why they're strong together, would just see them at the top of the list and hit them with the nerf bat.

I do think they need to be smarter about the way they adjust characters. In the past I think the philosophy was often "let's make sure we don't have to do this again," which resulted in nerfs so big they ended up having to buff the character later!

But the most used characters are the strongest, because, like, of course they are? Players aren't in the habit of using bad characters all the time. I think the devs should just let the data tell them who needs fixing. If Rocket is on 50% of all PvP teams and Spider-woman is on 1% of them, then the data says to nerf Rocket and buff Spider-woman until there's less of a disparity.

The key is to not mess up the rebalances, so that Rocket goes to 1% usage and Spider-woman goes to 50%. That's just as bad! And that's where they've done a bad job in the past.

I really hope any metric they use isn't just solely on usage. There are many characters used in DDQ purely for speed that probably have high usage but in no way need to be nerfed. Same thing in PVP/PVE. Just because someone has high usage doesn't mean they automatically should be nerfed.

It's not just speed, but also whom you have on your roster and the disparity between levels of those you have rostered. An enormous number of Rocket users will simply be newer players who only have a handful of 4's rostered and of course Rocket is one of them because he really helps their game play. So that's going to skew the usage metrics.

The only valid usage metrics that make sense would be to look at just veteran rosters where they have everyone rostered AND all the characters at roughly the same level. That's the only place where you'll find usage metrics that are semi-meaningful because the player could reasonably choose any character from the roster to make a team.

KGB

Totally disagree. If Rocket (for example) is "the one character" that new players need to rely on, that's a massive problem. It indicates that not only is he overpowered, there are fundamental problems with the early game that need to be addressed. New players should be able to compete using Drax, or Spider-woman, or Silk, if that's the character they choose. Maybe those other guys won't be 100% as good, and that's ok. But they shouldn't be, like, 10% as good!

I'd say it indicates an entirely different fundamental problem. That of incredible dilution facing new players. With 150+ 4 star characters it's essentially impossible to reasonably try and acquire them all in a normal time frame. New players are forced into hard decisions regarding which characters to roster and so they can only choose the best. Doesn't matter if that 'best' is 10% better or 100% better or 1000% better, they are going to have to choose the best. So choosing the best does not give a great idea of how much better that character is or whether that character needs a nerf, it just indicates the character is better.

I'd also disagree that you can't meaningfully assess usage unless a player has every character at the same level. Players aren't stupid -- they're going to level up the strongest characters and ignore the weakest ones. Level disparity is actually a great way to tell who's too strong compared to everyone else.

This is where I think you nailed it. It's not usage. Instead it's roster level. They could ignore usage entirely and just look at roster levels. When you see rosters with a handful of 550s and all the rest in the 450-460 range it's clear indication that those handful of 550s are outliers. The same goes for which characters are ascended into 5s. You don't need to check usage at all.

I know everyone hates nerfs, but they're really just a faster way to accomplish balance. You could do exactly the same thing by giving hundreds of characters a massive buff, and I'd be just as happy with that. I'm not totally clear on why that'd be preferable to you guys though. Like, say they increase the damage 500% on every single character but m'Thor -- that is a nerf in all but name. Why is that better?

That's an easy question to answer. Time. If you boosted every other character by 500% you'd massively reduce the time required to clear in PvE or win matches in PvP. Players LOVE increasing their rewards/time played. This is one big reason why nerfing is going to be despised if they nerf characters and suddenly PvE clear times double or worse (especially with 2 new PvE CL's coming).

KGB

Players only have hard decisions about which characters to roster because some of them are really good and some of them are awful.

Fix that and you fix the dilution problem. If I need Rocket, that's a problem. If Spider-woman is like 10% worse than him (instead of 1000% worse like now), then I no longer need Rocket -- I can get by with her. Sure, the optimizers will still hold out for that tiny edge, but it'll be a tiny edge, not a requirement.

Oh no, I'd increase the damage/HP/whatever of every character except m'Thor, including PvE enemies. Players want buffs, not nerfs, after all!

DAZ0273

I think Rocket is a terrible choice for this argument. Once the board is settled and his strikes are there, he is basically useless thereafter. The only way to nerf him and Groot are the strikes and that makes them useless. Sorry people- the poster child has to be Polaris because how can it not be? She can at least be nerfed but remain useful.

entrailbucket

@DAZ0273 said:
I think Rocket is a terrible choice for this argument. Once the board is settled and his strikes are there, he is basically useless thereafter. The only way to nerf him and Groot are the strikes and that makes them useless. Sorry people- the poster child has to be Polaris because how can it not be? She can at least be nerfed but remain useful.

Just using him as an example. Fill in "Rocket" with any strong character you choose.

Read_Only

So if they level the playing field with Nerfs we can finally get rid of the god boost too right?

entrailbucket

@Read_Only said:
So if they level the playing field with Nerfs we can finally get rid of the god boost too right?

No chance. We'd end up with another stagnant metagame of "best 2," even if the best 2 were only a tiny bit better than everyone else.

DAZ0273

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:
I think Rocket is a terrible choice for this argument. Once the board is settled and his strikes are there, he is basically useless thereafter. The only way to nerf him and Groot are the strikes and that makes them useless. Sorry people- the poster child has to be Polaris because how can it not be? She can at least be nerfed but remain useful.

Just using him as an example. Fill in "Rocket" with any strong character you choose.

But here lies the problem with relying on the usage statistics. Rocket doesn’t win you the match but his one trick puts you on the way. Unless the opposition has Chasm. Then he is truly useless. We need to be looking at the characters who actually win matches and are still dominant if match conditions change. From this perspective 4* Juggs suffers a bit without strike tiles or whatever boosting him. This isn’t an easy round of nerfs for the Devs and I fear they may get it wrong.