These characters need to be nerfed

KGB

@entrailbucket said:

@Blackstone said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Blackstone I agree with some of what you said here, and I think we agree in general about turn0 wins (you didn't say it, but I don't think they should exist and I think you think that too).

The problem is that not all turn0 wins are equal. We've actually had them in PvP since 5* match damage became a thing -- seed teams! You can also climb till you only see 5-pointers, and get very low level player teams. So "punching down" turn0 wins have been a thing for a long time, and I think those are ok. When I'm punching down by hundreds of levels, those fights should be really fast and easy.

Supports (post-leapfrog) have enabled tons of teams that can reliably turn0 your peers, and I think those are more problematic, but I guess PvP has been getting faster anyway and maybe we'd have gotten there anyway. I don't like this, but I guess I can understand a case for it.

Hawkeye and May are something new though, because they enable "punching up" turn0 wins, and I just think that's something different entirely. Should a lower level player be able to beat any team of any level (except Galactus I guess!) without ever giving them a turn? I guess I don't understand the case for that one. Why is that good?

I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it's how it is.

I don't think any match should ever end without each side being able to move.

I understand the argument for preventing lower level players from doing this to high level players who have invested more time into their roster...

I just think the argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny because those high level players can retaliate quickly and earn points more quickly that anyone relying on HE can't compete with.

If turn zero wins are going to remain in the game, and the game is expected to grow with new players, there must be a turn zero option for those new players.

That option being slower and less reliable on defense meets that need while not truly competing with the rest of the zero turn meta.

I also don't understand the argument that brand new players need access to turn0 wins against any team of any level. It's a roster-building game, right? Why should you have an endgame roster that fast?

But the biggest problem here is that the Hawkeye teams aren't slow. We've always had slow infinite teams that take like an hour to win a fight. Those are fine because they're not practical. Hawkeye is WAY faster than that stuff.

Brand new players do not get access to turn 0 wins against teams of any level with Hawkeye. Without supports that grant starting AP he's not winning on turn 0 and to be more realistic you need other supports like Refreshment cart to guarantee that turn 0 win. So it's not Hawkeye on his own = turn 0 wins vs any team.

Also I can tell you he's VERY slow. Mine's a 3 star in the 330 range and without my L360 Shang with his crazy match damage boost as a team mate it would take a lifetime to beat a 672. What you are really saying is a 550 (or maybe 450?) Hawkeye can do it reasonably fast due to 5 star match damage. But a 550 Hawkeye is absolutely not an entry level character for new players (baring paying $20 for a 450 when they occasionally sell one), that's an end game roster and if an end game roster character is beating 672 that's not unreasonable.

KGB

Read_Only

@bluewolf said:
IDK why we keep going in circles, but a game this old has to find a way to make new players be able to do well quickly and beat hard teams.

They onramp to high tier play is much shorter than before due to selling 1-5s or 5s in bundles etc so you can pretty easily get straight into 5* MMR within....whatever estimate I make will be too long. Months. Target someone, open and don't care about saving covers as much, you can champ some 5 pretty fast.

Exactly, these people have to exist or I'd have next to no one to easily beat in 5 seconds due to the lack of targets in this game. Let them have it. Otherwise I'd have to just keep on hitting the melts in my alliance family who cry when you give them a tap when they have 800 points and sitting unshielded for 2 days.

entrailbucket

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Blackstone said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Blackstone I agree with some of what you said here, and I think we agree in general about turn0 wins (you didn't say it, but I don't think they should exist and I think you think that too).

The problem is that not all turn0 wins are equal. We've actually had them in PvP since 5* match damage became a thing -- seed teams! You can also climb till you only see 5-pointers, and get very low level player teams. So "punching down" turn0 wins have been a thing for a long time, and I think those are ok. When I'm punching down by hundreds of levels, those fights should be really fast and easy.

Supports (post-leapfrog) have enabled tons of teams that can reliably turn0 your peers, and I think those are more problematic, but I guess PvP has been getting faster anyway and maybe we'd have gotten there anyway. I don't like this, but I guess I can understand a case for it.

Hawkeye and May are something new though, because they enable "punching up" turn0 wins, and I just think that's something different entirely. Should a lower level player be able to beat any team of any level (except Galactus I guess!) without ever giving them a turn? I guess I don't understand the case for that one. Why is that good?

I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it's how it is.

I don't think any match should ever end without each side being able to move.

I understand the argument for preventing lower level players from doing this to high level players who have invested more time into their roster...

I just think the argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny because those high level players can retaliate quickly and earn points more quickly that anyone relying on HE can't compete with.

If turn zero wins are going to remain in the game, and the game is expected to grow with new players, there must be a turn zero option for those new players.

That option being slower and less reliable on defense meets that need while not truly competing with the rest of the zero turn meta.

I also don't understand the argument that brand new players need access to turn0 wins against any team of any level. It's a roster-building game, right? Why should you have an endgame roster that fast?

But the biggest problem here is that the Hawkeye teams aren't slow. We've always had slow infinite teams that take like an hour to win a fight. Those are fine because they're not practical. Hawkeye is WAY faster than that stuff.

Brand new players do not get access to turn 0 wins against teams of any level with Hawkeye. Without supports that grant starting AP he's not winning on turn 0 and to be more realistic you need other supports like Refreshment cart to guarantee that turn 0 win. So it's not Hawkeye on his own = turn 0 wins vs any team.

Also I can tell you he's VERY slow. Mine's a 3 star in the 330 range and without my L360 Shang with his crazy match damage boost as a team mate it would take a lifetime to beat a 672. What you are really saying is a 550 (or maybe 450?) Hawkeye can do it reasonably fast due to 5 star match damage. But a 550 Hawkeye is absolutely not an entry level character for new players (baring paying $20 for a 450 when they occasionally sell one), that's an end game roster and if an end game roster character is beating 672 that's not unreasonable.

KGB

Ok, this is a thing that happens all the time here and it drives me insane.

The person I was responding to said that Hawkeye was important because he gave brand new players a way to punch up against anybody.

I replied, asking why that would be a good thing.

You replied to me, telling me that in fact, Hawkeye does not give new players a way to punch up against anybody.

See the problem here? Your issue is with that other guy!

entrailbucket

@Read_Only said:

@bluewolf said:
IDK why we keep going in circles, but a game this old has to find a way to make new players be able to do well quickly and beat hard teams.

They onramp to high tier play is much shorter than before due to selling 1-5s or 5s in bundles etc so you can pretty easily get straight into 5* MMR within....whatever estimate I make will be too long. Months. Target someone, open and don't care about saving covers as much, you can champ some 5 pretty fast.

Exactly, these people have to exist or I'd have next to no one to easily beat in 5 seconds due to the lack of targets in this game. Let them have it. Otherwise I'd have to just keep on hitting the melts in my alliance family who cry when you give them a tap when they have 800 points and sitting unshielded for 2 days.

This is a fantastic reason to not be in an "alliance family"

Blackstone

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Blackstone said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Blackstone I agree with some of what you said here, and I think we agree in general about turn0 wins (you didn't say it, but I don't think they should exist and I think you think that too).

The problem is that not all turn0 wins are equal. We've actually had them in PvP since 5* match damage became a thing -- seed teams! You can also climb till you only see 5-pointers, and get very low level player teams. So "punching down" turn0 wins have been a thing for a long time, and I think those are ok. When I'm punching down by hundreds of levels, those fights should be really fast and easy.

Supports (post-leapfrog) have enabled tons of teams that can reliably turn0 your peers, and I think those are more problematic, but I guess PvP has been getting faster anyway and maybe we'd have gotten there anyway. I don't like this, but I guess I can understand a case for it.

Hawkeye and May are something new though, because they enable "punching up" turn0 wins, and I just think that's something different entirely. Should a lower level player be able to beat any team of any level (except Galactus I guess!) without ever giving them a turn? I guess I don't understand the case for that one. Why is that good?

I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it's how it is.

I don't think any match should ever end without each side being able to move.

I understand the argument for preventing lower level players from doing this to high level players who have invested more time into their roster...

I just think the argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny because those high level players can retaliate quickly and earn points more quickly that anyone relying on HE can't compete with.

If turn zero wins are going to remain in the game, and the game is expected to grow with new players, there must be a turn zero option for those new players.

That option being slower and less reliable on defense meets that need while not truly competing with the rest of the zero turn meta.

I also don't understand the argument that brand new players need access to turn0 wins against any team of any level. It's a roster-building game, right? Why should you have an endgame roster that fast?

But the biggest problem here is that the Hawkeye teams aren't slow. We've always had slow infinite teams that take like an hour to win a fight. Those are fine because they're not practical. Hawkeye is WAY faster than that stuff.

Brand new players do not get access to turn 0 wins against teams of any level with Hawkeye. Without supports that grant starting AP he's not winning on turn 0 and to be more realistic you need other supports like Refreshment cart to guarantee that turn 0 win. So it's not Hawkeye on his own = turn 0 wins vs any team.

Also I can tell you he's VERY slow. Mine's a 3 star in the 330 range and without my L360 Shang with his crazy match damage boost as a team mate it would take a lifetime to beat a 672. What you are really saying is a 550 (or maybe 450?) Hawkeye can do it reasonably fast due to 5 star match damage. But a 550 Hawkeye is absolutely not an entry level character for new players (baring paying $20 for a 450 when they occasionally sell one), that's an end game roster and if an end game roster character is beating 672 that's not unreasonable.

KGB

Ok, this is a thing that happens all the time here and it drives me insane.

The person I was responding to said that Hawkeye was important because he gave brand new players a way to punch up against anybody.

I replied, asking why that would be a good thing.

You replied to me, telling me that in fact, Hawkeye does not give new players a way to punch up against anybody.

See the problem here? Your issue is with that other guy!

I never meant to imply that HE gave new players the ability to punch up against against anybody. If that's how my post was interpreted I apologize for not being more clear.

My intent was to say that HE helps to level the playing field by providing an option for zero turn winfinite to anyone that may not yet have the characters tier can do so more efficiently.

HE allows smaller rosters to chase progression rewards more reliably meaning that if you have him at a decent level you can pick through PVP teams to earn win based rewards. And yes that includes being able to punch up.

But it does not mean anyone can just have HE and beat any and every team they see regardless of that teams level.

At lower levels I imagine even a 3* strange would shut down ability spamming.

At higher levels Chasm means you don't get your turn zero.

4* juggs and M'Baku have enough damage resistance to make the time commitment ridiculously long to whittle down with anything but a very high ascended HE with support to increase damage.

I could continue but I think that clarifies my position.

In summary, HE gives anyone the opportunity to seek out teams they otherwise wouldn't be able to overcome, providing a pathway to making progress. If he could easily stomp anyone I can totally see where that would be something that needs to change. As he is, he simply gives a sneak peek at what other characters will do better when the roster gets filled out.

Blackstone

@bluewolf said:
IDK why we keep going in circles, but a game this old has to find a way to make new players be able to do well quickly and beat hard teams.

They onramp to high tier play is much shorter than before due to selling 1-5s or 5s in bundles etc so you can pretty easily get straight into 5* MMR within....whatever estimate I make will be too long. Months. Target someone, open and don't care about saving covers as much, you can champ some 5 pretty fast.

Once you're there you need a way to let those noobs win at least sometimes or they'll just get frustrated. PVP is a mess with people complaining constantly about the teams they run into once they're not in like 3*land.

The game turned into the reduced turn arms race, that genie is out of the bottle, making it slower just makes more people throw in the towel which some will argue is good but that's probably not desirable to the devs.

So yeah, you need to let newer players who want to spend a bit have a way to get competitive in the 5* MMR very quickly.

By the way, the real impediment to noobs winning more is supports, which the devs pulled back access to when Heroic bosses went away. Nothing new exists there except some shards in PVP and the fave ones in bosses, but you still need to pull tokens and luck out to have it at all.

Pretending that new player who buys 1-5 hawkeye will just autowin vs any team full of high level 5s is ignoring the need to start with purple.

The main goal of roster building now is to access more stuff in PVE (you need to roster about 383 characters to have ensured access to every node you see) and allow more reward churn to open more stuff because you have lots of champs vs wasting covers. If you're newer you're never, ever catching up to the level of people who have been here for even 6 years or half the game's life in terms of pure pull churn and how many ascended you have, etc.

I concur with this.

Especially the point you made about supports.
I've been playing since year one and I have everything available in the game... Except for one support.

I have never gotten even one leapfrog. If there was ever a store that offered it I must have missed it, but I've never gotten it from a pull so it remains the one thing I just might not ever see in my roster.

Anyone just starting out and wanting to build full supports would have a much harder time than building characters. And I don't think I ever gave it much thought until I read your comment.

entrailbucket

Again, none of this matters.

They're going to nerf Hawkeye eventually, because he's overpowered.

BCS most likely didn't intend to make him that strong. They almost certainly did not design him to give new players a leg up, or help people compete, or whatever. I guess it's possible that they purposely created a new problem because they knew they were leaving.

These kinds of arguments get dismissed pretty quickly when they reveal that, like, the guy who made Polaris just didn't look at the spreadsheet or whatever. Trying to parse out their motivations is a foolish exercise when they've proven over and over again that they don't know how to do this. These characters are accidents, that happen because they don't know how to make characters.

Nerfs generally don't matter, either. There's a big whinefest here and on Line or whatever for a few days, and then everybody adapts and forgets about them entirely. Are people still mad about Chasm? Gambit? Bishop? Heck, nobody even cares about Polaris and m'Thor anymore and that was just a few months ago!

LuxAurae

The issue with HE is that he makes roster building irrelevant for both the user as the the target.

Once you have gotten a HE and can turn 1 win against every team, why would you continue chasing anything else? You already win everything. And especially why would you spend?

It takes many more years to grow out of wins only playstyle and those players may just stay wins farmers anyway. It’s the same as Shang or Mthor or Polaris. Many of those players also just stayed with those characters long after relevance, because they were a good win guarantee.

As for the targets of a HE team. You built this huge roster over many years, wide and tall, and regardless of the boost list, there’s some sub year roster whipping you because they spent 20 bucks. And the only real solution offered (Galactus) is kept well out of reach by the devs. Makes people question why they spent all these resources and worse makes them question if they should continue spending money as there’s no way to keep a gap in PVP.

PVE is a different beast, of course, but there only a few hundred rosters in the game at most really trying to play for placement. Most are progression and HE guarantees progression as well.

In summary, HE -as a one person winfinite- is roster death. Reverting him to his original form more so you need to pair him with a cost reducer like 4BW like his original never-used-winfinite was, would be a step in the right direction.

Nothing wrong with winfinites. But they should be two or three person teams. Synergy. Not a man and his support.

KGB

@LuxAurae said:
The issue with HE is that he makes roster building irrelevant for both the user as the the target.

Once you have gotten a HE and can turn 1 win against every team, why would you continue chasing anything else? You already win everything. And especially why would you spend?

Does he really? Do you have an HE that can win on turn 1 and if so do you still spend? I have one and I still buy VIP every month.

I suspect there are plenty here on this Forum who have an HE who can win on turn 1 and still spend. I also suspect that if HE was in fact reducing spending that he'd have already been nerfed.

As for the targets of a HE team. You built this huge roster over many years, wide and tall, and regardless of the boost list, there’s some sub year roster whipping you because they spent 20 bucks. And the only real solution offered (Galactus) is kept well out of reach by the devs. Makes people question why they spent all these resources and worse makes them question if they should continue spending money as there’s no way to keep a gap in PVP.

No offense meant here but this just comes across as sour grapes. As in I'm a long time player with an amazing roster and there is no way I should ever lose to some less roster.

The only people who really care about the gap in PvP are those playing for placement. Most of the rest of us playing for wins don't care in the least that we lose to HE or any other team.

Its also interesting that the people who seem to really want HE nerfed are just high end PvP placement players. I don't see anyone saying he's ruining PvE nor do I see wins based PvP players complaining about losing to HE.

Nothing wrong with winfinites. But they should be two or three person teams. Synergy. Not a man and his support.

This made me laugh out loud. It's the equivalent of saying "Nothing wrong with prostitutes but they should cost at least 1000. No one should ever get their services for 20 bucks".

Either winfintes are OK or they aren't. Arguing about how long they should take makes no sense because everyone is going to have an entirely different opinion based on their own perspective.

KGB

LuxAurae

@KGB said:

@LuxAurae said:
The issue with HE is that he makes roster building irrelevant for both the user as the the target.

Once you have gotten a HE and can turn 1 win against every team, why would you continue chasing anything else? You already win everything. And especially why would you spend?

Does he really? Do you have an HE that can win on turn 1 and if so do you still spend? I have one and I still buy VIP every month.

I suspect there are plenty here on this Forum who have an HE who can win on turn 1 and still spend. I also suspect that if HE was in fact reducing spending that he'd have already been nerfed.

As for the targets of a HE team. You built this huge roster over many years, wide and tall, and regardless of the boost list, there’s some sub year roster whipping you because they spent 20 bucks. And the only real solution offered (Galactus) is kept well out of reach by the devs. Makes people question why they spent all these resources and worse makes them question if they should continue spending money as there’s no way to keep a gap in PVP.

No offense meant here but this just comes across as sour grapes. As in I'm a long time player with an amazing roster and there is no way I should ever lose to some less roster.

The only people who really care about the gap in PvP are those playing for placement. Most of the rest of us playing for wins don't care in the least that we lose to HE or any other team.

Its also interesting that the people who seem to really want HE nerfed are just high end PvP placement players. I don't see anyone saying he's ruining PvE nor do I see wins based PvP players complaining about losing to HE.

Nothing wrong with winfinites. But they should be two or three person teams. Synergy. Not a man and his support.

This made me laugh out loud. It's the equivalent of saying "Nothing wrong with prostitutes but they should cost at least 1000. No one should ever get their services for 20 bucks".

Either winfintes are OK or they aren't. Arguing about how long they should take makes no sense because everyone is going to have an entirely different opinion based on their own perspective.

KGB

You could have been more polite in your response (sour grapes and all), but I take note of your opinion.

I don’t agree with it however, for the reasons stated above.

Yes, HE is championed by wins only players. That is clear. But you missed the point of my discourse. That he eliminates the need to build wide for those players, just like Shang did before him. Just like Mthor did, Polaris, .. but all in a less risky, cheaper, stronger and self contained packet.

The first of these older examples being 5s you would need to target with many pulls (or buy, spend on vaults, etc..) meaning a significant investment in roster building. This investment doesn’t exist in the same fashion and can be skipped for less than the cost of 2-3 covers of said 5s.

Its strength versus investment and elimination of future investment and eventually maybe even retention.

Anyway. Back to lurking.

entrailbucket

Honestly wins based PvP is the worst mistake they ever made. PvP needs to ditch progression completely and go to placement-only (and PvE needs to go to progression only).

Blackstone

@LuxAurae said:

@KGB said:

@LuxAurae said:
The issue with HE is that he makes roster building irrelevant for both the user as the the target.

Once you have gotten a HE and can turn 1 win against every team, why would you continue chasing anything else? You already win everything. And especially why would you spend?

Does he really? Do you have an HE that can win on turn 1 and if so do you still spend? I have one and I still buy VIP every month.

I suspect there are plenty here on this Forum who have an HE who can win on turn 1 and still spend. I also suspect that if HE was in fact reducing spending that he'd have already been nerfed.

As for the targets of a HE team. You built this huge roster over many years, wide and tall, and regardless of the boost list, there’s some sub year roster whipping you because they spent 20 bucks. And the only real solution offered (Galactus) is kept well out of reach by the devs. Makes people question why they spent all these resources and worse makes them question if they should continue spending money as there’s no way to keep a gap in PVP.

No offense meant here but this just comes across as sour grapes. As in I'm a long time player with an amazing roster and there is no way I should ever lose to some less roster.

The only people who really care about the gap in PvP are those playing for placement. Most of the rest of us playing for wins don't care in the least that we lose to HE or any other team.

Its also interesting that the people who seem to really want HE nerfed are just high end PvP placement players. I don't see anyone saying he's ruining PvE nor do I see wins based PvP players complaining about losing to HE.

Nothing wrong with winfinites. But they should be two or three person teams. Synergy. Not a man and his support.

This made me laugh out loud. It's the equivalent of saying "Nothing wrong with prostitutes but they should cost at least 1000. No one should ever get their services for 20 bucks".

Either winfintes are OK or they aren't. Arguing about how long they should take makes no sense because everyone is going to have an entirely different opinion based on their own perspective.

KGB

You could have been more polite in your response (sour grapes and all), but I take note of your opinion.

I don’t agree with it however, for the reasons stated above.

Yes, HE is championed by wins only players. That is clear. But you missed the point of my discourse. That he eliminates the need to build wide for those players, just like Shang did before him. Just like Mthor did, Polaris, .. but all in a less risky, cheaper, stronger and self contained packet.

The first of these older examples being 5s you would need to target with many pulls (or buy, spend on vaults, etc..) meaning a significant investment in roster building. This investment doesn’t exist in the same fashion and can be skipped for less than the cost of 2-3 covers of said 5s.

Its strength versus investment and elimination of future investment and eventually maybe even retention.

Anyway. Back to lurking.

Everyone you mentioned as an example of characters that prevent people from growing their rosters are easily beaten and outshined by other characters once you have them, which means there's a reason to fill out your roster even if you have them.

By all means your opinion is valid based on your experience, I just don't think it matches reality.

For example: my wife hasn't opened a cover pack in about three years.

She's got thousands just sitting there.

Why? Because she's happy with her daily play with the characters she has... None of which are meta. (That she uses)

She's getting what she wants from the game and doesn't see the need for more.

Anyone who truly wants to "beat anyone" doesn't have that option.

HE, Shang, Polaris, MThor... Everyone you're mentioning as over powered and punching up pale in comparison to the actual top tier meta. At some point the people relying on those characters will see that when they face stronger characters and see the need to upgrade if truly being competitive is their goal.

If they nerf HE it'll because he sees a lot play from the average players who never graduate to higher tiers of play... And they likely wouldn't ever do so even without those characters because the average player simply doesn't put as much thought into min/maxing their roster.

There will always be characters that get more play and it doesn't mean they are the best... It means they are the best the masses have access to. And those are the characters that will get nerfed. Not because they're stronger than everyone but simply because they get more play and the nerf is intended to boost play time of other characters.

My point is to offer a counter point to your claim that HE eliminates the need to build. I disagree with statement for reasons I think are objective but I recognize others may disagree.

HE will likely get nerfed at some point...I just don't think it's needed. But that's just my opinion.

My intent on joining this discussion hasn't been to tell anyone that I'm right and they're wrong, just offering my perspective.

Anyone with HE in their roster (mine is 550 and I may do this at some point to test it) is welcomed to play only HE in PVP to test if he truly can beat everyone... And report back who they beat and who they don't.

He can't beat everyone no matter how many times people claim he can. And that destroys any argument claiming he ends the need to build or invest in the game.