New Character - Toad (Mortimer Toynbee) 4*

123468

Comments

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards

    @amigopdude22 said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @KGB said:

    @ViralCore said:

    @amigopdude22 said:

    @ViralCore said:
    I agree that they should take chances and be quick about rebalancing. My problem is that they pick and chose. 1-character-infinites should not exist.

    Toad’s rebalance is noticeably different and that’s a good thing. Unfortunately they refuse to do the same about Hawkeye. His purple cost should be bumped up and the amount of free ap should be reduced. It’s basically the same rebalance as toad.

    You really gotta let the HE thing go, he's fine. At max level he has less than 100k health, he's fairly easily managed. And if there weren't supports that gave 6-12 AP to start he would barely be in any conversations.

    Just because he's easy to kill doesn't mean he's fine. Again, NO level 166 should be able to single handedly be abe to take out 3 672s (no matter how long it takes). You do realize leveling systems is a thing right?

    I will keep advocating for May and Hawkeye nerfs.

    All this is just about taking PvP losses. The problem with these nerfs is they affect the rest of the game which is VASTLY more than L672 PvP (your PvP is probably less than a 1/10 of 1% of the game play in MPQ).

    This is why I suggested a cool down system for PvP play to prevent HE and others from being able to winfinite 672 characters. That should satisfy you and EB and others while preserving those characters for PvE etc.

    KGB

    Why should PvP be treated differently than PvE though?

    If small-roster players are using infinite guys to punch way up in PvE, I think that's a problem too. That suggests a problem with gating -- why are low level players being allowed into events that are much too difficult for them?

    The game needs a true endgame mode that locks extremely difficult fights, PvE and PvP (and the highest rewards, higher than what we have now) behind some kind of roster requirement. Once you do that you can stop worrying about stuff like "4* players won't be able to beat lvl900 enemies anymore," because those players won't be fighting those enemies.

    I agree for once. Put all the “competitive” players in an echo chamber and they can stop complaining about nerfs and not stomping anyone without a 10-year, $30,000 account.

    Yep, and keep all the noobs and free players in an echo chamber where they can feel good about themselves and earn shiny participation trophies by mashing random buttons.

  • KGB
    KGB Posts: 4,086 Chairperson of the Boards

    @entrailbucket said:

    @KGB said:

    @ViralCore said:

    @amigopdude22 said:

    @ViralCore said:
    I agree that they should take chances and be quick about rebalancing. My problem is that they pick and chose. 1-character-infinites should not exist.

    Toad’s rebalance is noticeably different and that’s a good thing. Unfortunately they refuse to do the same about Hawkeye. His purple cost should be bumped up and the amount of free ap should be reduced. It’s basically the same rebalance as toad.

    You really gotta let the HE thing go, he's fine. At max level he has less than 100k health, he's fairly easily managed. And if there weren't supports that gave 6-12 AP to start he would barely be in any conversations.

    Just because he's easy to kill doesn't mean he's fine. Again, NO level 166 should be able to single handedly be abe to take out 3 672s (no matter how long it takes). You do realize leveling systems is a thing right?

    I will keep advocating for May and Hawkeye nerfs.

    All this is just about taking PvP losses. The problem with these nerfs is they affect the rest of the game which is VASTLY more than L672 PvP (your PvP is probably less than a 1/10 of 1% of the game play in MPQ).

    This is why I suggested a cool down system for PvP play to prevent HE and others from being able to winfinite 672 characters. That should satisfy you and EB and others while preserving those characters for PvE etc.

    KGB

    Why should PvP be treated differently than PvE though?

    I'm from the opposite school. PvP should feel and play different than PvE. That's what would give MPQ different experiences for players to try (right now the only different experience is the monthly Puzzle Ops unless you also consider the monthly boss battle) and build their roster around.

    If small-roster players are using infinite guys to punch way up in PvE, I think that's a problem too.

    Sure but what's too much? No one can ever agree on what's too much.

    Beyond that, it comes down to some players wanting to limit other players game fun/experience based on 'what they believe is best for everyone'. Only the Devs know whether or not too many lower level rosters are earning too many high level rewards and that's really the only criteria for whether someone is punching up too much or not.

    That suggests a problem with gating -- why are low level players being allowed into events that are much too difficult for them?

    Again, we already have this in SCL. Anytime the Devs want they can change the entry level / requirements for entry into any of the SCLs. The fact they haven't suggests they don't view it as a problem (or rather the previous Devs didn't since the new ones haven't been here long enough to really know) and given the game is still around after 13 years it suggests they've gotten it right.

    The game needs a true endgame mode that locks extremely difficult fights, PvE and PvP (and the highest rewards, higher than what we have now) behind some kind of roster requirement. Once you do that you can stop worrying about stuff like "4* players won't be able to beat lvl900 enemies anymore," because those players won't be fighting those enemies.

    I suggest you save this for the next time the Devs ask about things that need changing in MPQ. Maybe once things stabilize on the Unity engine front and they figure out what all the buttons do for changing rewards etc they'll start taking suggestions for improving the game.

    KGB

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards

    @KGB said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @KGB said:

    @ViralCore said:

    @amigopdude22 said:

    @ViralCore said:
    I agree that they should take chances and be quick about rebalancing. My problem is that they pick and chose. 1-character-infinites should not exist.

    Toad’s rebalance is noticeably different and that’s a good thing. Unfortunately they refuse to do the same about Hawkeye. His purple cost should be bumped up and the amount of free ap should be reduced. It’s basically the same rebalance as toad.

    You really gotta let the HE thing go, he's fine. At max level he has less than 100k health, he's fairly easily managed. And if there weren't supports that gave 6-12 AP to start he would barely be in any conversations.

    Just because he's easy to kill doesn't mean he's fine. Again, NO level 166 should be able to single handedly be abe to take out 3 672s (no matter how long it takes). You do realize leveling systems is a thing right?

    I will keep advocating for May and Hawkeye nerfs.

    All this is just about taking PvP losses. The problem with these nerfs is they affect the rest of the game which is VASTLY more than L672 PvP (your PvP is probably less than a 1/10 of 1% of the game play in MPQ).

    This is why I suggested a cool down system for PvP play to prevent HE and others from being able to winfinite 672 characters. That should satisfy you and EB and others while preserving those characters for PvE etc.

    KGB

    Why should PvP be treated differently than PvE though?

    I'm from the opposite school. PvP should feel and play different than PvE. That's what would give MPQ different experiences for players to try (right now the only different experience is the monthly Puzzle Ops unless you also consider the monthly boss battle) and build their roster around.

    If small-roster players are using infinite guys to punch way up in PvE, I think that's a problem too.

    Sure but what's too much? No one can ever agree on what's too much.

    Beyond that, it comes down to some players wanting to limit other players game fun/experience based on 'what they believe is best for everyone'. Only the Devs know whether or not too many lower level rosters are earning too many high level rewards and that's really the only criteria for whether someone is punching up too much or not.

    That suggests a problem with gating -- why are low level players being allowed into events that are much too difficult for them?

    Again, we already have this in SCL. Anytime the Devs want they can change the entry level / requirements for entry into any of the SCLs. The fact they haven't suggests they don't view it as a problem (or rather the previous Devs didn't since the new ones haven't been here long enough to really know) and given the game is still around after 13 years it suggests they've gotten it right.

    The game needs a true endgame mode that locks extremely difficult fights, PvE and PvP (and the highest rewards, higher than what we have now) behind some kind of roster requirement. Once you do that you can stop worrying about stuff like "4* players won't be able to beat lvl900 enemies anymore," because those players won't be fighting those enemies.

    I suggest you save this for the next time the Devs ask about things that need changing in MPQ. Maybe once things stabilize on the Unity engine front and they figure out what all the buttons do for changing rewards etc they'll start taking suggestions for improving the game.

    KGB

    I think we agree mostly. I do think the requirements for scl10 are set way too low. We've talked about this. The change BCS made was implemented and communicated really poorly, and a lot of players ended up in a difficulty level they couldn't handle and didn't want to play. Honestly I don't think BCS gave it much thought, and we've seen that in casual players' reactions to it.

    I'd again contend that none of this is about trying to limit other people's fun. If it's fun for you to snipe my lvl672 team with a 3*, then you're having fun at my expense. It is not fun for me to have my experience ruined by someone else and I should be allowed to call that out.

    It's the same in PvE. Every mode is a competition, with placement rewards. If I'm competing in PvE and I lose to some low tier player who's infiniting everything, that means I'm having less fun. Your actions and your play necessarily impact everyone else. You can't just handwave that stuff away, it exists. If players want noncompetitive play, then the developers should deliver a way for them to officially opt out of it.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards

    @amigopdude22 said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @KGB said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @KGB said:

    @ViralCore said:

    @amigopdude22 said:

    @ViralCore said:
    I agree that they should take chances and be quick about rebalancing. My problem is that they pick and chose. 1-character-infinites should not exist.

    Toad’s rebalance is noticeably different and that’s a good thing. Unfortunately they refuse to do the same about Hawkeye. His purple cost should be bumped up and the amount of free ap should be reduced. It’s basically the same rebalance as toad.

    You really gotta let the HE thing go, he's fine. At max level he has less than 100k health, he's fairly easily managed. And if there weren't supports that gave 6-12 AP to start he would barely be in any conversations.

    Just because he's easy to kill doesn't mean he's fine. Again, NO level 166 should be able to single handedly be abe to take out 3 672s (no matter how long it takes). You do realize leveling systems is a thing right?

    I will keep advocating for May and Hawkeye nerfs.

    All this is just about taking PvP losses. The problem with these nerfs is they affect the rest of the game which is VASTLY more than L672 PvP (your PvP is probably less than a 1/10 of 1% of the game play in MPQ).

    This is why I suggested a cool down system for PvP play to prevent HE and others from being able to winfinite 672 characters. That should satisfy you and EB and others while preserving those characters for PvE etc.

    KGB

    Why should PvP be treated differently than PvE though?

    I'm from the opposite school. PvP should feel and play different than PvE. That's what would give MPQ different experiences for players to try (right now the only different experience is the monthly Puzzle Ops unless you also consider the monthly boss battle) and build their roster around.

    If small-roster players are using infinite guys to punch way up in PvE, I think that's a problem too.

    Sure but what's too much? No one can ever agree on what's too much.

    Beyond that, it comes down to some players wanting to limit other players game fun/experience based on 'what they believe is best for everyone'. Only the Devs know whether or not too many lower level rosters are earning too many high level rewards and that's really the only criteria for whether someone is punching up too much or not.

    That suggests a problem with gating -- why are low level players being allowed into events that are much too difficult for them?

    Again, we already have this in SCL. Anytime the Devs want they can change the entry level / requirements for entry into any of the SCLs. The fact they haven't suggests they don't view it as a problem (or rather the previous Devs didn't since the new ones haven't been here long enough to really know) and given the game is still around after 13 years it suggests they've gotten it right.

    The game needs a true endgame mode that locks extremely difficult fights, PvE and PvP (and the highest rewards, higher than what we have now) behind some kind of roster requirement. Once you do that you can stop worrying about stuff like "4* players won't be able to beat lvl900 enemies anymore," because those players won't be fighting those enemies.

    I suggest you save this for the next time the Devs ask about things that need changing in MPQ. Maybe once things stabilize on the Unity engine front and they figure out what all the buttons do for changing rewards etc they'll start taking suggestions for improving the game.

    KGB

    I think we agree mostly. I do think the requirements for scl10 are set way too low. We've talked about this. The change BCS made was implemented and communicated really poorly, and a lot of players ended up in a difficulty level they couldn't handle and didn't want to play. Honestly I don't think BCS gave it much thought, and we've seen that in casual players' reactions to it.

    I'd again contend that none of this is about trying to limit other people's fun. If it's fun for you to snipe my lvl672 team with a 3*, then you're having fun at my expense. It is not fun for me to have my experience ruined by someone else and I should be allowed to call that out.

    It's the same in PvE. Every mode is a competition, with placement rewards. If I'm competing in PvE and I lose to some low tier player who's infiniting everything, that means I'm having less fun. Your actions and your play necessarily impact everyone else. You can't just handwave that stuff away, it exists. If players want noncompetitive play, then the developers should deliver a way for them to officially opt out of it.

    If you’re losing placements to “low tier” players who are infiniting everything away, that says much more about you than anything else. If they’re beating you, then they’re plenty competitive, just not in a way you’ve graced with your approval. Again, you only want to claim competitive when it fits the way YOU want to play and deem correct. Anything else is broken and demands nerfing per king bucket. You only like being competitive when you’re the only one winning and anyone who might have a chance at punching above their weight-class is wrong.

    The same way you’re whining about hypothetically having less fun will inherently cause others to have less fun with your solutions. It’s an endless loop. And crying “no me!” when you know you’re in the large minority of players is hilariously tone-deaf for someone of your “expertise”

    Seems like you're the one constantly whining?

    If you can't make an actual argument without resorting to personal attacks then you're not worth engaging with in a serious way.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards

    I don't get why people get so worked up about this stuff, to the point where they feel like they have to attack other players or discredit them.

    I didn't decide to nerf Toad, or Polaris, or m'Thor, or anybody else. They didn't get fixed because I posted here, or because anybody else posted here. They got fixed because the developers wanted to fix them, because they don't want the game to be Cookie Clicker. People here were calling for a Chasm nerf forever, and they left him like that for a year or something. We don't make these decisions.

    They're going to hit Iron May and Shang-Chi soon, and probably Hawkeye, and who knows who else. When they do that, why don't you get angry at the developers instead of at players who argued for the changes? They're the ones taking away your "congratulations for pushing one button!" gameplay, not us.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited 24 February 2026, 20:43

    @ThisisClemFandango said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    I don't get why people get so worked up about this stuff, to the point where they feel like they have to attack other players or discredit them.

    From what im getting from this conversation people are saying that you are the catalyst and they get drawn into defending their opinion from someone who isnt willing to see the topic any other way.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion, this is, after all, what this place is for. But as I've said in the past from how I read your posts, it comes across as confrontational and dismissive of other people's viewpoints.

    It is down to each person to determine is this really something I need to hammer home after several attempts.

    It's not a loop. It's a spiral.

    Except I am willing to see the topic other ways. When I'm confrontational or dismissive of other viewpoints, it's because others behave that way towards me, or towards my opinions, or people I agree with. You're going to get out what you put in. If you want to troll and throw schoolyard insults I'm not going to take that stuff, I'm going to troll you right back. If you want to have an actual argument I'm going to do that.

    This started when some random guy made the 100,000th consecutive argument saying "nobody is overpowered if they're bad on defense," and characterized everyone who disagreed as anti-fun whiners. That's not productive and it's not going anywhere. I replied (sarcastically, because literally the one billionth time this argument has been posted) and now he's been following me around writing fanfiction about how I'm some kind of anti-fun supervillain with a "messiah complex" (?).

    Should I have just ignored it because it's the same nonsense non-argument posted here for the 1,000,000th time? Maybe! But maybe having the argument again with somebody else will teach me something, or teach someone else something, or change my mind or someone else's. If you don't talk to people who disagree with you, you never learn anything at all.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards

    @ThisisClemFandango said:
    One of my favourite sayings is never argue with stupid. Not saying either side is stupid (im trying to behave or rather, MODERATE my behaviour) but as you say if you arguing the same point you've done countless times already are you surprised you get the same outcome?
    At the end of the day im not here to tell people what to do (yet) but merely trying to save my eyes from reading the same thing over and over and not getting any sort of agreement.

    Yeah. I guess some disagreements are not actually opportunities to learn.

  • KGB
    KGB Posts: 4,086 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited 24 February 2026, 21:05

    Since we can't see finish results anymore I took a peek at the leaderboard in my CL10 bracket (S5) with 3 minutes to go.

    Top 5 players had 1200+ points (#1 and 2 at 1400). T10 only required 1050. I was 20th with 890 (25 wins).

    Not sure whether 1400 is considered 'competitive' or not any more but from looking at my bracket it doesn't look like anyone was competing for anything given only 5 players reached progression via points (1200+) and a T10 barely required 1000 points.

    KGB

  • ThisisClemFandango
    ThisisClemFandango Posts: 1,312 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Gymp28 said:

    @ThisisClemFandango said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    I don't get why people get so worked up about this stuff, to the point where they feel like they have to attack other players or discredit them.

    From what im getting from this conversation people are saying that you are the catalyst and they get drawn into defending their opinion from someone who isnt willing to see the topic any other way.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion, this is, after all, what this place is for. But as I've said in the past from how I read your posts, it comes across as confrontational and dismissive of other people's viewpoints.

    It is down to each person to determine is this really something I need to hammer home after several attempts.

    It's not a loop. It's a spiral.

    Clem for president! (He’ll be much better than Trump), then maybe he can work his way up to being a Mod?

    Also, can people stop flagging EBs comments because they don’t like what he’s saying? That’s just childish and petty, and frankly it’s just going to piss off the mods. I don’t believe I’ve seen anything worth flagging coming from him, but I can’t say the same for the comments directed at him.
    Personal attacks are not ok! If he’s annoying you to that point just put him on mute and go stroke an animal until you no longer want to wreck nearby inanimate objects.

    Thank you my good man.
    Yeah flagging stuff isn't going to do much unless its severe, just because you dont agree it's not a flagging issue (until i come to power)

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards

    @KGB said:
    Since we can't see finish results anymore I took a peek at the leaderboard in my CL10 bracket (S5) with 3 minutes to go.

    Top 5 players had 1200+ points (#1 and 2 at 1400). T10 only required 1050. I was 20th with 890 (25 wins).

    Not sure whether 1400 is considered 'competitive' or not any more but from looking at my bracket it doesn't look like anyone was competing for anything given only 5 players reached progression via points (1200+) and a T10 barely required 1000 points.

    KGB

    So, this is something that comes up pretty often and I think it's the wrong way of looking at it.

    It's impossible to tell who's trying, based on results.

    I hear this a lot with PvE. Players will say, "I'm not competitive, I just get top 100 every event." When I point out that they're beating 90% of players in their bracket, and by definition that is competing very hard, I always get something like "well that 90% are just casual players who aren't even trying!"

    You don't know that, though! Those players could be trying really hard, and just not having much success! You can't say that they're not competitive, or they're not trying for placement, just because they didn't get there.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards

    @ThisisClemFandango said:

    @Gymp28 said:

    @ThisisClemFandango said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    I don't get why people get so worked up about this stuff, to the point where they feel like they have to attack other players or discredit them.

    From what im getting from this conversation people are saying that you are the catalyst and they get drawn into defending their opinion from someone who isnt willing to see the topic any other way.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion, this is, after all, what this place is for. But as I've said in the past from how I read your posts, it comes across as confrontational and dismissive of other people's viewpoints.

    It is down to each person to determine is this really something I need to hammer home after several attempts.

    It's not a loop. It's a spiral.

    Clem for president! (He’ll be much better than Trump), then maybe he can work his way up to being a Mod?

    Also, can people stop flagging EBs comments because they don’t like what he’s saying? That’s just childish and petty, and frankly it’s just going to piss off the mods. I don’t believe I’ve seen anything worth flagging coming from him, but I can’t say the same for the comments directed at him.
    Personal attacks are not ok! If he’s annoying you to that point just put him on mute and go stroke an animal until you no longer want to wreck nearby inanimate objects.

    Thank you my good man.
    Yeah flagging stuff isn't going to do much unless its severe, just because you dont agree it's not a flagging issue (until i come to power)

    They used to have a "dislike" button here many years ago, and they removed it because it hurt people's feelings. So some people just use the report button as a "dislike" now.

    I think they should bring back dislikes (even though everyone would dislike all of my posts).

  • ThisisClemFandango
    ThisisClemFandango Posts: 1,312 Chairperson of the Boards

    Would it cause you sleepless nights and make you a shell of what you were?

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited 24 February 2026, 21:46

    @ThisisClemFandango said:
    Would it cause you sleepless nights and make you a shell of what you were?

    Probably!

  • ThisisClemFandango
    ThisisClemFandango Posts: 1,312 Chairperson of the Boards

    Then we dont need it
    You be you

    (Clem does a reassuring thumbs up)

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 8,367 Chairperson of the Boards

    @ThisisClemFandango said:
    Then we dont need it
    You be you

    (Clem does a reassuring thumbs up)

    Nah, I truly cannot think of a single thing that would matter less to me than getting "dislikes" on a toilet game forum.

  • amigopdude22
    amigopdude22 Posts: 68 Match Maker

    @entrailbucket said:
    You don't know that, though! Those players could be trying really hard, and just not having much success! You can't say that they're not competitive, or they're not trying for placement, just because they didn't get there.

    Probably will have even less success campaigning for nerfs of any character that gives them a chance at success without having 500+ 672’s. But hey, at least they’re just mashing the buttons you think are right and not buttons you don’t like!

Categories