Shade absolutely must be nerfed

24

Comments

  • Right... as in one of the two, maybe three ways to actually beat Solaris teams. And the only reliable one.

    Look, all I’m saying is that no one hero should dominate PvP this much. With Solaris getting a nerf and them finally reworking older heroes, PvP could actually be fun again.

    Not saying every single hero should be equally prevelant in PvP or equally strong, but Shade and Solaris are just too strong. Nothing even comes close to them, aside from maybe Hopper or Grog. But both rely on either Shade or Solaris respectively to even be good.

    Solaris teams are easy to beat, it's solaris/beast teams that are difficult. Without the Gnog synergy, she's not nearly as bad.

    As for Shade, he's not that bad, except for Dark Shroud. That synergy is what makes hm OP.

  • JackHallow666JackHallow666 Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    Guuuuys! Every time Shade and Solaris are defended as not being over-powered, their nerfs get pushed back 6 months!
    Level: 70
    Favorite hero: Hansuke
    Currently: Waiting for new PvE content and the PvP revamp.
  • Guuuuys! Every time Shade and Solaris are defended as not being over-powered, their nerfs get pushed back 6 months!

    My solution/nerf would be to make dark shroud only a debuff immunity, not a damage reduction ability.

    That alone would really help.
  • Nerf only Shade and you will see domino effect in PvP. You need to see larger view: Solaris, reptides etc.
  • I love Shade, but Shade clearly suffers from Do-Everything-Itis.
    He’s an Opening Turn Murderer (Shadowblade) who bashed you with a repetitive Murder Shield (Spirit Link is a team member killer too, and Possession keeps him safe for a move or two while he uses your guy to murder you.)
    Either he needs to lose one of those two (he’s useless if you get rid of both, don’t go all MK again).

    I suggest either:
    -Make him a Normal Speed Hero
    -Make Spirit Link hurt Shade too (not just overkill damage)
    And then:
    -Don’t let him drop Possession after 3 turns, but don’t give him the free energy to use an ability immediately.

    Solves him without nailing him to the Nerf Cross
  • Something else to consider when nerfing Shade... Who does it really help?

    If all 75 heroes were equally pvp viable, the best players are those with 75 x 5 = 375 superior legendary runes. If 50 of those heroes are not pvp viable, now you only need 25 x 5 = 125 superior legendary runes to be as effective as the top players. With fewer OP heroes and more balance, you actually shift the power to those at the top.

    Looking at it another way, by Shade being so OP, it locks down one spot on your starting lineup and greatly reduces the number of possible hero combinations, which in turn reduces the number of heroes you need runed up. Shade being OP actually helps the community.

  • JackHallow666JackHallow666 Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    echonap wrote: »
    Something else to consider when nerfing Shade... Who does it really help?

    If all 75 heroes were equally pvp viable, the best players are those with 75 x 5 = 375 superior legendary runes. If 50 of those heroes are not pvp viable, now you only need 25 x 5 = 125 superior legendary runes to be as effective as the top players. With fewer OP heroes and more balance, you actually shift the power to those at the top.

    Looking at it another way, by Shade being so OP, it locks down one spot on your starting lineup and greatly reduces the number of possible hero combinations, which in turn reduces the number of heroes you need runed up. Shade being OP actually helps the community.

    The goal of runes should be to have as many heroes runed up as possible. The combat revamp aims to make it so roster power is not indicative of choosing your matchups.

    I agree not every hero should be viable in PvP, but Shade pins it down TOO much. Currently there’s maybe only a quarter, if not less, of the heroes who even stand a chance at PvP. As you go higher and higher in ranks this number shrinks even further.
    Level: 70
    Favorite hero: Hansuke
    Currently: Waiting for new PvE content and the PvP revamp.
  • After witnessing the castration of MK, neutering Shade will likely see a full on revolt from those who invested in him heavily or otherwise. In fact, I’m sure people would quit on account of the recent emotional rollercoaster we’ve all endured here in DB-land.

    Remember, kids...nerfing is never the answer. Instead, buff the heroes that need buffs to level the playing field. I look at my roster these days and I swear I hear an old man weeping in the form of Selwyn. Perhaps an epic is in his future lest he fade further into oblivion.
  • And, by the way, Ekko isn’t useless. Anyone who says so hasn’t raided enough.
  • Skip_HolmesSkip_Holmes Member
    edited December 2017
    After witnessing the castration of MK, neutering Shade will likely see a full on revolt from those who invested in him heavily or otherwise. In fact, I’m sure people would quit on account of the recent emotional rollercoaster we’ve all endured here in DB-land.

    Remember, kids...nerfing is never the answer. Instead, buff the heroes that need buffs to level the playing field. I look at my roster these days and I swear I hear an old man weeping in the form of Selwyn. Perhaps an epic is in his future lest he fade further into oblivion.

    Totally disagree. There are limited resources and developer hours to spend in a given year. Do you really think it’s healthier for them to drop literally every other activity and let the game stagnate while they take months and months to buff 70 other heroes to be equal to Shade? Or should they just take a few days to acknowledge he was a mistake and knock him down slightly so that he is still a useable hero but not the be-all-end-all of every pvp match?

    Seems like an easy call to me.
  • Skip_HolmesSkip_Holmes Member
    edited December 2017
    echonap wrote: »
    Something else to consider when nerfing Shade... Who does it really help?

    If all 75 heroes were equally pvp viable, the best players are those with 75 x 5 = 375 superior legendary runes. If 50 of those heroes are not pvp viable, now you only need 25 x 5 = 125 superior legendary runes to be as effective as the top players. With fewer OP heroes and more balance, you actually shift the power to those at the top.

    Looking at it another way, by Shade being so OP, it locks down one spot on your starting lineup and greatly reduces the number of possible hero combinations, which in turn reduces the number of heroes you need runed up. Shade being OP actually helps the community.

    Totally disagree with this as well. The foundation of this game, the thing that drew many of us to it in the first place, was the variation and experimentation involved with such a huge number of available heroes. It’s bad enough that the “new meta” always revolves around the most recently released or revamped heroes, who tend to be extra powerful. Shade never falling off that list just makes things worse. He kills team variety in virtually every pvp match fought.

    Take your argument to the conclusion. If having shade locked in is good, let’s have 4 heroes who are invariably superior at all times. Now everyone only has to have 20 superior runes to compete for top pvp. This would help the community catch up to the whales! But....would that be fun?
  • MattCauthronMattCauthron Member
    edited December 2017
    "It’s bad enough that the “new meta” always revolves around the most recently released or revamped heroes"

    I find this statement interesting. There are only a few ways the meta changes

    1) Old hero revamps
    2) New hero releases
    3) Game altering rune releases

    You are not only implying you would prefer a stagnant meta, but that changes in the meta are a negative thing (It's bad when new heroes/revamps do change the meta).

    Perhaps it was just poor word choice. Otherwise I would be interested in your ideas to change the meta without new heroes or revamping old ones.


    Post edited by MattCauthron on
  • JackHallow666JackHallow666 Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    A balance of both is necessary. Even if they nerf Shade as much as they did MK, he'll still be better than half the heroes in the game. I say nerf Shade and work on buffing older heroes to become more relevant. But honestly, what hasn't been said before here?
    Level: 70
    Favorite hero: Hansuke
    Currently: Waiting for new PvE content and the PvP revamp.
  • echonap wrote: »
    It’s bad enough that the “new meta” always revolves around the most recently released or revamped heroes, who tend to be extra powerful.

    @echonap I find this statement interesting. There are only a few ways the meta changes

    1) Old hero revamps
    2) New hero releases
    3) Game altering rune releases

    You are not only implying you would prefer a stagnant meta, but that changes in the meta are a negative thing (It's bad when new heroes/revamps do change the meta).

    Perhaps it was just poor word choice. Otherwise I would be interested in your ideas to change the meta without new heroes or revamping old ones.



    You’re quoting echonap but it’s my quote, so I’ll respond instead of waiting for him to :)

    You’re missing the most obvious (and happily, probably least labor intensive) way to shift the meta. I’ve argued for it in numerous threads. But first, to briefly respond to your other point: I wasn’t saying that meta changes are bad. Just that, in a game that was built around hero choice and experimentation, a constant “arms race” of releasing each new hero in a direct attempt to purposefully shift the meta just results in that new hero being so required that you kill the very experimentation that you should be encouraging. We view lily as a successful release because she affected the meta without defining it. Same with hopper. Same with grog. Compare that to Solaris, who was so strong that she was on every single team until they released Zomm as a counter. I view that as bad design. And Shade epitomizes that problem, as he still doesn’t have a “counter” hero despite them trying with Ferno, marrow, etc. He’s on virtually every team because he’s head and shoulders above other heroes.

    But back to the main point about your “only three ways” to shift the meta. The fourth way, which they should heavily invest in, is using temporary play changes. They’ve been doing so more and more with recent events, but it hasn’t gone far enough. The “half dmg for fast heroes” was a great start, but didn’t neuter shade enough. Every single week should be a different meta based on a week long pvp tourney “wild card”. Make a color lose or double its color advantage bonus. Make all rogues apply a random debuff on every single hit. Make fast heroes slow and slow heroes fast. Make monster buffs apply to reptiles. Make a no-rune week. Make the “original 4” have 100% epic proc chance.

    There are a million of these that you could come up with. Pick a new one and apply every single week. The meta will never “settle”. We will all be constantly experimenting with new teams, re-arranging runes, etc. Some of the ideas will end up being cool, others will be broken or fall flat. But it won’t matter because it’s for a single week only, rather than being stuck with unbalanced heroes that constantly have to one-up each other with each new release.

  • MattCauthronMattCauthron Member
    edited December 2017
    echonap wrote: »
    It’s bad enough that the “new meta” always revolves around the most recently released or revamped heroes, who tend to be extra powerful.

    @echonap I find this statement interesting. There are only a few ways the meta changes

    1) Old hero revamps
    2) New hero releases
    3) Game altering rune releases

    You are not only implying you would prefer a stagnant meta, but that changes in the meta are a negative thing (It's bad when new heroes/revamps do change the meta).

    Perhaps it was just poor word choice. Otherwise I would be interested in your ideas to change the meta without new heroes or revamping old ones.



    You’re quoting echonap but it’s my quote, so I’ll respond instead of waiting for him to :)

    You’re missing the most obvious (and happily, probably least labor intensive) way to shift the meta. I’ve argued for it in numerous threads. But first, to briefly respond to your other point: I wasn’t saying that meta changes are bad. Just that, in a game that was built around hero choice and experimentation, a constant “arms race” of releasing each new hero in a direct attempt to purposefully shift the meta just results in that new hero being so required that you kill the very experimentation that you should be encouraging. We view lily as a successful release because she affected the meta without defining it. Same with hopper. Same with grog. Compare that to Solaris, who was so strong that she was on every single team until they released Zomm as a counter. I view that as bad design. And Shade epitomizes that problem, as he still doesn’t have a “counter” hero despite them trying with Ferno, marrow, etc. He’s on virtually every team because he’s head and shoulders above other heroes.

    But back to the main point about your “only three ways” to shift the meta. The fourth way, which they should heavily invest in, is using temporary play changes. They’ve been doing so more and more with recent events, but it hasn’t gone far enough. The “half dmg for fast heroes” was a great start, but didn’t neuter shade enough. Every single week should be a different meta based on a week long pvp tourney “wild card”. Make a color lose or double its color advantage bonus. Make all rogues apply a random debuff on every single hit. Make fast heroes slow and slow heroes fast. Make monster buffs apply to reptiles. Make a no-rune week. Make the “original 4” have 100% epic proc chance.

    There are a million of these that you could come up with. Pick a new one and apply every single week. The meta will never “settle”. We will all be constantly experimenting with new teams, re-arranging runes, etc. Some of the ideas will end up being cool, others will be broken or fall flat. But it won’t matter because it’s for a single week only, rather than being stuck with unbalanced heroes that constantly have to one-up each other with each new release.

    This idea is a good one and has been discussed at length. I did not list this option give its temporary nature. What this idea does not consider though is there actually are people who HATE meta changes. The vast majority of people (ie the casual player) would be constantly confused if there were weekly *meaningful* temporary changes. It would not only lead to a considerable amount of confusion, but also turn a large group of players off to pvp completely as they had no chance of relearning a meta weekly based off of their relatively low play. The group of people who would enjoy this change is almost certainly dwarfed by the group who would hate it. I think having meaningful temporary changes during the pvp guild games is a good balance.

    As for Solaris - I think she was one of the best hero designs this game has seen. She brought real strategy back to pvp (mid fight decisions mattering) and also brought heroes who hadn't been used in over a year back into the lamp light. It was a double whammy success of new hero meta change on top of old hero revamp meta change. She's also FAR from overpowered - even before Zomm rework (Which I also think was amazing as I absolutely love zomminions and the mid fight choices they bring to fights), Hopper was an excellent counter.

    Of course Shade needs a nerf, and we've been heavily pushing for a shade nerf for over 6 months. I think meta changes like Sol/Zomm/Ekko however are not only healthy but vital for the longevity of the game.
  • JackHallow666JackHallow666 Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    Sol isn't overpowered? Yeah, I guess being able to revive your entire team multiple times per battle is fair. I guess Emily needs a buff so her Resurrection is on a 1 turn cooldown.
    Level: 70
    Favorite hero: Hansuke
    Currently: Waiting for new PvE content and the PvP revamp.
  • MattCauthronMattCauthron Member
    edited December 2017
    Sol isn't overpowered? Yeah, I guess being able to revive your entire team multiple times per battle is fair. I guess Emily needs a buff so her Resurrection is on a 1 turn cooldown.

    Using that logic because Takumi is bad every hero in the game is overpowered. Nerf them all to the ground (Aka Takumi levels of uselessness).

    What Solaris finally got us away from was 1 round only fast hero meta. If you preferred using the same set of fast heroes over and over to kill everything in a single round with no mid fight decisions ever actually mattering... than yea Solaris is overpowered. She's overpowered in the way that she makes fights last more than one round and requires actual decisions to be made.
  • JackHallow666JackHallow666 Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    Sol isn't overpowered? Yeah, I guess being able to revive your entire team multiple times per battle is fair. I guess Emily needs a buff so her Resurrection is on a 1 turn cooldown.

    Using that logic because Takumi is bad every hero in the game is overpowered. Nerf them all to the ground (Aka Takumi levels of uselessness).

    What Solaris finally got us away from was 1 round only fast hero meta. If you preferred using the same set of fast heroes over and over to kill everything in a single round with no mid fight decisions ever actually mattering... than yea Solaris is overpowered. She's overpowered in the way that she makes fights last more than one round and requires actual decisions to be made.

    Sol didn't end the 4 fast meta. Ferno did. And we were fine with Ferno. We needed a Beast healer, but not a Flying one, and not one who made Emily useless. I actually can use that logic that because Takumi is bad, everyone else is overpowered - because no hero should be as bad as Takumi.

    Everyone probably will agree that the older heroes need buffs. But what people oddly don't agree on is that heroes like Shade and Solaris need nerfs. If they don't get them, and the older heroes are buffed, nothing is going to change because they'll still be overpowered. I'm not saying bring Sol and Shade down to... oh, what level would a buffed Takumi be at... Bramble levels? I guess? But I am saying they could stand to lose a passive or two, while the older heroes could gain these awesome passives. They can still be more powerful, but only slightly.
    Level: 70
    Favorite hero: Hansuke
    Currently: Waiting for new PvE content and the PvP revamp.
  • MattCauthronMattCauthron Member
    edited December 2017
    Sol isn't overpowered? Yeah, I guess being able to revive your entire team multiple times per battle is fair. I guess Emily needs a buff so her Resurrection is on a 1 turn cooldown.

    Using that logic because Takumi is bad every hero in the game is overpowered. Nerf them all to the ground (Aka Takumi levels of uselessness).

    What Solaris finally got us away from was 1 round only fast hero meta. If you preferred using the same set of fast heroes over and over to kill everything in a single round with no mid fight decisions ever actually mattering... than yea Solaris is overpowered. She's overpowered in the way that she makes fights last more than one round and requires actual decisions to be made.

    Sol didn't end the 4 fast meta. Ferno did. And we were fine with Ferno. We needed a Beast healer, but not a Flying one, and not one who made Emily useless. I actually can use that logic that because Takumi is bad, everyone else is overpowered - because no hero should be as bad as Takumi.

    Everyone probably will agree that the older heroes need buffs. But what people oddly don't agree on is that heroes like Shade and Solaris need nerfs. If they don't get them, and the older heroes are buffed, nothing is going to change because they'll still be overpowered. I'm not saying bring Sol and Shade down to... oh, what level would a buffed Takumi be at... Bramble levels? I guess? But I am saying they could stand to lose a passive or two, while the older heroes could gain these awesome passives. They can still be more powerful, but only slightly.

    Your statement makes me a little sad because Ferno actually only strengthened the "fast" meta :( Sometimes it seems difficult to have pvp conversations with you, because you always seem so out of touch with the actual meta.

    Ember Shade Hopper Ferno - Remember that one?
  • JackHallow666JackHallow666 Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    Sol isn't overpowered? Yeah, I guess being able to revive your entire team multiple times per battle is fair. I guess Emily needs a buff so her Resurrection is on a 1 turn cooldown.

    Using that logic because Takumi is bad every hero in the game is overpowered. Nerf them all to the ground (Aka Takumi levels of uselessness).

    What Solaris finally got us away from was 1 round only fast hero meta. If you preferred using the same set of fast heroes over and over to kill everything in a single round with no mid fight decisions ever actually mattering... than yea Solaris is overpowered. She's overpowered in the way that she makes fights last more than one round and requires actual decisions to be made.

    Sol didn't end the 4 fast meta. Ferno did. And we were fine with Ferno. We needed a Beast healer, but not a Flying one, and not one who made Emily useless. I actually can use that logic that because Takumi is bad, everyone else is overpowered - because no hero should be as bad as Takumi.

    Everyone probably will agree that the older heroes need buffs. But what people oddly don't agree on is that heroes like Shade and Solaris need nerfs. If they don't get them, and the older heroes are buffed, nothing is going to change because they'll still be overpowered. I'm not saying bring Sol and Shade down to... oh, what level would a buffed Takumi be at... Bramble levels? I guess? But I am saying they could stand to lose a passive or two, while the older heroes could gain these awesome passives. They can still be more powerful, but only slightly.

    Your statement makes me a little sad because Ferno actually only strengthened the "fast" meta :( Sometimes it seems difficult to have pvp conversations with you, because you always seem so out of touch with the actual meta.

    Ember Shade Hopper Ferno - Remember that one?

    Hey, if you wanna be a jerk about it, we don't have to talk! :smile: If you saw that team, just bring your own Ferno. Problem solved.
    Level: 70
    Favorite hero: Hansuke
    Currently: Waiting for new PvE content and the PvP revamp.
  • @JackHallow666

    I actually ignore most of the times you make pvp comments completely out of whack with reality! (Aka trying not to "be a jerk") But it's difficult when we're actually talking pvp >.<

    The lineup I just listed wasn't a defense, it was an offense. It was the main offense used to counter everything. You actually didn't want to use ferno on defense because it meant the offense could drop ferno from their lineup and just give them one more fast slot ie: Ember Shade Hopper SB

    You are correct that Ferno was suppose to slow the all fast meta. Unfortunately due to the interaction with Ember and Ember's poor AI on defense, it only exacerbated the fast meta issue.

    Fortunately with Sol/Zomm that's all behind us, and we have a wonderful roster of fully functioning heroes, ferno included!
  • JackHallow666JackHallow666 Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    Yeah now that you've said it twice I guess you're right, I'm complete trash at PvP. Man, how didn't I see this before?
    Level: 70
    Favorite hero: Hansuke
    Currently: Waiting for new PvE content and the PvP revamp.
  • Totally disagree with this as well. The foundation of this game, the thing that drew many of us to it in the first place, was the variation and experimentation involved with such a huge number of available heroes. It’s bad enough that the “new meta” always revolves around the most recently released or revamped heroes, who tend to be extra powerful. Shade never falling off that list just makes things worse. He kills team variety in virtually every pvp match fought.

    Take your argument to the conclusion. If having shade locked in is good, let’s have 4 heroes who are invariably superior at all times. Now everyone only has to have 20 superior runes to compete for top pvp. This would help the community catch up to the whales! But....would that be fun?

    Taken to the extreme, yes, having only 4 viable heroes would kill this game.

    However, you missed my point. Having one OP hero actually helps lower end players compete with higher end players. You disagree with this? Or you disagree that this is the correct way to model a game? Because I don't think this it is the correct way neither. I am just stating that the current meta actually helps newer players more, correct or incorrect as it may be.

  • Yeah now that you've said it twice I guess you're right, I'm complete trash at PvP. Man, how didn't I see this before?

    LOL - if it wasn't obvious before this thread, it was obvious when you said Ekko sucks :wink:
  • After witnessing the castration of MK, neutering Shade will likely see a full on revolt from those who invested in him heavily or otherwise. In fact, I’m sure people would quit on account of the recent emotional rollercoaster we’ve all endured here in DB-land.

    Remember, kids...nerfing is never the answer. Instead, buff the heroes that need buffs to level the playing field. I look at my roster these days and I swear I hear an old man weeping in the form of Selwyn. Perhaps an epic is in his future lest he fade further into oblivion.

    Totally disagree. There are limited resources and developer hours to spend in a given year. Do you really think it’s healthier for them to drop literally every other activity and let the game stagnate while they take months and months to buff 70 other heroes to be equal to Shade? Or should they just take a few days to acknowledge he was a mistake and knock him down slightly so that he is still a useable hero but not the be-all-end-all of every pvp match?

    Seems like an easy call to me.

    And, I in turn “totally disagree” with your total disagreement. First off, I never suggested we buff all heroes simultaneously to get them up to Shade speed. I’m implying we have a huge roster of heroes that are in desperate need of life - i.e. old man Selwyn.

    Second, for better and for worse, people have invested both time and money in heroes such as Shade. Nerfing MK saw such a huge backlash and for good reason that a lot of us, myself included, are really questioning and / or losing faith in developer direction for the game as a whole. Do you want to see more of that? Huh? Do ya?

    Side note: maybe you could enlighten me as to the so-called activities the devs are working on lest the game “stagnate”. Are you referring to the string of events that are causing people to burnout or the mistakes that are making people understandably indignant?
  • After witnessing the castration of MK, neutering Shade will likely see a full on revolt from those who invested in him heavily or otherwise. In fact, I’m sure people would quit on account of the recent emotional rollercoaster we’ve all endured here in DB-land.

    Remember, kids...nerfing is never the answer. Instead, buff the heroes that need buffs to level the playing field. I look at my roster these days and I swear I hear an old man weeping in the form of Selwyn. Perhaps an epic is in his future lest he fade further into oblivion.

    Totally disagree. There are limited resources and developer hours to spend in a given year. Do you really think it’s healthier for them to drop literally every other activity and let the game stagnate while they take months and months to buff 70 other heroes to be equal to Shade? Or should they just take a few days to acknowledge he was a mistake and knock him down slightly so that he is still a useable hero but not the be-all-end-all of every pvp match?

    Seems like an easy call to me.

    And, I in turn “totally disagree” with your total disagreement. First off, I never suggested we buff all heroes simultaneously to get them up to Shade speed. I’m implying we have a huge roster of heroes that are in desperate need of life - i.e. old man Selwyn.

    Second, for better and for worse, people have invested both time and money in heroes such as Shade. Nerfing MK saw such a huge backlash and for good reason that a lot of us, myself included, are really questioning and / or losing faith in developer direction for the game as a whole. Do you want to see more of that? Huh? Do ya?

    Side note: maybe you could enlighten me as to the so-called activities the devs are working on lest the game “stagnate”. Are you referring to the string of events that are causing people to burnout or the mistakes that are making people understandably indignant?


    I’m not saying they’ve always chosen to use their time in the best possible ways, but I’d prefer they keep as much of it available as possible. I completely agree with you that we have lots of heroes who are useless and need a buff. But, buffing every one of them up to Shade level would be both a huge undertaking (whether all at once or drawn out) and bad for the game overall.

    I don’t understand why them nerfing MK is the thing that would make you lose faith in them. Yes, people put time and money into him. Most of that time and money (pvp wins/trophies, runes) was not lost by nerfing him. The only thing that’s really a sunk cost is materials for his epic. Which is one of 30ish epics anyway and not a huge deal. He was top of the heap for a long time, and most everyone who invested anything in him got to make use of him for months or years. Agree with the timing or severity of the nerf or not, what damage was really done by it??

    I also don’t understand how you can be upset by the MK nerf but also advocate buffing other heroes. In either case, MK becomes less viable than he previously was. If MK had an imaginary power rating of 100 and every other hero was a 50, isn’t the end result the same if they drop MK to 50 as it would be if they bumped everyone else up to 100?? What practical difference does it make to you that it would so upset you?
  • @Skip_Holmes Many people fail to recognize that buffing one thing essentially nerfs everything else when looking at the big relative picture.

    WoW realized this fact "People feel better about buffing than nerfing" several expansions ago. They use to reduce boss health/damage over time to make raids easier, but people disliked fighting "nerfed" content. Instead they introduced the item upgrade idea where you essentially "buffed" your damage over time. In practicality it was the exact same effect - but from a perception standpoint people liked one more than the other.
  • After witnessing the castration of MK, neutering Shade will likely see a full on revolt from those who invested in him heavily or otherwise. In fact, I’m sure people would quit on account of the recent emotional rollercoaster we’ve all endured here in DB-land.

    Remember, kids...nerfing is never the answer. Instead, buff the heroes that need buffs to level the playing field. I look at my roster these days and I swear I hear an old man weeping in the form of Selwyn. Perhaps an epic is in his future lest he fade further into oblivion.

    Totally disagree. There are limited resources and developer hours to spend in a given year. Do you really think it’s healthier for them to drop literally every other activity and let the game stagnate while they take months and months to buff 70 other heroes to be equal to Shade? Or should they just take a few days to acknowledge he was a mistake and knock him down slightly so that he is still a useable hero but not the be-all-end-all of every pvp match?

    Seems like an easy call to me.

    And, I in turn “totally disagree” with your total disagreement. First off, I never suggested we buff all heroes simultaneously to get them up to Shade speed. I’m implying we have a huge roster of heroes that are in desperate need of life - i.e. old man Selwyn.

    Second, for better and for worse, people have invested both time and money in heroes such as Shade. Nerfing MK saw such a huge backlash and for good reason that a lot of us, myself included, are really questioning and / or losing faith in developer direction for the game as a whole. Do you want to see more of that? Huh? Do ya?

    Side note: maybe you could enlighten me as to the so-called activities the devs are working on lest the game “stagnate”. Are you referring to the string of events that are causing people to burnout or the mistakes that are making people understandably indignant?


    I’m not saying they’ve always chosen to use their time in the best possible ways, but I’d prefer they keep as much of it available as possible. I completely agree with you that we have lots of heroes who are useless and need a buff. But, buffing every one of them up to Shade level would be both a huge undertaking (whether all at once or drawn out) and bad for the game overall.

    I don’t understand why them nerfing MK is the thing that would make you lose faith in them. Yes, people put time and money into him. Most of that time and money (pvp wins/trophies, runes) was not lost by nerfing him. The only thing that’s really a sunk cost is materials for his epic. Which is one of 30ish epics anyway and not a huge deal. He was top of the heap for a long time, and most everyone who invested anything in him got to make use of him for months or years. Agree with the timing or severity of the nerf or not, what damage was really done by it??

    I also don’t understand how you can be upset by the MK nerf but also advocate buffing other heroes. In either case, MK becomes less viable than he previously was. If MK had an imaginary power rating of 100 and every other hero was a 50, isn’t the end result the same if they drop MK to 50 as it would be if they bumped everyone else up to 100?? What practical difference does it make to you that it would so upset you?

    Dude. You gotta stop misquoting me for the sake of your crusade. I never said they buff everyone to Shade’s level. I simply stated there are plenty of heroes that should be buffed and that, in turn, could mitigate the Shade effect. Just to reiterate, we have a huge contingent of heroes that never see the light of day due to having lost their application in the meta or having never impacted the meta at all. Consider how epics have revamped certain heroes such as Zomm. Wouldn’t we like to see more of that?

    I say again: nerfing is not the answer.

    Also, your power rating analogy is irrelevant. If you can’t see why people would be upset in regards to the MK nerf, I guess this argument is moot.
  • Skip_HolmesSkip_Holmes Member
    edited December 2017
    Dude. You gotta stop misquoting me for the sake of your crusade. I never said they buff everyone to Shade’s level.

    Earlier today...
    Remember, kids...nerfing is never the answer. Instead, buff the heroes that need buffs to level the playing field.

    I’m not sure how I’m misquoting you. You explicitly said you didn’t want to nerf Shade, you wanted to buff other heroes to level the playing field. Doesn’t level the playing field mean bring them up to Shade’s level?

    I’m also not sure why you’re getting all hostile about it. I said I disagreed with your opinion, explained why in an effort to convince you, and asked for further clarification in why you feel the way you do. You responded by re-iterating the only part of your argument that I had said I agreed with and telling me the there’s no point in trying to explain the rest of it if I don’t already understand (which I still don’t). Either have the conversation or don’t, but no reason to be all agitated about it.

  • JackHallow666JackHallow666 Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    echonap wrote: »
    Yeah now that you've said it twice I guess you're right, I'm complete trash at PvP. Man, how didn't I see this before?

    LOL - if it wasn't obvious before this thread, it was obvious when you said Ekko sucks :wink:

    I’ve never faced an Ekko team I wasn’t able to absolutely crush. His main ability adds energy, which is nearly pointless given defenders start fully charged. Sure it can charge their first Abilities a little if he’s placed last, and he gives them shocking skin and a Crit boost, but then just use a heavy purger like Koros.

    As for DR Ekko’s, I’m at least smart enough to know that DR teams are terrible because everyone just knows how to defeat them already. Not like a lone Ekko is going to defeat an entire team. Not one of mine, anyways.

    I get this thread is probably getting you heated up, but you don’t have to go around insulting people. At least when Bvs or Danac do it, it’s funny.
    Level: 70
    Favorite hero: Hansuke
    Currently: Waiting for new PvE content and the PvP revamp.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© 2015 Big Fish Games. Inc., Big Fish, the Big Fish logo, and Dungeon Boss are
trademarks of Big Fish Games, Inc., used with permission www.bigfishgames.com