Lets talk nerfs

Marvel Puzzle Quest MPQ General Discussion
1

Everyone’s favorite topic! I’m going to argue a couple of points about when nerfs are needed, and not needed, for the game.

Reasons to nerf

1. A character breaks intended gameplay

 Example, D3 intends that a match of X difficulty lasts 3 minutes for most characters to use their powers properly.  This is the "game" essentially.  This character makes matches that are an average of one minute.  Invalidates the core gameplay.  The ap denial, give and take, damage mitigation, etc.  This character needs a nerf.

2. One or two characters make an entire tier of characters worthless.

 Especially in a game that has a wide dispersal of characters, and one that wants you to spend money to roster them, this is paramount.  Again, a tier is designed with a certain power level and gameplay interplay in mind.  You can't lift everyone to the broken characters level, or you break the entire tier design.

-In Sum: Characters which invalidate entire tiers of designs and gameplay need to be taken down a peg.

What Does NOT need a nerf

1. A character is the best in a certain limited element of gameplay

 All games will have tiers, or ways to rank characters.  In X situation, there will always be a character that is best.  Yet this best character does not break the core gameplay or intended design of the game.  If a "best" character in a limited area completely overlaps another character, then that lesser character needs a buff to differentiate it.

2. People are tired of seeing the same character

 Sometimes certain characters are just popular.  That's fine.  While an OP character may be incredibly popular, popularity is not indicative of its impact on gameplay.

3. HAX character X is so cheap/beat me/shamed me/etc.

 Perception of character power is not an argument.  The character may simply be the best at what it is in the situation you were in.  The character may be fairly balanced, but have abilities or strategies you did not consider.

Arguments that should never enter a nerf conversation

1. I paid money!!!11111

 Irrelevant.  I pay money too.  And a balanced game will get and keep more players who will spend more money.

2. I like being better than other people!

 This is not about having the best character in its class.  If you're using a broken character, you're not better than anyone through your skill.  Its basically a cheat code in a multiplayer game that breaks the multiplayer game.  Hey, I get it.  People dope to win.  They only care about themselves.  But it doesn't earn any respect and ruins the game.  Other people get bored and leave.  And sometimes people with the broken character wake up one day and realize, "Wait, the novelty wore off and this actually isn't any fun."

Examples of characters that needed nerfs:

Magneto. Used to be a cheap cascade terror that could cause you to win in very few turns.
Sentry: Was the only character that mattered. Blew through matches in two to three turns.

2

Most players won’t argue that some characters need a nerf. The problem is the devs over-nerf the character and they go from most used to never used.

Perfect example is Sentry.. him and Hood ruled the PvP world for several months until he was nerfed to oblivion. His powers cost more, his damage does less and his self damage does more.. that’s ridiculous. As a result no one uses him unless essential.

Another example is XForce Wolverine. Most players had him cause he was one of the first 4s and he had great moves but the nerf bat came knocking when everytime a new character was released, the common response on the forums was “He’s not as good as XFW”. This time they didn’t raise AP costs but the high damage was moved from green onto his already lousy yellow.. making his green probably worse than any other 4 green except Cho. His black lost the AP steal. At the time the nerf made sense so new characters felt more welcome but now it’s been more than a year and no one uses him. All new 4*s surpass him in health and powers (e.g. X-23).

The point is, nerfs can be fine when done right such as CMags. He still remained a great character after the nerf. That’s what we need.. slight power tweaks and changes, not the easy lazy way of raising AP costs and lowering damage.

3

The clear problem in the past is that they tried to completely overhaul and be finished with a character in a single round of changes when a more iterative process was needed as rendering characters useless is idiotic.

The first aim for this new rebalancing process should be, at a minimum, for every character to be readily usable when boosted.

4

Both of you sound rational to me. No one wants overnerfs. But on the flip side, we shouldn’t demand that things never get nerfed either. It has its appropriate place.

5

Huh? I see a lot of XFW in PvP all the time. I’d say that he is by far the most common 4* after the hallowed top-five along with the goddess.

6

He’s easily accessible since you get all Three covers as Daily rewards fairly early on. I guess that makes him a popular choice for transitioners, but you don’t see him a lot in the higher tiers anymore. His black still packs a nasty punch, but he’s fairly easy to kill. And of course you can’t play him if you play OML…

7

Not seeing how any characters fit that description, much less the two 4*s that are currently on the chopping block.

8

Who’s on the chopping block? I thought they weren’t announcing anything until Monday.

9

You’re trying to get me banned, aren’t you? If you just read the big thread and tally up mentions, you can probably figure it out.

10

That thread feels like 11 pages of people saying Cho needs boosted and arguing about whether or not OML will get nerfed. I can wait till Monday if you think you could get in trouble for just pointing out what you think is community general consensus.

Just to try to add to the conversation, everyone loves a buff while most of the population hates a nerf. Why not just bring everyone up to the level of the most popular/powerful character? There is a reason no one likes Sentry.

11

CMags was done mostly right. I still lament that they got rid of one of the, if not the, most puzzley characters that existed in the game. Every time I pull out Charlies Angels and maximize my efficiency of green production I get nostalgic. I should have done that just for fun in Gauntlet. Maybe Ill go back and have some fun now…

That said, he is still a viable character at the 3* level so they got him mostly right.

12

CMags is a perfect example of why and how a nerf should be done.

Original CMags had a red that was only 2AP! And his blue, combined with Patch or Punisher, was the original winfinite.

His redo was/is excellent. He is still a good character, and mean when boosted.

13

I think the devs have a sketchy track history when it comes to nerfs, and that is why people are on edge. There are clearly characters that push the power limit. But is it necessary to take a sledge hammer to them? Certainly not. But a SLIGHT adjustment is probably warranted.

XFW was clearly an overnerf. Sentry was ruined. Rags seemed to have gone a little far, but considering his spam in Story mode, I’m fine with it. But the CMags nerf was excellent. Spider-man was just okay. Spider-man was a broken character (by the devs perspective, since we liked what he did. Cheap stun and healing).

Hopefully the devs go easy on the nerfs and concentrate more on bringing up the others. Cho, IW, Mr. F, Star Lord, etc etc etc…

14

Wirius:

I have a concern about your first nerfing category.

In a vacuum, your reasoning is sound. If the devs want characters that make matches last about 3 minutes, but one character reliably makes matches last 30 seconds, then fine, that character is a problem. BUT, there are extrinsic factors in the design of the game that make faster matches significantly more valuable to players. Demi should be careful about nerfing characters that make matches faster without changing the underlying game mechanics that heavily favor faster matches. The result might be something closer to “intended gameplay” but much much less enjoyable for all players.

I would also echo the concerns that demi’s trackrecord for nerfs is not great. Chracters tend to be come effectively useless after being nerfed. Cmags is just about the only exception.

15

His red, at level 5, only crushed 5 TU tiles for 2AP. So much, MUCH, more limited cascades than current unless you cast it multiple times. Not to mention it did half the damage per. That opened up strategy for when you cast it. Now you just toss it out there.

For blue, you could keep tossing out blue over and over without allowing the AI a turn. But it required the player to see the board, play efficiently to maximize blue collection.

Im not disputing that he is still good, only that the change was NOT “perfect.” The game play style he embodied, actual strategy, was lost. He was a great mix of risk (cascades on red) and strategy (blue). Now he is easier for the AI to play, but not nearly as fun for any player who actually has skill.

16

One can hope that those were the result of a different lead designer than the one who announced that these changes were coming. We don’t know when the change happened, but there could be reason to ignore the past here.

17

That was Will, this is Dave. Give him a chance…?

18

I get where you’re coming from. You want the gameplay to be a certain way. That’s up for the devs to decide. The analogy is meant to be relative. If for example the devs decide gameplay should last 30 seconds, and a champ can finish a match in 5 seconds, that’s the same problem. Its relative to the base of what they decide.

That being said, it would be nice if they got rid of the game emphasizing fast matches for success. People always want fast matches anyway. My thought is fast match champs should come with higher risk, but that’s a topic for another conversation.

19

For me, the change was very welcome for no other reason than he was THE most aggrivating character to fight against.
Ever play Business Partners before he was changed? How unlikely was it that he’d have less than 2 red AP with Hood stealing from you? So every turn you had to watch him fire his red. Every single gosh darn turn without fail. He’d just chip away and chip away…not just at your health but at your psyche too.

Ragnarok’s original form had the same problem too, every turn he’d fire his 2 cost red off and murderise you.

you thought Venom’s perma stun was annoying, hoo boy.

20

@wirius Thats not what he is saying. He isnt advocating for any specific style. He is pointing out that directing game play to some ideal (determined by devs) could lead to it being less fun. Maybe for everyone, maybe just for a subset. What if that subset that no longer finds the game fun happens to have a significant correlation to the subset that funds the game?