You can't possibly claim a game is balanced when 1/4th of the roster is viable. This is an insult to game design.
This game has several flaws: The lack of balance and the awful PvP experience that forces us to use the most powerful heroes are among them.
In what game do you NOT have to use the most powerful characters to be a force in PVP? List One
Edit: Cut out a bunch of the unnecessary quotes
I'm sorry, I worded it poorly.
What I meant is that the current PvP system forces us to use our most powerful team, because you can be attacked at any time.
If you had the option to select a "defense team" that will automatically be played when you're attacked, people could test out new teams in attack, without the risk of immediately falling down the ladder.
This game absolutely does not promote nor reward risk. On the contrary: You're punished for even trying something new.
They offer us a safe option: Farm a bunch of random strong characters, put them together without any consideration to synergy, and play.
The thing is that the safe option is ALSO the best one, and there's no point in trying something else.
This game is balanced around strong characters, where it should be balanced about strong synergies.
It's way harder to balance a bunch of characters than to favor synergyzed teams, and then balance them according to their weaknesses.
I'm not sure I'm clear, so I'm going to give an example.
Let's take Rey. She's simply the best attacker in the game besides Leia. She doesn't really need any team setup.
Now if we were to make her better in a Resistance team, but worse somewhere else, it would be easier to balance: You can simply nerf the Resistance synergy, or buff its counters (First Order could have anti-resistance synergy for example).
But the game is currently balanced around individual characters, and not teams.
In this kind of setup, counters tend to get meaningless, since they need to be strong in order to be worth putting in a team.
Some people say this game is Rock-Paper-Scissors.
It's really not. It's Rock-Rock-Rock
Introducing more synergy in teams would actually create this Rock-Paper-Scissors environment.
Wanted to share some concepts that don't seem to be common knowledge, at least not common enough on far too many threads.
1. There will always be a top grossing DPS hero, a preferred Tank, a superior Support hero.
2. If the devs nerf one, they've created another simply because a new hero will take the spot.\
3. Complaining about a hero because it's "overpowered" because you couldn't beat it with your current best Arena team does not mean it's overpowered and needs nerfing: with over 80 heroes, there are plenty of options for countering and exploiting weakness in popular team set ups.
I hope people can keep character feedback in the appropriate forums and let the devs get on to better things besides filtering through all this noise about nerving the newest meta. The game is very balanced. If you don't think so, go play another in this genre and see how fast you come running back.
1. Wrong. What you fail to understand is that there should be several "top grossing dps", "preferred Tank", or "Support hero", each based on a specific situation/team composition. Currently, we somehow have extremely powerful heroes who require no synergy, setup or strategy to work well (See Rey, QGJ, RG, Dooku)
2. Wrong. Nerfing a character does not necessarily mean another will take its place, and it doesn't mean ONLY one will take its place. The goal is to extend the viable roster, and some heros completely smother the potential of others. When the most versatile characters are also the strongest, you create a static meta. Why would I pick an Attacker who synergies well with my team, when there's one who can do the job better, and fit anywhere?
Cookie cutters are a plague, and they should pay the price of their versatility.
By nerfing cookie cutters, you force people into building synergy-oriented teams, therefore creating diversity.
3. Wrong again. You're acting like the 80 characters are viable, which is not the case. Counters may exist, but it doesn't mean that they can be used.
Example: Plo Koon leader ability counters Leia's stealth. Great. Now you gain the ability to counter Leia! But by doing so, you basically have no leader againsy anyone else, and you have to use a mediocre hero just to counter 1/5th of the enemy team.
Your arguments are very binary.
What you're saying is that there should not be nerfs.
What you mean is that you don't want the characters you use getting nerfed.
What you should be saying is that this game needs some clever balance changes: Targeted nerfs to reduce the power of all-arounders, buffs to underused characters to give them an opportunity, and a generally more powerful synergy element.
You can't possibly claim a game is balanced when 1/4th of the roster is viable. This is an insult to game design.
This game has several flaws: The lack of balance and the awful PvP experience that forces us to use the most powerful heroes are among them.
1. There "are" several high dps toons, but that doesnt mean there wont always be one "higher" than the others. Such is thebway of individual statistics.
2.yes, nerfing a character (or any other aspect of the game) has always and will always pave the way for the next thing to take its place, this cycle has and will endlessly continue in every multi player game with pvp.
3. So you're saying there should be a cookie cutter leader to have utility against any enemy team? I thought you were against that?
Nerfing toons is just an endless waste of resources done to keep the grind fresh and the money rolling in. You not being able to accept that does not make it any less true.
You can't possibly claim a game is balanced when 1/4th of the roster is viable. This is an insult to game design.
This game has several flaws: The lack of balance and the awful PvP experience that forces us to use the most powerful heroes are among them.
In what game do you NOT have to use the most powerful characters to be a force in PVP? List One
Edit: Cut out a bunch of the unnecessary quotes
I'm sorry, I worded it poorly.
What I meant is that the current PvP system forces us to use our most powerful team, because you can be attacked at any time.
If you had the option to select a "defense team" that will automatically be played when you're attacked, people could test out new teams in attack, without the risk of immediately falling down the ladder.
This game absolutely does not promote nor reward risk. On the contrary: You're punished for even trying something new.
They offer us a safe option: Farm a bunch of random strong characters, put them together without any consideration to synergy, and play.
The thing is that the safe option is ALSO the best one, and there's no point in trying something else.
This game is balanced around strong characters, where it should be balanced about strong synergies.
It's way harder to balance a bunch of characters than to favor synergyzed teams, and then balance them according to their weaknesses.
I'm not sure I'm clear, so I'm going to give an example.
Let's take Rey. She's simply the best attacker in the game besides Leia. She doesn't really need any team setup.
Now if we were to make her better in a Resistance team, but worse somewhere else, it would be easier to balance: You can simply nerf the Resistance synergy, or buff its counters (First Order could have anti-resistance synergy for example).
But the game is currently balanced around individual characters, and not teams.
In this kind of setup, counters tend to get meaningless, since they need to be strong in order to be worth putting in a team.
Some people say this game is Rock-Paper-Scissors.
It's really not. It's Rock-Rock-Rock
Introducing more synergy in teams would actually create this Rock-Paper-Scissors environment.
That makes sense.
I agree that synergies aren't as important as having a strong team. I don't agree that there is one "safe" option.
For my server, the top teams have RG, stHS, Dooku, QGJ, 5s, Rey, Genosian Soldier, Ackbar, Aayla, Leia, Old Ben, Rex, Daka, Phasma, Yoda, Kylo Ren, OP, Savage, and Ig-86. All mixed and matched. That is all in the top 10. And i've been seeing those guys in top 10 frequently. 19 out of 80 heroes being viable is pretty good for any game with PvP. When I started playing this game, everyone was using the same 4 hero setup with a different support. Talk about a cluster in the PvP!
Every time the game comes out with a new character, the meta shifts slightly and I think this game does a good job of giving players a lot of options.
I think the devs realize that farming up a lot of genosians or jawas won't draw new users to playing the game initially. It may be something players will want to do after farming their fav SW characters first. I personally like a lot of Jedi heroes. My friend likes a lot of Sith toons. We both like the droids. If at the beginning of the game, it told us to farm as many Jedi as we could, my friend would not want to play. Similarly, I would quickly be bored with farming only Sith in order to be a casually competitive player. Its the variety and collecting that has us playing.
I agree with you tho. I would like more synergies. Synergies would create a more strategy-based system. I think all they have to do to promote that is to get rid of the blanket leader abilities. Maybe keep the 'non-synergy heroes receive half' so people don't have to have fully synergized teams while still rewarding those who do. While I'm touching this topic.. If you want the game to be less rock-rock-rock and more rock-paper-scissors, don't you think it would be more difficult to keep a rank with a set "defensive" team with a specific synergy when there would be a different synergy that will always counter yours?.
EX: Sith>Jedi>Ewok>Sith...
While I agree to an extent with the things that you would like to see changed, I don't agree that there are any OP toons (which the original post is referring to people complaining about) that make the game broken and unbalanced.
Also, thanks for clarifying. Your original statement confused me greatly haha
Rey Dooku and Fives people still want to see nerfed?
Have you all been sleeping with the new droids?
Do you know that Han Solo is coming to haunt you guys now?
When will be the first NERF Han Solo topic?
He will be the one to really annoy people. Giving the entire team evasion up which will make evasion over 50%
See all the hate and the newbs screaming for nerfs in probably a month from here.
Why a month? Because nerfaskers aren't facing current meta. They keep whining about Rey where they probably haven't faced a engineer team. How could they if they play top 200 positions.
That's why it will take a while before the nerfscreamers face Han and they will come here to share those lovely tears.
Everyone who already faced Han will have a way to beat him by then and move on. The newbs (term for new players, not agressive intended) will stick to the past.
I mean someone here is asking to nerf Fives, again? Most people don't even know how a toon works.
439-259-888 I have a bad habit of editing my typo's after posting
What I meant is that the current PvP system forces us to use our most powerful team, because you can be attacked at any time.
Agree, but you make it sound like we're victims to the system when we aren't. There are always stronger players in this type of game, it's what drives the income for the business model.
If you had the option to select a "defense team" that will automatically be played when you're attacked, people could test out new teams in attack, without the risk of immediately falling down the ladder.
This is another 'should' argument. And you sound like you wouldn't risk it unless there was no risk.
This game absolutely does not promote nor reward risk. On the contrary: You're punished for even trying something new. They offer us a safe option: Farm a bunch of random strong characters, put them together without any consideration to synergy, and play.
Contradictions, you don't want to risk, you want a defense team so you don't "lose your spot". If you used a poor combo against a certain team, it's not the games fault, you are simply learning how to play. Make mistakes and realize it's part of growth. Stop living in fear.
The thing is that the safe option is ALSO the best one, and there's no point in trying something else.
This game is balanced around strong characters, where it should be balanced about strong synergies.
It's way harder to balance a bunch of characters than to favor synergyzed teams, and then balance them according to their weaknesses.
Safe option is NOT the best option. Cookie-cutter builds are easy to beat, provided you have unlocked enough heroes. And this is where I think the root of our disagreement lies: it's not the game's fault if a player has a weak account, and the answer is not to weaken every other character that each complainer doesn't have. Grind takes time (or money).
But the game is currently balanced around individual characters, and not teams.
In this kind of setup, counters tend to get meaningless, since they need to be strong in order to be worth putting in a team.
This incorrect. Rey teams do require appropriate team setup, if you don't have insane speed synergies or a tank, she will die. She is not the God some players believe she is.
Some people say this game is Rock-Paper-Scissors.
It's really not. It's Rock-Rock-Rock
Introducing more synergy in teams would actually create this Rock-Paper-Scissors environment.
[/quote]
Again, I don't think there is any evidence that it is Rock-Rock-Rock. You can counter any team, if you have a robust account. If you don't have a robust accout, it's not our fault.
Even better, I think they ought to have a subsection for Character Adjustments in Feedback where all topics about character nerf/buff topics are dumped to.
I feel like the current game is as balanced as it has been since I started playing several months ago. Of the top 10 teams on my arena ladder, there are 7 different leaders (as opposed to a few months ago when it was basically 100% Sidious leads). So I think you can win with a lot more builds now. Overall I think the game has gotten better and I enjoy it more today than ever before.
However, I agree with Sikho that I'd prefer it if synergistic builds had an edge over non-synergistic ones, and right now that is definitely not the case. I had a very strong, maxed out Nightsister team that hovered between Rank 200 and Rank 90 on my shard. As soon as I abandoned it for a mixed squad, I can now hold around Rank 50. GS is vastly superior to Nightsister Acolyte, why? Neither character holds any special place in the SW universe, so the only way any of these characters should emerge as powerful is if they are augmented by a strong synergy.
FWIW, there is one squad in the game that shows appropriate synergy: droids. Any of the droid's by themselves are decent but not great. Put them all together and they are much more powerful. I love that, and we need way more of it in the game.
-complains about Rey and her power with forssight
-has no aoe on squad
-cries for nerf
+1,000,000
But does foresight not work for AoE's? Never knew that lol
Foresight works against AoE. But the AoE will still hit all other characters, so the turn isn't completely wasted. (Plus, and this wasn't the original point, but several AoEs will debuff, so if used while Rey doesn't have Foresight, you're really hurting her with that.)
@Scobby7373773 & @Parad1sel
Completely agree. I feel they have brought too many down instead of amping up a few more. However, from the customer side of things, I appreciate them starting off low, because I would rather find out "oh hey I got a buff" than, "man they weakened my investments AGAIN.
Dooku needs a nerf. And I say that having little trouble beating him in the Arena and GW. After that, sure, nerfbat can get put away. For now: #nerfthedookie
Hey, uh, buddy...
*looks around*
You aren't rolling with the right crowd, calling for a nerf. >.> lol
Have you heard of a bait and switch? It's fundamentally dishonest for people to spend $ and hours for weeks or even months to farm a character only to have that character nerfed. It's against the law to sell someone a BMW and deliver them a KIA. That is exactly what the nerf crowd is encouraging the devs to do. It's shady and it's bad for business.
I read all the arguements here against nerfing as a balancing tool and see none that hold up. As this is the case, consider me pro-nerf. I Also am pro-buff for weak characters. It is irresponsible game development not to do both.
Evasion needs to be fixed. Count dingleberry should only apply to ds, Ben for ls. Ben is pretty balanced, he sucks overall but the evasion is a bonus. Dingleberry however is powerful other than have a thimble for hp. If they even nerfed leader just for the arena (maybe gw unless they fix opponent selection) it would be nice.
Overall to balance a toon if you make them strong in one aspect, you weaken them elsewhere. Dingleberry appears broken because when evasion works, his minimal hp doesn't matter.
They need to pay more attn to the arena. When group after group has the same line up or leader, evaluate why other than unoriginality. Then see what other toons could have the desired trait(s) added without making them too powerful. Lots of toons right now could use some love.
I agree that DEFENSIVE (AI) Dodge needs a tweak, but leader abilities that improve dodge/evasion haven't broken the game. A leaderboard with similar heroes is going to be a constant. My point it, every time the community cries about some character being too strong, they nerf/rebalance/fill-in-the-blank and we get a new leaderboard, but again, all the same heroes (meta).
Think of it this way, in pro sports, you see the same guys dominating, and everyone wants them (provided they keep there stats up). If you could clone them, how many teams would they be on? Every team. It's just how it works.
Nerfing individual heroes will not bring more variety to the top 50 Arena positions.
Replies
In what game do you NOT have to use the most powerful characters to be a force in PVP? List One
Edit: Cut out a bunch of the unnecessary quotes
I'm sorry, I worded it poorly.
What I meant is that the current PvP system forces us to use our most powerful team, because you can be attacked at any time.
If you had the option to select a "defense team" that will automatically be played when you're attacked, people could test out new teams in attack, without the risk of immediately falling down the ladder.
This game absolutely does not promote nor reward risk. On the contrary: You're punished for even trying something new.
They offer us a safe option: Farm a bunch of random strong characters, put them together without any consideration to synergy, and play.
The thing is that the safe option is ALSO the best one, and there's no point in trying something else.
This game is balanced around strong characters, where it should be balanced about strong synergies.
It's way harder to balance a bunch of characters than to favor synergyzed teams, and then balance them according to their weaknesses.
I'm not sure I'm clear, so I'm going to give an example.
Let's take Rey. She's simply the best attacker in the game besides Leia. She doesn't really need any team setup.
Now if we were to make her better in a Resistance team, but worse somewhere else, it would be easier to balance: You can simply nerf the Resistance synergy, or buff its counters (First Order could have anti-resistance synergy for example).
But the game is currently balanced around individual characters, and not teams.
In this kind of setup, counters tend to get meaningless, since they need to be strong in order to be worth putting in a team.
Some people say this game is Rock-Paper-Scissors.
It's really not. It's Rock-Rock-Rock
Introducing more synergy in teams would actually create this Rock-Paper-Scissors environment.
Mods please give this user a warning!
But +1 on what he said
@Sikho
1. There "are" several high dps toons, but that doesnt mean there wont always be one "higher" than the others. Such is thebway of individual statistics.
2.yes, nerfing a character (or any other aspect of the game) has always and will always pave the way for the next thing to take its place, this cycle has and will endlessly continue in every multi player game with pvp.
3. So you're saying there should be a cookie cutter leader to have utility against any enemy team? I thought you were against that?
Nerfing toons is just an endless waste of resources done to keep the grind fresh and the money rolling in. You not being able to accept that does not make it any less true.
Guild: -FTB- Reign Of Fate
That makes sense.
I agree that synergies aren't as important as having a strong team. I don't agree that there is one "safe" option.
For my server, the top teams have RG, stHS, Dooku, QGJ, 5s, Rey, Genosian Soldier, Ackbar, Aayla, Leia, Old Ben, Rex, Daka, Phasma, Yoda, Kylo Ren, OP, Savage, and Ig-86. All mixed and matched. That is all in the top 10. And i've been seeing those guys in top 10 frequently. 19 out of 80 heroes being viable is pretty good for any game with PvP. When I started playing this game, everyone was using the same 4 hero setup with a different support. Talk about a cluster in the PvP!
Every time the game comes out with a new character, the meta shifts slightly and I think this game does a good job of giving players a lot of options.
I think the devs realize that farming up a lot of genosians or jawas won't draw new users to playing the game initially. It may be something players will want to do after farming their fav SW characters first. I personally like a lot of Jedi heroes. My friend likes a lot of Sith toons. We both like the droids. If at the beginning of the game, it told us to farm as many Jedi as we could, my friend would not want to play. Similarly, I would quickly be bored with farming only Sith in order to be a casually competitive player. Its the variety and collecting that has us playing.
I agree with you tho. I would like more synergies. Synergies would create a more strategy-based system. I think all they have to do to promote that is to get rid of the blanket leader abilities. Maybe keep the 'non-synergy heroes receive half' so people don't have to have fully synergized teams while still rewarding those who do. While I'm touching this topic.. If you want the game to be less rock-rock-rock and more rock-paper-scissors, don't you think it would be more difficult to keep a rank with a set "defensive" team with a specific synergy when there would be a different synergy that will always counter yours?.
EX: Sith>Jedi>Ewok>Sith...
While I agree to an extent with the things that you would like to see changed, I don't agree that there are any OP toons (which the original post is referring to people complaining about) that make the game broken and unbalanced.
Also, thanks for clarifying. Your original statement confused me greatly haha
Have you all been sleeping with the new droids?
Do you know that Han Solo is coming to haunt you guys now?
When will be the first NERF Han Solo topic?
He will be the one to really annoy people. Giving the entire team evasion up which will make evasion over 50%
See all the hate and the newbs screaming for nerfs in probably a month from here.
Why a month? Because nerfaskers aren't facing current meta. They keep whining about Rey where they probably haven't faced a engineer team. How could they if they play top 200 positions.
That's why it will take a while before the nerfscreamers face Han and they will come here to share those lovely tears.
Everyone who already faced Han will have a way to beat him by then and move on. The newbs (term for new players, not agressive intended) will stick to the past.
I mean someone here is asking to nerf Fives, again? Most people don't even know how a toon works.
Haha, but BentWookiee IS a mod!!
This is another 'should' argument. And you sound like you wouldn't risk it unless there was no risk.
Contradictions, you don't want to risk, you want a defense team so you don't "lose your spot". If you used a poor combo against a certain team, it's not the games fault, you are simply learning how to play. Make mistakes and realize it's part of growth. Stop living in fear.
Safe option is NOT the best option. Cookie-cutter builds are easy to beat, provided you have unlocked enough heroes. And this is where I think the root of our disagreement lies: it's not the game's fault if a player has a weak account, and the answer is not to weaken every other character that each complainer doesn't have. Grind takes time (or money).
This incorrect. Rey teams do require appropriate team setup, if you don't have insane speed synergies or a tank, she will die. She is not the God some players believe she is. [/quote]
Again, I don't think there is any evidence that it is Rock-Rock-Rock. You can counter any team, if you have a robust account. If you don't have a robust accout, it's not our fault.
+1,000,000
But does foresight not work for AoE's? Never knew that lol
However, I agree with Sikho that I'd prefer it if synergistic builds had an edge over non-synergistic ones, and right now that is definitely not the case. I had a very strong, maxed out Nightsister team that hovered between Rank 200 and Rank 90 on my shard. As soon as I abandoned it for a mixed squad, I can now hold around Rank 50. GS is vastly superior to Nightsister Acolyte, why? Neither character holds any special place in the SW universe, so the only way any of these characters should emerge as powerful is if they are augmented by a strong synergy.
FWIW, there is one squad in the game that shows appropriate synergy: droids. Any of the droid's by themselves are decent but not great. Put them all together and they are much more powerful. I love that, and we need way more of it in the game.
Foresight works against AoE. But the AoE will still hit all other characters, so the turn isn't completely wasted. (Plus, and this wasn't the original point, but several AoEs will debuff, so if used while Rey doesn't have Foresight, you're really hurting her with that.)
the thing is an annoying character (REY) isn't necessarily OP. yes, we want them to go away, but that isn't a rational solution.
what is rational, as i do in the case of rey, is try to find new and creative ways to make her take a dirt nap as quickly as possible.
and if that doesn't do it for you, then just develop the "OP" character for your own squad; if you cant beat 'em, join 'em.
Seeing almost the same 5 toons in every group from rank 70 on up is silly.
Completely agree. I feel they have brought too many down instead of amping up a few more. However, from the customer side of things, I appreciate them starting off low, because I would rather find out "oh hey I got a buff" than, "man they weakened my investments AGAIN.
Hey, uh, buddy...
*looks around*
You aren't rolling with the right crowd, calling for a nerf. >.> lol
Overall to balance a toon if you make them strong in one aspect, you weaken them elsewhere. Dingleberry appears broken because when evasion works, his minimal hp doesn't matter.
They need to pay more attn to the arena. When group after group has the same line up or leader, evaluate why other than unoriginality. Then see what other toons could have the desired trait(s) added without making them too powerful. Lots of toons right now could use some love.
Think of it this way, in pro sports, you see the same guys dominating, and everyone wants them (provided they keep there stats up). If you could clone them, how many teams would they be on? Every team. It's just how it works.
Nerfing individual heroes will not bring more variety to the top 50 Arena positions.
Lol! Your joking right
I enter arena with just rey and four empty slots. I can beat any team without rey, and some of them with rey.
If I put in my level 20 old ben just for his leader skill, i can beat anyone.
She makes every squad better. I run rey with my ewoks. Droids are incomplete without rey. Rey is uber with my clone team.
When they finally allow multiple toons on the same squad, i cant wait to try my all rey squad.
Levels are meaningless in this game. You get more power from 1 gear level than 10 character levels.