I said it at the end. It’s funny to me how @RayZeus can see how his accusations sound insulting when it’s given the other way around, but can’t see it in his own exact post.
For those who are slightly off track, please see the first post:
Clarification on behalf of beta testers, to the anti-nerf crowd
6 Likes
SG should keep beta and idk how you took what i said as suggesting otherwise
SG does listen and does make changes based on player feedback but true it’s not always the exact changes players asked for and SG doesn’t give reasons as to why that is. Though there are times when SG does make changes that are requested by the playerbase but more so in the public game than in Beta.
Point 2, i don’t recall any beta player requesting initial damage for jf, it would bring him too close to gm and azlar that we already have. I do recall requests for an adjustment to his DoT and his utility skills but that is it from my Memory(which I’ll read back later to see if i may have missed something)
2 Likes
Back in my trolling days, I would have done it his way because you want the person to get angry and then point out their hypocrisy.
If I could offer any advice to bobiscool, from a veteran of the great troll wars of Web 2.0, it’s that it doesn’t work, doesn’t make you seem clever, and doesn’t contribute to the discussion. I realize some people might see me that way now, but you won’t find me using old troll tricks. 
1 Like
The difference is that my post actually referred to something you actually said, and didn’t veer into a personal attack. I’m all for a civil debate, and was trying to bring up a point relevant to this discussion, whereas you just used the opportunity to attack me.
Agree to disagree, I’m out of this discussion.
6 Likes
Guys. BACK ON TOPIC.
6 Likes
Imagine a raid tournament with whatever special rules and star restrictions but the additional rule that all teams MUST be rainbow. I think it’d be fun, new, and interesting. We’d all have to discover new ways to synergize special skills.
I think this is a much better ‘nerf’ than addressing it on a case-by-case basis for each HOTM because it is systemic.
8 Likes
Personally, I’d love to see class specific tournaments, but that’s just me.
2 Likes
As a beta tester I thought I would clarify the heuristics I use regarding heroes.
- New heroes should represent good value for money/effort of saved gems.
The ridiculous average costs to pull heroes or time for F2P to grind gems to land one means that they should get something worth what they put in.
This principle has two partially contradicting implications that need balancing. Firstly that the hero being introduced offers something that will improve some aspect of a players bench regardless of whether they have every hero or not. This could be significant improvement in very specific role or marginal improvement over multiple rolls.
Secondly that there should be a sufficient period of time before another hero comes along that improves on the same aspect of that hero. If a hero is made redundant in the space of a couple of months by a new improved version you won’t be getting your value’s worth from the first one.
- Centralising and Total Package heroes are damaging to the meta.
There are hundreds of heroes in this game, having one hero that in a particular colour in every aspect of the game making all other heroes in that same colour redundant is not good for the game, in the top echelons of the game where money flies around you can bet your ### that everyone will be using it and it’ll get monotonous fast. Total package heroes in which there is absolutely no downside to a hero - such as something that hits like a glass cannon whilst throwing up a bunch of defensive buffs that negate its weaknesses come very close to this best to use everywhere principle and depending on their exact details could be considered too much to counter for the typical F2P roster in which case changes are necessary to keep them in the game. It’s fine to be a glass cannon or a brick wall but a brick cannon is potentially an issue.
11 Likes
Guys, drop it and move back on to topic. I’m removing off-topic comments.
4 Likes
I should probably add a third point to this which I’ve come to from experience from Beta.
- Pick your battles
So much of beta feels like banging one’s head against a wall and with the rate at which new heroes have been flooding into beta your best chance of being able to influence anything is focus on a few of them and start bashing your head away on those particular walls. With sustained effort your brain damage might actually break through the wall whereas bashing it on every wall won’t get much noticed. As such I’ve given up on trying to give feedback on each of them and just focus on what is worth the headache (based on both the hero’s potential, likelihood of being able to make an impact or whether the game desperately needs a specific change).
7 Likes
What this thread clearly shows is insulting the motives of well intentioned people gets nowhere. One person’s “just maintaining balance guy” is another person’s gatekeeper.
The fact of the matter is, many players just want a fair shot at being competitive by having access to heroes comparably powered to those they lack, not “overpowered”.
7 Likes
5 Likes
Thank you @Mr_Style_Points for starting this thread, shame it degenerated.
I wish we had downvotes for some of the more absurd comments that brought it down so quickly.
Agree 100% with the idea that a shift is good when done properly (“in the right way” is the exact quote). The problem is the definition of that expression is not universally shared since some people want the dynamite.
The game DOES need to shift and add new content to keep long term players interested. S3 is a good attempt although I am willing to bet that PvP remains the main hook for long term players (I feel that way, wars, raids and tournaments much more fun than map for me, I like Titans too).
The advocates of adding extremely powerful new heroes are missing some important aspects of how this works
SG is running a business and wants to carry on monetizing it for as long as possible. This means:
- Retaining existing spenders
- Bringing in new players that can become spenders
A large F2P player base can keep the game interesting for the spenders and be a source of new spenders. SG also has some ad sales so these players are not a total “waste” of resources for SG.
SG would like a balance that keeps existing players and entices new players so a balance is needed as is a gap between F2P and P2P or else the incentive to spend would be too low for SG’s financial targets.
Claiming that an extremely powerful hero is “good” for balance somehow because of newer players is a rubbish argument. All the P2P would have it and a few of the rest and the gap would gap much wider quickly AND make it more boring for the very biggest spenders because ALL the teams they face would have the exact same composition.
If that isn’t persuasive then consider: What is SG’s worst nightmare?
- Paying players quit.
- No new players join.
- F2F don’t start paying.
Lets think of what could cause these things could happen.
#1 is Boredom - there are so many gaming options out there that if this becomes boring people leave. Sooner for some than others but once people start to leave in serious numbers and it loses the critical mass that makes PvP interesting it will implode.
What causes boredom? Not a universal answer but a lack of challenge and variety are part of the answer. That is worsened, not improved, by the release of extremely powerful heroes. Anectdotally someone will draw it with the free token and celebrate, many others will be cheered by that but the overall numbers will show that 1.3% of the draws led to this hero and those that summoned the most got the most. Long term players know how to recognize OP and will make special efforts. SG will have an excellent month but know that it will jeopardize their future revenues.
I am NOT saying that SG gets it right. I am saying that they would like to get it right.
Also, please remember, the more heroes in the game, the more potential synergies and the harder it is to balance. That is why Clarissa is so much better with GM in the game than she would be without him. You KNOW all the top players will make an extra effort to summon her because her DoT stacks wonderfully well with GM’s (much better than a double GM as they overwrite one another).
There is a BELIEF that some people hold that OP heroes will save the game and the C2P/F2P players. It cannot be backed up by a reasonable argument since it is factually untrue and the proponents of this belief use anecdotes to show how this works, similar to saying the lottery is a good equalizer of economic inequality. For the one winner it is a major benefit, for the 500 million that did not win it changed nothing. Statistics will show that it increased inequality in society, proponents will say it changed someone’s life.
15 Likes
Think the game and the forum would both improve if everyone stopped playin the blame game
But that could just be me…
Majority of this thread so far has just been rants and finger pointing
If public discussions on the forum about future heroes were more civil and constructive they would be heard a lot better by a bigger audience
6 Likes
Let me add my PoV as a beta tester. I feel like my responsibility is to make certain that the gap between F2P and P2W doesn’t widen any further. That means that all content (heroes, quests, map sections, etc) should be accessible to all players. That’s why I was such a vocal opponent of a gem fee to enter raid tournaments, for example.
I’d like to introduce a new term. Grinder. A grinder is a free or very cheap to play individual who takes absolutely every opportunity to grow stronger in game without spending money. They open their chests as soon as possible. They do every rare quest. They attempt to complete every tier of every challenge event. They make sure that they’re using every bit of energy as efficiently as possible. They save gems, coins, keys, and tokens for the best time to summon. They maximize their resources. They choose which heroes to ascend based on which of their limited options will bring the most benefit to their roster.
In E&P, a grinder can achieve anything a spender can, given enough time and persistence. Top 100 alliance? Absolutely. Global #1? Sure. Winning a raid tournament or challenge event? Absolutely.
That ability for a grinder to be able to compete at a high level is what is key to E&P, and I approach my feedback in beta with the goal of preserving it.
16 Likes
My 2 cents,
For starters I do not see the point of considering how good a hero is in clearing the map when talking balance. It is perfectly possible to clear the entire game as is right now with only 4* heroes if you use proper team composition, strategy and battle items. To this very day I clear all challenge events, map stages and seasonal events with a healer, a mana controller, wilbur and a damage buffer, all 4* heroes. You really don’t need a HOTM for this.
Secondly, I feel sorry for the beta testers in this game. They receive a lot of stick for SG’s decisions and mistakes. If you want proper balance then a few short rounds in beta with limited possible changes isn’t enough. I think that every nerf that was made since I have followed those topics was needed. I do not think that the extent of the nerfs has always been what it should be and in some cases was too much. Sadly these “bad” experiences have created a kind of anti-“nerf” movement that would rather a hero be OP than balanced out of fear of an over nerf. Sadly these OP heroes are for worse for the game than they believe. I back every nerf that has happened but have my reservations about how heavy they were. Beta testers do not impact the latter and catch far too much stick for what is beyond their control.
Thirdly I think the impact of an “OP” hero needs some clarification. Many others have explained quite well what I feel on this topic. I think that a lack of variety and not a lack of new heroes will be the death of this game. This may seem similar but there is an important distinction. What you face is more important than what you have. I feel like the long term health of this game is much more secure when players face more different heroes and teams rather than have more heroes to use. You can have all the heroes in the game but if you face the same defence every time you will still only be using a fraction of what you have at your disposal. That is why balance is so important. The variety of defense teams determines how useful which heroes are on offense and how wide that scope is. As an example, If everyone uses telluria then you won’t be using your blue heroes very often.
This brings me to my final point. Variety is not ruined by an OP hero but by how rare that OP hero is. In no way is it acceptable that a HOTM is at the very pinnacle of the power curve. By making the best heroes in the game too easy to get you will bleed the variety and this is something that far too few people consider. Telluria is very strong for sure but that isn’t the issue. The issue is how many people can get her. The variety at the top level has been hit hard by the Vela, Telluria release. Where you used to see a healthy mix of tanks in the top 100 now every other tanks is a telluria with a Vela flank. HOTM’s should be weaker than event heroes, seasonal heroes and s2,s3. The best heroes should be the hardest to get. When did it become logical and even desirable that a hero as easily obtained as a HOTM should be as powerful or even more powerful than extremely rare and hard to obtain event heroes? It makes no sense at all. I didn’t look it up but to get like a 95% chance to pull a HOTM it takes a little over 200 pulls. To get that same chance at an event 5* that is 1500 pulls? I don’t care who you are or what you say, There is no reasonable reason why a hero that is so much easier to get should be more powerful.
8 Likes
Is that why you’ve been upvoting them? Instead? 
Jokes aside, OP is clarifying on behalf of beta-testers. I want to clarify on behalf of the “anti-nerf crowd”.
Despite popular accusations, these are NOT the beliefs and motivations of the “anti-nerf crowd”; they’re more like the urban myths like “beta-testers are at fault for nerfing heroes” or “proponents of balanced heroes are gatekeepers”.
The reality is, this, and you said it very nicely yourself:
As I’ve pointed out in my first post in the thread, @Mr_Style_Points’s idea in his OP sounds nice on paper, but it isn’t practical in terms of implementation. The problem with your guys’ arguments is that it is too idealistic and too black and white.
The trade-off isn’t between “Wonderfully balanced heroes that can contribute to everyone’s rosters while not breaking the game” versus “OP heroes that are a must have and absolutely break the game.”
If those were the choices, I’m sure everyone would agree to pick the former versus the latter.
The question is, if we cannot always achieve perfect balance, what’s the best way to err, so as to
Make the game run for as long as possible, which is good for both SG and the players?
I think we can look at the motivations and goals of both SG and players. You’ve listed some motivations for SG, to which I agree with:
The motivations of the players? There are lots, and it’s different for every player, but I think we can summarize it as:
- to have fun.
For some players, they think the key lies completely within the game, specifically, PvP. They think that the game needs to be theoretically perfectly balanced in terms of PvP, much like Chess or Go.
I can completely understand this viewpoint, and I think it does have some merit. I myself am a huge fan of perfect information strategy games like Go.
But I don’t think that’s the only perspective we can take on the game.
Theoretically, I think that that’s a great ideal to strive towards. But realistically, it only affects a very small percentage of the population.
You make the assumption that:
This is an assumption I fundamentally disagree with. I think a good number of players do enjoy PvP; but that it isn’t the main reason why people continue to play this game. There are a multitude of other possible reasons; you’ve mentioned one yourself. Titans.
I would like to offer another personal favorite: challenge events.
I think a very large number of players also enjoy card collection; I would even venture a guess that this is the main driver for players to continue to play, over PvP, PvE, or any other aspect of the game.
And then there are factors outside of the game, like the social aspect, which is something I’ve seen a multitude of very experienced players mention; in fact, it seems to be the only thing keeping them in the game, over PvP, over hero management.
Even for players who are, indeed, into PvP, these concerns about PvP balance do not affect the majority of players simply for the fact that they do not have such deep rosters. They do not compete at a level in which the effects you guys are describing would realistically affect them.
The idea isn’t to ruin the game for the top PvPers and have limitless powercreep.
The idea is to have heroes that players can look forwards to. Heroes that can improve the gaming experience for the vast majority of players, rather than a small minority.
It matters not whether the majority of players can get that hero or not; for the vast majority of players, the fun comes from the hoping and dreaming. Just like why people play the lottery; they understand their chances are abysmal, but they enjoy day-dreaming about the what-ifs throughout the week. That’s what makes it interesting to them.
And ultimately, again, for players, what we want is fun and excitement, something to de-stress, something to dream, something to hope, something to look forwards to.
For the top players, maybe their focus is on becoming the most competitive. There is no hope and dream. So it doesn’t matter whether they pull Atomos or Mok-Arr, they’re gonna do enough pulls to get all the heroes they need anyway, they just don’t want the game to shift significantly.
But for the rest of us, if by some chance we manage to pull a special hero, we hope that it is Ursena and not Mok-Arr.
That’s the motivation of the “anti-nerfers”; but I have to stress again, that we are not looking for overpowered heroes that completely break the game, nor are we looking for limitless powercreep.
We want freshness. Something to look forwards to. Skadi is a great example I brought up earlier, that is an amazing hero for non-pvpers and doesn’t break the game for you guys.
You bring up Clarissa’s synergy with GM; that’s great, I even gave a suggestion in Clarissa’s thread to limit the maximum amount of DoT damage possible at one time.
We are not against keeping heroes in line for the very best players. We don’t want heroes to all be nerfed to death, and only have the chance to ever pull undesirable weak heroes like Atomos and Margaret, just because it satisfies the top 1% of the competitive players’ needs.
9 Likes
That was a really well phrased clarification
2 Likes
I am just gonna chime in, that combination of last 3 HotM in a defense upfront is absolutely nuts if they are emblemed up.
2 Likes