Wilbur and a mana controller are both heroes of the month, rarity-wise, for the vast majority of players. That’s why these arguments always fail, it’s either a knowing flex or an unknowing “let them eat cake” attitude.
Nobody is ever like “Ah I can beat the hardest challenges with nothing but Chao, Kelile, and an emblemed Boril!” It’s always “you cretins simply need the rarest, most powerful and specific 4* that are only available twice a year, how hard can it be?” Thanks mister moneybags.
Lol wilbur and proteus are available every month…
Healer and damage buffers are available daily…
Li xiu and chao also cut mana and can help with tough bosses(and also available daily)
We both want to enjoy the game, in that we are aligned.
We have divergent opinions as to what would harm the game, I believe that some of the beta heroes would have been a serious problem and you did not.
I also agree with you that Margaret and Atomos really aren’t on the desirable end of the spectrum (I dislike Mok-Arr intensely and plan to feed my only copy into the bloody Hero Academy in 2034 when it is finally released).
SG wants opinions from Beta testers to avoid making a serious error. Fresh eyes on the heroes before release. SG mostly errs on the side of caution (lately?) as we’ve seen with Neith and JF, Telluria came out properly strong so not all adjustments have killed heroes.
Good news is that there are loads of excellent heroes that can be pulled via Atlantis and now S3 portal. Some HotMs will be duds, it happened in the early releases too, Perseus, Gregorian and others will be stars.
My preference is for novel new heroes not just cranking up the power of something we’ve already got…
To be honest, I understand I’m not good enough at the game to judge. I wouldn’t be even if I was in beta testing the heroes myself (which is why I wouldn’t even bother to attempt to apply for beta access).
I think it is extremely difficult to evaluate a hero based on playing a limited amount of matches with them (people aren’t bots; they have limited time) and some theoretical reasoning on their strength.
My personal belief is that the game is not strategic enough to be vastly changed by nuance.
What I mean is, in chess, if you turn a pawn into a bishop, that would significantly alter the game. But if you added 15 atk 15 def 15 hp to a hero? That won’t significantly change anything.
Because so much of the game is built on luck, the amount of tolerance the game has in terms of hero power level variability is much greater.
To be clear, I don’t blame the beta-testers for anything; I understand they aren’t the ones making the final decision; or the ones making any decisions for that matter at all.
I’m simply arguing about how I think heroes should be.
I think Telluria hit the sweet spot. While Neith and JF seemingly missed the mark and erred too much on the side of “caution” as you put it.
I agree. But given Clarissa’s design, my opinion is that she should not be strictly weaker than GM (which some players in her thread were suggesting) to make it so that her combination with GM isn’t so lethal; that’s what I meant by nerfing a hero into oblivion to cater to the needs of the 1%.
Of course we would all like new and novel heroes with innovative new skills. But given that that isn’t possible for every new hero, and given that SG already has a blueprint for a particular hero like Clarissa, we would like her to be at least as good as another hero that was released two years ago, I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.
She can be made into a barbarian, and also have total DoT limited so as to not make her combination with GM too OP; that’s totally fine. But as a stand-alone hero, I don’t want new heroes to be directly weaker than other heroes previously.
edit: I would like to show appreciation to this
You are correct. Thank you for not resorting to calling everyone with a different opinion liars with an ulterior motive or people who don’t care about balance or the health of the game at all.
Name calling and accusations are hurtful and doesn’t help anyone’s argument.
And I would really like people to think about the logic of arguments rather than blindly supporting everyone who agrees with your opinions regardless of how flawed their arguments are and how insulting and hurtful their posts may be.
[…] I believe it is best where all sides get a chance to present their opinions fairly without having their comments completely distorted into malicious intents by other users.
As another beta tester here to add his 2 cents, I want to say a few things.
First, I agree with most everything @Mr_Style_Points said.
Second, I am enjoying the forums much better since I learned you could hide certain posters who seem to always become “dynamite” in these threads.
Third, people think beta testing is just a bunch of fun and playing with new heroes, and to some it is. There are lots of us, though, who put in a lot of hours testing how heroes work, levels play out, and even how portals produce. It’s not always fun, but it is typically rewarding when the new feature/hero you gave feedback on hits the game. We try really hard to make sure heroes don’t ridiculously skew the game, that they work in synergy with other HotM, Event Heroes, and even vanilla heroes. Often times there are a wide array of opinions on single heroes (if you could read some of these threads), but typically there’s a majority who fall into one camp. It’s not just “whales” or older players, but a real cross section representing all levels of the game. So when SG takes a suggestion into consideration, or makes a change to a hero still IN beta, they do it with a full game viewpoint in mind.
While they’ve never come out and said it, to my knowledge, protecting the game “meta” is a high priority. Large shifts, for unnecessary reasons, tend to cause mass departure from games. While eventually you tend to build a player base back, sometimes games don’t recover. That’s why small bumps to the meta, and a slow power creep in heroes, keeps people playing without being overtly alienating. We can parse paying players vs free players in a different discussion, but we try and make sure the game remains balanced for everyone.
About Malosi I highly support the shift from targeting 3 to targeting 1. If the hero now is deemed too weak then improve something else. A very fast hero that blocks the majority of specials in the game for 3 heroes is vastly overpowered.
I have emblems on 14 different heroes. It would block all of them. I have 43 maxed 5* and would block 38 of them. Would also block the next 3 to hit 80 and 6 out of 9 that are stuck at 3/70. So not counting the only duplicate (Zimkitha at 3/70) Malosi is a counter to 46 out of my 54 leveled heroes.
While I’m for changing the meta the shift would be too drastic. A successful defense would probably only contain 2 it could block and them being one flank and the opposite rear. Preferably with the flank as a cleric or monk. Malosi with one target will still be quite powerful in attack since all top tanks will be negated. The only way to make Malosi worthless is to bring 5 heroes that won’t be affected but I don’t think my line of Lianna - Red Hood - Thoth-Amun - Lady of the Lake - Leonidas would scare anyone. Would be one way to make Grimble useful though! So to avoid that bring up Thorne?
It may be hard to distinguish between a bit too strong and OP. I think Malosi 1.0 was OP but clearly not everyone will agree with that. Jean-François wouldn’t have broken the game either in his original form but would have forced a dispeller on the opposing team. That is a shift of meta I would have been against but could have lived with. Switching emblems on multiple heroes to vastly change my defense line is something I wouldn’t have been ok with.
But anyone that wanted Clarissa 1.0 released into the game shouldn’t be in beta. Clearly OP in every way. She’s better than Gravemaker even as a hit 3 hero due to higher stats and the fact that poison is better than fire damage. If you have a heal over time hero the poison will damage before the heal while fire will damage after the heal. So there’s a possibility for the poison hero to kill someone before they heal up while a fire hero will probably leave them alive for another round. I’m ok with slight power creep so current form of Clarissa could be released and not break the game. Just a very desirable top 5 hero instead of clearly the best hero in the game.
As a little footnote also Alberich was nerfed after release. It was understandable at the time but with the heroes out today it wouldn’t be a bad decision if they wanted to revert that change.
Clarissa also does extra damage vs the color that is strong against her and gm does extra damage vs the color weak against him
I suspect for alliances running purple tanks she’ll be a good option for those that dont have kunch or ursena but we’ll see
Excellent analogy @Mr_Style_Points. I think you summed the beta testers position quite well (this is not to say that some may have an agenda of their own).
I’d also like to point out that there have been times, at least from reading “The Beta Beat” that the testers recommendations have been ignored.
Thanks for keeping this game fun without a “win” button hero.
This is a topic about beta process (which has lasted longer than most! Well done team).
But if you want to debate specific heroes, please use the appropriate beta beat topic 
Nearing 100 posts, so I just want to make sure I definitely understand all the salient points:
You forget the stipend of free original OP design HotMs that the Beta testers get.
But @Rigs, I bought 2-2$ scratch off lottery tickets on two separate days and won over 100$…am I in the top 100 now? 
Your post about your raid data was very helpful. Thank you.
Posts like these on the other hand, are not helpful at all. Not a single person in this thread of “100 posts” made ANY of the points you said there.
It isn’t helpful to attack other people’s opinions by completely misrepresenting what they say.
Her post was 99% sarcasm.
Reminder not to break Rule 12:
@JonahTheBard can we have a Beta tester conspiracy thread started up I think that would allow people the platform to complain whilst not leaking into greater game talk. ( also I want a specific one as to not disrupt this gold mine here → Mine of Gold
Unfortunately, these have occurred on a few occasions and quickly become toxic and full of ill informed personal attack. So I don’t tolerate them 
This one is the most successful conversation on beta that I can recall, other than @zephyr1’s incredible beta beat threads.
Agreed and understood. also to clearify this was not an attack on @bobiscool as he has been very civil (as usual) while stating his points.
Luck is the most important skill 
Thank you for your compliment about my raid data thread. I am glad you and many others find it interesting.
I already attempted to make a serious post in this thread. If you missed it I don’t blame you, as I could see many other people were posting while I typed it up.
I would have thought it was abundantly clear my post was satire in a thread that devolved into an argument about who was straw manning better. I thought it’d be funny (still think it is), but didn’t want anyone to think I’m making fun of them, which is why I deliberately misinterpreted OP’s points. I’m reasonably certain he (?) will know I am gently teasing him (?) in a friendly way and will not take offense.
We all have different ideas of what constitutes ‘helpful’ behavior. I posted a Taken meme earlier. I admit that that and the post you quoted probably advanced the conversation zero. But they did inject some levity, which I actually think IS helpful. It’s a game and the second greatest problem in the forums is that people take this all too seriously (the biggest problem, if anyone is wondering, is that human brains are inherently very bad at understanding randomness and probability and are, in an almost unfathomable and yet oh-so-comedic twist, also very bad at realizing that they have that deficiency). If you didn’t understand I was making that point in my post, that’s fine. Perhaps you would have preferred a post saying, ‘whoa, hey everyone! We’re taking this way too seriously!’ But that’s not really my style.
