So there have been a lot of topics going around about buffing and nerfing heroes and it seems like a lot of these discussions boil down to the same thing even if it is about different heroes. A few things stand out to me that I believe warrant a general ideoligical discussion apart from the spicific discussions for the specific heroes. I would like to ask that we try to keep this discussion as general as possible and don’t get thrown off track by discussing particular heroes, there are topics for that allready, so please stick to examples only.
A few observations before we get started :
- The most talked about heroes are all HOTM’s. Neith has way more votes for a buff than Mok-Arr for example.
- There is strong onus in these forums for buffing weaker HOTM’s (Neith, JF), And retaining stronger ones ( Telluria ) as evidenced by the votes for neith and the poll result in the Tell topic.
- There are very few to no topics and votes for rare event or S2,3 hero balancing. Whether they are very strong (Finley, BK) or weak ( Guardian Kong, Atomos )
So why is it that Finley and BK never got a succesful nerf topic and Tellurias is up to 1200 posts? Why does Neith have so many votes for a buff while she is clearly better than many event, seasonal and S2 heroes that get next to none?
It all boils down to how rare a hero is. How many people are impacted by the existance of a HOTM and how strong or weak they are vs how many are impacted by an event hero. The summoning odds don’t lie. The chance of getting a specific HOTM is multiple times higher than the chance of getting a specific event or S2,3 hero. How many people have at least one Neith and how many have an atomos for example?
Here is some personal data to back the statistics. Since I started playing a I have acquired the following 5* heroes :
- S1 : 20
- HOTM : 15
- Event : 5
- S2 : 5
- Seasonal : 1
- S3 : 0
As you can see, statistically and in practice HOTM’s are the second most common type of 5* hero in the game and I believe that the topics in these forums are driven by this fact. If a Hero is too weak or too strong how many people have pulled them for personal use and how many times will they appear on people’s defensive rosters? The more common the hero the more people have an interest in how strong they are and the more likely and succesful the Buff/nerf topic will be.
This brings me to the ideological debate :
Should HOTM’s be the strongest heroes in the game?
It is my personal opinion and conclusion after taking part in and reading a lot of the beta topics, buff/nerf topics that a significant part of the forum user base believe so. Telluria is dominating the games meta yet over 70% want to keep her as is. Neith is a much better hero than many other rarer heroes yet she gets all the votes. Beta topics have become extremely anti-Nerf minded and my general feeling is that people want the HOTM’s to be at the top of the power curve. This is my personal view based in what I have seen.
However, it is my personal opinion that a hero’s power should be a reflection of their rarity and that HOTM’s should not be the strongest heroes in the game. I think that this evolution and contunuing that trend is what could be the beginning of the end for this game as we see a steady decline in the variety of teams we are facing and have a reduced incentive to spend for the harder to obtain heroes.
Lets take an extreme example to kick things off :
Imagine that S1 heroes, the most common and easily obtained 5* heroes in the game, were the strongest heroes in the game. The best possible defence you could compose would use richards, lianna’s etc and HOTM’s would all be worse. Every defence team would be identical and there would be very little incentive to spend for other heroes. It would kill variety and slash spending.
The opposite is true if your strongest heroes are the hardest to get. People will have an incentive to spend to get them because your money represents added value. Guin is better than Tell for example. Because of how hard these heroes are to obtain you will see a much wider variety in the defence teams around and your “perfect defense” will be more uncommon. There will be more variety.
My statement is quite simple :
The more common the best heroes in the game are the less variety you will see in defence teams and the less incentive your player base will have to spend money to obtain the more rare heroes in the game.
Why spend money to pull for Guin or Ursena if you can have Telluria for a fraction of the cost? Why use Guin at tank if your results with Tell are better?
It is kindergarden logic to me that the strongest heroes in the game are the hardest to obtain. It makes for a more varied game and represents more added value for obtaining them.
My closing statement :
Imagine what would happen if they would release a hero of the month that is worse than a S1 hero? This would be entirely unnacceptable and the forum would be up in arms. HOTM’s are harder to get than S1 heroes so they MUST be better. Why then is it ok and even desired when a HOTM outperforms an event hero which is even harder to get? Its hypocritical.
In my opinion HOTM’s strength should be nestled neatly in between S1 heroes and event, S2,3 seasonal heroes as is dictated by how hard they are to pull. Anything else is bad for balance and bad for this games longevity. If you want powercreep then you need to see it at all rarity levels. Stronger HOTM’s also means stronger event heroes etc. The second you cross that line and common heroes outperform rare ones is the second your game slips in to decline.
That is my personal opinion and I am keen to hear all your opinions. Should HOTM’s be the strongest heroes in the game and why? Or why not?