Nerf is just a tool to increase sales

Nerf any and all widely used heroes. Don’t matter if it’s free token pull or cash pull because if too many has it, less will spend.

SGG : If there is no demand to spe D, we will create that demand. Find me the most prevalent defense/offense hero and nerf it. Buff any heroes no matter if they are already OP prior to their portal launch. Just rinse and repeat we need those sales our bonus depends on it. We’ll be gone in a few years anyway who the f cares if players cry?

15 Likes

not as intense, but i’ll say this - with new hero power going up every week, old nerfs do seem unnecessary in most cases… and while its best that SG tests hero power, before releasing them (instead of first taking the money), or at the very least, undo nerfs when old nerfed heroes, are clearly weak again… to be clear, the latter I still think is bad, but what they do today indeed seems to scream “bait and switch”

11 Likes

You’re still looking through tainted glass my friend. You still think nerf/buff has anything to do with game mechanics. It is not. Nerf/buff is now a tool for SGG to create demand and increase sales. This game has been around for years now and yet so few QoL updates was done.

NERF/BUFF IS JUST A TOOL TO DRIVE SALES

24 Likes

There’s an elephant in the room.

We all know it’s there.
What are you going to do about it?

I’m fine for SGG to tinker around with heroes (for instance to make one aspect of a hero more powerful while making another aspect less powerful) and, after a brief review, I think this is a lot of what they do.

However, players should be able to get what they’ve invested in with both and either of their bought or won credits. If they’ve pulled a hero that has been advertised as strong, then that hero should remain strong. If they’ve got their strong hero. Other heroes should not just get widely buffed so as to nulify the difference.

Having said this I support initiatives like providing costume options for season one and weaker heroes. As there are so many heroes I’d also support a scheme to decommission some heroes in a system that could peruse the range of other heroes gained and offer from a selection of slightly less underpowered heroes.

Otherwise SGG, leave the game unbalanced. Players have invested to get something special. Let them have what was promised.

2 Likes

You still don’t get it man. Nerfing has nothing to do with game balance or whatever you want to call it.

Nerfing is to make that hero undesirable so you’ll open your wallet to pull a replacement. Nothing is worst than stagnation in this business model so they have to create the hunger for new heroes. Buff works the same only on the other end of the spectrum

6 Likes

What do you think game balancing is about?

I think it’s used as a manipulative tool so as to normalise previously special heroes so that they can sell more.

Did you read what I said?

On what point, if any, do you disagree?

2 Likes

This is utterly incorrect. Most games out there do balance changes all the time. I used to play World of Warcraft and needs/buffs were a regular thing as I’m sure it still is. I still play Overwatch, and buffs/nerd are a regular things. These two examples don’t involve you having an option to purchase heroes that you don’t have. There IS such a thing as game balance, whether you accept it or not. If you have the top 100+ teams running the same set ups and aren’t losing their place, then there is clearly something wrong.
The only problem I see with how SG does it is how they prioritize. But unfortunately it is a gacha game and they do have to prioritize where the money is. Some will hate it, some won’t mind it. If you’re unhappy with it, there are always options.

3 Likes

Sure there is. The problem is that’s not how this game is using nerfs and buffs. SGG is pretty blatant in stating that they are buffing hard to get heroes because they’re not being used as often.
To me, there’s a problem with that metric and how they approach it. I would assume the ones who have the latest and greatest heroes are going to have a really deep roster and it is possible that their playstyle may not make the best use of these “unloved” heroes. Of course, there are going to be some who don’t have a deep roster but got lucky with some of these and I’m sure they used them, ex. Director Zuri. Actually, I think that’s a good example. I’ll bet that most who have her, use her all the time, but I personally don’t see her any more often than pre-buff on the defense. That means there are lots of other options and people are using them… like Xenophod. Who would push out Xenophod for Director Zuri? Probably no one. He’s someone I see a lot more often as the defense healer, with consideration to Mother North and Heimdall.
As for meta defenses, we’ve seen that since Telluria’s heyday. There are going to be some heroes who are just OP and combine together to be a painful defense. Then we had the Christmas defenses for a short period. The only thing that is preventing new meta defenses is the paywall. Right now, I’m see lots of Wolf defenses headed by Wolfgang and Ludwig (with some Ferrant thrown in). If they were as common as HoTMs, you’d see them everywhere. But since they are paywalled, they aren’t going to nerf them any time soon.

2 Likes

I don’t know about everyone else but I’m voting with my credit card. I’ve only been playing for going on three months but I’ve been a pretty steady spender. Nothing grandiose but certainly not ftp. Well, no packs today. Or tomorrow. Or how ever long it takes me to stop feeling ripped off. As a new player I’m only sitting on 6 maxed 4 stars so to see one of them nerfed hurts. I pulled Squidworth in a lucky 10 pull the other day. Now I’m scared to make him what would have been my first 5 star because I see him mentioned for nerfs all over this forum. Nerfs hurt the morale of this game and need to stop.

6 Likes

Nah. Just because they’re nerfing or buffing doesn’t mean that their intent is to encourage pulls for different heroes. That’s just a personal perception, just like mine is that they’re not.
Vast majority of the players at the top are going to spend either way and perhaps already have both Ferant and Rayne, so it won’t make a difference. People are still going to spend how they’ve been spending. Sure, some will decrease their spending in protest but many will spend the same or more. Things change, metas change. Maybe if they did more balance changes there wouldn’t be a need to release a new OP hero to counter current OP heroes over and over again.

Yea, the 4* that is still, even after the nerf, better than many 5* heroes. You wanna talk about a ridiculously OPed hero that you have in Xnol? No hero should have the ability to do what he does on the scale that he does it. While 5* heroes like Esme or Exeera are sitting around collecting dust. Can’t wait for him to get the chop eventually.

1 Like

Yes, soo clear money oriented! If sg really care for game they’ll fix old s1 hero or weak old hotm, but no lets nerf ferrant because so many had him thats not profitable. Then its time to looking for better wolf $$. Isn’t it obvious :wink:

The scale of what was done to C Krampus vs Ferant is very different. Ferant is still desirable and is still a top hero and tank. So your blanket hypothesis regarding nerfs doesn’t hold water.

1 Like

They outright said that they are buffing them because they aren’t used enough. You can argue semantics that they aren’t encouraging pulls for those heroes, but it’s pretty obvious that the knock-on effect is that buffing them will encourage more people to pull them.

Here’s the relevant quote from the balance update:

Raven Family

The Ravens have not been seeing as much action as their Wolf counterparts since their release. This is mostly down to two of the Raven Legendaries — Lewena and Rayne — not performing nearly as well as we had hoped; their dismal win rates indicate that they’re in need of some love. We hope these changes will bring them closer to their peers.

You can argue that the italicized is the main driver, but really it’s the bolded part.

Right… and that’s kind of my point. The ones at the top are the ones who have a large majority of the top heroes and their usage of heroes is driving this “under-utilization” metric. With those who aren’t at the top and only have Ferant (4*) and not Rayne (5*) are going to be using Ferant more often so you see the perceived “saturation”. But then you start buffing some of the already powerful heroes which shines the spotlight on them and those who don’t have them will start to chase (possibly). But those who already have a wide range of heroes? They are unaffected because they already have heroes that are better to use that the perceived “under-utilized” heroes, and their usage isn’t likely going to change.

4 Likes

Yea, I know what they stated in the release notes. And it’s not what’s in the italics, but what the italicized text says. It says that they have crap win rates when those heroes were used. You don’t think SGs metrics include what heroes were used, what level they were, how many emblems they were given, or whether they were limit broken? Come on now. People used them and they apparently were crap compared to other heroes. Rayne could not compete with many snipers out there. Even after this “buff” that reduced direct damage while buffing the dot, they still won’t be able to compete. As for Lewena, she won’t take place of many either. She’s better for sure, but still won’t replace Octros.

As for their “strategy”, come on now. CoK is like the best portal now until W3K becomes a regular thing. People go for one hero, end up with something else. People were still going to pull there, with or without these changes. So, plenty of people have Rayne and Lewena. And plenty will pull them because they’ll dump their pulls trying for Ledwig or Wolfgang or whomever. You’re reading too much into this, IMO.

This won’t change. People who only have Ferant aren’t in the same boat as the ones who already have 4+ of the CoK 5* heroes. People dump 100s of pulls to get Ledwig or Wolfgang. People with only Ferant don’t. I mean it’s not that difficult to discern. I may do 2 10 Pulls and only get Ferant and Franz. A top 300 player will do 200. It’s a stark difference. As for using what bracket for their analytics, they’re going to use whichever group provides best data. A player who has Rayne and uses them all the time but otherwise a more limited roster won’t be considered in the same way a player who has Rayne but a more diverse roster because that diversity provides them with better options. If you want more accurate metrics, you’ll always look at the group that has more use cases.

So, you have your opinions as I have mine, but I’m pretty certain it’s not as nefarious as some are making it out to be.

That’s how they justify it. The other variables are team compositions were used and against what defenses. There are some heroes that just don’t click together or are bad choices against certain defenses. Again, it really depends on who is using them and if they had other options. If it were a player who only had Rayne and a bunch of S1 heroes (for example), then yeah, there could be a reason why they lose against a Christmas defense and it has nothing to do with the fact that Rayne is crap (in your words).

So you are saying that the people who have Rayne and Lewena already have all the other heroes just because these are the “junk” draws. But let’s put timing in the mix as well. They buff them right before the event is going to open. Maybe it’s because they wanted to wait for 2 months to see how things go, but the timing is suspect.

So? The issue then becomes what are they tracking? Are they tracking offensive raid usage? The problem there is that with so many heroes, people with diverse heroes are still going to use what works and these buffs may not move the needle as far as they’re concerned. After all, you still only use 5 heroes for the raids, and not everyone mixes their raid teams to adjust to the defense.

Well known at least since the telluria/vela crap. Just don’t spend or be okay with it but it won’t change anything since this company has no ethic.

2 Likes

Exactly. A person who doesn’t have options will use Rayne. Person that has vast options wouldn’t. I certainly wouldn’t. Even after this “buff” I wouldn’t use them. I have way better snipers than Rayne. But even myself, who spends, I don’t spend enough to have most of the 5s from this portal like the top players that do. And those that do, don’t use Rayne or Lewena even though they are premium 5 heros, a portal where those big spenders already spend the big bucks.

Rayne, indeed, is crap if you have better options, but overall Rayne isn’t horrible. I’ve faced DTs with that hero (few different variations) and it wasn’t an issue then and won’t be now. This “buff”, in my point of view, is meh. If I end up pulling Rayne, it’d collect dust at this point.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that many of the top players may have obtained Rayne and Lewena on their quest hunting for Ludwig, Quintin, Wolfgang, or any other hero they wanted from that portal.

Sure. I understand how you think that timing is suspect. I also understand how people overthink a lot of things and find themselves believing there is something more at play than what is really there. I’m telling you, this isn’t a typically cash grab move. Selling aethers a month after they were released is an example of a cash grab.

To make balance changes, they need to track more than just a thing or two. A player with a deeper bench is going to be a better statistic than someone who has limited heroes. Cup bracket they’re raiding in. Defenses they’re going against. Stats for how many times Rayne has been max leveled, emblemed then stripped, limit broken, etc. All of these metrics matter. You’re more likely to gather this data from top players than others. I consider myself fairly active, but I don’t emblem and then strip all willy nilly. I’ve got way too much going on in life to be crazy obsessed to keep my spot in a top 100 alliance. It all matters.

I think we’re on the same page for most of it.

But again, you’re going to get a real bias towards certain heroes if you are only going with those who have a really deep bench. Just to use Telluria as an example when she first came out, all of a sudden Telluria was everywhere as the tank so other heroes were then benched. No consideration on buffing other heroes, just nerfing Telluria (not going to discuss whether or not that was necessary).
Or let’s talk about the taunt heroes. Overwhelmingly I see Ludwig, Krampus and Black Knight in that order. But few Queen of Hearts. So when you talk about balancing, is it to make somewhat equivalent heroes well-represented? So should we start asking for buffs of QoH to make sure she gets used more? That’s obviously not going to happen, but then the question is, how much of a buff would be required to make QoH competitive to Ludwig?

That’s why when they talk about balancing, players just roll their eyes because that’s not what is really going on. Otherwise we should see S1 buffs because it’s obvious that few people use them if they have extensive rosters, nor are they going to give a high win rate if you only use S1 teams. You don’t even need to dig into their metrics to realize that.