They should have made it such that his Sp3 doesn't carry over as a defender, does as an attacker. We've seen with Airwalker that champs can have different abilities on attack/defense. Better to do the same here. Either way, changing it without any post stating the same isn't cool. Just fuels the silent nerf theories.
They should have made it such that his Sp3 doesn't carry over as a defender, does as an attacker. We've seen with Airwalker that champs can have different abilities on attack/defense. Better to do the same here. Either way, changing it without any post stating the same isn't cool. Just fuels the silent nerf theories.
I really didn't expect this non-sense from you. You've been around here long enough to know Kabam hasn't ever silently ever nerfed a champion. Any intentional changes come with announcements.
Blade….
Blade wasn't silently nerfed nor changed.
Kabam were adding less villain tags to champs who were clearly villains, such as the black order.
A nerf is when they tone down a characters abilities or damage which they never did to blade.
Affects his danger sense if there are less villains. Invaders that slaughter people over a stone are clearly villains but maybe thats just me. Not an issue now however.
Ok and they didn't change the ability. They added characters he couldn't use it against so still not a nerf.
Think we are talking about a different nerf here. Nothing with blade changed. The silent nerf is within champions being added, at the time atleast. Similar to all these incinerate/shock immune cosmics being added making it annoying for doom players, they weren’t adding the villain tag to the black order when they were being added, though they were clearly villains. You mistake me for saying anything has changed with blades danger sense, im saying they decreased it’s availability at that time. Doesn’t really matter now though.
They should have made it such that his Sp3 doesn't carry over as a defender, does as an attacker. We've seen with Airwalker that champs can have different abilities on attack/defense. Better to do the same here. Either way, changing it without any post stating the same isn't cool. Just fuels the silent nerf theories.
They should have made it such that his Sp3 doesn't carry over as a defender, does as an attacker. We've seen with Airwalker that champs can have different abilities on attack/defense. Better to do the same here. Either way, changing it without any post stating the same isn't cool. Just fuels the silent nerf theories.
Is it a theory if it happend tho?
Oh this one isn't a theory. This is a nerf in terms of attack for sure. But one such event just makes sure that they're going to get the same over and over again, even if it's a bug or something.
I really didn't expect this non-sense from you. You've been around here long enough to know Kabam hasn't ever silently ever nerfed a champion. Any intentional changes come with announcements.
Blade….
Blade wasn't silently nerfed nor changed.
Kabam were adding less villain tags to champs who were clearly villains, such as the black order.
A nerf is when they tone down a characters abilities or damage which they never did to blade.
Affects his danger sense if there are less villains. Invaders that slaughter people over a stone are clearly villains but maybe thats just me. Not an issue now however.
Ok and they didn't change the ability. They added characters he couldn't use it against so still not a nerf.
Think we are talking about a different nerf here. Nothing with blade changed. The silent nerf is within champions being added, at the time atleast. Similar to all these incinerate/shock immune cosmics being added making it annoying for doom players, they weren’t adding the villain tag to the black order when they were being added, though they were clearly villains. You mistake me for saying anything has changed with blades danger sense, im saying they decreased it’s availability at that time. Doesn’t really matter now though.
You're still wrong. That's like say every time they add a "hero" they nerf blade.
Also, is this even a nerf if he was never released with the sp3 able to be carried over? This was never a thing, so it was never nerfed. The wording was just changed
Also, is this even a nerf if he was never released with the sp3 able to be carried over? This was never a thing, so it was never nerfed. The wording was just changed
Post buff he absolutely COULD carry his SP3 over. I tested it several times. So yes. It is a nerf.
I really didn't expect this non-sense from you. You've been around here long enough to know Kabam hasn't ever silently ever nerfed a champion. Any intentional changes come with announcements.
Blade….
Blade wasn't silently nerfed nor changed.
Kabam were adding less villain tags to champs who were clearly villains, such as the black order.
A nerf is when they tone down a characters abilities or damage which they never did to blade.
Affects his danger sense if there are less villains. Invaders that slaughter people over a stone are clearly villains but maybe thats just me. Not an issue now however.
Ok and they didn't change the ability. They added characters he couldn't use it against so still not a nerf.
Think we are talking about a different nerf here. Nothing with blade changed. The silent nerf is within champions being added, at the time atleast. Similar to all these incinerate/shock immune cosmics being added making it annoying for doom players, they weren’t adding the villain tag to the black order when they were being added, though they were clearly villains. You mistake me for saying anything has changed with blades danger sense, im saying they decreased it’s availability at that time. Doesn’t really matter now though.
You're still wrong. That's like say every time they add a "hero" they nerf blade.
I made sure to be specific so you wouldn’t say that but you did anyway. The black order are villains, but aren’t tagged villains. This implied blades danger sense won’t be as useful as more champs get added that could be considered villains, making for a silent nerf at the time. Emphasize the “silent”, im not straight up saying it’s a nerf. Good day.
I really didn't expect this non-sense from you. You've been around here long enough to know Kabam hasn't ever silently ever nerfed a champion. Any intentional changes come with announcements.
Blade….
Blade wasn't silently nerfed nor changed.
Kabam were adding less villain tags to champs who were clearly villains, such as the black order.
A nerf is when they tone down a characters abilities or damage which they never did to blade.
Affects his danger sense if there are less villains. Invaders that slaughter people over a stone are clearly villains but maybe thats just me. Not an issue now however.
Ok and they didn't change the ability. They added characters he couldn't use it against so still not a nerf.
Think we are talking about a different nerf here. Nothing with blade changed. The silent nerf is within champions being added, at the time atleast. Similar to all these incinerate/shock immune cosmics being added making it annoying for doom players, they weren’t adding the villain tag to the black order when they were being added, though they were clearly villains. You mistake me for saying anything has changed with blades danger sense, im saying they decreased it’s availability at that time. Doesn’t really matter now though.
You're still wrong. That's like say every time they add a "hero" they nerf blade.
I made sure to be specific so you wouldn’t say that but you did anyway. The black order are villains, but aren’t tagged villains. This implied blades danger sense won’t be as useful as more champs get added that could be considered villains, making for a silent nerf at the time. Emphasize the “silent”, im not straight up saying it’s a nerf. Good day.
Also, is this even a nerf if he was never released with the sp3 able to be carried over? This was never a thing, so it was never nerfed. The wording was just changed
nah as i pointed it out in the original post, it was something given post buff and then intentionally removed. i confirmed it back on July 6th post buff as others have pointed out as well.
The way I see it, the SP2 is the main damage dealer anyway. If you want to end the fight with an SP, that's the one to go for. There is no real reason to end a fight on an SP3 since it mostly just makes the opponent more vulnerable to your other attacks. You are better off using an SP2 before reaching an SP3 and carry over that power.
However, you can also choose to not end the fight with a special attack and start the next fight by placing a permanent energy vulnerability debuff on the opponent. That will help enhance your other special attacks, that you should focus on, throughout the fight. By saving up to an SP3 and not ending the fight with it, you can ensure that you play every fight in a quest with a permanent energy vulnerability on the opponent. Pretty insane.
That feels like a fair way of doing things to ensure that he's not a complete nightmare defender to face off against. I do *not* want to fight a Bishop who can enter a permanent SP3 killcycle if I die.
Sp3 gives you permanent energy damage buff. Even if we speak sp2 only, for longer fights having extra damage per sp2 means at some point sp3 + many sp2 will be better than many+1 sp2. Say you get permanent 50% extra damage (I don't know how much it is, but even at 1% you get same result eventually) after sp3, then x = (x-2) * 1.5 3 = 0.5x x = 6 i.e. at 50% boosted damage 1 sp3 and 4 sp2 will give as much damage, as 6 sp2 without sp3 damage considered. At 5+ sp2 you benefiting even more. For longer fights like aol it is important, and if it was a more potent damage boost, you'd benefit from it even faster.
I'm actually surprised they nerfed bishop. Not like it was anything op there. I'm not surprised it was done in such a un-transparent manner though.
Also they can kinda fix this nerf - make his first sp3 apply indefinite vulnerability debuff instead of opponent with full hp, so we don't have to parry waiting for sp3 It bring back his parry power gain, with I would prefer, but wich is less likely to happen
How would y’all feel about a Thor Rags style damage cap on Bishop’s sp3? Say that Bishop can’t do more than 25% of opponent’s max health as damage on his sp3, either on attack or defense.
On attack, his damage is in his sp2. In most serious fights, he’d never reach 25% health damage on his sp3 regardless so you’d never run up against the damage cap.
On defense, you’d still be punished for making the mistake of pushing him to his sp3, but it wouldn’t be a death sentence.
I feel like this is an easier solution from a programming perspective than having different offense/defense interactions, but then again I am not a programmer.
How would y’all feel about a Thor Rags style damage cap on Bishop’s sp3? Say that Bishop can’t do more than 25% of opponent’s max health as damage on his sp3, either on attack or defense.
On attack, his damage is in his sp2. In most serious fights, he’d never reach 25% health damage on his sp3 regardless so you’d never run up against the damage cap.
On defense, you’d still be punished for making the mistake of pushing him to his sp3, but it wouldn’t be a death sentence.
I feel like this is an easier solution from a programming perspective than having different offense/defense interactions, but then again I am not a programmer.
Even this would have been better than straight up lazily removing the ability and making no announcement on it.
The way I see it, the SP2 is the main damage dealer anyway. If you want to end the fight with an SP, that's the one to go for. There is no real reason to end a fight on an SP3 since it mostly just makes the opponent more vulnerable to your other attacks. You are better off using an SP2 before reaching an SP3 and carry over that power.
However, you can also choose to not end the fight with a special attack and start the next fight by placing a permanent energy vulnerability debuff on the opponent. That will help enhance your other special attacks, that you should focus on, throughout the fight. By saving up to an SP3 and not ending the fight with it, you can ensure that you play every fight in a quest with a permanent energy vulnerability on the opponent. Pretty insane.
That feels like a fair way of doing things to ensure that he's not a complete nightmare defender to face off against. I do *not* want to fight a Bishop who can enter a permanent SP3 killcycle if I die.
Sp3 gives you permanent energy damage buff. Even if we speak sp2 only, for longer fights having extra damage per sp2 means at some point sp3 + many sp2 will be better than many+1 sp2. Say you get permanent 50% extra damage (I don't know how much it is, but even at 1% you get same result eventually) after sp3, then x = (x-2) * 1.5 3 = 0.5x x = 6 i.e. at 50% boosted damage 1 sp3 and 4 sp2 will give as much damage, as 6 sp2 without sp3 damage considered. At 5+ sp2 you benefiting even more. For longer fights like aol it is important, and if it was a more potent damage boost, you'd benefit from it even faster.
I'm actually surprised they nerfed bishop. Not like it was anything op there. I'm not surprised it was done in such a un-transparent manner though.
All of this was kind of my point already? I never said the SP3 was useless - quite the contrary, I said you should aim to start every single fight with it for the additional permanent damage it grants you - but that it was pointless to end a fight with it since it only boosts your future damage in that fight without doing a terrible amount of damage in and of itself.
The SP2, meanwhile, is the damage dealer that you want to end fights with to carry over your power, even if you'd ideally just save up to an SP3 to immediately start the next fight with that Energy Vulnerability debuff on the opponent.
I think that a fair compromise could be to make it so that, if you do end up finishing the fight with an SP3, you automatically place the permanent Energy Vulnerability on the opponent the next fight before being bumped down to 0 power.
i think we can all agree that anything was better than just silently adjusting it and expecting summoners to just fall upon it by chance. with a major change like this or confusion clear up etc ... i think a bit of information on it was warranted.
i think we can all agree that anything was better than just silently adjusting it and expecting summoners to just fall upon it by chance. with a major change like this or confusion clear up etc ... i think a bit of information on it was warranted.
Honestly that's the biggest issue for me. They can make changes, but they should communicate them before doing so and they should DEFINITELY look for RDTs for those who ranked up Bishop with that utility in place. They absolutely shouldn't bait and switch like this.
I really didn't expect this non-sense from you. You've been around here long enough to know Kabam hasn't ever silently ever nerfed a champion. Any intentional changes come with announcements.
Blade….
Blade wasn't silently nerfed nor changed.
Kabam were adding less villain tags to champs who were clearly villains, such as the black order.
A nerf is when they tone down a characters abilities or damage which they never did to blade.
I would actuly disagree.
If they bring out new/reworked champs that counter some champions specifically then that is an indirect nerf to that champ.
Best example would be Ghost. Every 2nd champ has some way to counter Ghost nowadays with automatic amorbreaks or anti miss abilities.
Also, is this even a nerf if he was never released with the sp3 able to be carried over? This was never a thing, so it was never nerfed. The wording was just changed
I really didn't expect this non-sense from you. You've been around here long enough to know Kabam hasn't ever silently ever nerfed a champion. Any intentional changes come with announcements.
Blade….
Blade wasn't silently nerfed nor changed.
Kabam were adding less villain tags to champs who were clearly villains, such as the black order.
A nerf is when they tone down a characters abilities or damage which they never did to blade.
I would actuly disagree.
If they bring out new/reworked champs that counter some champions specifically then that is an indirect nerf to that champ.
Best example would be Ghost. Every 2nd champ has some way to counter Ghost nowadays with automatic amorbreaks or anti miss abilities.
I can see why they do it. But I don't like it 😅
Ghost still works just as well against every other champion she works against, her abilities have not changed, so it’s not a nerf.
I thought we got over BlAdE nErF in 2018 but apparently not
i think we can all agree that anything was better than just silently adjusting it and expecting summoners to just fall upon it by chance. with a major change like this or confusion clear up etc ... i think a bit of information on it was warranted.
Honestly that's the biggest issue for me. They can make changes, but they should communicate them before doing so and they should DEFINITELY look for RDTs for those who ranked up Bishop with that utility in place. They absolutely shouldn't bait and switch like this.
Yeah. Honestly, it's a welcome change for him on defense. But it is a definite nerf on offense. And the lack of communication done before and after the change along with just silently changing the spotlight doesn't sit right with me.
I really didn't expect this non-sense from you. You've been around here long enough to know Kabam hasn't ever silently ever nerfed a champion. Any intentional changes come with announcements.
Blade….
Blade wasn't silently nerfed nor changed.
Kabam were adding less villain tags to champs who were clearly villains, such as the black order.
A nerf is when they tone down a characters abilities or damage which they never did to blade.
I would actuly disagree.
If they bring out new/reworked champs that counter some champions specifically then that is an indirect nerf to that champ.
Best example would be Ghost. Every 2nd champ has some way to counter Ghost nowadays with automatic amorbreaks or anti miss abilities.
I can see why they do it. But I don't like it 😅
Ghost still works just as well against every other champion she works against, her abilities have not changed, so it’s not a nerf.
I thought we got over BlAdE nErF in 2018 but apparently not
Dude. If the developer change the meta around certain champs then they are indirectly influenced by these changes.
I don't know stuff about the Blade era but I definitely can see that they target Ghost and Quake in a lot of buffed and new champions kits (especially Ghost bc they prob said "damn we just never release Quake as 6*").
This is literally and with no argument the definition of an indirect nerf. They don't touch the champ (direct nerf) but they influence the environment this champ operates in.
And that is the right way to do this. It isn't healthy for a game to have only 2 champs to beat everything.
But I'm biased in that way that Ghost is my main. So obviously I don't like it (that is human I guess)
Don't misunderstood my comment for "hurr durr they nerf my champs I want rank down tickets"
Comments
We've seen with Airwalker that champs can have different abilities on attack/defense. Better to do the same here.
Either way, changing it without any post stating the same isn't cool. Just fuels the silent nerf theories.
Say you get permanent 50% extra damage (I don't know how much it is, but even at 1% you get same result eventually) after sp3, then
x = (x-2) * 1.5
3 = 0.5x
x = 6
i.e. at 50% boosted damage 1 sp3 and 4 sp2 will give as much damage, as 6 sp2 without sp3 damage considered. At 5+ sp2 you benefiting even more. For longer fights like aol it is important, and if it was a more potent damage boost, you'd benefit from it even faster.
I'm actually surprised they nerfed bishop. Not like it was anything op there. I'm not surprised it was done in such a un-transparent manner though.
It bring back his parry power gain, with I would prefer, but wich is less likely to happen
On attack, his damage is in his sp2. In most serious fights, he’d never reach 25% health damage on his sp3 regardless so you’d never run up against the damage cap.
On defense, you’d still be punished for making the mistake of pushing him to his sp3, but it wouldn’t be a death sentence.
I feel like this is an easier solution from a programming perspective than having different offense/defense interactions, but then again I am not a programmer.
The SP2, meanwhile, is the damage dealer that you want to end fights with to carry over your power, even if you'd ideally just save up to an SP3 to immediately start the next fight with that Energy Vulnerability debuff on the opponent.
I think that a fair compromise could be to make it so that, if you do end up finishing the fight with an SP3, you automatically place the permanent Energy Vulnerability on the opponent the next fight before being bumped down to 0 power.
If they bring out new/reworked champs that counter some champions specifically then that is an indirect nerf to that champ.
Best example would be Ghost. Every 2nd champ has some way to counter Ghost nowadays with automatic amorbreaks or anti miss abilities.
I can see why they do it. But I don't like it 😅
I thought we got over BlAdE nErF in 2018 but apparently not
And the lack of communication done before and after the change along with just silently changing the spotlight doesn't sit right with me.
I don't know stuff about the Blade era but I definitely can see that they target Ghost and Quake in a lot of buffed and new champions kits (especially Ghost bc they prob said "damn we just never release Quake as 6*").
This is literally and with no argument the definition of an indirect nerf. They don't touch the champ (direct nerf) but they influence the environment this champ operates in.
And that is the right way to do this. It isn't healthy for a game to have only 2 champs to beat everything.
But I'm biased in that way that Ghost is my main.
So obviously I don't like it (that is human I guess)
Don't misunderstood my comment for "hurr durr they nerf my champs I want rank down tickets"