I think partly the issue here is because the most recent buff is Spider-Man, arguably the most popular and recognisable character in the Marvel portfolio.
Problem with the majority of this list, is that you’re comparing what those champs bring to the table against champs that are amazing and bring the same things. Just because a champ that does the same thing is better, doesn’t mean that “lesser” champ is bad. It’s not a binary Great or Bad situation. Some champs are fine in being just “good”.
For me the Yondu argument comes into play here. Everybody knows he's a light version of Nimrod and that's not a bad thing. I only have a 5 star Nimrod and a 6 star Yondu, and they're both fun to use but admittedly, Yondu gives me that bleed damage that helps more often than not.
You have to stop thinking that every class F Champion is going to automatically become a Class A. Sometimes you need class C's and sometimes you need Class B's and if you're only looking for upfront damage, by that measuring bar, not a lot of Champions are going to give you what you're looking for but if you understand the purpose of utility and how to best maximize it, then it should still be a specialized tool to help you get the job done.
I hate the idea that if you have criticisms of a buff that it's because you want all buffs and champs to be SSS+++ with death touch damage. It gets put out there immediately to invalidate any less than fawning opinions and it's not the case at all. Everyone knows that it takes all types and that some champs will be all-rounders, some will have big damage, some will have high sustainability, etc., etc. Every member of a set can't be the best at everything unless they're all the same. Everyone knows that. Every champ can have a purpose though. If you look at a buff and can't figure out their renewed purpose or how they're more aligned with and progressing towards some guiding principle/role/goal, I wouldn't consider that a good buff and "They're serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. If that's all you're going for, why even bother with buffs? Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
Problem with the majority of this list, is that you’re comparing what those champs bring to the table against champs that are amazing and bring the same things. Just because a champ that does the same thing is better, doesn’t mean that “lesser” champ is bad. It’s not a binary Great or Bad situation. Some champs are fine in being just “good”.
For me the Yondu argument comes into play here. Everybody knows he's a light version of Nimrod and that's not a bad thing. I only have a 5 star Nimrod and a 6 star Yondu, and they're both fun to use but admittedly, Yondu gives me that bleed damage that helps more often than not.
You have to stop thinking that every class F Champion is going to automatically become a Class A. Sometimes you need class C's and sometimes you need Class B's and if you're only looking for upfront damage, by that measuring bar, not a lot of Champions are going to give you what you're looking for but if you understand the purpose of utility and how to best maximize it, then it should still be a specialized tool to help you get the job done.
I hate the idea that if you have criticisms of a buff that it's because you want all buffs and champs to be SSS+++ with death touch damage. It gets put out there immediately to invalidate any less than fawning opinions and it's not the case at all. Everyone knows that it takes all types and that some champs will be all-rounders, some will have big damage, some will have high sustainability, etc., etc. Every member of a set can't be the best at everything unless they're all the same. Everyone knows that. Every champ can have a purpose though. If you look at a buff and can't figure out their renewed purpose or how they're more aligned with and progressing towards some guiding principle/role/goal, I wouldn't consider that a good buff and "They're serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. If that's all you're going for, why even bother with buffs? Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
I agree with some of what you said and heavily disagree with the other. Everything about “if you can’t figure out their renewed purpose” I agree, a buff should give something that is beneficial to the champ that they previously didn’t have or to enhance something they did. The whole “they’re serviceable if you don’t have anyone good isn’t a real purpose or goal” then invalidates what you said prior. Someone who is serviceable has a renewed purpose, which is exactly the goal. If you don’t have the best option, having an option that works in the intended manner of their buff is exactly what they’re meant for.
Problem with the majority of this list, is that you’re comparing what those champs bring to the table against champs that are amazing and bring the same things. Just because a champ that does the same thing is better, doesn’t mean that “lesser” champ is bad. It’s not a binary Great or Bad situation. Some champs are fine in being just “good”.
For me the Yondu argument comes into play here. Everybody knows he's a light version of Nimrod and that's not a bad thing. I only have a 5 star Nimrod and a 6 star Yondu, and they're both fun to use but admittedly, Yondu gives me that bleed damage that helps more often than not.
You have to stop thinking that every class F Champion is going to automatically become a Class A. Sometimes you need class C's and sometimes you need Class B's and if you're only looking for upfront damage, by that measuring bar, not a lot of Champions are going to give you what you're looking for but if you understand the purpose of utility and how to best maximize it, then it should still be a specialized tool to help you get the job done.
I hate the idea that if you have criticisms of a buff that it's because you want all buffs and champs to be SSS+++ with death touch damage. It gets put out there immediately to invalidate any less than fawning opinions and it's not the case at all. Everyone knows that it takes all types and that some champs will be all-rounders, some will have big damage, some will have high sustainability, etc., etc. Every member of a set can't be the best at everything unless they're all the same. Everyone knows that. Every champ can have a purpose though. If you look at a buff and can't figure out their renewed purpose or how they're more aligned with and progressing towards some guiding principle/role/goal, I wouldn't consider that a good buff and "They're serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. If that's all you're going for, why even bother with buffs? Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
I agree with some of what you said and heavily disagree with the other. Everything about “if you can’t figure out their renewed purpose” I agree, a buff should give something that is beneficial to the champ that they previously didn’t have or to enhance something they did. The whole “they’re serviceable if you don’t have anyone good isn’t a real purpose or goal” then invalidates what you said prior. Someone who is serviceable has a renewed purpose, which is exactly the goal. If you don’t have the best option, having an option that works in the intended manner of their buff is exactly what they’re meant for.
Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
and that's why I don't think "serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. It's too vague and directionless to be useful, and If that's all they're trying for and all we're looking for, then why are they going through with what amounts to a waste of time? Now, I do think "will work well for [ given content/node/matchup ] if you don't have [ top champs in group ]" is good for a champ that didn't really have a purpose pre-buff.
Problem with the majority of this list, is that you’re comparing what those champs bring to the table against champs that are amazing and bring the same things. Just because a champ that does the same thing is better, doesn’t mean that “lesser” champ is bad. It’s not a binary Great or Bad situation. Some champs are fine in being just “good”.
For me the Yondu argument comes into play here. Everybody knows he's a light version of Nimrod and that's not a bad thing. I only have a 5 star Nimrod and a 6 star Yondu, and they're both fun to use but admittedly, Yondu gives me that bleed damage that helps more often than not.
You have to stop thinking that every class F Champion is going to automatically become a Class A. Sometimes you need class C's and sometimes you need Class B's and if you're only looking for upfront damage, by that measuring bar, not a lot of Champions are going to give you what you're looking for but if you understand the purpose of utility and how to best maximize it, then it should still be a specialized tool to help you get the job done.
I hate the idea that if you have criticisms of a buff that it's because you want all buffs and champs to be SSS+++ with death touch damage. It gets put out there immediately to invalidate any less than fawning opinions and it's not the case at all. Everyone knows that it takes all types and that some champs will be all-rounders, some will have big damage, some will have high sustainability, etc., etc. Every member of a set can't be the best at everything unless they're all the same. Everyone knows that. Every champ can have a purpose though. If you look at a buff and can't figure out their renewed purpose or how they're more aligned with and progressing towards some guiding principle/role/goal, I wouldn't consider that a good buff and "They're serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. If that's all you're going for, why even bother with buffs? Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
I agree with some of what you said and heavily disagree with the other. Everything about “if you can’t figure out their renewed purpose” I agree, a buff should give something that is beneficial to the champ that they previously didn’t have or to enhance something they did. The whole “they’re serviceable if you don’t have anyone good isn’t a real purpose or goal” then invalidates what you said prior. Someone who is serviceable has a renewed purpose, which is exactly the goal. If you don’t have the best option, having an option that works in the intended manner of their buff is exactly what they’re meant for.
Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
and that's why I don't think "serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. It's too vague and directionless to be useful, and If that's all they're trying for and all we're looking for, then why are they going through with what amounts to a waste of time? Now, I do think "will work well for [ given content/node/matchup ] if you don't have [ top champs in group ]" is good for a champ that didn't really have a purpose pre-buff.
Kind of seems like you're just arguing semantics at this point though, no? "Serviceable", at least in this context, can easily be taken to mean that it's a champ designed to be able to take said fight without difficulty. "don't have anyone good" is simply to be taken as if you don't have the best of the best option. Which is why the yondu vs nimrod note was brought up.
With your last sentence you're saying exactly what others have already put forth, just in different words.
One of the fundamental confusions that takes place with buffs is the idea that they're supposed to result in a Champ that people will prefer to choose over X options. That's really not specifically the goal of these.
Not speaking on Spider-Man too much but I’ve heard a lot of negative not a good sign but quite a bit of buffs are either already outdated and/or just bad will they be getting buffed in the future I mean gamora is on her 89th buff a few champs that could use a tune up
Civil Warrior (Mid-Big Tune Up) Yondu (he’s got garbage) Daredevil HK (Mid-Big Tune Up) Deadpool XF (Mid Tune Up) Pyscho-Man (Steamy pile of you know what) Punisher 2099 (Mid Tune Up) War Machine (Big Tune Up) Cable (Massive Tune Up) Jane Foster (just bad tbh) Probably missed a few
would love to see kabam add apoc synergy directly onto cable's kit . Without apoc , cable is just straight up garbage tbh....
Problem with the majority of this list, is that you’re comparing what those champs bring to the table against champs that are amazing and bring the same things. Just because a champ that does the same thing is better, doesn’t mean that “lesser” champ is bad. It’s not a binary Great or Bad situation. Some champs are fine in being just “good”.
For me the Yondu argument comes into play here. Everybody knows he's a light version of Nimrod and that's not a bad thing. I only have a 5 star Nimrod and a 6 star Yondu, and they're both fun to use but admittedly, Yondu gives me that bleed damage that helps more often than not.
You have to stop thinking that every class F Champion is going to automatically become a Class A. Sometimes you need class C's and sometimes you need Class B's and if you're only looking for upfront damage, by that measuring bar, not a lot of Champions are going to give you what you're looking for but if you understand the purpose of utility and how to best maximize it, then it should still be a specialized tool to help you get the job done.
I hate the idea that if you have criticisms of a buff that it's because you want all buffs and champs to be SSS+++ with death touch damage. It gets put out there immediately to invalidate any less than fawning opinions and it's not the case at all. Everyone knows that it takes all types and that some champs will be all-rounders, some will have big damage, some will have high sustainability, etc., etc. Every member of a set can't be the best at everything unless they're all the same. Everyone knows that. Every champ can have a purpose though. If you look at a buff and can't figure out their renewed purpose or how they're more aligned with and progressing towards some guiding principle/role/goal, I wouldn't consider that a good buff and "They're serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. If that's all you're going for, why even bother with buffs? Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
I agree with some of what you said and heavily disagree with the other. Everything about “if you can’t figure out their renewed purpose” I agree, a buff should give something that is beneficial to the champ that they previously didn’t have or to enhance something they did. The whole “they’re serviceable if you don’t have anyone good isn’t a real purpose or goal” then invalidates what you said prior. Someone who is serviceable has a renewed purpose, which is exactly the goal. If you don’t have the best option, having an option that works in the intended manner of their buff is exactly what they’re meant for.
Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
and that's why I don't think "serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. It's too vague and directionless to be useful, and If that's all they're trying for and all we're looking for, then why are they going through with what amounts to a waste of time? Now, I do think "will work well for [ given content/node/matchup ] if you don't have [ top champs in group ]" is good for a champ that didn't really have a purpose pre-buff.
Kind of seems like you're just arguing semantics at this point though, no? "Serviceable", at least in this context, can easily be taken to mean that it's a champ designed to be able to take said fight without difficulty. "don't have anyone good" is simply to be taken as if you don't have the best of the best option. Which is why the yondu vs nimrod note was brought up.
With your last sentence you're saying exactly what others have already put forth, just in different words.
I didn't say it was an entirely novel to the world notion or anything no one has ever said before... It's a direction statement that I agree with for champ buffs and indicates that a successful buff doesn't have to result in a champ becoming the overpowered pinnacle option in the game.
Problem with the majority of this list, is that you’re comparing what those champs bring to the table against champs that are amazing and bring the same things. Just because a champ that does the same thing is better, doesn’t mean that “lesser” champ is bad. It’s not a binary Great or Bad situation. Some champs are fine in being just “good”.
For me the Yondu argument comes into play here. Everybody knows he's a light version of Nimrod and that's not a bad thing. I only have a 5 star Nimrod and a 6 star Yondu, and they're both fun to use but admittedly, Yondu gives me that bleed damage that helps more often than not.
You have to stop thinking that every class F Champion is going to automatically become a Class A. Sometimes you need class C's and sometimes you need Class B's and if you're only looking for upfront damage, by that measuring bar, not a lot of Champions are going to give you what you're looking for but if you understand the purpose of utility and how to best maximize it, then it should still be a specialized tool to help you get the job done.
I hate the idea that if you have criticisms of a buff that it's because you want all buffs and champs to be SSS+++ with death touch damage. It gets put out there immediately to invalidate any less than fawning opinions and it's not the case at all. Everyone knows that it takes all types and that some champs will be all-rounders, some will have big damage, some will have high sustainability, etc., etc. Every member of a set can't be the best at everything unless they're all the same. Everyone knows that. Every champ can have a purpose though. If you look at a buff and can't figure out their renewed purpose or how they're more aligned with and progressing towards some guiding principle/role/goal, I wouldn't consider that a good buff and "They're serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. If that's all you're going for, why even bother with buffs? Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
I agree with some of what you said and heavily disagree with the other. Everything about “if you can’t figure out their renewed purpose” I agree, a buff should give something that is beneficial to the champ that they previously didn’t have or to enhance something they did. The whole “they’re serviceable if you don’t have anyone good isn’t a real purpose or goal” then invalidates what you said prior. Someone who is serviceable has a renewed purpose, which is exactly the goal. If you don’t have the best option, having an option that works in the intended manner of their buff is exactly what they’re meant for.
Every champ in the game can win most fights in the game unless the nodes purposely prevent it.
and that's why I don't think "serviceable if you don't have anyone good" isn't a real purpose or goal. It's too vague and directionless to be useful, and If that's all they're trying for and all we're looking for, then why are they going through with what amounts to a waste of time? Now, I do think "will work well for [ given content/node/matchup ] if you don't have [ top champs in group ]" is good for a champ that didn't really have a purpose pre-buff.
Kind of seems like you're just arguing semantics at this point though, no? "Serviceable", at least in this context, can easily be taken to mean that it's a champ designed to be able to take said fight without difficulty. "don't have anyone good" is simply to be taken as if you don't have the best of the best option. Which is why the yondu vs nimrod note was brought up.
With your last sentence you're saying exactly what others have already put forth, just in different words.
I didn't say it was an entirely novel to the world notion or anything no one has ever said before... It's a direction statement that I agree with for champ buffs and indicates that a successful buff doesn't have to result in a champ becoming the overpowered pinnacle option in the game.
I’m aware - I understand and agree with what you said. My point is that others have said exactly what you’re saying using different words already. I think to most people here “Serviceable if you don’t have anyone good” means something different than what you’re making it out to. But again, it’s semantics at this point. Probably not worth arguing.
Comments
With your last sentence you're saying exactly what others have already put forth, just in different words.