There's a reason why Kabam evaluates champs over a 6 month timeframe. We've had him for like a week or week and half?
People just need to calm down and use him and see where he fits. Haven't we learned our lesson yet for things like this?
People are a bit hasty to judge sometimes but kabam 'evaluation' team don't know what they're talking about half the time. Like adam warlock they thought it was okay for him to get stunned in his stasis pod which is absolutely moronic. And his taunt should be passive otherwise he can't do shrug off champs or nodes like tenacity and mighty charge etc.
I mean it's all debatable but if 1 from the dozen or more that have gone through the evaluations is all we're talking about, then I think they're doing fine.
Again, Kabam evaluates champs off what they're seeing big picture wise where we tend to only evaluate what affects our own accounts and we want benefits us more than the game.
It's not just him tho, they botched cassie lang and other champ rebalancing. All Kabam have to do is listen a bit to the community and implement changes when there is widespread agreement for a small change that would make a champ better such as described above for adam warlock or 'un-nerf' a champ when they rebalance too far in the other direction. It's frustrating because Kabam are performing well half of the time but the other half they could avoid these screw ups by just taking a bit more care. If I had to guess, clearly some employees really love this game and take great care when implementing these balance changes, but a few of them just aren't bothered and charge ahead screwing up a perfectly good champ or not taking the opportunity to please 95% of the playerbase and slightly buff champs instead of just declaring they're fine.
I think the fundamental difference with this perspective is the rebalancing program isn't specifically geared towards making people happy. It's about applying the current model they're using to the data they gather and adjusting accordingly. That's not to say that people aren't onto something at times. It just means it's not about making Champs more popular.
I don't really understand this. Could you explain it in a bit more detail? Like if the model uses a metric such as 'usage in war across all tiers' or something to help determine champ worth during the first few months of their release then that's clearly going to be skewed as people will bring him/her in just to see how they perform, particularly in offseason as new champs are exciting. Apologies for me keep going back to the adam warlock example, but when I first pulled him I took him into aq, aw adn questing just to play around with him as I thought he was fun. I quickly learned he had a few big flaws such as being stun-able in his pod but continued to force him into my bg drafts just to see what he could do and test his limits. Turns out he has too many bad matchups and I went from using him all the time and wanting to r5 him, to barely using him at all after a few months of pulling him. This then goes for a lot of champions, where the model kabam uses is probably innately flawed if it takes into account usage in any gamemode or even win percentages. I apologise if my argument was not articulated that well as I kinda just typed this while these thoughts were jumbled around in my head but TLDR: I think the model they use is innately flawed and thus Kabam should switch to polling/discussing with the general community or asking the content creators for their feedback and opinions. Both of these options are completely free and the second one I think would definitely be far more accurate than their current system, and at the same time wouldn't produce OP champs.
No changes are made purely on feedback, or by popular vote. These are always weighed against their objectives for Champions, combined with the data, and within the model that they use. While I can't speak on exactly what that model is, I can say with pretty good certainty that it's on the prudent side. Of course, there's always room for feedback and suggestions. It's not a process that totally ignores the Players. It's just not something I could see them leaving open to Player feedback completely. Ask a Player what they think is needed and they may be reasonable, and they may not. Ask 100 Players what a Champ needs, and the majority vote will most probably result in an OP Champ.
There's a reason why Kabam evaluates champs over a 6 month timeframe. We've had him for like a week or week and half?
People just need to calm down and use him and see where he fits. Haven't we learned our lesson yet for things like this?
People are a bit hasty to judge sometimes but kabam 'evaluation' team don't know what they're talking about half the time. Like adam warlock they thought it was okay for him to get stunned in his stasis pod which is absolutely moronic. And his taunt should be passive otherwise he can't do shrug off champs or nodes like tenacity and mighty charge etc.
I mean it's all debatable but if 1 from the dozen or more that have gone through the evaluations is all we're talking about, then I think they're doing fine.
Again, Kabam evaluates champs off what they're seeing big picture wise where we tend to only evaluate what affects our own accounts and we want benefits us more than the game.
It's not just him tho, they botched cassie lang and other champ rebalancing. All Kabam have to do is listen a bit to the community and implement changes when there is widespread agreement for a small change that would make a champ better such as described above for adam warlock or 'un-nerf' a champ when they rebalance too far in the other direction. It's frustrating because Kabam are performing well half of the time but the other half they could avoid these screw ups by just taking a bit more care. If I had to guess, clearly some employees really love this game and take great care when implementing these balance changes, but a few of them just aren't bothered and charge ahead screwing up a perfectly good champ or not taking the opportunity to please 95% of the playerbase and slightly buff champs instead of just declaring they're fine.
I think the fundamental difference with this perspective is the rebalancing program isn't specifically geared towards making people happy. It's about applying the current model they're using to the data they gather and adjusting accordingly. That's not to say that people aren't onto something at times. It just means it's not about making Champs more popular.
I don't really understand this. Could you explain it in a bit more detail? Like if the model uses a metric such as 'usage in war across all tiers' or something to help determine champ worth during the first few months of their release then that's clearly going to be skewed as people will bring him/her in just to see how they perform, particularly in offseason as new champs are exciting. Apologies for me keep going back to the adam warlock example, but when I first pulled him I took him into aq, aw adn questing just to play around with him as I thought he was fun. I quickly learned he had a few big flaws such as being stun-able in his pod but continued to force him into my bg drafts just to see what he could do and test his limits. Turns out he has too many bad matchups and I went from using him all the time and wanting to r5 him, to barely using him at all after a few months of pulling him. This then goes for a lot of champions, where the model kabam uses is probably innately flawed if it takes into account usage in any gamemode or even win percentages. I apologise if my argument was not articulated that well as I kinda just typed this while these thoughts were jumbled around in my head but TLDR: I think the model they use is innately flawed and thus Kabam should switch to polling/discussing with the general community or asking the content creators for their feedback and opinions. Both of these options are completely free and the second one I think would definitely be far more accurate than their current system, and at the same time wouldn't produce OP champs.
No changes are made purely on feedback, or by popular vote. These are always weighed against their objectives for Champions, combined with the data, and within the model that they use. While I can't speak on exactly what that model is, I can say with pretty good certainty that it's on the prudent side. Of course, there's always room for feedback and suggestions. It's not a process that totally ignores the Players. It's just not something I could see them leaving open to Player feedback completely. Ask a Player what they think is needed and they may be reasonable, and they may not. Ask 100 Players what a Champ needs, and the majority vote will most probably result in an OP Champ.
Yes, that's why I suggested talking to the CCP members instead of general community. Herc is too powerful, but someone like Hyperion or Warlock is the gold standard. They both have great damage and utility, fun to play, without being OP.
There's a reason why Kabam evaluates champs over a 6 month timeframe. We've had him for like a week or week and half?
People just need to calm down and use him and see where he fits. Haven't we learned our lesson yet for things like this?
People are a bit hasty to judge sometimes but kabam 'evaluation' team don't know what they're talking about half the time. Like adam warlock they thought it was okay for him to get stunned in his stasis pod which is absolutely moronic. And his taunt should be passive otherwise he can't do shrug off champs or nodes like tenacity and mighty charge etc.
I mean it's all debatable but if 1 from the dozen or more that have gone through the evaluations is all we're talking about, then I think they're doing fine.
Again, Kabam evaluates champs off what they're seeing big picture wise where we tend to only evaluate what affects our own accounts and we want benefits us more than the game.
It's not just him tho, they botched cassie lang and other champ rebalancing. All Kabam have to do is listen a bit to the community and implement changes when there is widespread agreement for a small change that would make a champ better such as described above for adam warlock or 'un-nerf' a champ when they rebalance too far in the other direction. It's frustrating because Kabam are performing well half of the time but the other half they could avoid these screw ups by just taking a bit more care. If I had to guess, clearly some employees really love this game and take great care when implementing these balance changes, but a few of them just aren't bothered and charge ahead screwing up a perfectly good champ or not taking the opportunity to please 95% of the playerbase and slightly buff champs instead of just declaring they're fine.
I think the fundamental difference with this perspective is the rebalancing program isn't specifically geared towards making people happy. It's about applying the current model they're using to the data they gather and adjusting accordingly. That's not to say that people aren't onto something at times. It just means it's not about making Champs more popular.
I don't really understand this. Could you explain it in a bit more detail? Like if the model uses a metric such as 'usage in war across all tiers' or something to help determine champ worth during the first few months of their release then that's clearly going to be skewed as people will bring him/her in just to see how they perform, particularly in offseason as new champs are exciting. Apologies for me keep going back to the adam warlock example, but when I first pulled him I took him into aq, aw adn questing just to play around with him as I thought he was fun. I quickly learned he had a few big flaws such as being stun-able in his pod but continued to force him into my bg drafts just to see what he could do and test his limits. Turns out he has too many bad matchups and I went from using him all the time and wanting to r5 him, to barely using him at all after a few months of pulling him. This then goes for a lot of champions, where the model kabam uses is probably innately flawed if it takes into account usage in any gamemode or even win percentages. I apologise if my argument was not articulated that well as I kinda just typed this while these thoughts were jumbled around in my head but TLDR: I think the model they use is innately flawed and thus Kabam should switch to polling/discussing with the general community or asking the content creators for their feedback and opinions. Both of these options are completely free and the second one I think would definitely be far more accurate than their current system, and at the same time wouldn't produce OP champs.
No changes are made purely on feedback, or by popular vote. These are always weighed against their objectives for Champions, combined with the data, and within the model that they use. While I can't speak on exactly what that model is, I can say with pretty good certainty that it's on the prudent side. Of course, there's always room for feedback and suggestions. It's not a process that totally ignores the Players. It's just not something I could see them leaving open to Player feedback completely. Ask a Player what they think is needed and they may be reasonable, and they may not. Ask 100 Players what a Champ needs, and the majority vote will most probably result in an OP Champ.
Yes, that's why I suggested talking to the CCP members instead of general community. Herc is too powerful, but someone like Hyperion or Warlock is the gold standard. They both have great damage and utility, fun to play, without being OP.
The balancing program isn't to figure out if a champion is too OP or has enough utility or damage. The goal is to determine if that champ if that champion is meeting their expectations based on what they intended that champion to do.
Example: If champion A was meant to be pure damage, is it hitting those metrics in game modes where that is important?
If champion B is designed to be a multi tool, how is it faring in those aspects in game modes.
The playerbase has way different expectations vs what the designers intended for champs.
I think the model they use is innately flawed and thus Kabam should switch to polling/discussing with the general community or asking the content creators for their feedback and opinions. Both of these options are completely free and the second one I think would definitely be far more accurate than their current system, and at the same time wouldn't produce OP champs.
Polling the players on champion performance is the second worst way to find out how champions perform, just above ranking them by height and just below random lottery.
There are many different metrics that the devs use to judge how well champions meet their intended objectives, but most of them deal not with what the champ *can* do, but what it *actually does* when *actual humans* play them.
It is easy to say that Ghost does a lot of damage. But who does more damage in the game when played by our actual playerbase: Ghost or X-23? Are you sure?
Ultimately, champions are judged based on how they actually perform, not on how they could perform when played by the best players. Some champions are intended to have a certain amount of utility when played by everyone in most content. Some are intended to have high performance ceilings when played by the best players in the toughest content. Some are intended to have stable performance across all content, some are intended to excel in some areas and be suboptimal in others. This is ultimately driven by data, and by what the players do, not what the players think.
Kabam can see what players' opinions are with regard to which champs are good at which things. And then they can see the data on how actual people actually perform with those champs. Players' opinions can be wrong a lot. The data cannot be wrong, in the sense that the data measures what the devs actually want to happen. If a champ deals a lot of damage and the players think it doesn't, the data wins. If players think a champ is easy to play but the data says it isn't, the data wins.
The only way player opinion matters is in the meta criteria: does the champion meet player expectations. And that is just one very tiny data point among all data points.
Its basically a "free" champ if you consider everything else that was available in the platinum track, not sure why he was hyped that much or even called a P2P champ or pay walled. Yeah i get it you have to spend to get him, but it wasn't a ridiculous price, he was just added to the Plat track.
As someone else pointed out, access to reliable miss, big yellow numbers and healing is really nice. Do I think he’s the best, no, but he is in no way disappointing. I paid $25 and even without the stuff in the double track he was worth the money in my opinion. He is fun to play and definitely useful out of the box and that’s all I could ask for with a guaranteed 7*. I have a much more diverse 6* roster but as 7* go he fills a nice spot for me. If he was a cheat code like Herc people would be mad screaming pay to win and if he was under tuned people would want their money back. I think they hit a nice balance where I will use him sometimes and I’m not worried about a nerf.
Morbius ticks a lot of the Classic Great Champ boxes without being too much.
Can increase own damage? Multiple bonus attack opportunities. Check. Some way to make opportunities happen? Unblockable Phasing dash. Check. Regen? Up to 10% on SP2 and SP3. Check. It's passive, so Check+. Big damage? Big SP2 and SP3. Check. Debuffs? Bleeds and Petrify. Check. Buffs? Fervor. Check. Bonus Utility? Petrify and Despair bonus. Bonus for losing Fervor buff. Check.
To KT1, who has all the Rank 2 and Rank 5 options of the world in front of him, all that might still get a Meh and a Nah for ranking up. For me, that's really, really good. Even without the Undying, which for me would probably amount to a slight opportunity for a last ditch effort to squeeze out a 1% win and not nigh-immortality, so I'm not valuing it that much. Maybe someone with more skill than me might think more of it than that, so not having it is a big minus.
I think it's way too early to evaluate him properly. My guess is that we'll start seeing a lot of exciting things once he's released in the next (?) featured 6* crystal. While everyone's unduped 7* is neat, I have a feeling that his sig ability (especially at high sig) is much better than a lot of people give it credit for. Instantly healing 50% of any direct damage you take plus Willpower and Recovery masteries could make him really chunky in a ton of matches.
Ebony Maw, Kindred and Mojo all deal degen, which is direct damage. Chances are that Morbius will be one of the better counters to them. Man-Thing deals poison damage, which is also direct damage. He's immune to crits but Morbius doesn't just get a guaranteed crit on his SP2, he gains a massive amount of extra damage per bleed (or rupture) so it's possible that he'd still body that mushy swamp monster.
Power sting debuffs are also direct damage so he'll take -50% damage from them as well.
Yeah, I'm excited to try him out in the future. I can definitely see myself taking him to sig 200 whenever I get a hold of the 6*.
No disrespect to KT but I feel like he overlooked a few things in that video.
He gave Morb a No to Rintrah, but he's very good for him. It's a little annoying to manage the Mystic charges, sure, but auto crit on Sp2 bypasses his crit resist and he can control his power gain and willpower with his debuffs.
He gave a No to Nova, but you can just go to Sp3 and do comparable damage to the Sp2. Not ideal but at the very least should be OK. Technically awakened he should be able to do the same to FAM but FAM is a menace so might still be a No.
Objectively if you had him, Hulk would be the better choice for R2. But personally I took my Morb to R2 because I like his playstyle more, and at the end of the day its a game and I'm going to go with who I find fun.
If there were just two small things I'd change about him, I'd move to Rupture portion of his Sig to his base kit, at 50% potency and then have the sig give the other 50%. Secondly, having the heal from Sp2 trigger as it deals the damage so you get the heal before the fight ends.
I've been doing the Carina's 7 for 7 (just finished 7.3) and I've been using Red Goblin more than him... So yeah I am a little disappointed, I didn't think bleed immunity and certain matchups (like Rintrah where you have to throw a lot of heavies or just matchups where you can't be aggressive in general) would make him almost completely useless but they do. If they don't buff him I think it's safe to say most people will forget he even exists after BGs season 12.
I think the model they use is innately flawed and thus Kabam should switch to polling/discussing with the general community or asking the content creators for their feedback and opinions. Both of these options are completely free and the second one I think would definitely be far more accurate than their current system, and at the same time wouldn't produce OP champs.
Polling the players on champion performance is the second worst way to find out how champions perform, just above ranking them by height and just below random lottery.
There are many different metrics that the devs use to judge how well champions meet their intended objectives, but most of them deal not with what the champ *can* do, but what it *actually does* when *actual humans* play them.
It is easy to say that Ghost does a lot of damage. But who does more damage in the game when played by our actual playerbase: Ghost or X-23? Are you sure?
Ultimately, champions are judged based on how they actually perform, not on how they could perform when played by the best players. Some champions are intended to have a certain amount of utility when played by everyone in most content. Some are intended to have high performance ceilings when played by the best players in the toughest content. Some are intended to have stable performance across all content, some are intended to excel in some areas and be suboptimal in others. This is ultimately driven by data, and by what the players do, not what the players think.
Kabam can see what players' opinions are with regard to which champs are good at which things. And then they can see the data on how actual people actually perform with those champs. Players' opinions can be wrong a lot. The data cannot be wrong, in the sense that the data measures what the devs actually want to happen. If a champ deals a lot of damage and the players think it doesn't, the data wins. If players think a champ is easy to play but the data says it isn't, the data wins.
The only way player opinion matters is in the meta criteria: does the champion meet player expectations. And that is just one very tiny data point among all data points.
I'm not disagreeing with your point that kabam have their metrics to see how a champ performs but I'm saying maybe a lot of those criteria don't matter. Such as if some people are using a certain champ like sauron, winning a high degree of fights in bgs or aq or questing with him, Kabam might think he is performing well enough and doesn't need tuning due to the data they are recieving. But maybe the people who win these fights with him are in low tier war or bgs, or an easier aq map. So although it looks like sauron is good for a wide range of content, no one in high tier competitive modes actually uses him. And it makes sense, I know ppl who like sauron's animations and occasionally use him for questing or the odd bgs match in a pinch. But at the same time although he might have decent usage and win rates across the board, he simply doesn't have the damage to compete with the best champs and there is pretty much no reason to rank him up over other mutants.
I think most champions are viable to some extent in this game, but they have to be more than viable, they have to be amazing to compete for the scarce rank up resources at the top of the game. Red goblin has some uses but realistically who would rank him up over herc? Same thing with civil warrior being decent, but nimrod is better in pretty much every single way and you see this all over sadly. In story content this doesn't matter as you can rank up and have fun getting through it with a champ you like, but in battlegrounds you don't have the freedom to do that, and whether Kabam likes it or not, they have made bgs the main focus of the game right now. So it simply isn't really good enough for a champ to be good in questing and aq, even have great utility, but if they're slow in bgs as they just won't get ranked up, so perhaps kabam should simply base champion viability mostly on bgs performance, then some aw and also factor in CCP member feedback?
I think the model they use is innately flawed and thus Kabam should switch to polling/discussing with the general community or asking the content creators for their feedback and opinions. Both of these options are completely free and the second one I think would definitely be far more accurate than their current system, and at the same time wouldn't produce OP champs.
Polling the players on champion performance is the second worst way to find out how champions perform, just above ranking them by height and just below random lottery.
There are many different metrics that the devs use to judge how well champions meet their intended objectives, but most of them deal not with what the champ *can* do, but what it *actually does* when *actual humans* play them.
It is easy to say that Ghost does a lot of damage. But who does more damage in the game when played by our actual playerbase: Ghost or X-23? Are you sure?
Ultimately, champions are judged based on how they actually perform, not on how they could perform when played by the best players. Some champions are intended to have a certain amount of utility when played by everyone in most content. Some are intended to have high performance ceilings when played by the best players in the toughest content. Some are intended to have stable performance across all content, some are intended to excel in some areas and be suboptimal in others. This is ultimately driven by data, and by what the players do, not what the players think.
Kabam can see what players' opinions are with regard to which champs are good at which things. And then they can see the data on how actual people actually perform with those champs. Players' opinions can be wrong a lot. The data cannot be wrong, in the sense that the data measures what the devs actually want to happen. If a champ deals a lot of damage and the players think it doesn't, the data wins. If players think a champ is easy to play but the data says it isn't, the data wins.
The only way player opinion matters is in the meta criteria: does the champion meet player expectations. And that is just one very tiny data point among all data points.
I'm saying maybe a lot of those criteria don't matter. Such as if some people are using a certain champ like sauron, winning a high degree of fights in bgs or aq or questing with him, Kabam might think he is performing well enough and doesn't need tuning due to the data they are recieving.
They aren't taking the data from 1 person or a few. That's just a terrible example.
I think the model they use is innately flawed and thus Kabam should switch to polling/discussing with the general community or asking the content creators for their feedback and opinions. Both of these options are completely free and the second one I think would definitely be far more accurate than their current system, and at the same time wouldn't produce OP champs.
Polling the players on champion performance is the second worst way to find out how champions perform, just above ranking them by height and just below random lottery.
There are many different metrics that the devs use to judge how well champions meet their intended objectives, but most of them deal not with what the champ *can* do, but what it *actually does* when *actual humans* play them.
It is easy to say that Ghost does a lot of damage. But who does more damage in the game when played by our actual playerbase: Ghost or X-23? Are you sure?
Ultimately, champions are judged based on how they actually perform, not on how they could perform when played by the best players. Some champions are intended to have a certain amount of utility when played by everyone in most content. Some are intended to have high performance ceilings when played by the best players in the toughest content. Some are intended to have stable performance across all content, some are intended to excel in some areas and be suboptimal in others. This is ultimately driven by data, and by what the players do, not what the players think.
Kabam can see what players' opinions are with regard to which champs are good at which things. And then they can see the data on how actual people actually perform with those champs. Players' opinions can be wrong a lot. The data cannot be wrong, in the sense that the data measures what the devs actually want to happen. If a champ deals a lot of damage and the players think it doesn't, the data wins. If players think a champ is easy to play but the data says it isn't, the data wins.
The only way player opinion matters is in the meta criteria: does the champion meet player expectations. And that is just one very tiny data point among all data points.
I think most champions are viable to some extent in this game, but they have to be more than viable, they have to be amazing to compete for the scarce rank up resources at the top of the game. Red goblin has some uses but realistically who would rank him up over herc? Same thing with civil warrior being decent, but nimrod is better in pretty much every single way and you see this all over sadly.?
What's your definition of "amazing" because I can guarantee it's different than my opinion or Kabams. There are people out there that WOULD rank Red Goblin over Herc. I made the choice to ascend Silver Centurion over Herc. I'll probably ascend Red Hulk or BWDO over Herc for my 2nd choice.
Your comparison for Civil Warrior vs Nimrod is strange as well. All they have in common is that they are both Tech. They have completely different kits but there are people out there with ranked up C.Ws.
Kabam doesn't factor in rank up resources. They take their data and I am sure some feedback from the community into consideration when determining if a new champ will tuned up or down but it's based on all of the communities use, not one persons or the opinion of the forums (which is a very small fraction of the community).
Their objectives aren't comparative to who we would take up first. The goal of these adjustments isn't so that we would pick X Champ over Y Champ. That's never been the case. It's more of a fine tuning mechanism. Have a look at the examples they've made adjustments to since the current buff program has begun. They've explained their goals for Champs along with the adjustments they're making. It's less about what people want to see and more about keeping the outcome in line with what they want to see. The comparison game is a never-ending one. Some Champs will always be better at some uses than others. That perspective of buffing Champs is cyclical. They can't all be viable options in end-game, simply because by the time you stop that round, you have to start all over again and buff them all to meet the new standard. Let's be honest. The Champs that people choose at the highest levels are the most powerful, the most useful overall, the most popular. Using that as a basis would end up with a broken game.
Champs that turtle he is actually great for with his psyonic glide ability. It blows through their block. I have been dashing in and slapping them once with it and the defender is often launching a special right after. Then I can keep the aggression going with the bleeds to get that silly SP2. In particular he was great for Mordo recently in the TB EQ as you know Mordo AI loves to turtle and power gain. Well here is a slap for you Mordo while you stand there and do nothing.
Is he the best science champ? Nope. Is he fun and simple to play? Yes. And I personally enjoy that with the laundry list of complicated champs that have come out recently. Some days I just want to pick up the game and slap people around without having to think about this rotation and this attack to get this and then this so this happens so I can do big numbers. Too much thinking. There is a time for that and it’s not each time I sit down to play this game.
Champs that turtle he is actually great for with his psyonic glide ability. It blows through their block. I have been dashing in and slapping them once with it and the defender is often launching a special right after. Then I can keep the aggression going with the bleeds to get that silly SP2. In particular he was great for Mordo recently in the TB EQ as you know Mordo AI loves to turtle and power gain. Well here is a slap for you Mordo while you stand there and do nothing.
Is he the best science champ? Nope. Is he fun and simple to play? Yes. And I personally enjoy that with the laundry list of complicated champs that have come out recently. Some days I just want to pick up the game and slap people around without having to think about this rotation and this attack to get this and then this so this happens so I can do big numbers. Too much thinking. There is a time for that and it’s not each time I sit down to play this game.
But you cant keeo gliding as Its a long timer for the fervor buff to expire, and so if theyre turtling , while its still up, then its less bleeds you can ramp up. Also, it might be optimal to glide only when the enemy throws their special to get 4 bleeds instead of 1 (but this can be tedious if they dont throw their special)
I didn't read whole post because I realized half way through you're dumb. First off you name a few champs that you souldn't bleed. Well, duh!. Don't use Morbius for them. Then you mention champs that don't like crits. Well, how about you use someone else? You'd never use Corvus against Nova, why would you use Morbius? (Btw, you shouldn't do sinister with Morbius not because of the guaranteed crits. Petrify will stop most of that. It's because sinister will throw the bleeds back at you). Then you switch it up and complain Morbius does too much damage and you don't get the heal from L2. Make up your mind, is he good or not?
Remember, there are over 250 champs in the game. It's ok for a new champ to completely suck against 10, even 20% of existing champs. Thats 50 champs. A new champ should also be a great counter for like 20% of existing champs. Which he is. For the other 60%, he just needs to do ok, and he does, mostly. For some, he'll need his sig ability
Completely disagree with KT1, Morbius is very very good, it’s insane how people consider him overhyped when he offers unique timeless mechanics like direct damage immortality, guaranteed crit and the ability to phase through the last part of specials. I don’t care about the defenders he can take in bg, don’t you already have an option for those? Also, smart opponents place unique non-counterable options down, not stuff that gets countered. If they see you have a Torch or Silk they won’t pick their mystics. It’s about countering neutral tanky defenders fast that Morbius excels at.
Giving final judgement on the Morbin Man as an unduped 7star just seems beyond silly. Much of the criticism I’ve read does not fully account for his awakened ability or how much more useful he will be at high sig.
Theres been a ton of hype surrounding Morbius lately but one should try to remain purely objective and practical in their analysis of the champ.
Note: The primary purpose of this thread is for summoners to suggest ways that Kabam can use as feedback to better improve the champion.
However in order to suggest room for improvement /tuneup, we must first show that he isn’t as shiny and flashy as everyone may see him as.
1st his damage is mainly from the sp2 , and you have to be very aggressive to even get his big damage off the sp2 which means needing AI cooperation and also the fact that if you cant really ramp him to even land a strong sp2 , for instance by having to heavy , then the “shiny big yellow numbers” that had everyone impressed arent practical. An example of this is Rintrah since you have to constantly knock him down to maintain his charges and prevent him from going unstoppable. Another example is just the AI turtling, given how erratic the AI has been lately, it can be difficult stacking as many bleeds.
Also, its not just bleed immunes hes hampered by unduped, its a ton of champs that you dont want to be bleeding in the first place. For example, domino, bishop, or havok. Even if you had him duped, with high sig the bleeds would compromise these fights. Here’s where I think the dupe could’ve instead been a prefight to pick between rupture or bleed.
It’s not just the issue with the bleeds, but champs that rely on crits for their source of damage have their own hindrances, for e.g manthing, sinister or nova.
A lesser point but one that’s counterintuitive by design is making the sp2 heal after the big crit making it not heal for most of the time as the enemy would be dead before the heal even applied
Another point is that amongst the other 7* champs, Morbius ranks amongst the lowest in numerous base stats such as health pool, crit rating, crit damage etc. his armor rating /block proficiency are also below average so he’ll be taking a lot of damage and he doesn’t have resistances or immunities outside the sig to help with this.
In this video you can see how KT1 uses a chart of some of the most common BGs defenders of which Morbius hardly makes the list as a viable option compared to the other science class champs. Surprisingly even from the Mystic class, a ton of mystic options are marked as no. Skill/science defenders are also flooded with “no”.
I can just see someone commenting down below that “not all champs are meant to be BG champs, some are for story”. But the reality is that basically any champ can do story and it gives champs hardly any value in contrast to a more competitive setting. And even in the setting of AQ/AW which is hardly relevant compared to BGs when you look at the rewards. Sure, when story content and AQ/AW was still the primary game mode of the game, a champ with regen supression and power control would have been very beneficial to have.
So now onto the main point of the thread - which is to suggest ways that Kabam can better improve the champion
First and foremost, the psionic glide should last longer so that it is viable against longer animations. It isnt always easy to get the spacing and timing right on the glide so it wouldnt make him op.
Also, it wouldn’t have hurt to make base the chances of inflicting the bleed higher than 20%. Even with the Fervor buff, I’ve gone 10 hits without a single bleed.
The sig ability of undying seems like a significantly cheap knockoff of immortality as even just a hit into block can finish him and we know that given the abhorrent controls this isn’t unlikely to occur with things like dropped dex inputs. What they can do is make it so that he can phase on every dash in when at 1% with a damaging effect. This would at least make the invincibility somewhat worth while.
Regarding the issue of bleed immunity, debuff shrugging, or AI turtling to prevent bleeds, one potential improvement as stated above could be to have the dupe give the option to select between bleeds and ruptures as part of a prefight.
In Conclusion, the champ isnt bad and he’ll definitely shine with the decay nodes in BGs, but after that, people may start to realize that that big and flashy sp2 may not be as practical and feasible to pull off in BGs for a large variety of Defender, Node, and AI behavior matchups.
Are there any suggestions you can think of to improve Morbius? Drop them down in the comments below.
Finally!!! Someone talked about mighty morbius. Totally agree with you bro. He has no immunity either atleast he should be immune to shock or rupture.
His damge is good on sp2 but i don't se any utility in him.
I didn't read whole post because I realized half way through you're dumb. First off you name a few champs that you souldn't bleed. Well, duh!. Don't use Morbius for them. Then you mention champs that don't like crits. Well, how about you use someone else? You'd never use Corvus against Nova, why would you use Morbius? (Btw, you shouldn't do sinister with Morbius not because of the guaranteed crits. Petrify will stop most of that. It's because sinister will throw the bleeds back at you). Then you switch it up and complain Morbius does too much damage and you don't get the heal from L2. Make up your mind, is he good or not?
Remember, there are over 250 champs in the game. It's ok for a new champ to completely suck against 10, even 20% of existing champs. Thats 50 champs. A new champ should also be a great counter for like 20% of existing champs. Which he is. For the other 60%, he just needs to do ok, and he does, mostly. For some, he'll need his sig ability
You sound like someone that took his Morbius up to rank 2 and already regretting it or that hasn’t done BGs at the competitive level as almost 90% of the comments on this thread would agree with what was said
I wanted Morb cause it was a 7* at 25 bucks, nothing else. I did not expect him to be overpowered and didn't even get hyped. I ignore most of the deep dives cause its advertisement and they will never show you the negative aspects of a champ. I guess some people expected the likes of Hercules or something.
Comments
Of course, there's always room for feedback and suggestions. It's not a process that totally ignores the Players. It's just not something I could see them leaving open to Player feedback completely. Ask a Player what they think is needed and they may be reasonable, and they may not. Ask 100 Players what a Champ needs, and the majority vote will most probably result in an OP Champ.
Example: If champion A was meant to be pure damage, is it hitting those metrics in game modes where that is important?
If champion B is designed to be a multi tool, how is it faring in those aspects in game modes.
The playerbase has way different expectations vs what the designers intended for champs.
There are many different metrics that the devs use to judge how well champions meet their intended objectives, but most of them deal not with what the champ *can* do, but what it *actually does* when *actual humans* play them.
It is easy to say that Ghost does a lot of damage. But who does more damage in the game when played by our actual playerbase: Ghost or X-23? Are you sure?
Ultimately, champions are judged based on how they actually perform, not on how they could perform when played by the best players. Some champions are intended to have a certain amount of utility when played by everyone in most content. Some are intended to have high performance ceilings when played by the best players in the toughest content. Some are intended to have stable performance across all content, some are intended to excel in some areas and be suboptimal in others. This is ultimately driven by data, and by what the players do, not what the players think.
Kabam can see what players' opinions are with regard to which champs are good at which things. And then they can see the data on how actual people actually perform with those champs. Players' opinions can be wrong a lot. The data cannot be wrong, in the sense that the data measures what the devs actually want to happen. If a champ deals a lot of damage and the players think it doesn't, the data wins. If players think a champ is easy to play but the data says it isn't, the data wins.
The only way player opinion matters is in the meta criteria: does the champion meet player expectations. And that is just one very tiny data point among all data points.
Can increase own damage? Multiple bonus attack opportunities. Check.
Some way to make opportunities happen? Unblockable Phasing dash. Check.
Regen? Up to 10% on SP2 and SP3. Check. It's passive, so Check+.
Big damage? Big SP2 and SP3. Check.
Debuffs? Bleeds and Petrify. Check.
Buffs? Fervor. Check.
Bonus Utility? Petrify and Despair bonus. Bonus for losing Fervor buff. Check.
To KT1, who has all the Rank 2 and Rank 5 options of the world in front of him, all that might still get a Meh and a Nah for ranking up. For me, that's really, really good. Even without the Undying, which for me would probably amount to a slight opportunity for a last ditch effort to squeeze out a 1% win and not nigh-immortality, so I'm not valuing it that much. Maybe someone with more skill than me might think more of it than that, so not having it is a big minus.
Ebony Maw, Kindred and Mojo all deal degen, which is direct damage. Chances are that Morbius will be one of the better counters to them. Man-Thing deals poison damage, which is also direct damage. He's immune to crits but Morbius doesn't just get a guaranteed crit on his SP2, he gains a massive amount of extra damage per bleed (or rupture) so it's possible that he'd still body that mushy swamp monster.
Power sting debuffs are also direct damage so he'll take -50% damage from them as well.
Yeah, I'm excited to try him out in the future. I can definitely see myself taking him to sig 200 whenever I get a hold of the 6*.
He gave Morb a No to Rintrah, but he's very good for him. It's a little annoying to manage the Mystic charges, sure, but auto crit on Sp2 bypasses his crit resist and he can control his power gain and willpower with his debuffs.
He gave a No to Nova, but you can just go to Sp3 and do comparable damage to the Sp2. Not ideal but at the very least should be OK. Technically awakened he should be able to do the same to FAM but FAM is a menace so might still be a No.
Objectively if you had him, Hulk would be the better choice for R2. But personally I took my Morb to R2 because I like his playstyle more, and at the end of the day its a game and I'm going to go with who I find fun.
If there were just two small things I'd change about him, I'd move to Rupture portion of his Sig to his base kit, at 50% potency and then have the sig give the other 50%. Secondly, having the heal from Sp2 trigger as it deals the damage so you get the heal before the fight ends.
I think most champions are viable to some extent in this game, but they have to be more than viable, they have to be amazing to compete for the scarce rank up resources at the top of the game. Red goblin has some uses but realistically who would rank him up over herc? Same thing with civil warrior being decent, but nimrod is better in pretty much every single way and you see this all over sadly. In story content this doesn't matter as you can rank up and have fun getting through it with a champ you like, but in battlegrounds you don't have the freedom to do that, and whether Kabam likes it or not, they have made bgs the main focus of the game right now. So it simply isn't really good enough for a champ to be good in questing and aq, even have great utility, but if they're slow in bgs as they just won't get ranked up, so perhaps kabam should simply base champion viability mostly on bgs performance, then some aw and also factor in CCP member feedback?
Your comparison for Civil Warrior vs Nimrod is strange as well. All they have in common is that they are both Tech. They have completely different kits but there are people out there with ranked up C.Ws.
Kabam doesn't factor in rank up resources. They take their data and I am sure some feedback from the community into consideration when determining if a new champ will tuned up or down but it's based on all of the communities use, not one persons or the opinion of the forums (which is a very small fraction of the community).
Have a look at the examples they've made adjustments to since the current buff program has begun. They've explained their goals for Champs along with the adjustments they're making. It's less about what people want to see and more about keeping the outcome in line with what they want to see.
The comparison game is a never-ending one. Some Champs will always be better at some uses than others. That perspective of buffing Champs is cyclical. They can't all be viable options in end-game, simply because by the time you stop that round, you have to start all over again and buff them all to meet the new standard.
Let's be honest. The Champs that people choose at the highest levels are the most powerful, the most useful overall, the most popular. Using that as a basis would end up with a broken game.
Is he the best science champ? Nope. Is he fun and simple to play? Yes. And I personally enjoy that with the laundry list of complicated champs that have come out recently. Some days I just want to pick up the game and slap people around without having to think about this rotation and this attack to get this and then this so this happens so I can do big numbers. Too much thinking. There is a time for that and it’s not each time I sit down to play this game.
First off you name a few champs that you souldn't bleed. Well, duh!. Don't use Morbius for them.
Then you mention champs that don't like crits. Well, how about you use someone else? You'd never use Corvus against Nova, why would you use Morbius? (Btw, you shouldn't do sinister with Morbius not because of the guaranteed crits. Petrify will stop most of that. It's because sinister will throw the bleeds back at you).
Then you switch it up and complain Morbius does too much damage and you don't get the heal from L2. Make up your mind, is he good or not?
Remember, there are over 250 champs in the game. It's ok for a new champ to completely suck against 10, even 20% of existing champs. Thats 50 champs.
A new champ should also be a great counter for like 20% of existing champs. Which he is. For the other 60%, he just needs to do ok, and he does, mostly. For some, he'll need his sig ability
His damge is good on sp2 but i don't se any utility in him.
I guess some people expected the likes of Hercules or something.