Its quite funny to me some people think others want Hercules to be netfed... Personally I don't really care if they do, reason? I just don't use him anymore...
I do, and other people do too even though we're obviously a minority. I want him nerfed for the same reason I want Magik and Quake nerfed, I want to be able to use them, not because I'm a ****. They can keep the 5* versions broken if they want but I wish I could play with the tuned down 6* versions. The same will happen with Herc eventually once we start getting r4 7* (yes I know it'll take a year or more for that to happen but it will happen).
I highly doubt they will nerf Herc if they never did it to Quake. He will be "nerfed" the same way she was, by not releasing a 7* version which is completely fine.
Acting like he isn't overpowered is also comical. Multiple threads being made about one Champ isn't because he's just "good" 😅.
I find it so strange that people that use Herc are called lazy. What exactly is the benefit of learning to play champs? I mean, I learn to play new champs every now and then but is not compulsory, I believe. Also, I don’t know about you guys, but if in a game I find a gun, I’ll drop the knife I’ve been carrying. I wouldn’t be thinking “nah, too easy, I’ll stick to the knife”. It’s some sort of masochism mixed with snobbery.
Yep. A number of players have gotten a reputation for using the same champs for everything possible. If that's what they want to do, more power to them. If I pick a main and I'm ride or die with them unless I'm forced to do otherwise, what difference does it make to anyone if I struggle with champs I don't like or don't want to play? Why is maining Hercules the shameful refuge of the lazy and talentless player if he does what I want him to do, I'm having fun, and I'm spending money? Would these capes be happier if people were having less fun and treating this like it was something other than a game for fun? If a given champ makes this game fun and keeps people spending on it, Kabam should be happy, too.
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
herc is still solid for BGs but isn't a key attacker or defender like he used to be:
1. globals are reducing his effectiveness (prey on the weak, hazard shift bleed/schock, focused nullify/regen, buffet over time, powerful from afar, polka dot power, safeguard).
2. overshadowed by science attackers in general, newer OP attackers (kate, titania), and other champs that counter the global (wwbn).
3. reduced defensive value (maestro, onsalught, photon, bullseye, mystics).
his value in war has diminished:
1. banned or blacklisted most of the time
2. when he's whitelisted he's not useful (he was available during decay/sugar pill and basically unusable. not a coincidence imo).
herc is still good but not the powerhouse he once was in BGs and he's handcuffed in AW.
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
I was one of the few smart players who ascended Hulkling over him since hes the much better BGs champ (for both offense and defense). I’m glad i did it since Miike basically confirmed Herc won’t have much value in future content going forward
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
I was one of the few smart players who ascended Hulkling over him since hes the much better BGs champ (for both offense and defense). I’m glad i did it since Miike basically confirmed Herc won’t have much value in future content going forward
Herc was my 1st r5 & when ascension was 1st being released, I was absolutely positive he was going to be ascended. Hulkling & Galan are my 2 ascended cosmics. 5 ascension later & he's still not. Most likely, never will be...
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
herc is still solid for BGs but isn't a key attacker or defender like he used to be:
1. globals are reducing his effectiveness (prey on the weak, hazard shift bleed/schock, focused nullify/regen, buffet over time, powerful from afar, polka dot power, safeguard).
2. overshadowed by science attackers in general, newer OP attackers (kate, titania), and other champs that counter the global (wwbn).
3. reduced defensive value (maestro, onsalught, photon, bullseye, mystics).
his value in war has diminished:
1. banned or blacklisted most of the time
2. when he's whitelisted he's not useful (he was available during decay/sugar pill and basically unusable. not a coincidence imo).
herc is still good but not the powerhouse he once was in BGs and he's handcuffed in AW.
Herc was still a powerful attacker in a fair few of those metas, he was still used for safeguard for example by a lot of high ranking players, and looks like he will be absolutely fine in next season as well - he will have metas he does and doesn't work for in the future too. It doesn't mean that "especially high tier players are hardly ever using him" which is what i was responding to. Metas always mess with different champs, i don't think it's a reason to discount the fact he's still very powerful there as well. I don't think his value has diminished except for defensively due to scoring changes no longer prioritising time as much, he's a stall defender that heals the attacker
I can guarantee his value in war has not diminished. In my opinion he's not getting banned any more often than he was in the past, meaning I'm not sure what you mean by his value diminishing. If you're only talking about the fact he gets banned, then I don't see the argument of black list meaning he doesn't get used. (And side note, I know you didn't say this bit - this is more general.) But i also don't see it as a reason that he's not too powerful or shouldn't be nerfed.
Firstly, it takes up a ban that you could use on an actual tactic attacker or other strong attacker. Secondly not every alliance does ban him. Last season 6/12 alliances we faced in Masters war banned herc, leaving him open for the other half of the season. And thirdly, and most importantly, the whitelist means he is unbanned and that's when alliances can spam him all over the place.
I understand your point on when he doesn't work for a defence tactic, but you can't fill a map with tactic defenders. So Herc can be used for the non-tactic fights, and not every tactic is going to shut him down. This one doesn't, prowess power didn't either.
Basically, i just disagree with the idea that Hercules isn't being used in high tier war. If he wasn't being used, then alliances wouldn't have felt the need to ban him, when he is unbanned people *are* using him, i've assigned him, i've seen other alliances do it too, and when he's white listed he will be used that season too - even if the tactic stops him because there are always other champions to use him against. Literally that's all I'm disagreeing with here, the fact that OP said Herc wasn't being used. Because he categorically is...
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
I’m glad i did it since Miike basically confirmed Herc won’t have much value in future content going forward
That's not what Miike said. He said Herc isn't getting nerfed at this time, but they do want to nerf him. Not that they will, or are going to, or have plans to. There's no need for any fear mongering or misinformation based off what Miike said.
Hercules will have value in the game even if we see anti-herc nodes come out more often, they will not be everywhere. And even if Herc *did* get a nerf, there would be rank down, anti-ascension tickets etc, and also he would remain an objectively great champion. A nerf would not be aimed at 12.0 style root and stem destruction, Kabam have learned from that and they don't want to do it again. A Herc nerf would be pulling him down from a broken 12/10 champ to a 9-10/10. He would still be the strongest stun immune champ in the game, still have some really great utility in miss/autoblock counter, sp3 tanking and immortality (which would stay in some form, likely just not egregious enough to let him do what he does).
All this to say, 1) nobody should be worried about investing in him, and 2) it's silly to say that Herc would have no or not much value in the future - whether they're worried about a nerf, or anti-herc nodes
Can we also agree we don't know what Kabam would do if they decide to nerf Herc. Suggesting that he would still be good doesn't mean anything. Kabam's definition of good/usable champ is different from what the community thinks. Ronin is a good champion and underrated, so should hercules be balanced to ronin level? They can nerf higher rarity hercules, but leave the other rarity as they are. We know it's possible to do it based on how 1* champs have different kits from other * levels.
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
I’m glad i did it since Miike basically confirmed Herc won’t have much value in future content going forward
That's not what Miike said. He said Herc isn't getting nerfed at this time, but they do want to nerf him. Not that they will, or are going to, or have plans to. There's no need for any fear mongering or misinformation based off what Miike said.
Hercules will have value in the game even if we see anti-herc nodes come out more often, they will not be everywhere. And even if Herc *did* get a nerf, there would be rank down, anti-ascension tickets etc, and also he would remain an objectively great champion. A nerf would not be aimed at 12.0 style root and stem destruction, Kabam have learned from that and they don't want to do it again. A Herc nerf would be pulling him down from a broken 12/10 champ to a 9-10/10. He would still be the strongest stun immune champ in the game, still have some really great utility in miss/autoblock counter, sp3 tanking and immortality (which would stay in some form, likely just not egregious enough to let him do what he does).
All this to say, 1) nobody should be worried about investing in him, and 2) it's silly to say that Herc would have no or not much value in the future - whether they're worried about a nerf, or anti-herc nodes
Do you know the details about the nerf if it were to happen? I know they had a few details for Quake's nerf so I'm just curious. I think if they shared the full details maybe people wouldn't be so negative about nerf cause I think a lot of people are worried they might take him from 20/10 to -10/10.
Can we also agree we don't know what Kabam would do if they decide to nerf Herc. Suggesting that he would still be good doesn't mean anything. Kabam's definition of good/usable champ is different from what the community thinks. Ronin is a good champion and underrated, so should hercules be balanced to ronin level? They can nerf higher rarity hercules, but leave the other rarity as they are. We know it's possible to do it based on how 1* champs have different kits from other * levels.
Highly unlikely, they're fully aware of how strong Herc is and how disappointed the playerbase would be if they absolutely ruined him 12.0 style (I'm pretty sure they learned their lesson with that one already lol). Also, when Quake's nerf details were posted by Miike they didn't sound bad at all and if they had nerfed her and released her as a 6* she still would've been top 5 science easily. Miike already made it very clear, a nerf like this one wouldn't be aimed at turning them into garbage, they would simply be taking them from absolutely broken down to Ghost level.
I think we should not be having this discussion in the first place if champions get nerfed anytime company loses trust of its consumer base i have seen it happen to many companies and eventually it dies. Moleman was a different situation with fault being not acknowledging the bug early on so the backlash wouldn't have been that bad when they went for a fix. The Ultron fix wasn't so bad because it was a clear bug.
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
I’m glad i did it since Miike basically confirmed Herc won’t have much value in future content going forward
That's not what Miike said. He said Herc isn't getting nerfed at this time, but they do want to nerf him. Not that they will, or are going to, or have plans to. There's no need for any fear mongering or misinformation based off what Miike said.
Hercules will have value in the game even if we see anti-herc nodes come out more often, they will not be everywhere. And even if Herc *did* get a nerf, there would be rank down, anti-ascension tickets etc, and also he would remain an objectively great champion. A nerf would not be aimed at 12.0 style root and stem destruction, Kabam have learned from that and they don't want to do it again. A Herc nerf would be pulling him down from a broken 12/10 champ to a 9-10/10. He would still be the strongest stun immune champ in the game, still have some really great utility in miss/autoblock counter, sp3 tanking and immortality (which would stay in some form, likely just not egregious enough to let him do what he does).
All this to say, 1) nobody should be worried about investing in him, and 2) it's silly to say that Herc would have no or not much value in the future - whether they're worried about a nerf, or anti-herc nodes
Do you know the details about the nerf if it were to happen? I know they had a few details for Quake's nerf so I'm just curious. I think if they shared the full details maybe people wouldn't be so negative about nerf cause I think a lot of people are worried they might take him from 20/10 to -10/10.
i've had conversations on what some of the developers or champ designers would *want* to address if it did ever happen, but i wouldn't want to speak for them, and it was all very hypothetical. It wasn't a list of changes, it was more a "well i'd love to address this by changing that". Like you could hop on DLL's stream and ask him i'm sure, if he felt comfortable speaking about it.
I do think it would be interesting to see the reaction to it, but i don't think it would cool things down *much*. A lot of people just hate the concepts of nerfs full stop. I understand it, but i do wish nerfs were more common in MCOC and had been built in earlier on in the game. Even if we had the rebalancing when Herc was released, could have saved us a hell of a lot of trouble (and not to mention champs like Super Skrull and Nova going through tune ups)
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
I’m glad i did it since Miike basically confirmed Herc won’t have much value in future content going forward
That's not what Miike said. He said Herc isn't getting nerfed at this time, but they do want to nerf him. Not that they will, or are going to, or have plans to. There's no need for any fear mongering or misinformation based off what Miike said.
Hercules will have value in the game even if we see anti-herc nodes come out more often, they will not be everywhere. And even if Herc *did* get a nerf, there would be rank down, anti-ascension tickets etc, and also he would remain an objectively great champion. A nerf would not be aimed at 12.0 style root and stem destruction, Kabam have learned from that and they don't want to do it again. A Herc nerf would be pulling him down from a broken 12/10 champ to a 9-10/10. He would still be the strongest stun immune champ in the game, still have some really great utility in miss/autoblock counter, sp3 tanking and immortality (which would stay in some form, likely just not egregious enough to let him do what he does).
All this to say, 1) nobody should be worried about investing in him, and 2) it's silly to say that Herc would have no or not much value in the future - whether they're worried about a nerf, or anti-herc nodes
Do you know the details about the nerf if it were to happen? I know they had a few details for Quake's nerf so I'm just curious. I think if they shared the full details maybe people wouldn't be so negative about nerf cause I think a lot of people are worried they might take him from 20/10 to -10/10.
i've had conversations on what some of the developers or champ designers would *want* to address if it did ever happen, but i wouldn't want to speak for them, and it was all very hypothetical. It wasn't a list of changes, it was more a "well i'd love to address this by changing that". Like you could hop on DLL's stream and ask him i'm sure, if he felt comfortable speaking about it.
I do think it would be interesting to see the reaction to it, but i don't think it would cool things down *much*. A lot of people just hate the concepts of nerfs full stop. I understand it, but i do wish nerfs were more common in MCOC and had been built in earlier on in the game. Even if we had the rebalancing when Herc was released, could have saved us a hell of a lot of trouble (and not to mention champs like Super Skrull and Nova going through tune ups)
To that I agree that's why we have the rebalance from 2022 so we don't have anomalies like Hercules and Quake in the game. Quake is a level of broken that even Hercules and Ghost cannot reach.
Can we also agree we don't know what Kabam would do if they decide to nerf Herc. Suggesting that he would still be good doesn't mean anything. Kabam's definition of good/usable champ is different from what the community thinks. Ronin is a good champion and underrated, so should hercules be balanced to ronin level? They can nerf higher rarity hercules, but leave the other rarity as they are. We know it's possible to do it based on how 1* champs have different kits from other * levels.
Highly unlikely, they're fully aware of how strong Herc is and how disappointed the playerbase would be if they absolutely ruined him 12.0 style (I'm pretty sure they learned their lesson with that one already lol). Also, when Quake's nerf details were posted by Miike they didn't sound bad at all and if they had nerfed her and released her as a 6* she still would've been top 5 science easily. Miike already made it very clear, a nerf like this one wouldn't be aimed at turning them into garbage, they would simply be taking them from absolutely broken down to Ghost level.
Ever since the buff/rebalancing program started, there have been a wide range of tune ups. From maw all the way to magneto. Maw is a good offensive champion, and Kabam are satisified with where he landed, so it's safe to say herc can be tuned down to that level. At least 1 of the devs has specifically said immortality and damage output is a problem. And at least 1 other i remember saying the special intercept herc has is not good. Depending on whether they would land on the damage tune down and changing the special intercept window to that of venompool, we could end up with a champ that is just not worth it anymore. Safer to do that to a 7* and above and leave the other rarities alone.
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
I’m glad i did it since Miike basically confirmed Herc won’t have much value in future content going forward
That's not what Miike said. He said Herc isn't getting nerfed at this time, but they do want to nerf him. Not that they will, or are going to, or have plans to. There's no need for any fear mongering or misinformation based off what Miike said.
Hercules will have value in the game even if we see anti-herc nodes come out more often, they will not be everywhere. And even if Herc *did* get a nerf, there would be rank down, anti-ascension tickets etc, and also he would remain an objectively great champion. A nerf would not be aimed at 12.0 style root and stem destruction, Kabam have learned from that and they don't want to do it again. A Herc nerf would be pulling him down from a broken 12/10 champ to a 9-10/10. He would still be the strongest stun immune champ in the game, still have some really great utility in miss/autoblock counter, sp3 tanking and immortality (which would stay in some form, likely just not egregious enough to let him do what he does).
All this to say, 1) nobody should be worried about investing in him, and 2) it's silly to say that Herc would have no or not much value in the future - whether they're worried about a nerf, or anti-herc nodes
Do you know the details about the nerf if it were to happen? I know they had a few details for Quake's nerf so I'm just curious. I think if they shared the full details maybe people wouldn't be so negative about nerf cause I think a lot of people are worried they might take him from 20/10 to -10/10.
i've had conversations on what some of the developers or champ designers would *want* to address if it did ever happen, but i wouldn't want to speak for them, and it was all very hypothetical. It wasn't a list of changes, it was more a "well i'd love to address this by changing that". Like you could hop on DLL's stream and ask him i'm sure, if he felt comfortable speaking about it.
I do think it would be interesting to see the reaction to it, but i don't think it would cool things down *much*. A lot of people just hate the concepts of nerfs full stop. I understand it, but i do wish nerfs were more common in MCOC and had been built in earlier on in the game. Even if we had the rebalancing when Herc was released, could have saved us a hell of a lot of trouble (and not to mention champs like Super Skrull and Nova going through tune ups)
Yeah I'm probably being a little too optimistic, there would still be a lot of backlash. I do hope at some point it happens though, I think it would be interesting to at least see what type of reaction the devs would get if they planned the nerf and posted all the details from start to finish on the forums before deciding whether they pull the trigger or not.
Can we also agree we don't know what Kabam would do if they decide to nerf Herc. Suggesting that he would still be good doesn't mean anything. Kabam's definition of good/usable champ is different from what the community thinks. Ronin is a good champion and underrated, so should hercules be balanced to ronin level? They can nerf higher rarity hercules, but leave the other rarity as they are. We know it's possible to do it based on how 1* champs have different kits from other * levels.
Highly unlikely, they're fully aware of how strong Herc is and how disappointed the playerbase would be if they absolutely ruined him 12.0 style (I'm pretty sure they learned their lesson with that one already lol). Also, when Quake's nerf details were posted by Miike they didn't sound bad at all and if they had nerfed her and released her as a 6* she still would've been top 5 science easily. Miike already made it very clear, a nerf like this one wouldn't be aimed at turning them into garbage, they would simply be taking them from absolutely broken down to Ghost level.
Ever since the buff/rebalancing program started, there have been a wide range of tune ups. From maw all the way to magneto. Maw is a good offensive champion, and Kabam are satisified with where he landed, so it's safe to say herc can be tuned down to that level. At least 1 of the devs has specifically said immortality and damage output is a problem. And at least 1 other i remember saying the special intercept herc has is not good. Depending on whether they would land on the damage tune down and changing the special intercept window to that of venompool, we could end up with a champ that is just not worth it anymore. Safer to do that to a 7* and above and leave the other rarities alone.
I don't think they would absolutely butcher him to that point, even though there are multiple things they'd like to address doesn't mean they would address every single one of them. If Quake (who would probably be as broken as Herc if she was a 6*) was going to be tuned down from broken to Ghost level I think they would do exactly the same with Herc, I don't see a reason for them not to.
I do agree though, if any nerfs were to happen for these champs I do think they should keep the rarities that currently exist as they are and only nerf the higher rarities which don't exist. That way it's a win win for everyone, if someone doesn't want to play the nerfed version fine you'll be able to play the broken version at a lower rarity, if you are interested in the higher rarities then you can use the nerfed versions. I genuinely don't understand why people are against this idea but oh well.
Personally I don't think there's a problem with his kit. Is he powerful? Absolutely but that doesn't mean he's the go to champ for all pieces of content. I have a 6 star awakened version yet I rarely use him because there are far more badass champs like Zemo or Psychoman.
That being said, I'd be pissed if they nerfed him because it seems like some people are more interested in chasing a cause rather than it being an actual problem.
Personally I don't think there's a problem with his kit. Is he powerful? Absolutely but that doesn't mean he's the go to champ for all pieces of content. I have a 6 star awakened version yet I rarely use him because there are far more badass champs like Zemo or Psychoman.
That being said, I'd be pissed if they nerfed him because it seems like some people are more interested in chasing a cause rather than it being an actual problem.
Can we also agree we don't know what Kabam would do if they decide to nerf Herc. Suggesting that he would still be good doesn't mean anything. Kabam's definition of good/usable champ is different from what the community thinks. Ronin is a good champion and underrated, so should hercules be balanced to ronin level? They can nerf higher rarity hercules, but leave the other rarity as they are. We know it's possible to do it based on how 1* champs have different kits from other * levels.
Highly unlikely, they're fully aware of how strong Herc is and how disappointed the playerbase would be if they absolutely ruined him 12.0 style (I'm pretty sure they learned their lesson with that one already lol). Also, when Quake's nerf details were posted by Miike they didn't sound bad at all and if they had nerfed her and released her as a 6* she still would've been top 5 science easily. Miike already made it very clear, a nerf like this one wouldn't be aimed at turning them into garbage, they would simply be taking them from absolutely broken down to Ghost level.
Ever since the buff/rebalancing program started, there have been a wide range of tune ups. From maw all the way to magneto. Maw is a good offensive champion, and Kabam are satisified with where he landed, so it's safe to say herc can be tuned down to that level. At least 1 of the devs has specifically said immortality and damage output is a problem. And at least 1 other i remember saying the special intercept herc has is not good. Depending on whether they would land on the damage tune down and changing the special intercept window to that of venompool, we could end up with a champ that is just not worth it anymore. Safer to do that to a 7* and above and leave the other rarities alone.
I don't think they would absolutely butcher him to that point, even though there are multiple things they'd like to address doesn't mean they would address every single one of them. If Quake (who would probably be as broken as Herc if she was a 6*) was going to be tuned down from broken to Ghost level I think they would do exactly the same with Herc, I don't see a reason for them not to.
I do agree though, if any nerfs were to happen for these champs I do think they should keep the rarities that currently exist as they are and only nerf the higher rarities which don't exist. That way it's a win win for everyone, if someone doesn't want to play the nerfed version fine you'll be able to play the broken version at a lower rarity, if you are interested in the higher rarities then you can use the nerfed versions. I genuinely don't understand why people are against this idea but oh well.
Just a quick word on different rarities.
The reason this is very unlikely to happen is that it adds loads of complexity to the game. And for experienced players in the loop, that’s fine. But for lower invested players it just makes the game feel very inaccessible, and for such a complex game already being inaccessible with 250ish champs, thousands of nodes, millions of interactions etc, decisions on how to make the game more accessible (and decisions on NOT making it less accessible) are being made constantly.
I know the point that will be brought up is that 1*s have different abilities. But you have to think about the actual impact this has, where new players would encounter these two situations, and what the ability difference in rarity is actually trying to accomplish.
For 1*s, it’s so that new players have a 2015 level kit to learn the game on in the first hour of playing. Giving them an extremely simple kit instead of a 2020+ kit. But it’s also extremely low impact, this is something that’s meant to help them on the first day so that they don’t quit because they can’t focus on learning combos, parry and dex because they’re trying to figure out why Gamora sometimes resets her buffs and sometimes don’t. Or why colossus does red damage on parry when nobody else does.
These are obviously incredibly simple to us, but it’s about making sure someone doesn’t quit in the first 30 mins of playing - we all know even new players move on from 1 stars so fast that they likely don’t even realise the champs have different kits when they get a higher rarity. Or if they do, that’s not much of a transition to deal with.
Its overall a very small impact, there’s no attachment to the 1 star champs, and if anything it’s a positive when they realise the champion is better at higher rarities. Here Kabam have balanced up two decisions that both add complexity and decided that new players later finding out that 1* champions have different abilities will make fewer new players quit, than trying to figure out why time is slowing down when using Hawkeye.
But now think about if 6* Hercules had current abilities, and 7* had slightly tuned down ones. A player who is not in the loop (which is the majority, the forums and YT are a bubble), doesn’t know Hercules was that powerful and doesn’t realise it is now very invested in Herc as a champion, maybe ranked Herc as a 6* and loves them. They pull a 7* and now feel betrayed that the champion is not as good, or even worse, they don’t go through and read the kit to make sure everything is the same (because why would they?) and rank them reasonably assuming the champ is the same.
That is a major point of inaccessibility from a game design perspective. It’s close to impossible to communicate that to enough people. And with moves to make the game as friendly as possible with how complex it is, it adds much more complexity in a way that probably isn’t something Kabam want to do. Only applying nerfs to certain rarities isn’t balancing two decisions on complexity like with the 1*s, it’s either adding complexity or not.
I would absolutely love it to be possible, I think it would be a nice solution. But for a very large section of the game, it only confuses, alienates and makes the game harder to get a hold of.
You’re obviously free to disagree with that, but that’s the thought process behind not wanting to give different rarities a nerf - and why it’s not necessarily a win win for everyone.
Can we also agree we don't know what Kabam would do if they decide to nerf Herc. Suggesting that he would still be good doesn't mean anything. Kabam's definition of good/usable champ is different from what the community thinks. Ronin is a good champion and underrated, so should hercules be balanced to ronin level? They can nerf higher rarity hercules, but leave the other rarity as they are. We know it's possible to do it based on how 1* champs have different kits from other * levels.
Highly unlikely, they're fully aware of how strong Herc is and how disappointed the playerbase would be if they absolutely ruined him 12.0 style (I'm pretty sure they learned their lesson with that one already lol). Also, when Quake's nerf details were posted by Miike they didn't sound bad at all and if they had nerfed her and released her as a 6* she still would've been top 5 science easily. Miike already made it very clear, a nerf like this one wouldn't be aimed at turning them into garbage, they would simply be taking them from absolutely broken down to Ghost level.
Ever since the buff/rebalancing program started, there have been a wide range of tune ups. From maw all the way to magneto. Maw is a good offensive champion, and Kabam are satisified with where he landed, so it's safe to say herc can be tuned down to that level. At least 1 of the devs has specifically said immortality and damage output is a problem. And at least 1 other i remember saying the special intercept herc has is not good. Depending on whether they would land on the damage tune down and changing the special intercept window to that of venompool, we could end up with a champ that is just not worth it anymore. Safer to do that to a 7* and above and leave the other rarities alone.
I don't think they would absolutely butcher him to that point, even though there are multiple things they'd like to address doesn't mean they would address every single one of them. If Quake (who would probably be as broken as Herc if she was a 6*) was going to be tuned down from broken to Ghost level I think they would do exactly the same with Herc, I don't see a reason for them not to.
I do agree though, if any nerfs were to happen for these champs I do think they should keep the rarities that currently exist as they are and only nerf the higher rarities which don't exist. That way it's a win win for everyone, if someone doesn't want to play the nerfed version fine you'll be able to play the broken version at a lower rarity, if you are interested in the higher rarities then you can use the nerfed versions. I genuinely don't understand why people are against this idea but oh well.
Just a quick word on different rarities.
The reason this is very unlikely to happen is that it adds loads of complexity to the game. And for experienced players in the loop, that’s fine. But for lower invested players it just makes the game feel very inaccessible, and for such a complex game already being inaccessible with 250ish champs, thousands of nodes, millions of interactions etc, decisions on how to make the game more accessible (and decisions on NOT making it less accessible) are being made constantly.
I know the point that will be brought up is that 1*s have different abilities. But you have to think about the actual impact this has, where new players would encounter these two situations, and what the ability difference in rarity is actually trying to accomplish.
For 1*s, it’s so that new players have a 2015 level kit to learn the game on in the first hour of playing. Giving them an extremely simple kit instead of a 2020+ kit. But it’s also extremely low impact, this is something that’s meant to help them on the first day so that they don’t quit because they can’t focus on learning combos, parry and dex because they’re trying to figure out why Gamora sometimes resets her buffs and sometimes don’t. Or why colossus does red damage on parry when nobody else does.
These are obviously incredibly simple to us, but it’s about making sure someone doesn’t quit in the first 30 mins of playing - we all know even new players move on from 1 stars so fast that they likely don’t even realise the champs have different kits when they get a higher rarity. Or if they do, that’s not much of a transition to deal with.
Its overall a very small impact, there’s no attachment to the 1 star champs, and if anything it’s a positive when they realise the champion is better at higher rarities. Here Kabam have balanced up two decisions that both add complexity and decided that new players later finding out that 1* champions have different abilities will make fewer new players quit, than trying to figure out why time is slowing down when using Hawkeye.
But now think about if 6* Hercules had current abilities, and 7* had slightly tuned down ones. A player who is not in the loop (which is the majority, the forums and YT are a bubble), doesn’t know Hercules was that powerful and doesn’t realise it is now very invested in Herc as a champion, maybe ranked Herc as a 6* and loves them. They pull a 7* and now feel betrayed that the champion is not as good, or even worse, they don’t go through and read the kit to make sure everything is the same (because why would they?) and rank them reasonably assuming the champ is the same.
That is a major point of inaccessibility from a game design perspective. It’s close to impossible to communicate that to enough people. And with moves to make the game as friendly as possible with how complex it is, it adds much more complexity in a way that probably isn’t something Kabam want to do. Only applying nerfs to certain rarities isn’t balancing two decisions on complexity like with the 1*s, it’s either adding complexity or not.
I would absolutely love it to be possible, I think it would be a nice solution. But for a very large section of the game, it only confuses, alienates and makes the game harder to get a hold of.
You’re obviously free to disagree with that, but that’s the thought process behind not wanting to give different rarities a nerf - and why it’s not necessarily a win win for everyone.
This seems like a circular problem with no end. It would make sense if the rebalancing program didn't exist. Gladiator was released in September, his rebalancing won't be out till April, so if most people are not as informed as you claim, they will still feel cheated when a champ gets tuned down due to rebalancing almost a year after acquiring them. Maybe the problem is complexity of making different rarities, but "confusing" the people that are not informed doesn't make sense when it comes to rebalancing champions. If a new player makes it to through 6* to 7*, they will probably notice the difference before even ranking him up.
Can we also agree we don't know what Kabam would do if they decide to nerf Herc. Suggesting that he would still be good doesn't mean anything. Kabam's definition of good/usable champ is different from what the community thinks. Ronin is a good champion and underrated, so should hercules be balanced to ronin level? They can nerf higher rarity hercules, but leave the other rarity as they are. We know it's possible to do it based on how 1* champs have different kits from other * levels.
Highly unlikely, they're fully aware of how strong Herc is and how disappointed the playerbase would be if they absolutely ruined him 12.0 style (I'm pretty sure they learned their lesson with that one already lol). Also, when Quake's nerf details were posted by Miike they didn't sound bad at all and if they had nerfed her and released her as a 6* she still would've been top 5 science easily. Miike already made it very clear, a nerf like this one wouldn't be aimed at turning them into garbage, they would simply be taking them from absolutely broken down to Ghost level.
Ever since the buff/rebalancing program started, there have been a wide range of tune ups. From maw all the way to magneto. Maw is a good offensive champion, and Kabam are satisified with where he landed, so it's safe to say herc can be tuned down to that level. At least 1 of the devs has specifically said immortality and damage output is a problem. And at least 1 other i remember saying the special intercept herc has is not good. Depending on whether they would land on the damage tune down and changing the special intercept window to that of venompool, we could end up with a champ that is just not worth it anymore. Safer to do that to a 7* and above and leave the other rarities alone.
I don't think they would absolutely butcher him to that point, even though there are multiple things they'd like to address doesn't mean they would address every single one of them. If Quake (who would probably be as broken as Herc if she was a 6*) was going to be tuned down from broken to Ghost level I think they would do exactly the same with Herc, I don't see a reason for them not to.
I do agree though, if any nerfs were to happen for these champs I do think they should keep the rarities that currently exist as they are and only nerf the higher rarities which don't exist. That way it's a win win for everyone, if someone doesn't want to play the nerfed version fine you'll be able to play the broken version at a lower rarity, if you are interested in the higher rarities then you can use the nerfed versions. I genuinely don't understand why people are against this idea but oh well.
Just a quick word on different rarities.
The reason this is very unlikely to happen is that it adds loads of complexity to the game. And for experienced players in the loop, that’s fine. But for lower invested players it just makes the game feel very inaccessible, and for such a complex game already being inaccessible with 250ish champs, thousands of nodes, millions of interactions etc, decisions on how to make the game more accessible (and decisions on NOT making it less accessible) are being made constantly.
I know the point that will be brought up is that 1*s have different abilities. But you have to think about the actual impact this has, where new players would encounter these two situations, and what the ability difference in rarity is actually trying to accomplish.
For 1*s, it’s so that new players have a 2015 level kit to learn the game on in the first hour of playing. Giving them an extremely simple kit instead of a 2020+ kit. But it’s also extremely low impact, this is something that’s meant to help them on the first day so that they don’t quit because they can’t focus on learning combos, parry and dex because they’re trying to figure out why Gamora sometimes resets her buffs and sometimes don’t. Or why colossus does red damage on parry when nobody else does.
These are obviously incredibly simple to us, but it’s about making sure someone doesn’t quit in the first 30 mins of playing - we all know even new players move on from 1 stars so fast that they likely don’t even realise the champs have different kits when they get a higher rarity. Or if they do, that’s not much of a transition to deal with.
Its overall a very small impact, there’s no attachment to the 1 star champs, and if anything it’s a positive when they realise the champion is better at higher rarities. Here Kabam have balanced up two decisions that both add complexity and decided that new players later finding out that 1* champions have different abilities will make fewer new players quit, than trying to figure out why time is slowing down when using Hawkeye.
But now think about if 6* Hercules had current abilities, and 7* had slightly tuned down ones. A player who is not in the loop (which is the majority, the forums and YT are a bubble), doesn’t know Hercules was that powerful and doesn’t realise it is now very invested in Herc as a champion, maybe ranked Herc as a 6* and loves them. They pull a 7* and now feel betrayed that the champion is not as good, or even worse, they don’t go through and read the kit to make sure everything is the same (because why would they?) and rank them reasonably assuming the champ is the same.
That is a major point of inaccessibility from a game design perspective. It’s close to impossible to communicate that to enough people. And with moves to make the game as friendly as possible with how complex it is, it adds much more complexity in a way that probably isn’t something Kabam want to do. Only applying nerfs to certain rarities isn’t balancing two decisions on complexity like with the 1*s, it’s either adding complexity or not.
I would absolutely love it to be possible, I think it would be a nice solution. But for a very large section of the game, it only confuses, alienates and makes the game harder to get a hold of.
You’re obviously free to disagree with that, but that’s the thought process behind not wanting to give different rarities a nerf - and why it’s not necessarily a win win for everyone.
This seems like a circular problem with no end. It would make sense if the rebalancing program didn't exist. Gladiator was released in September, his rebalancing won't be out till April, so if most people are not as informed as you claim, they will still feel cheated when a champ gets tuned down due to rebalancing almost a year after acquiring them. Maybe the problem is complexity of making different rarities, but "confusing" the people that are not informed doesn't make sense when it comes to rebalancing champions. If a new player makes it to through 6* to 7*, they will probably notice the difference before even ranking him up.
I do think the rebalancing period could be communicated better, but the program is a consistent thing that happens every month, it’s not something as rare and potentially confusing as why one (or even 1% if it happened to more) of the champions in game have different abilities at different levels. It’s also posted in patch notes, which I believe are sent out in ingame messages each month. Something like that can’t happen for one champion having different abilities (not that everyone reads the patch notes, but it catches some people).
Ultimately, Kabam have viewed the program as something that has low impact on complexity and high impact on the health of the game. I’ve not said that Kabam literally never want to add something potentially confusing to the game. Just that it’s about balancing up decisions
Your point on the program, though I understand why you're saying it, is kinda like a gotcha of “Aha! But Kabam also added some complexity here, therefore they should be fine adding complexity anywhere else!” When that’s really not the point.
Can we also agree we don't know what Kabam would do if they decide to nerf Herc. Suggesting that he would still be good doesn't mean anything. Kabam's definition of good/usable champ is different from what the community thinks. Ronin is a good champion and underrated, so should hercules be balanced to ronin level? They can nerf higher rarity hercules, but leave the other rarity as they are. We know it's possible to do it based on how 1* champs have different kits from other * levels.
Highly unlikely, they're fully aware of how strong Herc is and how disappointed the playerbase would be if they absolutely ruined him 12.0 style (I'm pretty sure they learned their lesson with that one already lol). Also, when Quake's nerf details were posted by Miike they didn't sound bad at all and if they had nerfed her and released her as a 6* she still would've been top 5 science easily. Miike already made it very clear, a nerf like this one wouldn't be aimed at turning them into garbage, they would simply be taking them from absolutely broken down to Ghost level.
Ever since the buff/rebalancing program started, there have been a wide range of tune ups. From maw all the way to magneto. Maw is a good offensive champion, and Kabam are satisified with where he landed, so it's safe to say herc can be tuned down to that level. At least 1 of the devs has specifically said immortality and damage output is a problem. And at least 1 other i remember saying the special intercept herc has is not good. Depending on whether they would land on the damage tune down and changing the special intercept window to that of venompool, we could end up with a champ that is just not worth it anymore. Safer to do that to a 7* and above and leave the other rarities alone.
I don't think they would absolutely butcher him to that point, even though there are multiple things they'd like to address doesn't mean they would address every single one of them. If Quake (who would probably be as broken as Herc if she was a 6*) was going to be tuned down from broken to Ghost level I think they would do exactly the same with Herc, I don't see a reason for them not to.
I do agree though, if any nerfs were to happen for these champs I do think they should keep the rarities that currently exist as they are and only nerf the higher rarities which don't exist. That way it's a win win for everyone, if someone doesn't want to play the nerfed version fine you'll be able to play the broken version at a lower rarity, if you are interested in the higher rarities then you can use the nerfed versions. I genuinely don't understand why people are against this idea but oh well.
Just a quick word on different rarities.
The reason this is very unlikely to happen is that it adds loads of complexity to the game. And for experienced players in the loop, that’s fine. But for lower invested players it just makes the game feel very inaccessible, and for such a complex game already being inaccessible with 250ish champs, thousands of nodes, millions of interactions etc, decisions on how to make the game more accessible (and decisions on NOT making it less accessible) are being made constantly.
I know the point that will be brought up is that 1*s have different abilities. But you have to think about the actual impact this has, where new players would encounter these two situations, and what the ability difference in rarity is actually trying to accomplish.
For 1*s, it’s so that new players have a 2015 level kit to learn the game on in the first hour of playing. Giving them an extremely simple kit instead of a 2020+ kit. But it’s also extremely low impact, this is something that’s meant to help them on the first day so that they don’t quit because they can’t focus on learning combos, parry and dex because they’re trying to figure out why Gamora sometimes resets her buffs and sometimes don’t. Or why colossus does red damage on parry when nobody else does.
These are obviously incredibly simple to us, but it’s about making sure someone doesn’t quit in the first 30 mins of playing - we all know even new players move on from 1 stars so fast that they likely don’t even realise the champs have different kits when they get a higher rarity. Or if they do, that’s not much of a transition to deal with.
Its overall a very small impact, there’s no attachment to the 1 star champs, and if anything it’s a positive when they realise the champion is better at higher rarities. Here Kabam have balanced up two decisions that both add complexity and decided that new players later finding out that 1* champions have different abilities will make fewer new players quit, than trying to figure out why time is slowing down when using Hawkeye.
But now think about if 6* Hercules had current abilities, and 7* had slightly tuned down ones. A player who is not in the loop (which is the majority, the forums and YT are a bubble), doesn’t know Hercules was that powerful and doesn’t realise it is now very invested in Herc as a champion, maybe ranked Herc as a 6* and loves them. They pull a 7* and now feel betrayed that the champion is not as good, or even worse, they don’t go through and read the kit to make sure everything is the same (because why would they?) and rank them reasonably assuming the champ is the same.
That is a major point of inaccessibility from a game design perspective. It’s close to impossible to communicate that to enough people. And with moves to make the game as friendly as possible with how complex it is, it adds much more complexity in a way that probably isn’t something Kabam want to do. Only applying nerfs to certain rarities isn’t balancing two decisions on complexity like with the 1*s, it’s either adding complexity or not.
I would absolutely love it to be possible, I think it would be a nice solution. But for a very large section of the game, it only confuses, alienates and makes the game harder to get a hold of.
You’re obviously free to disagree with that, but that’s the thought process behind not wanting to give different rarities a nerf - and why it’s not necessarily a win win for everyone.
This seems like a circular problem with no end. It would make sense if the rebalancing program didn't exist. Gladiator was released in September, his rebalancing won't be out till April, so if most people are not as informed as you claim, they will still feel cheated when a champ gets tuned down due to rebalancing almost a year after acquiring them. Maybe the problem is complexity of making different rarities, but "confusing" the people that are not informed doesn't make sense when it comes to rebalancing champions. If a new player makes it to through 6* to 7*, they will probably notice the difference before even ranking him up.
I do think the rebalancing period could be communicated better, but the program is a consistent thing that happens every month, it’s not something as rare and potentially confusing as why one (or even 1% if it happened to more) of the champions in game have different abilities at different levels. It’s also posted in patch notes, which I believe are sent out in ingame messages each month. Something like that can’t happen for one champion having different abilities (not that everyone reads the patch notes, but it catches some people).
Ultimately, Kabam have viewed the program as something that has low impact on complexity and high impact on the health of the game. I’ve not said that Kabam literally never want to add something potentially confusing to the game. Just that it’s about balancing up decisions
Your point on the program, though I understand why you're saying it, is kinda like a gotcha of “Aha! But Kabam also added some complexity here, therefore they should be fine adding complexity anywhere else!” When that’s really not the point.
Ah, so this is a Kabam conclusion, not just your opinion. Missed that. Well, then no point in asking them to make this change then
Can we also agree we don't know what Kabam would do if they decide to nerf Herc. Suggesting that he would still be good doesn't mean anything. Kabam's definition of good/usable champ is different from what the community thinks. Ronin is a good champion and underrated, so should hercules be balanced to ronin level? They can nerf higher rarity hercules, but leave the other rarity as they are. We know it's possible to do it based on how 1* champs have different kits from other * levels.
Highly unlikely, they're fully aware of how strong Herc is and how disappointed the playerbase would be if they absolutely ruined him 12.0 style (I'm pretty sure they learned their lesson with that one already lol). Also, when Quake's nerf details were posted by Miike they didn't sound bad at all and if they had nerfed her and released her as a 6* she still would've been top 5 science easily. Miike already made it very clear, a nerf like this one wouldn't be aimed at turning them into garbage, they would simply be taking them from absolutely broken down to Ghost level.
Ever since the buff/rebalancing program started, there have been a wide range of tune ups. From maw all the way to magneto. Maw is a good offensive champion, and Kabam are satisified with where he landed, so it's safe to say herc can be tuned down to that level. At least 1 of the devs has specifically said immortality and damage output is a problem. And at least 1 other i remember saying the special intercept herc has is not good. Depending on whether they would land on the damage tune down and changing the special intercept window to that of venompool, we could end up with a champ that is just not worth it anymore. Safer to do that to a 7* and above and leave the other rarities alone.
I don't think they would absolutely butcher him to that point, even though there are multiple things they'd like to address doesn't mean they would address every single one of them. If Quake (who would probably be as broken as Herc if she was a 6*) was going to be tuned down from broken to Ghost level I think they would do exactly the same with Herc, I don't see a reason for them not to.
I do agree though, if any nerfs were to happen for these champs I do think they should keep the rarities that currently exist as they are and only nerf the higher rarities which don't exist. That way it's a win win for everyone, if someone doesn't want to play the nerfed version fine you'll be able to play the broken version at a lower rarity, if you are interested in the higher rarities then you can use the nerfed versions. I genuinely don't understand why people are against this idea but oh well.
Just a quick word on different rarities.
The reason this is very unlikely to happen is that it adds loads of complexity to the game. And for experienced players in the loop, that’s fine. But for lower invested players it just makes the game feel very inaccessible, and for such a complex game already being inaccessible with 250ish champs, thousands of nodes, millions of interactions etc, decisions on how to make the game more accessible (and decisions on NOT making it less accessible) are being made constantly.
I know the point that will be brought up is that 1*s have different abilities. But you have to think about the actual impact this has, where new players would encounter these two situations, and what the ability difference in rarity is actually trying to accomplish.
For 1*s, it’s so that new players have a 2015 level kit to learn the game on in the first hour of playing. Giving them an extremely simple kit instead of a 2020+ kit. But it’s also extremely low impact, this is something that’s meant to help them on the first day so that they don’t quit because they can’t focus on learning combos, parry and dex because they’re trying to figure out why Gamora sometimes resets her buffs and sometimes don’t. Or why colossus does red damage on parry when nobody else does.
These are obviously incredibly simple to us, but it’s about making sure someone doesn’t quit in the first 30 mins of playing - we all know even new players move on from 1 stars so fast that they likely don’t even realise the champs have different kits when they get a higher rarity. Or if they do, that’s not much of a transition to deal with.
Its overall a very small impact, there’s no attachment to the 1 star champs, and if anything it’s a positive when they realise the champion is better at higher rarities. Here Kabam have balanced up two decisions that both add complexity and decided that new players later finding out that 1* champions have different abilities will make fewer new players quit, than trying to figure out why time is slowing down when using Hawkeye.
But now think about if 6* Hercules had current abilities, and 7* had slightly tuned down ones. A player who is not in the loop (which is the majority, the forums and YT are a bubble), doesn’t know Hercules was that powerful and doesn’t realise it is now very invested in Herc as a champion, maybe ranked Herc as a 6* and loves them. They pull a 7* and now feel betrayed that the champion is not as good, or even worse, they don’t go through and read the kit to make sure everything is the same (because why would they?) and rank them reasonably assuming the champ is the same.
That is a major point of inaccessibility from a game design perspective. It’s close to impossible to communicate that to enough people. And with moves to make the game as friendly as possible with how complex it is, it adds much more complexity in a way that probably isn’t something Kabam want to do. Only applying nerfs to certain rarities isn’t balancing two decisions on complexity like with the 1*s, it’s either adding complexity or not.
I would absolutely love it to be possible, I think it would be a nice solution. But for a very large section of the game, it only confuses, alienates and makes the game harder to get a hold of.
You’re obviously free to disagree with that, but that’s the thought process behind not wanting to give different rarities a nerf - and why it’s not necessarily a win win for everyone.
This seems like a circular problem with no end. It would make sense if the rebalancing program didn't exist. Gladiator was released in September, his rebalancing won't be out till April, so if most people are not as informed as you claim, they will still feel cheated when a champ gets tuned down due to rebalancing almost a year after acquiring them. Maybe the problem is complexity of making different rarities, but "confusing" the people that are not informed doesn't make sense when it comes to rebalancing champions. If a new player makes it to through 6* to 7*, they will probably notice the difference before even ranking him up.
I do think the rebalancing period could be communicated better, but the program is a consistent thing that happens every month, it’s not something as rare and potentially confusing as why one (or even 1% if it happened to more) of the champions in game have different abilities at different levels. It’s also posted in patch notes, which I believe are sent out in ingame messages each month. Something like that can’t happen for one champion having different abilities (not that everyone reads the patch notes, but it catches some people).
Ultimately, Kabam have viewed the program as something that has low impact on complexity and high impact on the health of the game. I’ve not said that Kabam literally never want to add something potentially confusing to the game. Just that it’s about balancing up decisions
Your point on the program, though I understand why you're saying it, is kinda like a gotcha of “Aha! But Kabam also added some complexity here, therefore they should be fine adding complexity anywhere else!” When that’s really not the point.
Ah, so this is a Kabam conclusion, not just your opinion. Missed that. Well, then no point in asking them to make this change then
Kinda no and kinda yeah? To be clear a lot of this is my opinion. It’s based off conversations with them about this but this hasn’t been explicitly said. I’m not just re-wording what I’ve heard here and saying all of this is 100% endorsed, Kabam opinion.
I do know they don’t want to add complexity where it’s not needed, and I do know they view nerfing one rarity as adding complexity and that’s why they may not want to do it. But my opinion is more about the 1* rarity difference, and the program difference.
But also, none of it is set in stone, it hasn’t been decided officially, and if you want to make your case for why a nerf to future rarities is good then by all means go for it, it’s a good conversation to have.
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
herc is still solid for BGs but isn't a key attacker or defender like he used to be:
1. globals are reducing his effectiveness (prey on the weak, hazard shift bleed/schock, focused nullify/regen, buffet over time, powerful from afar, polka dot power, safeguard).
2. overshadowed by science attackers in general, newer OP attackers (kate, titania), and other champs that counter the global (wwbn).
3. reduced defensive value (maestro, onsalught, photon, bullseye, mystics).
his value in war has diminished:
1. banned or blacklisted most of the time
2. when he's whitelisted he's not useful (he was available during decay/sugar pill and basically unusable. not a coincidence imo).
herc is still good but not the powerhouse he once was in BGs and he's handcuffed in AW.
Herc was still a powerful attacker in a fair few of those metas, he was still used for safeguard for example by a lot of high ranking players, and looks like he will be absolutely fine in next season as well - he will have metas he does and doesn't work for in the future too. It doesn't mean that "especially high tier players are hardly ever using him" which is what i was responding to. Metas always mess with different champs, i don't think it's a reason to discount the fact he's still very powerful there as well. I don't think his value has diminished except for defensively due to scoring changes no longer prioritising time as much, he's a stall defender that heals the attacker
I can guarantee his value in war has not diminished. In my opinion he's not getting banned any more often than he was in the past, meaning I'm not sure what you mean by his value diminishing. If you're only talking about the fact he gets banned, then I don't see the argument of black list meaning he doesn't get used. (And side note, I know you didn't say this bit - this is more general.) But i also don't see it as a reason that he's not too powerful or shouldn't be nerfed.
Firstly, it takes up a ban that you could use on an actual tactic attacker or other strong attacker. Secondly not every alliance does ban him. Last season 6/12 alliances we faced in Masters war banned herc, leaving him open for the other half of the season. And thirdly, and most importantly, the whitelist means he is unbanned and that's when alliances can spam him all over the place.
I understand your point on when he doesn't work for a defence tactic, but you can't fill a map with tactic defenders. So Herc can be used for the non-tactic fights, and not every tactic is going to shut him down. This one doesn't, prowess power didn't either.
Basically, i just disagree with the idea that Hercules isn't being used in high tier war. If he wasn't being used, then alliances wouldn't have felt the need to ban him, when he is unbanned people *are* using him, i've assigned him, i've seen other alliances do it too, and when he's white listed he will be used that season too - even if the tactic stops him because there are always other champions to use him against. Literally that's all I'm disagreeing with here, the fact that OP said Herc wasn't being used. Because he categorically is...
For him to even be as good as you describe for BGs, one has to be proficient with light intercepts, building up with the “dash back light” etc, but light intercepts are always risky to me. They rely on AI cooperation and even with infuriate they dont always dash to you, or they hesitate just a little bit to make it where you can sometimes get hit /intercepted yourself
Herc discourse in 2024 is wild lol. Besides incursions and AQ people hardly use him anymore especially endgame players
This really, really isn’t true. He’s used an incredible amount in high tier wars, and he’s an incredibly strong BGs champ too.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share specifics, but the amount of Herc ascensions are wild compared to other champs.
I’m glad i did it since Miike basically confirmed Herc won’t have much value in future content going forward
That's not what Miike said. He said Herc isn't getting nerfed at this time, but they do want to nerf him. Not that they will, or are going to, or have plans to. There's no need for any fear mongering or misinformation based off what Miike said.
Hercules will have value in the game even if we see anti-herc nodes come out more often, they will not be everywhere. And even if Herc *did* get a nerf, there would be rank down, anti-ascension tickets etc, and also he would remain an objectively great champion. A nerf would not be aimed at 12.0 style root and stem destruction, Kabam have learned from that and they don't want to do it again. A Herc nerf would be pulling him down from a broken 12/10 champ to a 9-10/10. He would still be the strongest stun immune champ in the game, still have some really great utility in miss/autoblock counter, sp3 tanking and immortality (which would stay in some form, likely just not egregious enough to let him do what he does).
All this to say, 1) nobody should be worried about investing in him, and 2) it's silly to say that Herc would have no or not much value in the future - whether they're worried about a nerf, or anti-herc nodes
Never said anything about him being nerfed, I’m talking about future content being designed around him. The same way he wasnt viable for Necropolis is just an example and probably a precedent
Comments
I want him nerfed for the same reason I want Magik and Quake nerfed, I want to be able to use them, not because I'm a ****. They can keep the 5* versions broken if they want but I wish I could play with the tuned down 6* versions. The same will happen with Herc eventually once we start getting r4 7* (yes I know it'll take a year or more for that to happen but it will happen).
Acting like he isn't overpowered is also comical. Multiple threads being made about one Champ isn't because he's just "good" 😅.
1. globals are reducing his effectiveness (prey on the weak, hazard shift bleed/schock, focused nullify/regen, buffet over time, powerful from afar, polka dot power, safeguard).
2. overshadowed by science attackers in general, newer OP attackers (kate, titania), and other champs that counter the global (wwbn).
3. reduced defensive value (maestro, onsalught, photon, bullseye, mystics).
his value in war has diminished:
1. banned or blacklisted most of the time
2. when he's whitelisted he's not useful (he was available during decay/sugar pill and basically unusable. not a coincidence imo).
herc is still good but not the powerhouse he once was in BGs and he's handcuffed in AW.
Herc was my 1st r5 & when ascension was 1st being released, I was absolutely positive he was going to be ascended. Hulkling & Galan are my 2 ascended cosmics. 5 ascension later & he's still not. Most likely, never will be...
I can guarantee his value in war has not diminished. In my opinion he's not getting banned any more often than he was in the past, meaning I'm not sure what you mean by his value diminishing. If you're only talking about the fact he gets banned, then I don't see the argument of black list meaning he doesn't get used. (And side note, I know you didn't say this bit - this is more general.) But i also don't see it as a reason that he's not too powerful or shouldn't be nerfed.
Firstly, it takes up a ban that you could use on an actual tactic attacker or other strong attacker. Secondly not every alliance does ban him. Last season 6/12 alliances we faced in Masters war banned herc, leaving him open for the other half of the season. And thirdly, and most importantly, the whitelist means he is unbanned and that's when alliances can spam him all over the place.
I understand your point on when he doesn't work for a defence tactic, but you can't fill a map with tactic defenders. So Herc can be used for the non-tactic fights, and not every tactic is going to shut him down. This one doesn't, prowess power didn't either.
Basically, i just disagree with the idea that Hercules isn't being used in high tier war. If he wasn't being used, then alliances wouldn't have felt the need to ban him, when he is unbanned people *are* using him, i've assigned him, i've seen other alliances do it too, and when he's white listed he will be used that season too - even if the tactic stops him because there are always other champions to use him against. Literally that's all I'm disagreeing with here, the fact that OP said Herc wasn't being used. Because he categorically is...
Hercules will have value in the game even if we see anti-herc nodes come out more often, they will not be everywhere. And even if Herc *did* get a nerf, there would be rank down, anti-ascension tickets etc, and also he would remain an objectively great champion. A nerf would not be aimed at 12.0 style root and stem destruction, Kabam have learned from that and they don't want to do it again. A Herc nerf would be pulling him down from a broken 12/10 champ to a 9-10/10. He would still be the strongest stun immune champ in the game, still have some really great utility in miss/autoblock counter, sp3 tanking and immortality (which would stay in some form, likely just not egregious enough to let him do what he does).
All this to say, 1) nobody should be worried about investing in him, and 2) it's silly to say that Herc would have no or not much value in the future - whether they're worried about a nerf, or anti-herc nodes
I think if they shared the full details maybe people wouldn't be so negative about nerf cause I think a lot of people are worried they might take him from 20/10 to -10/10.
Also, when Quake's nerf details were posted by Miike they didn't sound bad at all and if they had nerfed her and released her as a 6* she still would've been top 5 science easily. Miike already made it very clear, a nerf like this one wouldn't be aimed at turning them into garbage, they would simply be taking them from absolutely broken down to Ghost level.
I do think it would be interesting to see the reaction to it, but i don't think it would cool things down *much*. A lot of people just hate the concepts of nerfs full stop. I understand it, but i do wish nerfs were more common in MCOC and had been built in earlier on in the game. Even if we had the rebalancing when Herc was released, could have saved us a hell of a lot of trouble (and not to mention champs like Super Skrull and Nova going through tune ups)
I do agree though, if any nerfs were to happen for these champs I do think they should keep the rarities that currently exist as they are and only nerf the higher rarities which don't exist. That way it's a win win for everyone, if someone doesn't want to play the nerfed version fine you'll be able to play the broken version at a lower rarity, if you are interested in the higher rarities then you can use the nerfed versions. I genuinely don't understand why people are against this idea but oh well.
That being said, I'd be pissed if they nerfed him because it seems like some people are more interested in chasing a cause rather than it being an actual problem.
The reason this is very unlikely to happen is that it adds loads of complexity to the game. And for experienced players in the loop, that’s fine. But for lower invested players it just makes the game feel very inaccessible, and for such a complex game already being inaccessible with 250ish champs, thousands of nodes, millions of interactions etc, decisions on how to make the game more accessible (and decisions on NOT making it less accessible) are being made constantly.
I know the point that will be brought up is that 1*s have different abilities. But you have to think about the actual impact this has, where new players would encounter these two situations, and what the ability difference in rarity is actually trying to accomplish.
For 1*s, it’s so that new players have a 2015 level kit to learn the game on in the first hour of playing. Giving them an extremely simple kit instead of a 2020+ kit. But it’s also extremely low impact, this is something that’s meant to help them on the first day so that they don’t quit because they can’t focus on learning combos, parry and dex because they’re trying to figure out why Gamora sometimes resets her buffs and sometimes don’t. Or why colossus does red damage on parry when nobody else does.
These are obviously incredibly simple to us, but it’s about making sure someone doesn’t quit in the first 30 mins of playing - we all know even new players move on from 1 stars so fast that they likely don’t even realise the champs have different kits when they get a higher rarity. Or if they do, that’s not much of a transition to deal with.
Its overall a very small impact, there’s no attachment to the 1 star champs, and if anything it’s a positive when they realise the champion is better at higher rarities. Here Kabam have balanced up two decisions that both add complexity and decided that new players later finding out that 1* champions have different abilities will make fewer new players quit, than trying to figure out why time is slowing down when using Hawkeye.
But now think about if 6* Hercules had current abilities, and 7* had slightly tuned down ones. A player who is not in the loop (which is the majority, the forums and YT are a bubble), doesn’t know Hercules was that powerful and doesn’t realise it is now very invested in Herc as a champion, maybe ranked Herc as a 6* and loves them. They pull a 7* and now feel betrayed that the champion is not as good, or even worse, they don’t go through and read the kit to make sure everything is the same (because why would they?) and rank them reasonably assuming the champ is the same.
That is a major point of inaccessibility from a game design perspective. It’s close to impossible to communicate that to enough people. And with moves to make the game as friendly as possible with how complex it is, it adds much more complexity in a way that probably isn’t something Kabam want to do. Only applying nerfs to certain rarities isn’t balancing two decisions on complexity like with the 1*s, it’s either adding complexity or not.
I would absolutely love it to be possible, I think it would be a nice solution. But for a very large section of the game, it only confuses, alienates and makes the game harder to get a hold of.
You’re obviously free to disagree with that, but that’s the thought process behind not wanting to give different rarities a nerf - and why it’s not necessarily a win win for everyone.
Ultimately, Kabam have viewed the program as something that has low impact on complexity and high impact on the health of the game. I’ve not said that Kabam literally never want to add something potentially confusing to the game. Just that it’s about balancing up decisions
Your point on the program, though I understand why you're saying it, is kinda like a gotcha of “Aha! But Kabam also added some complexity here, therefore they should be fine adding complexity anywhere else!” When that’s really not the point.
I do know they don’t want to add complexity where it’s not needed, and I do know they view nerfing one rarity as adding complexity and that’s why they may not want to do it. But my opinion is more about the 1* rarity difference, and the program difference.
But also, none of it is set in stone, it hasn’t been decided officially, and if you want to make your case for why a nerf to future rarities is good then by all means go for it, it’s a good conversation to have.
So nobody else gets to?
Should be same rewards for same effort.
You can wreck paths with a pre-12 witch but now have to actually work for it?
It’s not the same game.