**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
How exactly is Herc bad for the game?
This discussion has been closed.
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.