Every update, we see nerfs of heroes who dominate because of the way that they are designed. Take Shivs for example. She’s a heavy dps frontline mech. But because there were players who whined about how hard she was to beat, she got a massive nerf. Comment below if you have thoughts on updates, nerfs, buffs, or just opinions in general. It would be nice to see what others think on this.
That’s not why she got an adjustment. We’ve spoken on this numerous times. We’re data-informed when it comes to Hero adjustments. Absolutely no changes happen due to player feedback, at least directly. Feedback might give us a place to focus our searches, but if we don’t find anything worth adjusting, we won’t. We don’t tally up complaints and use that as the sole basis for decisions. Adjustments also come in waves, ie. with every update. This means a Hero might have an adjustment in the works that we can’t talk about, that you might see at a later time. Skinner Box thinking may lead some people to think that some changes are reactionary, however. I can assure you that they’re not.
What i like best from this game is that you have so many different heroes to choose from.i dont like the thought of heroes being created equal. It is fun when there is a dominating hero that is better than most, that’s what is so unique about this game. But lately all the heroes keep getting demoted and it takes the fun Factor away. What’s the point of getting a new hero that is going to be equally crappy? The fun factor and anticipation goes out the window.
All heroes should be good in different ways. If there’s just a handful of super heroes then all we’re doing is playing variations of teams that feature those super heroes. All 80 or so heroes should be able to be used in at least one top flight team composition (PVP, bounty or otherwise), otherwise they’re just wasted space.
Jkethesnake1: With no disrespect, I strongly disagree. All heroes should be different but equally “useful” in my opinion. I think it is good that the developers take a diligent role in balancing the characters. I don’t like the power creeping thing where every new hero is stronger than the last, making previous heroes we’ve put time and energy into more and more obsolete. However, I accept the fact that the people making the game have to make a profit too, and consumers just won’t spend money on a free-to-play game unless paying money makes them instantly ahead of the curve.
It’s just like pokemon cards, if the pokemon didn’t get stronger and stronger every season, you’d just play with the old cards and not buy new ones. So although I don’t prefer Jkethesnake1 universe, I do think it’s a reasonable thing to do, the developers work hard and deserve to make a profit.
The power creep is probably one of the things I hate most about HH, but I agree that they’ve gotta keep the lights on. I just wish there was a way to do it while maintaining hero balance.
I don’t know that there is, it’s not like HH is the only one doing it, every game does it.
I mean, maybe make a diamond class that adds no skills but increases stats? That way they can derive income from people trying to grind up the bars. The constant expansion of heroes and neglect of some heroes is kind of disheartening. Why spend money to open a crate when half of the heroes aren’t good?
I honestly wish they wouldn’t release heroes so quickly, 1-2/month is a lot; in no time at all we will have 100+ heroes, and it will feel a little unruly at that point. However, if they want to embrace the whole power creep thing, they could create an option for “cashing in” a character. Like, deleting them for a reward that’s worthwhile. IDK, what are some thoughts on that?
Nice idea, but not viable the way the game is currently structured. We’d just cash in a lot of obsolete characters to level up the newly released characters.
Hi ryan hero hunters is nothing like pokeyman. This is a fun game that alot of adults like to play, reminds me of gi joes or something. You have low tier guys,med tear guys and hi tier guys. I wouldn’t want it any other way. Who ever created this game did an awsome job with makeing it this way. However I am concerned about all these tweaks they been doing. Its not cool if every guy on hear is in the same tier or same class. Thats what makes this game fun, hopeing you can score a good hero that is on another level/tier/class even the lower guys can be useful in different areas. Just because they ant the best for pvp they are good at other stuff. I guess what im trying to say is it wouldn’t be as fun if rare heroes were equal to the rest lol and i hate hearing about someone being demoted becase “its not fair” it is getting ridiculous, at this pace are they going to remove heroes because they offend people? Smh
A lot of adults play Pokemon.
Sorry, should’ve clarified; I meant the pokemon trading card game, not video game. In it, every player tries to build the best deck (i.e. HH 5-man-team) from the same card-pool (i.e. Hero-pool). This requires paying special attention to the way cards work and intact with each other, which makes it a fun, strategy game.
When Pokemon TCG came out, the highest HP was 120, the highest damage 100. Now, there are cards with 240+ HP that do 200+ damage. There are also cards that support better than all previous renditions. Thus, there is no reason to play the older cards, because they are outclassed at everything, so people don’t. That’s the power creep for money/profit. If Pokemon didn’t do that, people would play with their old/stale collections forever.
But, I am not merely collecting HH heroes, hoping to get a good one. It’s is a strategy game. If I want, I can just farm heronium and buy Kurtz with frags. The point of the game for me is not to acquire Kurtz, it’s to have fun employing strategy. If that strategy devolves to just, use all the newest heroes, that’s not much strategy.
Now imagine if pokemon released only 1-2 cards/month, and you only played 5 cards in a deck. Not much strategy at all. All strategy games are more strategic (and more fun) if all playable characters have near-equal potential usefulness (for PVP), but are very different. It’s less strategic/fun when I’m choosing my team really from not amongst 70 heroes, but from amongst 10 more or less good ones.
Im not saying the other 60+ heroes are useless, but I am saying the game is less strategic and less fun when characters are less balanced.
If people would learn how to use heroes more effectively, they wouldn’t complain about their use quite as much. And as you’ve indicated, although complaints don’t result in adjustments “directly”, these posts put them on your radar. Based on your numerous responses to this same concern in posts in the past, wouldn’t a reasonable assumption be that if they’re not on your radar, the likelihood of an adjustment one way or another decreases a bit? If so the general sentiment of the op is reasonable. I too wish people would understand that they’re not going to win every time. in fact, the more they play, the more they’ll lose. So when they don’t win as much as they’d like, instead of trying to “Get gud” through time/effort/experimentation they want you to take care of their inadequacies for them.
Dude I made it inside the top 20 in the last brawl (when everyone’s characters are normalized to 8 star plat). I like to that I’m actually pretty good at this game. If I’m complaining about a character it’s not because I’m terrible, it’s bc I genuinely think that character is imbalanced.
I believe the ppl complaining most about nerfs happening are mostly the people who pay-to-win, and then get upset their investment has been devalued. Making characters balanced is what makes a strategy game a strategy game. Here here, Grasher.
That’s dumb. So what if she’s supposed to be a heavy dps frontline mech? If she is doing way more than her mech dps frontliners and dps across the board without anything to balance it out, that’s a justfied nerf.