That’s exactly my point, it is based on the fact that you don’t have these mons and you may feel it’s annoying/too good against what you have. But someone else can easily come along thinking "if I don’t have to deal with Prixis and Sakuralisk which makes what I have miserable I will be fine, therefore Prixis and Sakuralisk needs a nerf " etc.
I think monster balancing requires a wider perspective backed with lots of data. Obviously there are changes that are logical and easy but I don’t think it’s a simple change X by Y.
How many of that will be players who don’t have the aforementioned mons or they simply counter their team? How will that be an informed decision and not bias opinion?
You can actually gauge Dev’s thinking on balancing with the amount of anti-poison/payback mons released over the last few months. Together with the fact that they rather release new mythics (Apollonis, Gabrielle, Majorie etc) almost underwhelming in some case, just to buff them later to avoid having to nerf them if they were a bit too good at launch.
They’re good against what almost everyone has, which is why I included them in the poll.
I don’t have access to the data that the devs have but even they aren’t doing much of a good job balancing oppressive strats. The votes on these polls combine a bunch of different perspectives that are influenced by how much pvp they play, what monsters they own, what pvp lvl they’re at, etc. to give us a decent read on what players think is problematic. The options are all filtered through me, but I do think I covered almost everything that could be nerfed. I suppose sakuralisk could be nerfed but I highly doubt that given the relative lack of support I’ve seen and how it’s gone so many years without a nerf. Satomi, exocross, and prixis are probably fine as they are. I doubt they’d get above even soral or gremoris if I had included them as options. In the end, the devs will take a look at what we voted on and compare that to all the pvp data that they have access to. Hopefully this helps them make a decision on what to do for the next update.
That really hasn’t done much tbh. Take a look at all the popular suggestions on the poll and you’ll notice a huge portion of the top pvp bracket is taken up by players using them.
P.s: Yes my view is biased, i own many of the mons.
I dont agree with any of the nerfs mentioned here. Considering the previous track records of mons nerfed are often killed altogether.
Any of these mentioned proposal dont resolve the problems mentioned with the above mons. I guarantee you it doesnt solve the main problem.
Carmilla’s moveset/passive arent the real problem. Most people underscore the advantage of having link shadow setup.
Here are some common scenario of what really happens when you face carmilla, you often also see a mons like instant knockback or an undying token(yin or yang). Not to mention she herself can sleep the mons making it 2v4. Whether i like it or not this is the major problem when facing carmilla teams. The support for shadow has gone through the roof considering the number of mons released. 2 stun counters, really good legendary being released alongside good speed for all of these support mons. Or a specific indirect stealth buff thanks to poison immune buffs on specific mons and a new ticket mons.
I could make a similar case for maeve and kanna teams but considering the recent release of mons i dont think they need nerfs at all. They will become useless in a meta where we are now seeing really op passives being handed out. Case in point: both anniversary mythics, g.f sakura, both upcoming super epics, prixis, etc.
I do however agree with reverting the nerf on kuraokami and nauticruiser.
I also propose changing of restrict list every month. We could also create another list where in we can perma ban certain mons for a season for much better pvp team diversity.
@Lacktwo You just wrote the most eloquent thing I’ve read, well done, they talk about Maeve’s nullifying blow and they don’t realize that it is her only killer shot without high TU conditions, if you remove her high damage, the 70% will be practically useless of matches as his other killer move relies on a blood charge. Sometimes I laugh because against a simple FL of darkness like Novadrake+frog that enrages, Maeve doesn’t play😂. Don’t worry, I don’t worry either, Maeve won’t be nerfed, but there are still players who don’t give up. I don’t have Carmilla, maybe her draining attack needs more TU, but that’s all, I don’t think they’re going to nerf her (destroy) as some players want too. Good night
Actually I think they shld just buff other big category moves to the level of nullifying strike , the state of the neo rn is just tanky stuffs those move really does not do much (except when the mons is boosted).
I can vouch for Duck at this point. He has a history of looking relatively unbiased at the meta. He’s been pushing for nerfs that affected him quite a lot in the past and his nerf polls also have a tradition of having at least some influence on the next balance changes. Also usually mythic owners are super biased in not wanting their myths to change (which is fine) so it wouldn’t help if only the owners of said mythics would be allowed to determine whether a monster should be changed or not.
I think this poll is a good starting point for a discussion. Let’s wait for the results and then we can still discuss whether those suggestions are reasonable or not.
At work rn @NMEduck so apologies for not having time to reply to your poll just yet, but I wanted to touch base here on what the devs will and won’t nerf and how they will end up nerfing it and if you look at it thus far the new SE archetype being released (one in PvP the other in Island challenge so far) both are fantastic pseudo counters to stun that will help resolve the problem instead of nerfing stun further as has been discussed for a long time, and as far as I can see this new archetype does not benefit nor is it hindered from being played by itself so that’s a good way to help things along.
This is relatively true, however most of the time our being “super biased” comes from other people’s opinion because we have the instruments to test what others can’t test.
Just an example of this is Carmilla, I am actually using her and I strongly believe she need a nerf, on the other hand I am not using any longer Kanna and even if finding her against me can screw my games, I believe a nerf on her passive does not sit right with me.
The true “biased” thing in my opinion is looking at the single monster and not at the potential, long ago I proposed some nerfs (some of them are in this list), and I had people telling me “nobody uses Uraniumedhus”, now after VD will start being in play I want to see those same people going around saying Uraniumedhus is broken.
So my advice is: disagree with the suggestion if you have to, but don’t label players as “super biased” because they might have a point you can’t see.
It’s just to help it get noticed for a few days so people can participate in the poll The pin literally has a timer, I think I set it to go until next Monday. If we had polls going on constantly I’d definitely be more picky about which get pinned but I personally can’t see the harm.
I second this. Duck has a really good grasp of everything to do with PvP and is good at picking out balance changes that would make a positive difference without going overboard in any direction. He was also very upfront that he threw this poll together without a lot of consideration first, so it would be unfair to get too picky about its construction or some of options. It’s a fairly good opportunity to share our thoughts on the things brought up.
Mfs be calling me biased while I push for heavy nerfs to both the frontline and endgame I used to reach 78k rating just two weeks ago
If anything, I’m biased against the strats I use because I know exactly how powerful they are. I just checked my stats and it turns out I’ve pushed for nerfs to literally over half the teams I’ve used to get in the top 3. I really doubt anyone else comes close to this.
The pin literally has a timer, I think I set it to go until next Monday. If we had polls going on constantly I’d definitely be more picky about which get pinned but I personally can’t see the harm.