I’m tired of playing 4vs5 when I have Toby,Attikus and Whiskey on the team.
This post is not helping at all. (EDIT: Okay, I was ninjad by flags^^)
Though I might add that lost matches does not have to be related with the choosen characters exclusively. Tactics can be sabotaged by the enemy, the tides of luck can change in the wrong moment, ect.
I saw crazy Tobys and really scary good Attikusses(?) in the battlefield, which surprised me considering all the complains in the forums here.
That doesn’t mean anything when the characters I mentioned are the worst 5 characters in the game. Anybody with a premade who are feasting on weak random teams can look good with the bad characters. I’m talking about the characters themselves not the people who are playing them. The three of them have serious issues and are not playable in pvp. In PVE they are doable not competitive.
Multiple character balance changes happened every week in May.
To your actual question though, as soon as they figure out what to do with those characters, and code it. If they decide those characters need buffs.
I don’t think Gearbox will make sweeping changes in multiple characters at a time, now. They’ll go steady. Just my guess.
I’ll rephrase for him. We have a new patch out that has zero character balance changes, yet there are clearly still balance issues. For the majority of players, Toby, Attikus, Whiskey, and a couple of others perform below par.
If I had to guess, I’d say that Gearbox is following the model of many other games - balance solely based on character performance in the hands of upper elite teams in PVP but ignore data from players that are mere mortals.
The point you present in your post has always fascinated me; Why is it people dont like balancing to be done according to the higher echelon of player statistics? Because then you just know youre not as good as you need to be to use a specific character or mechanic as good as it could be used? That just seems too silly. Id like to understand this view-point better
Edit: My post seems insensitive and nearly rude, please dont take it that way. Im asking for legitimate enlightenment on the view-point of balancing for the masses and not balancing on skilled performances
No offense taken. I understand your point of view completely. Unfortunately, many game companies ignore mine - to their detriment.
The overwhelming majority of players will never reach the upper echelon. Whether these non-elites are noobs, twitch incompetent, visually impaired, mentally impaired, non-strategic thinkers, grind averse, research averse, or for any other reason - they will never be considered to be among the greatest players. Balancing the skill floor is as important, if not more so, to the continued popularity and health of the game than balancing the skill ceiling. In other words, if you don’t cater somewhat to the canon fodder, who are the elites going to be elite against?
Dont they try to balance a few characters every Thursday with a hot fix? I think they’ll continue with this strategy for balancing unless they decide to completely revamp a character(which I dont see happening)
Okay, I see that and it gives me an easier time understanding that. Thanks for explaining, I guess Ive been ignorant to the development in individual players and just assumed a bottom-line when the reality is that people end up all over the skill-chart, not just all starting at a particular average. Seems kinda obvious now lol
Interesting, can’t say much for WF or Atikus but I do use Toby quite often and would be interested to hear what they should buff. As far as I’m concerned his weakness (for what I use him for anyway) is his ult. I actually think Toby is incredibly dangerous and can give teams fits.
I dunno, Attikus is one of the best late game characters, and a good Toby can shut down an entire lane by himself.
Also, a Whiskey Foxtrot with good aim, and the right mutations can out DPS Oscar Mike without a problem.
Toby isn’t weak at all. The one change I think they should make for Toby is to remove the health from his screen and give it a fixed duration (increased by what is currently a health augment).
The problem with buffing Whiskey or Attikus is that they are more difficult than they are weak. If you buff them, the players that can already be effective with them will become monstrous.
The one thing they might consider for Whiskey is flipping mutations into his basic kit, so that less investment is needed to start unlocking his potential (I don’t play him, but have heard repeatedly that this is a thing with him). Re: Attikus, a slight buff to early game sustain might be in order, but only if it it doesn’t make him stronger late. These are more usability tweaks than actual buffs, in both cases.
I find Toby a great character on Meltdown tbh. He is a destructor! The others suck indeed.
Who knows? Galilea still has way too many tools in her toolbox and Rath is still a mediocre character who turns into the ultimate killing machine at level five. Neither of these seem like they’d be too hard to balance, but so far they don’t look like they’re even trying.
Very strange point of view…
A good Toby that knows what’s he’s doing and has a bit of situational awareness can hold one lane on Meltdown without any problem and keep at least 2 enemies pinned down at the same time or clear a wave fast and quickly relocate to another for additional help.
Whiskey that can keep his ultimate up just wrecks everything on lower levels and get stronger and stronger as he levels up adding sustain and really big aoe damage. Of course - the player needs to have very good aim with him and this time very good situational awareness - since you kind of need to omit escape options in helix for max damage.
Attikus…not sure, haven’t played him myself much. So I refrain from much commentary. All I have seen is that the he comes into power late in the game, so he might be need some more help from the team early on.