Now that cents dead, who's next? | Forums

[VougishMan]

I don't know why such small changes took so long, and I don't really want an honest answer, because it would definitely disappoint me.
Centurion still feels bit out of place, but it's getting better ^^

I am happy with those changes, and also people who had the illusion those nerfs to Warlords head butt and the dodge recovery where the reasons why "high lvl player" put him into bottom tier after that, with reverting the head butt delay and and a slightly better recovery they calmed those whiners bit.

I am afraid about shinobi now, he was a strong hero from the beginning, and in the right hands it was really hard to get them.
But also I am happy for shinobi, to not be one-shotted for single mistakes.

Highlander Celtic Curse on unprepared, inexperienced or simply unsuspecting shinobi = instakill. Always feel a little bad when it happens but i'd be lying if I said I don't chuckle a little bit everytime it happens lol

[S0Mi_xD]

Highlander Celtic Curse on unprepared, inexperienced or simply unsuspecting shinobi = instakill. Always feel a little bad when it happens but i'd be lying if I said I don't chuckle a little bit everytime it happens lol

Heh, I know those mixed feeling xD.

Always feel like this if someone can't get my berserker top heavy managed.

[kweassa1]

Because "balance" in PvP games really has nothing to do with how many people are ranting about it, and any development team needs an absolute certainty to act upon changes.

Contrary to what people believe, "balance" ain't democracy. The demographics of gameplay skill always take on a very sharp "thorn" pattern, where in my personal estimate I put around 70% of a game's population at "beginner" levels, at best maybe 20% of the people at "intermediate" level, and less than 10% being someone we can really call "skilled".

There's really no way to put it nicely. Most people raving about certain stuff in these forums don't even know what they're talking about.

"Balance" is a "tendency" and not a rule set in stone -- where (IMO) around 60% of the game is decided through initial balance differences, but still a big, hefty chunk of 40% being influenced by the player. For example, the "tendency" cannot be questioned that statistically speaking the (pre-nerf) Warlord is the strongest class in the game, and the odds are if a fight happens, he would win. Many records of tournament winners support this "tendency". But does that mean every Warlord always wins in every match that happens in the game? Does one always lose to every Warlord he meets regardless of skill level? Does one lose to someone using a Warlord that just began the game yesterday?

Of course not. When you fight a "stronger" class with an "inferior" class your odds of winning are impacted toward the negative, and therefore it falls under your human factor to offset that disadvantage. Old-school PvPers always talk about how people should quit complaining and practice more, not because they're all arsehats, but because in all practicality this is the more effective and productive method to handle the situation by far.

People can choose to sit on their arses and whine and complain about fixes that may or may not ever come, or, they can choose to accept the reality at hand and do something about it. If the other guy uses a stronger class, you always have an option to become a superior player than the other guy to offset that disadvantage... which usually requires practice and determination.

Both, unfortunately, are what people in these forums are usually devoid of. At least the whiney bunch anyways.

[VougishMan]

Because "balance" in PvP games really has nothing to do with how many people are ranting about it, and any development team needs an absolute certainty to act upon changes.

Contrary to what people believe, "balance" ain't democracy. The demographics of gameplay skill always take on a very sharp "thorn" pattern, where in my personal estimate I put around 70% of a game's population at "beginner" levels, at best maybe 20% of the people at "intermediate" level, and less than 10% being someone we can really call "skilled".

There's really no way to put it nicely. Most people raving about certain stuff in these forums don't even know what they're talking about.

"Balance" is a "tendency" and not a rule set in stone -- where (IMO) around 60% of the game is decided through initial balance differences, but still a big, hefty chunk of 40% being influenced by the player. For example, the "tendency" cannot be questioned that statistically speaking the (pre-nerf) Warlord is the strongest class in the game, and the odds are if a fight happens, he would win. Many records of tournament winners support this "tendency". But does that mean every Warlord always wins in every match that happens in the game? Does one always lose to every Warlord he meets regardless of skill level? Does one lose to someone using a Warlord that just began the game yesterday?

Of course not. When you fight a "stronger" class with an "inferior" class your odds of winning are impacted toward the negative, and therefore it falls under your human factor to offset that disadvantage. Old-school PvPers always talk about how people should quit complaining and practice more, not because they're all arsehats, but because in all practicality this is the more effective and productive method to handle the situation by far.

People can choose to sit on their arses and whine and complain about fixes that may or may not ever come, or, they can choose to accept the reality at hand and do something about it. If the other guy uses a stronger class, you always have an option to become a superior player than the other guy to offset that disadvantage... which usually requires practice and determination.

Both, unfortunately, are what people in these forums are usually devoid of. At least the whiney bunch anyways.

^This. There's more than one thread where this kind of explanation comes to light but it seems to be ignored. Agreed though, very well said.

I know i'm guilty of ranting at least once (if not twice) about the centurion myself on this forum, but at some point I decided to take the advice from everyone who told me I was just playing bad, took what they said on how to improve, and you know what....it worked. Centurions aren't as big of a problem as they used to be and it gets a little easier every time I face one.

Practice can go a long way.

[VougishMan]

Heh, I know those mixed feeling xD.

Always feel like this if someone can't get my berserker top heavy managed.

Well hey, at least he might actually be an opponent worth taking seriously now.

some heroes I come up against and my immediate reaction is "Whoa there big fella! come to papa, lets see what you got."

Most shinobi players it's more along the lines of "get out of here you little ****! i'm trying to kill someone!"

[S0Mi_xD]

Because "balance" in PvP games really has nothing to do with how many people are ranting about it, and any development team needs an absolute certainty to act upon changes.

Contrary to what people believe, "balance" ain't democracy. The demographics of gameplay skill always take on a very sharp "thorn" pattern, where in my personal estimate I put around 70% of a game's population at "beginner" levels, at best maybe 20% of the people at "intermediate" level, and less than 10% being someone we can really call "skilled".

There's really no way to put it nicely. Most people raving about certain stuff in these forums don't even know what they're talking about.

"Balance" is a "tendency" and not a rule set in stone -- where (IMO) around 60% of the game is decided through initial balance differences, but still a big, hefty chunk of 40% being influenced by the player. For example, the "tendency" cannot be questioned that statistically speaking the (pre-nerf) Warlord is the strongest class in the game, and the odds are if a fight happens, he would win. Many records of tournament winners support this "tendency". But does that mean every Warlord always wins in every match that happens in the game? Does one always lose to every Warlord he meets regardless of skill level? Does one lose to someone using a Warlord that just began the game yesterday?

Of course not. When you fight a "stronger" class with an "inferior" class your odds of winning are impacted toward the negative, and therefore it falls under your human factor to offset that disadvantage. Old-school PvPers always talk about how people should quit complaining and practice more, not because they're all arsehats, but because in all practicality this is the more effective and productive method to handle the situation by far.

People can choose to sit on their arses and whine and complain about fixes that may or may not ever come, or, they can choose to accept the reality at hand and do something about it. If the other guy uses a stronger class, you always have an option to become a superior player than the other guy to offset that disadvantage... which usually requires practice and determination.

Both, unfortunately, are what people in these forums are usually devoid of. At least the whiney bunch anyways.

^This. There's more than one thread where this kind of explanation comes to light but it seems to be ignored. Agreed though, very well said.

I know i'm guilty of ranting at least once (if not twice) about the centurion myself on this forum, but at some point I decided to take the advice from everyone who told me I was just playing bad, took what they said on how to improve, and you know what....it worked. Centurions aren't as big of a problem as they used to be and it gets a little easier every time I face one.

Practice can go a long way.

Exactly ... well spoken.

As if a "pro player" is pro as soon he starts to play. Those who practice a lot and practice the right things, will succeed much faster.

Well hey, at least he might actually be an opponent worth taking seriously now.

some heroes I come up against and my immediate reaction is "Whoa there big fella! come to papa, lets see what you got."

Most shinobi players it's more along the lines of "get out of here you little ****! i'm trying to kill someone!"

Worth taking serious in even not that much skilled hands.

[DrinkinMyStella]

they have nerfed him into the ground the kick no longer stuns and you cannot wall splat and can't get stun locked and his eagle talon takes nearly double the stamina, in 1v1 he will be rubbish but in 4v4 he should be fairly balanced.

[Tundra 793]

Gotta admit, I've got zero sympathy for Cent mains. Like I had zero sympathy for the Warlord mains last patch.

I've only ever mained 2 characters; Berserker and Highlander. Neither hero has ever been better than mediocre/average, the Berserker in particular has been neglected for months, and the Highlander could use a bit of attention as well.
Both heroes are also quite hard to play.

Even so, I've persevered. I've always had to work harder with these characters and I just accepted their shortcomings and ingrained difficulty level because those were the heroes I wanted to play.

So when people start complaining that their Cents and Warlords might not be the absolute powerhouses they have been since they launched for a little while, I almost can't believe it.
The Centurion in particular has had such an outspoken and polarizing effect on the entire For Honor community, and as far as I can tell, most people agreed he was just not fun to play against. And he's been this way since day 1.

Lets have him be a bit weaker for at least 1 week, good grief. Kensei mains have suffered longer than that, if they can endure, so can Cent mains.

[S0Mi_xD]

Gotta admit, I've got zero sympathy for Cent mains. Like I had zero sympathy for the Warlord mains last patch.

I've only ever mained 2 characters; Berserker and Highlander. Neither hero has ever been better than mediocre/average, the Berserker in particular has been neglected for months, and the Highlander could use a bit of attention as well.
Both heroes are also quite hard to play.

Even so, I've persevered. I've always had to work harder with these characters and I just accepted their shortcomings and ingrained difficulty level because those were the heroes I wanted to play.

So when people start complaining that their Cents and Warlords might not be the absolute powerhouses they have been since they launched for a little while, I almost can't believe it.
The Centurion in particular has had such an outspoken and polarizing effect on the entire For Honor community, and as far as I can tell, most people agreed he was just not fun to play against. And he's been this way since day 1.

Lets have him be a bit weaker for at least 1 week, good grief. Kensei mains have suffered longer than that, if they can endure, so can Cent mains.

Agree with you.

But Cent isn't done yet, he has another balance problem (where I don't understand why they didn't fix it already).
His lvl 2 feat haymaker, gives him 10 dmg for every fart, literally!
A passive ability that gives him ridiculous dmg. (also a point of complaint in the community)

For all melee attack and throws. Thats why there still some people complain about his high dmg in 4v4.

They could have set the feat to lvl 3 and reduce the dmg to 5.

(But nerfing lvl 4 feat Berserker is fine, even if no-one complaint about it ;D)

[DrinkinMyStella]

only time will tell if this nerf was a good one or if its too far or not enough especially with the new meta changes, I think he will go from god tier to low tier once the changes come. With warlord they have changed his nerf back to what it was before so they could do that to cent if he's to bad.