Would it be fun with all heroes on Raiders power level? | Forums

[ArchDukeInstinct]

Stunning tap not so unreactable, not neutral attack and much more punishable.

Debatable. Shield bash has much more telegraphing through its visual effects.

Stunning tap is still very accessible to get to from both neutral and during a chain.

While you can get more damage from parrying the stunning tap, you're not risking as much damage to do a read against shield bash.

[Siegfried-Z]

It think it will be very cool to have more S-Tier bois in the character roster. Everybody complained about Zerk and BP, now there are characters who can compete with them on an equal footing, I think it will be cool to have more powerful characters with strong offensive tools, it is just make game more fun and dynamic.

S tier heroes are S tier not because their offense is "good". Its because something in their kit is broken.

To me S is where stand the too strong heroes.

A tier is perfect. These heroes are good, viable without something too easy and efficient to abuse.

Stunning tap not so unreactable, not neutral attack and much more punishable.

Stunning tap is now a harder moove to deal with than Conq sb. For sure.

[UbiInsulin]

I just don't understand what the problem is with Ubisoft and balance. They have so much community feedback and data and they still can't do a rework 5 Seasons after they first started trying to do reworks. They knew Raider was in the middle of the pack at a 50% win rate. They had all this community suggestions on how to make him more fun without being OP. Instead, they just made him way faster, stronger, and added hyper armor, and chains, all while leaving him the tools he always had. Did they not even think, "Hey, Raider is already a decent hero. He has a 50% win rate after all. Maybe he doesn't need all this extra stuff?"

Well, we've always said that winrate data is not the only thing we look at. We have to be careful how we interpret 50%. It would make intuitive sense to interpret it as "decent/middle-of-the-pack", but I think we all know there's more nuance to the situation than that.

Anyhow, I'm making sure to track all the feedback on the Raider rework.

[EvoX.]

No. Definitely not. S-tiers in general are not a good thing. Better than having D-tiers, but not ideal at all.

[Star.Princess]

S tier heroes are S tier not because their offense is "good".

Agreed

Its because something in their kit is broken.

Disagreed, S-Tier not always borken, they are just very strong and their kit was intended that way.

[Siegfried-Z]

Agreed

Disagreed, S-Tier not always borken, they are just very strong and their kit was intended that way.

Not very strong but "too" strong. It is what s tier means. Zerk offense, Conq defense etc
There is always something too good in their kit.

Thats why i talk about A tier as a better target. Look at Shaman, strong heroe without something too powerfull.

[Sweaty_Sock]

Not very strong but "too" strong. It is what s tier means. Zerk offense, Conq defense etc
There is always something too good in their kit.

Thats why i talk about A tier as a better target. Look at Shaman, strong heroe without something too powerfull.

Agreed - S tier is by definition off the scale i.e. A, B, C, D & S. The characters in S tier could be a D tier character with a single broken move. They are not balanced but generally have an overbuffed or exploit move available to them

[rottmeister]

If the question is: Would it be fun if we were to balance everyone so that they'd be S-tier, I'd say no. I see S-tier as extremely powerful with little to no disadvantages. Most of the times when 2 S-tier heroes meet, it's not an epic fight, it's more of a who can get their safe mix up going first? BP for example is such an annoying hero and one of the, if not the safest to play hero. You can't even punish his bash (unless you predict and doge prematurely), you have to wait for the 500ms light that can come from 3 directions. Put a Warden against a BP and you'll see mostly only shoulders and shields will be used, it'll be a true bash spam fest.

I think it's better to balance heroes on Shaman's power level. Why? Not just because I mained her for a while, but because: 1) Her chain flows beautifully, has mix ups and mindgames. 2) She can be punished hard, it's high risk, high reward. It forces you to make reads and trick the opponent and 3) She doesn't rely on bashes or fast lights. She's the ideal hero imo.

[Sweaty_Sock]

If all characters were A tier, game would be good. If all characters S tier then each character would have some OP broken aspect and the game would devolve into one move for each character

I'm not sure shamans a good level ground, i'd be inclined to say balance around the kensei level. No one shots, no cheap moves, solid kit to deal with a number of threats

EDIT: not saying shaman is broken (anymore... new raider is giving me flashbacks of shamans launch haha), just she's unique in certain ways, I agree that tehre should be a 'gold standard' character that all characters are balanced around (i.e. if you attack faster, you do less damage, if you dodge better something else is diminished etc. etc.). Kensei is not ideal but in terms of nothing really cheap and just a solid base mechanic kit, its a good place to draw balance from

[Herbstlicht]

That's interesting thus far. It's what I agree with, but fear ubi moves away from. But, to their defence, hitokiri is, at least once they did slightly adjust the ease of his you can avoid all her moves, pretty much in Kensei level. Not as smooth as shaman, but for a heavy, very eecent actually. Love that she got no bash from neutral and like her variable timings.