Hey bro. I think there is a serious misinterpretation and understanding between us. But first, please calm down and read this post and the first post of mine with an open mind.
I reiterate this, I am definitely someone who is the same as you, who hate nerf. Especially when we invested in heroes that have their glory right from the moment they were born with. But the reason why I am defensive has probably caused you and several people to misunderstand my intention. Also, I am partly to blame for not trying clear this in the first place.. although I tried but I'm sure when we are heated up, we overlooked what we are trying to achieve.
I'm not sure how my very first and initial post trigger you because it was extremely clear, my intention as i have stated, is not to diss or say "serve you guys right". I really don't know how you conclude that I am "happy" about this nerf. If anything, i am agreeable but i may or may not be happy about it. I believe i have never express any of this throughout my post. What I wanted to say is every hero or whatever hero, as long as a game is constantly updating, there will be changes, that's why I say "should have expect it".
Changes are balancing game. It's just like what you say. Why cant they buff everyone? I myself also have the capacity to think the easiest way out. It's either you push everyone up to the same playing field or you pull down the benchmark which in this case, the developer decided to implement both because this gap between the summoners and normal heroes is too wide, they boosted heroes and pull down the top tier units.
Before I comment, I asked myself is it necessary to implement such a harsh condition on this bread and butter DPS?
And you've already realised it before i mention it. It's because Sven is one of the hero that does not need to rely on other to trigger and the reason why many people pick him: he is very flexible (he is a one man army standing in for 2 roles - trigger dps and sweeping) to the point that he's broken because he doesn't have to be pair with anyone, he's a solo triggerer as long as he can summon wyvern, he can trigger his wyvern (range) to finish those he couldn't reach or lower the HP enough for other units to one shot. Overall, he is the most ideal unit to be able to deal damage to the far end units without even moving.
What draws the line between him and the other triggering units like the rangers is his flexibility. But in order for rangers to trigger they require 3 conditions (chances, stats, another compatible hero) whereas Sven only require 2: the chances and his wyvern positioning. This itself is undoubtly the defining moment between your difficult to invest Rangers (which you need a minimum of 2 proper equip units to achieve) compared to a single trigger unit like Sven because you don't have to invest in 2 rangers but 1.
When the developer first introduce Sven, I was delighted because I saved 1 slot. This 1 slot is what causes all these commotion. But if you refer back to my first post as to why I say "we should expect this" is because this character's nature already defies the initial intention of tactical gameplay which comprises of different units to come up with a proper formation.
What conforms a tactical game when VF was first introduced? Has Sven achieved what VF envisaged?
I applaud the effort for the developers even though like what you've mentioned that I seem to bootlick or worship the cattle, is because I like how creative they are to come up with Summoners mechanic. But because it's a first, it's new, there are bound to have many underlying factors or future problems which we couldnt see (again, I can't emphasis how important it is to look ahead from here). Perhaps I'm in a profession that requires constant look out. I'm a project coordinator with an Engineering background. I design for the worst case scenario. I always searching for solutions and an alternative for the what-if situation. I'm trained to look for possible structural failure be it present or future but I'm not perfect because I'm only human, I don't know when a fire will break out in London Grenfell Tower or how the aluminium plastic cladding cause the whole building to be engulfed in flame. I make mistske. So we can only experiment with elimination, mitigation and substitution. It's tiring to always be on the toes but it's our jobs to safeguard the owners. I'm so used to it that maybe this nerf doesn't seem to affect me like how it affect all of you because I'm all prepared for the netf. Like you say, my thinking has been dulled which I agree. I'm so used to it and tired of explaining safety features and designs to owners to safeguard them, only to get shot down because it's extra cost to safeguard their lives or the designs are just plain atrocious but so be it. We tried our best and we are prepared to face the consequences but we just don't know when. Even then something bad happens we still get part of the blame anyway. Maybe we didn't try hard enough. Or maybe our jobs are meant to take blame. Just like what these game developers are experiencing. Just like what our SMRT engineers are experiencing. We are constantly getting bashed endlessly to the point that we became dull and ask ourselves why we even try in the first place. But in the end, it is still for you all that we are still trying hoping that one day, you guys can see us like the way we see you all.
In this case, from the moment Sven was released, there's a constant fear of him being nerf but why do I still bother building him is because although I invested in him, i don't wish to say I wasted my resources on a unit that would undoubtly be nerfed in the future.
Why? Because I know that when every hero reaches the pit bottom, it is the duty of the developers to pick them up. How can I be so sure? Valiant revamp. Heroes changelog. And we could see most heroes are buff at the price of Talissa and Sven nerf. But from my view, it created a levelled playing field. Now we have to fork out a fodder lifesteal unit into the formation and like one of the players have mentioned, it doesn't diversify but narrow down the option which I have to disagree because we have a few units that come with life leech and healing aura. Although they don't won't worth much now, but by incorporating their units into your service, you will be able to appreciate the other units more. This is what the developers want: to diversify by limiting yourself and find another unit to coexist with the unit you love.
I love all the characters in the game. When I first invested in Lucille, I have a witch doctor while everyone gets an inquisitor even though she's a godsend unit in pve. My 2nd Lucille i ride along an Archbishop role when I could have chosen Inquisitor. Again, I try to explore the use of other units and I came to realise that although Inquisitor is very good in PvE, AB has a constant HoT which makes up for her single heal mechanic. I am not trying to glorify myself or ask you all to follow my playstyle. Personally, I just like tactic games. But I felt that it's the responsibility of the players to devote themselves to explore the usage of other units that the developers have given but often, covered in dust. I have Royal Huntsman Cybella and Kane when they were so close to extinction. I have a high defender Darrion which is nothing more than just a tank. But overall, I come up with different ideas on how to incorporate them into my services.
Anyway, it's fine how you all want to think. I'm not a good person in many people's eyes. It's fine if you think I'm sitting here laughing at you. Honestly speaking, there's nothing I can achieve here. I'm just wasting time explaining myself. But for the sake of making this discussion fruitful and debatable, I decided to just draw a line here. I'm done.
Read your first post, because you clearly don't understand the implications that you've made throughout all of it. It isn't our job to interpret "abstract" details regarding your post that literally says the opposite of what you think you're trying to convey. Some of us even went ahead and lectured you on your language skills because you can't seem to understand why we reacted that way on your post. Regardless of your intention or not, the failure of communication is on you, not on our end, and you only have yourself to blame.
There weren't even any implications at all that you said you disliked the nerf. All you said was that "we should have seen it coming" as if we have to look forward 2 months in the future since Sven's release to see that he will be nerfed eventually. That's what made your post unhelpful and antagonizing - you didn't provide any feedback whatsoever except to simply lash out at the people who are complaining about the issue.
Yes, changes do happen. But the biggest difference with this issue with regards to all changes is that it took so long for them to do so. It's been more than 2 months since Sven was released, but they never told anyone beforehand that Sven was "broken" or needed to be adjusted. Sure, there were complaints in arena, and there have already been at least one update to address that, but nobody complained about his power in PvE. The even bigger issue is that everyone who was able to at least complete the event managed to get one for free, so nearly everyone had one they could raise and use, and as such nobody complained about PvE because everyone had him. This abrupt change makes it clear that the developers are reckless - they don't test or think it through before pushing out updates. And I'm not talking about the recent update, no - the very fact that Sven went through and was released with his current kit and remained ignored for two months is THE issue that I'm talking about.
So now what can we deduce with this situation? That the developers aren't testing enough.
They didn't think Sven was powerful before they decided to give him to everyone in the game that was playing at that time, because they didn't test it beforehand. Now somehow they make a snap decision and see that Sven was actually too powerful for his own good, and then change it without addressing everyone first. I'm sure everyone agrees that it would be painful to see resources like valianites and gems go to waste, and this was one of the bigger problems people had with the sudden change. If they had tested well beforehand, then they could've made these adjustments PRIOR to his release to the public, and none of this would have ever happened. But nope, they thought of it too late.
This current step in design where they make sure that heroes have to dependent with another hero is an extremely poor design choice. It's easy to see that making heroes reliant towards specific compositions of squads destroys everything tactical about the game. I'd be confident to say that all those heroes that are dependent on specific squad set-ups are the mistake here. What should really happen is that heroes should COMPLEMENT each other, not be dependent of each other. That way, we would be seeing more and more variety when it comes to squad set-ups and whatnot. The moment they actually release a hero that is flexible enough, instead of following a similar design choice to similar heroes, they make some half-assed designs on the following summoner heroes that barely complements any other hero.
See where Matilda, Sora, Talissa, and Tristan are right now - while Talissa is popular in PvP she never sees the light of day in PvE. I've seen some people using Sora to an extent but not that broadly because her kit doesn't complement much of anyone. Matilda and Tristan are too niche to even bother using, especially when there are more heroes within the same role that can do their jobs so much better. It is clear that the developers have issues making a consistent and appropriate design choice to truly fit into their intention to make this game a "tactical game" when they limit freedom of squad composition like this. And again, all of this is because they simply won't test things. They don't test and explore new innovations, find new abilities that can improve squad diversity, or place effort in making sure older heroes can interact well with newer ones.
In fact, going back on your point saying that Sven is a "self-reliant hero", there are also plenty of heroes, most especially most of the summoners, that show they are the same as Sven - they're self-reliant and can do well in nearly any composition. The problem is that Sven does his job really good, while at the same time has the ability to complement others through his aura, which is why most people favored him over others, and the rest are basically forgotten. This is honestly why I preferred them to take measures to ensure these older characters are improved by making sure they complement well with other heroes. But all they did was to slightly adjust their numbers when what they really need is a more drastic change.
Developers are supposed to be used to criticism, because it's going to be there all the time, regardless whether they are justified or not. If we suddenly think that these developers should be immune to any complaint or criticism, what would happen to legitimate and otherwise critical criticism that might really help push the game into the right direction? Sure, maybe people should cut some slack and applaud the developers with their efforts at times, but this is pretty much why people show their appreciate through their wallets. If they enjoy the game and the direction to where it's going, they're going to invest. It's nice to praise them from time to time, but even better to contribute in a way that really defines the reward they're looking for with the job. But things like this issue can really cause some trust issues with their customers and may end up doing more harm than good.
If the path the developers wish to go down with is nerfing any hero they weren't able to test through and was found to be too powerful in their perspective, then would these players even attempt to invest on these new characters they release, which is now where most of their revenue is coming from? Definitely no. In fact, players always love to find ways to maximize everything, like learning some secret tech/interaction in some games that the developers never thought of happening, so it's nearly inevitable that sometime along the way they're going to face issues on what they see as overpowered". In this regard, if their choice is to make sure that those kind of stuff never happen, they should place more efforts in testing to ensure all factors are considered before it would be released to the general public.
There was no constant fear of Sven being nerfed back then, because all players assume that the developers should already know what they're doing - if this is the direction they want to go through, then so be it. If you feared that he would be nerfed eventually, then why didn't the developers foresee this fear themselves and made efforts beforehand in testing it out, or at least warning the players who are simply going through the flow of the game that this particular hero was eventually going to be nerfed? Again, this is why testing is so important, but their failure to do so has certainly caused a strain with the relationship between them and the players, as we see from all the recent feedback so far.
Are you aware of the term "power creep?" If you're an avid player of mobile games this is one of the most well known design choices in these kind of gacha games to ensure people will continue to spend money into the game. While power creep is usually frowned upon the general player base, the difference between this kind of theme and what the current developers of Valiant Force are doing is the realm of consistency
. Most of the time though, power creep still manages to consider old heroes so developers make adjustments for them to make them useful for the current meta (if you play or have played Brave Frontier, which was one of the first ever popular gacha mobile games, you can see this trend come to light). Still, they don't make sudden changes to new releases especially when they know some people might have spent on them. The developers made the wrong move through their inconsistency - changing the core kit of a character drastically that everyone has likely spent on is one of the best ways to lose trust on the consumer base.
You are not unique as you think you are. I also love most of the characters in the game - most of the time, instead of limit breaking heroes, I tend to make the classes I don't have yet to make sure I have a complete roster of heroes to use in case someone other than myself figure out a new way to use them. I have a Blood Knight Darrion that was my very first 5 star that I used quite a lot in my early days, and I picked him mostly because I loved his cool looking armor. But now I never use him anymore, and there's nothing to blame except the current direction where the game is going. There is hardly any tactics going on with the game - there is no intricacy with the battle system that would call for unique set-ups or strategy as the game wishes itself to be: a tactic game. This may be somewhat going beyond the issue at hand here, but my main gripe is that, because of their lack of testing and new innovation with the current system in place, the game is going farther and farther away from its tactical core that they like to advertise, and now we're left with inconsistency on balancing and change, making it difficult for players to decide on which to invest on.
If you didn't like explaining yourself, then, as I reiterate, you should have acknowledged your mistake or apologized on your intention to antagonize in the first place. Again, there is no one to blame but yourself.