NEW non-Bossk NERFS for BH

What Bossk Nerf?

"Entus;c-1699467" wrote:

"7AnimalMother;c-1699459" wrote:
What Bossk Nerf?

Sorry the mods keep hiding threads where users cant see them. Bossks contract payout has changed from "Hit weakest enemy ten times" to "hit weakest enemy at the start of the turn ten times". So if the weakest enemy is being blocked by a taunt, and you use a chain attack on the taunter, once the taunter becomes the weakest, it will not count towards Bossks payout. It has to be weakest at start of turn.

This greatly reduces Bossk led BH defensive viability in tw

It wasn't a nerf, it was a change in the ingame description. That's how it was working and how it was intended to work.

"No_Try;c-1699470" wrote:

"Entus;c-1699467" wrote:

"7AnimalMother;c-1699459" wrote:
What Bossk Nerf?

Sorry the mods keep hiding threads where users cant see them. Bossks contract payout has changed from "Hit weakest enemy ten times" to "hit weakest enemy at the start of the turn ten times". So if the weakest enemy is being blocked by a taunt, and you use a chain attack on the taunter, once the taunter becomes the weakest, it will not count towards Bossks payout. It has to be weakest at start of turn.

This greatly reduces Bossk led BH defensive viability in tw

It wasn't a nerf, it was a change in the ingame description. That's how it was working and how it was intended to work.

It was a nerf. How is changing his ability description reducing his viability not a Nerf? You do know all BH work the same way Bossk did right? Any change coming there? Lets keep it on topic. Pretty established it is a nerf.

Please tell me your definition of NERF

"No_Try;c-1699481" wrote:

"Entus;c-1699480" wrote:

"No_Try;c-1699470" wrote:

"Entus;c-1699467" wrote:

"7AnimalMother;c-1699459" wrote:
What Bossk Nerf?

Sorry the mods keep hiding threads where users cant see them. Bossks contract payout has changed from "Hit weakest enemy ten times" to "hit weakest enemy at the start of the turn ten times". So if the weakest enemy is being blocked by a taunt, and you use a chain attack on the taunter, once the taunter becomes the weakest, it will not count towards Bossks payout. It has to be weakest at start of turn.

This greatly reduces Bossk led BH defensive viability in tw

It wasn't a nerf, it was a change in the ingame description. That's how it was working and how it was intended to work.

It was a nerf. How is changing his ability description reducing his viability not a Nerf? You do know all BH work the same way Bossk did right? Any change coming there? Lets keep it on topic. Pretty established it is a nerf.

Please tell me your definition of NERF

Nop, I still don't agree. And this debunks your topic. He was already working like in the current description and not the old description, are we on the same page on this?

I dont really care what your opinion is. It is a nerf, thats a fact.

His current desc reads, "deal damage to the weskest enemy ten times" They changed his skill to start of turn but they havent changed the skill desc. To reflect it.

There was another bug but is irrelevant to this conversation. Clearly you have no clue whats actually taken place. Educate yourself and come back.

You can't change targets mid-turn anyway so I fail to see how this is a Nerf. When your BH's turn starts, with Bossk as leader, there is only ever ONE enemy with a blue target over it's head and "WEAKEST" flashes on screen for a second (same way "STRONGEST" does for Hera).

The problem most likely sprung from his stun/assist where the new target could become the weakest target during the multi-attack. Thereby triggering the "damage ten times" portion.

Entus is correct. Previous functionality matched the current in game description “deal damage to weakest enemy” regardless of whether it was weakest at start of turn (ie it became the weakest as part of a chain). Now the ability no longer matches the description because it’s “deal damage to the weakest enemy as of start of turn”.

Entus’s point, which is a valid question, is since many of the other BH contracts function like Bossk’s did (where a character could flip to satisfy the criteria mid-turn) will they also be nerfed?

Example: Jango contract, damage debuffed enemies. If an enemy gets debuffed on the first hit of a multi hit attack, the second hit counts towards contract. Based on the change to Bossk, should we then expect Jango’s contract to change to “damage enemies that are debuffed as of start of turn”?

It was a Nerf

"Boov;c-1699676" wrote:

"Firebrigade;c-1699572" wrote:

"Boov;c-1699549" wrote:
i'm trying to understand the nerf, so if someone could clarify what happened previously and currently in the following situation:
What happened/happens when you do that multi hit attack with bossk on a target with 1 health more than the weakest target?
From what i can gather it used to count each follow up hit towards the contract due to the target becomming the weakest target after the first hit, but currently none of them count towards the contract anymore because it wasn't the weakest target at the start of the turn?

100% correct.

well, for consistancy's sake i'd argue that embo, dengar, ig88, jango and maybe even greede (not sure there are TM reducing abi's active) should receive the same threatment. They would all benefit.

I just tested Dengar's and his marker does not move.

Damage the healthiest enemy 10 times

Test: Have Dengar as lead and Bossk the fastest member of the party. Find a suitably healthy opponent so you don't kill it on the first hit. Set the speed to 1x and use Hunting Party on the marked opponent. Watch the health go down, below that of other enemies, and the mark stay in place.

This works just like Bossk's now does. For Dengar it's beneficial, for Bossk it is not.

"Boov;c-1699739" wrote:
So do or don't hits during the same turn on a not debuffed character count towards jango's contract if the character becomes debuffed prior to recieving the last hit? If they don't, it's consistant all the way through. It's as simple as that.

If a debuff happens mid turn, all hits after the debuff count. Hence the inconsistency.

ETA: Bossk’s Hunting Party for example. First hit applies stun, every hit after counts towards contract.

If you ask me, the question I have is why was this even something worth changing? I never saw or thought that Bossk's contract was wrong, bugged or broken because it was consistent with other leaderships in mid turn contract targeting.

It wasn't game breaking, if functioned just fine, it matched it's ability description. Why do they bother with these kinds of things that aren't really bugs?

Remember when Zylo would reduce retreats cooldown in HAAT? They stated it wasn't a bug. Then they later changed it because it was apparently a bug, even though zFinn also reduces retreat's cooldown but that's not a bug? It was just a waste of time and effort. There are actual bugs that should be fixed first before Bossk's contract targeting.