Why only one new hero per update?

Why is there only one hero per update now? I liked it when there were two new heroes not just one because the one that isn’t in the highlight faction is a lot easier to get because the one in the highlight faction is always really hard to get until it goes in the hero crate (and even then is still really hard the get) so can we make it two new heroes now)

The only time that it was 2 new heroes was it HH release - oracle and Flatline. Oracle was only available via crate and Flatline via Coop. And they were both in UAF the featured faction. There was Flatline crate too.

For panzer and Ifrit release, they were both available via crate and Dojo ( the slower way).

I’d honestly MUCH prefer there be zero no heroes in updates, at least for most updates. The cheap cash-in scheme that they’re pulling with constant new heroes is ruining the game while actual beneficial QoL improvements fall entirely by the wayside, ignored.

1 Like

I rather have a few hero’s fixed then 2 new heros every month, more PvP maps, raids, coop stuff, more rewards in the bounty

Exactly. Fixing old shitty heroes is basically like getting a new hero anyway :stuck_out_tongue:

Panzer was the first month we only got one hero.

We got Scum and yanlong in February,
Fischer, Galante, and kunoichi all in March
Sapphyr and Callidus in April
Cinder and Caine in May
Flatline and Oracle in June

These last two months were the first time we have had less then two new heroes. Before this month there was numerous complaints and threads made about too many heroes being introduced and for them to slow down putting new heroes out. Looks like they listened the last two months.

They also do minor adjustments to heroes each patch to make some stronger and some weaker. When newer heroes get introduced they may have a better overall kit then popular heroes before them (Caine kinda replaced matador the month he came out.) Some crappy ones have rose too. When fortress got his silver buffed there was a huge increase in people using him.

@Papa_Marsh I wouldnt say QoL improvments have been ignored either…Mostly because when they are introduced no one really cares to notice or comment on them. Things like Targeting while in autoplay, Craft all and Level up buttons, 3x speed of solo content, and Fixing a ton of chat problems have all been great additions and community suggestions that have been implemented. There’s a ton more I could list too…there has been some massive changes since the release of the game that have been amazing improvements.


Thanks for the reminder forgot bout them

Fair point about the QoL stuff. I guess I’m more meaning that they’re prioritizing the money farm of pumping out new heroes over intelligent game balance (honestly, the state of balance in the game for the past few months has been abysmal) and making neglected heroes actually viable. Instead of new heroes becoming the game-breaking flavor-of-the-month, they should simply introduce a new playstyle option, not become the de facto strongest option. It’s the curse of every freemium game it seems unfortunately; power creep gets out of control.

I think they are making an effort towards getting it in a good place. Its a tough think to find a good balance between TTK/ Time of matches/ matchmaking that is satisfactory for every player. A big problem a few months ago was the interaction halo had with many heroes, especially baron. This “bug” was an foreseen consequence when platinum abilities were first introduced. Made matches last a good 20 seconds tops with the losing side having two heroes dead in 5 seconds or less. Even after the patches to Halo, PvP matches were relatively short and usually the winner was the first player to kill two of the opposing players heroes, and this didn’t really help when panzer was released. With the recent changes, they wanted to get away from that style of game and make it more centered around team compositions.

On paper this sounds great, and i still think it can be, but as players found out this gave rise to full or almost full healer teams. Matches started lasting the full time with no one dyeing. Flatline was never able to survive long enough to get her revives off before this patch, making her a lot less viable before this patch. Coupled with the release of Ifrit whose kit is high tier for utility healers, it was just too good of a combo.

Overall, I think somewhere between these two extremes is going to be a good place to settle, and I think the Devs understand that as well. The last two hero launches just came at the worst times because of the current state of PvP at the time of release. We have had plenty of heroes introduced since launch that were no where near strong but offered them ways to create events, do tournaments, and run bounty bonuses.


I appreciate the reasonable dose of healthy perspective and I find myself agreeing with nearly everything you said. Thanks for the good write-up.

(Although I still think both Panzer’s and Ifrit’s pre-nerf state is unforgivable and nothing will convince me it wasn’t an intentional cash-grab :stuck_out_tongue: )

1 Like

Panzer and Ifrit both had explicit problems right out of the gate I can give you that. All the more reason I would love for them to do closed tests for select players where they could find hero combinations/situations that would make a hero a lot stronger then they intended them to be before the hero went out globally.

Instead of closed test for select players, which seems kinda unfair, it would be better to do a spotlight PvP event, just like they did with Oracle. The only problem is that they should act according to the feedback received on such events.


Closed tests as in they would only be allowed to test the hero through challenging someone. They do not own the hero or can use it in any mode. I don’t see a problem with this or how it could be unfair, and it would allow the devs to make the necessary adjustments before the releases so we don’t get an ifrit/flatline or halo/baron situation again.


Ah, I thought you meant that a few players would get the hero before it was actually released and they could use it anywhere.

Well, if we are talking about the hero being open in challenge mode, yeh, I can see people could test without it being unfair. But most people wouldn’t go through the effort of testing things for the sake of helping balancing. Thats why I think a PvP event would be better. It would encourage every player to try said hero, instead of just a few players.

If you would rather not spend the effort when the devs release a test and actively want you to express what changes/balancing needs to be done, you should have no right to comment after the fact on whatever they decide to do. Multiple threads come out each patch about what players want/think needs to be tweaked or removed, but if they were giving the opportunity to find these things before it went live I think it would feel a whole lot more satisfying playing with the hero and/or understanding why you lost to them.

I think saiko didn’t meant it that way.

Besides all the stuff we already have in the game, running detailed tests is going to be hard, I wouldn’t mind to spend some time running some challenges to test it out.

But to be honest, we also work, study, spend time with your family/girl-boy friend/friends and other stuff.

I liked the Oracle spotlight, it was a great way to play with a new hero, we noticed something was bugged and also collect some PvP frags on the side.

I wouldn’t mind more of those and to give feedback about it, I think people will give a better opinion about a hero when no player has it, and we can all see how weak or op the 10* plat version is

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.