I'd like to reiterate what Badgerbite said: there are always going to be figures that are way too good for their point value or way too ineffective for their point value. Thus, these pairwise comparisons aren't particularly meaningful. Is it really fair to compare Ultmates Thor, IC Firelord, or OotS Batman with figures of similar point values? I think all these examples prove is that there has been a lot of subjectivity in the decision-making process for determining point values. Sometimes the listed point value is appropriate and other times it isn't. This doesn't prove power creep.

wow, i do not understand those of you who -- by defending or denying power creep -- you are seemingly blind to the fact that older figures -- for their point cost -- do not stand a snowball's chance in <bleep> against more recent figures. How many of you would play an Xplosion version of Iron Man or Shadowcat or Crimson Dynamo today?

Keep in mind that most people didn't particularly think much of Xplosion Iron Man when he first came out anyway.

While I won't say whether it is or isn't (because playability always determines a figure's TRUE value), I will say that most estimates have any damage reducers (including toughness) a bit higher than most other defensive powers. Are the two extra clicks of Toughness that Guardian has enough to counter the forgotton Cap? I can't say for sure, but someone could definitely make an argument out of it, so it's not really proof since it leaves that shadow of doubt...

Right, because we certainly don't want our figs to be playable two years later.

Also, Xplosion is a *really* old set. I bet that there is consensus that there was at least some power creep between the oldest sets and the middle sets (Ultimates, Legacy, etc). An open question is whether there has been any power creep between the middle sets and the newest sets.

I keep seeing you make statements about the point cost of various powers. Do you have access to the WK point formula?

I have to agree. Comparing similarly-pointed figures gets us very little. For every OOTS Batman there's a slew of 75-point figures that have a lot less value for their points. WK may have a terrific formula for achieving point values, but it clearly doesn't address the sum being equal to or less than the numeric parts.

That's where the formula seems to unravel

Watch the Power Creep
The old
http://www.hcrealms.com/units.php?page=dial&id=ct085
The new
http://www.hcrealms.com/units.php?page=dial&id=ff208

competitively speaking there were about 6 figures in the first set
R Panther
R Jean grey
Firelord (EV)
R Vulture
Thanos

other than that everything was sub competitive. power creep would be a sea change in difference from those figures, not all figures.

Yeah... the old outweighs the new on almost every click - especially the starting clicks, the ones that count. If anything, this example would prove the opposite of Power Creep (which I'm not likely to buy into - I know there is some degree of power creep)... but this example is a step backwards for that arguement...

I played U XP Shadowcat this week as part of my Astonishing X-men team:
Emma Frost 107
M&M UC Beast 73
E IC Wolverine 61
+ Automatic Regeneration 12
DR Colossus 60
M&M C Cyclops 50
XP U Shadowcat 36
399 points.

XP Shadowcat fills an important role on this team as she is the only flier this particular lineup has availible, and thus does a lot to increase the team's mobility. Sure, I could have gone with the Universe Starter Wolvie and Sinister Experienced Shadowcat, but this build felt a lot more competitive. It did well, too, even if Shadowcat mainly carried Emma Frost around.

I haven't played XP Iron Man or Crimson Dynamo, but I don't think I have ever played their AW versions either - I'm sure I haven't played Dynamo as I don't have him, in fact.

I think that has always been a significant problem, and results in some characters being way out of line compared to others. It seems likely that a formula was developed at some point, and they probably have been using it all along. And it is unlikely that the formula takes into account changes to powers (i.e. I doubt HSS is now going to cost less even though it no longer has Option 2, for example) and it is unlikely that the formula takes into account position on the dial (i.e. Invulnerability on your first click is vastly superior to Invulnerability on your last click). And then some powers are likely way more expensive than they turned out to be worth (see: Incapacitate).

So if you front load good powers and stats, you are going to seem much more cost effective compared to someone who jumps around the dial. And the hulk-type figures (the ones with activation clicks, or the ones that ramp up as they get damaged) are generally going to not be as useful as they should be, as they are probably paying the same for that useless click on their first slot as they would be if it were their last slot.

-Peter

This isn't necessarily true--the only real flaw with most of the (good) older figures is that they tend to lack the mobility powers that they hand out like candy these days; Charge and Running Shot were relatively rare back when every figure in the game could get full speed Charge/RS for 15 points (i.e. R Vulture...)--in terms of stats and cost effectiveness, a lot of the older figures are just as good (if not just plain better) than comparable current figures--look at:

-IC U Wolverine (stealth and 12 attack BCF for, what, 64 points?)
-IC U Elektra (stealth and 11 attack BCF for 36 points)
-Any version of Firelord
-E Bullseye
-Ultron (heck, the 111 point R Ultron had a 12 attack)
-E Hercules

They lack Charge/RS, yeah. 'Cause at the time, it wasn't necessary. But if you hand any of these guys to someone with TK, they are going to be just as good (if not better) point for point than most current units.

Yeah, X-plosion Iron Man is horrible. But he was horrible when he was released (161 points for a 9 AV?). Crimson Dynamo less so (10 AV for 134 points--tack on a cheap taxi, and he wasn't bad, doing 5 damage at 10 range). But yeah, now, without RS and not being able to be carried around, he is kind of jank.

-Peter

Actually, I think Inv on your last click may be worth more (not in points, but actual utility). Many times (though not always, Seth likes putting 3 and 4 damage on "back clicks"), opposing characters are damaged, and have at most 2 damage in the mid to late game, so "back end" Inv may make your brick unstoppable. This is one reason why the balance of Outwit relative to bricks with damage reducers isn't as skewed as it used to be, in my opinion.