A discussion on the changing PvP Meta

fight4thedream

I appreciate all the feedback and criticism. Obviously, this isn't an issue that I think we all can reach a consensus on but I believe this discussion will be helpful to illustrate the differing viewpoints on the current state of PvP and what players at different stages of progress in the game want (at least among active members of the forum. I think it goes without saying that we don't speak for the entire player base.) 

First, I will try to answer some of the questions and comments that were posed in regards to my original post:

Weren't Carnage and Medusa, pre-nerf Gambit, Peggy Carter and such defensive teams and characters? Yes, without question. My apologies for the oversight. 

I don't think Kitty/Grocket revolutionized the PvP meta.
I think my lack of explanation in my original post drew out this criticism so I feel it best to clarify what I meant. I did not intend for it to mean that they were the first effective defensive team (although I can see why people might have interpreted it this way. My apologies.) but rather that they presented a viable alternative to the established meta of Okoye/Thor.  

Occasionally when a meta transitions we run across some overlap as people still do not have the covers for the new meta character/team and the old meta still has enough strength to delay its eventual obsolescence. But it seems clear to me by the sheer number of players running both teams that there is a rough state of parity between Kitty/Grocket and Okoye/Thor and as far as I can remember, this is a first in the 5* realm.  Sure, I guess you could make the argument that in the Age of Gambit you could run either Gambit/Black Bolt or Gambit/Thor but this is an instance of having four distinct characters sitting atop the meta. 

Okoye/Thor offers great offensive power and speed but little in terms of deterrence while, on the other hand, Kitty/Grocket also has great offensive power but sacrifices speed a bit (although this can depend on the event as they can be quite fast in PvP events where the 3*/4* required character generates special tiles) but in exchange offers a greater deterrent effect. 

If Okoye/Thor were truly the superior choice, as some may argue, it fails to explain why many players, even those who have a viable Okoye/Thor team, choose to run a Kitty/Grocket team in PvP. 

Aren't Okoye/Thor a counter to Kitty/Grocket? This largely depends on the build your running. If you are running a team with Okoye doing most of the tanking, which I will call Okoye/Thor Deluxe, then yes you could argue that they are a counter, although to be honest that team can beat just about any team, regardless of champ levels with the exception of those using a high enough Bishop and 5* partner (JJ seems to be a popular choice). 

But the less tanking Okoye does, the more risky the proposition becomes since Thor will take damage. We have to keep in mind that not every player is running an Okoye/Thor Deluxe team.  But I won't disagree that with some luck, Kitty/Grocket is still beatable even if you aren't running the Deluxe version.

Criticism of Counter Character Analysis

Having given it some thought, I do think some of the criticism I received over my initial analysis were valid, specifically including 5* Black Widow as a viable counter for Bishop. Her passive only stuns for 1 turn and is random. This might work for low-leveled Bishop teams but for the most part I agree it's too random and doesn't do enough to be considered viable.

Also, the failure to include God Emperor Doom  as Kitty/Grocket counter was a glaring oversight on my part. Perhaps my own distaste for having to sacrifice Doom for it to work caused me to forget but nonetheless it is a strategy that can work and should be included.

Finally, it seems a high level 5* Black Panther is also another way to successfully deal with Bishop, so I will include him as potential counter

I also believe it would be beneficial to clarify the grading system:

*Great: a character or team combo that counters the targeted mechanic (what some may call a "true counter" ) or is able to overwhelm the mechanic (what I shall call the "the hegemon" for lack of a better term) and the player feels absolutely confident in their chance of success and has no serious drawbacks

*Good: a character or team combo that counters the targeted mechanic (what some may call a "true counter" ) or is able to overwhelm the mechanic (what I shall call the "the hegemon" for lack of a better term) and the player feels confident in their chance of success but the character has some drawbacks (lack of offensive or defensive presence, slows down match speed, etc)

*OK: a character or team combo that offers ways to counter the targeted mechanic but not without a certain level of risk or at a high cost (e: having to sacrifice a character) . Generally, the player would prefer to avoid using this method repeatedly because of high cost/risk.

*Poor: a character or team combo that offers a way to counter the targeted mechanic but the risk for failure is high and luck plays a significant factor in being able to successfully counter the targeted mechanic.

Viable Kitty/Grocket Counters

Great:  Okoye/Thor Deluxe**

Good: Black Suit Spider-man, Bishop
Ok: Sabertooth, 5* Daredevil, God Emperor Doom, Standard Okoye/Thor team
Poor: 4* Thanos

**a Okoye/Thor team that has Okoye tanking all of her colors.

Viable Bishop Counters

Great: N/A

Good: Silver Surfer

Ok: Bishop, 5* Black Panther**
Poor counter: 5* Doctor Octopus

According to a dev on discord, Bishop was designed to be a counter for 4*Grocket/America

Noted. Although it has also been reported that the dev team does not currently have any plans to redesign Bishop. 

There are actually one or two more points that were brought up but they tie into the discussion at hand so I will save them for later.

Closing the gap between the 4* tier and 5* tier

A lot of the complaints against the Kitty/Gritty/Bishop meta is that the strongest PvP team is composed of two 4* characters. The thinking behind this complaint is that the best teams should be comprised of 5*s due to their rarity and being a tier above.

However, this is not a new phenomenon. Interactions between characters of different tiers has been a thing since the earliest days of the game. Back in the day when the Punisher was considered a strong character, his best partner was 2* Black Widow since she was able to double dip from his strikes. Before the arrival of 4* Jean Grey, 4* Hulkbuster's best partner was 3* Iron Fist. 5* Hawkeye pairs best with 4* Coulson, and so on. 

Ideally, there should be some overlap between neighboring tiers to make entering the next tier more accessible. For quite awhile, there were a few forum members who would complain that 4* were meaningless.  I wonder if they ever thought to wonder what a "meaningful" 4* would be. If the dev team has no plans to release 6* characters and the vast majority of the player base is somewhere between the 3* and 4* tier, it would make sense for the dev team to focus on providing them with ways to better negotiate PvP.

It's notable that the dev team released three 4* characters within the span of 6-7 months to deal with 4* Grocket's strike tiles, all of which deal with the strikes tile with passive abilities. In contrast, the 5* tier got two characters that could potentially deal with Grocket's strike tiles during the same period, but one you have to sacrifice in order to remove the tiles and the other takes 9 AP to replace 4 of the strike tiles and is in a color that you will have to compete against the AI to collect if Kitty is on the team. 

The most interesting abilities more often than not seem to go to the 4* tier simply because that is where the majority of the player base is. 

4*/5* teams are good for the game

If the goal is to expand top tier play and to help bridge the gap between the 4* and 5* tiers, then allowing for these sorts of teams to exists is essential.  Not everyone is capable of keeping pace with the 5* release schedule. In fact, the problem of token dilution also makes it difficult for the vast majority of the player base to keep up with the 4* release schedule, too. But setting that issue aside for the moment, it does make sense to cultivate this dynamic for the time being. 

It gives players who have one foot in the 5* realm a chance to participate in PvP and with bonus heroes, gives them something to work towards. There are quite a number of solid 4*/5* pairings, some that can even be used competitively in PVP:

Grocket/Kitty
Bishop/Jessica Jones
Valkyrie/Kitty
Gamora/Daredevil
Coulson/Hawkeye
Iceman/Daredevil
Deadpool/Okoye
Carnage/Kitty

And I'm sure there are more. 

Now what seems to bother some members is the potential of such pairings to reach the highest level of the PvP meta. While I understand their thinking on the issue, if it provides a greater variety in the PvP meta and allows more players to have the opportunity to enjoy the PvP experience than I am for it. 

Nerfs are not the answer

The more I think about the current PvP situation, the more I feel the call for nerfs is a bit short-sighted. Admittedly, my interests are more in the game moving away from the "one meta to rule them all" to a more diversified PvP experience. I think the meta would be far more interesting if it weren't possible for one team to be able to beat all variations of teams in the game. So where some may look upon Bishop as a broken character, I see potential. With a few more characters in both the 4* and 5* tiers that effectively deal with the stun mechanic , I think the frustration that a certain section of the player base is currently feeling will be alleviated. And despite the lack of fanfare, Silver Surfer is a perfectly legitimate counter, albeit lackluster. I have even seen some players using Black Panther as a counter, although I haven't completely grasped the strategy of it just yet. 

There is a reason that the best stun abilities are in the 4* tier. It provides the player with a means of control and thus can be used by a transitioning player as a tool to overcome stronger opponent teams.  I see Bishop playing a crucial role of keeping the 5* tier in check.  If the dev team were to ever release another Gambit-like character, Bishop would be play a crucial role in helping those players who were unable to acquire said character (as long as they didn't give such a character stun counter-measures).

Buffs and Counters 

I think one point we can all agree on is that there is a dearth of effective counters for Bishop. And while I do think Silver Surfer is a legitimate counter, I understand the reluctance of some forum members to embrace him. For a long time the forum community has been asking for the classic 5* characters to get a general maintenance buff to help them stay viable in PvP and I think a good buff for Silver Surfer with a special vault would go a long way to help build good will with the community.  And just as Kitty/Grocket received three 4* characters and two 5* characters with counter mechanics, I think it would help if the dev team did a similar approach for the current Bishop issue. 

There's actually a bit more I would like to say on the subject but the hour grows late and I am afraid I have already said too much so I will leave it here for now. 

tiomono

I disagree on Bishop playing a crucial role in countering the 5* tier. 

I have no issue with 4* characters complementing 5* and making strategies viable like countdowns with hawkeye/Coulson or special buffing in the case of gritty. 

Bishop does not complement any particular 5* or strategy. He just stuns the 5* tier. He needs no specific teammate or board condition. Bishop does not exist to counter a possible  2nd coming of a gambit level character. You said yourself he was made to counter grocket and Chavez. And now we have worthy cap rollin in who is even more sensitive to being touched than bishop. 

We need solid hard counters for bishop that work for 5* players. Not surfer who only addresses the stun and that does nothing about the fact that bishop doubles a 5* players match damage and collects more than 2 times the amount of ap per turn. Not panther that has to wait 4 turns to retaliate. Definitely not bishop vs bishop, that goes horrid unless you luck into a cascade that can down him on turn 1.

There is no counter to bishop right now for 5* players. The sooner we get a character than can shut down more than just the stun the better. I am personally fine if it's even a 4* character. Bottom line is a character that makes the highest tier of player just want to skip needs to be dealt with in some way.

CT1888

I would argue that DD pushes BSSM up a bit further - sure, it's no defensive monster, but I feel way more confident going into a Gritty fight with them than anyone else. It's generally collect 9 purple, win very quickly afterward. Perhaps a bit too board dependant to be a truely great team though.
Add Surfer, and they can deal with Gritty/Bishop (as long as you get SS to tank at the right times - if he could get a match damage boost so he would tank blue, that'd be great). 

Daredevil217

tiomono said:

I disagree on Bishop playing a crucial role in countering the 5* tier. 

I have no issue with 4* characters complementing 5* and making strategies viable like countdowns with hawkeye/Coulson or special buffing in the case of gritty. 

Bishop does not complement any particular 5* or strategy. He just stuns the 5* tier. He needs no specific teammate or board condition. Bishop does not exist to counter a possible  2nd coming of a gambit level character. You said yourself he was made to counter grocket and Chavez. And now we have worthy cap rollin in who is even more sensitive to being touched than bishop. 

We need solid hard counters for bishop that work for 5* players. Not surfer who only addresses the stun and that does nothing about the fact that bishop doubles a 5* players match damage and collects more than 2 times the amount of ap per turn. Not panther that has to wait 4 turns to retaliate. Definitely not bishop vs bishop, that goes horrid unless you luck into a cascade that can down him on turn 1.

There is no counter to bishop right now for 5* players. The sooner we get a character than can shut down more than just the stun the better. I am personally fine if it's even a 4* character. Bottom line is a character that makes the highest tier of player just want to skip needs to be dealt with in some way.

Literally took the words right out of my mouth. I am a fan of 4*/5* pairings. My issue is with Bishop exclusively and it’s important not to confuse the two and lump them into the same argument. 

My issue with Bishop specifically is that he nerfs the entire tier above him to the point where if you play him on defense, you will undoubtedly get skipped way more and get a ton more defensive wins than if you don’t. Whether or not I play any other 4*/5* character combo does not benefit or adversely affect me
in the same way Bishop does.  He provides HUGE benefits for playing him, while not playing him will adversely affect me by painting a big target on my back if I climb high enough to be one of the few non-Bishop teams visible.

So, I can play fun 5* combos that I busted my behind to get, or play ONLY 4*/5* combos, so a broken 4* can remain visible as a scarecrow to 5*. No other 4/5 combo has you make that choice which is why no one is complaining about any of the other 4/5* characters/combos that were mentioned, and Bishop is the ONLY character people are calling out to be nerfed in droves. 

acescracked

Treras said:

OP a very detailed post but regarding Bishop it's wrong. We could beat GodGambit with another Gambit, but facing

Bishop isn´t a match, it's a coin toss.

It reeks of bad design and untested interactions. Heck why not follow Wizards of the Coast ban policy and admit that with the amount of ingame interactions sometimes thing's slip trought and create a dinamic ban list...

5* DD (to steal strikes)/BSSM (to negate strikes)/bishop(to generate blue) - match red first 2 moves 

Above 90% winrate against gritty/bishop.

BTW, everytime a player gets a frustrating match loss another player gets a joy inducing blue pop-up!

tiomono

acescracked said:

Treras said:

OP a very detailed post but regarding Bishop it's wrong. We could beat GodGambit with another Gambit, but facing

Bishop isn´t a match, it's a coin toss.

It reeks of bad design and untested interactions. Heck why not follow Wizards of the Coast ban policy and admit that with the amount of ingame interactions sometimes thing's slip trought and create a dinamic ban list...

5* DD (to steal strikes)/BSSM (to negate strikes)/bishop(to generate blue) - match red first 2 moves 

Above 90% winrate against gritty/bishop.

BTW, everytime a player gets a frustrating match loss another player gets a joy inducing blue pop-up!

So 90% of your matches have 2 red moves available for your first 2 turns?

What do you do when it's not simulator? I see a few unboosted bishop in regular events. The more people that realize how big of a scarecrow he is the more people will use him.

Warbringa

Okoye/Doom/XPool beats Gritty/Bishop fairly reliably, in my short experience, after champing Okoye.  It really helps though to make that first match if possible with team up tiles for Okoye.  You could also bring team AP too I guess.  It will cost you 1 to 2 health packs depending on if you can get a good heal with Okoye. You can of course heal Okoye pretty easily with a small expenditure of time if you don't want to waste health packs on her. XPool usually never takes damage but is the prime damage dealer that wipes out Bishop in the first/second turn and then take down Kitty soon thereafter due to Okoye's damage boost.  While it is a health pack drain, so far I have been beating Gritty/Bishop teams with it.  Of course power levels are a concern, I wouldn't take it against a high level Bishop if your XPool also isn't of high level too for example. 

You could probably sub God Doom in for another 5* but I picked him because he tanks a lot of colors to Okoye, his black hits hard, he has some healing and in the event he does go down in the fight, he clears away all of the AI tiles from Gritty. In theory, he can also heal Deadpool if necessary, although I have never had to use it for that.

I then of course switch to a better defensive team after beating up on Gritty/Bishops.

fight4thedream

tiomono said:

I disagree on Bishop playing a crucial role in countering the 5* tier. 

I have no issue with 4* characters complementing 5* and making strategies viable like countdowns with hawkeye/Coulson or special buffing in the case of gritty. 

Bishop does not complement any particular 5* or strategy. He just stuns the 5* tier. He needs no specific teammate or board condition. Bishop does not exist to counter a possible  2nd coming of a gambit level character. You said yourself he was made to counter grocket and Chavez. And now we have worthy cap rollin in who is even more sensitive to being touched than bishop. 

We need solid hard counters for bishop that work for 5* players. Not surfer who only addresses the stun and that does nothing about the fact that bishop doubles a 5* players match damage and collects more than 2 times the amount of ap per turn. Not panther that has to wait 4 turns to retaliate. Definitely not bishop vs bishop, that goes horrid unless you luck into a cascade that can down him on turn 1.

There is no counter to bishop right now for 5* players. The sooner we get a character than can shut down more than just the stun the better. I am personally fine if it's even a 4* character. Bottom line is a character that makes the highest tier of player just want to skip needs to be dealt with in some way.

While I understand your frustration, there are some statements you made that I think we need to think about more carefully when considering Bishop's place in the PvP meta. Since many of the points you bring up seem to echo the sentiments by those who argue for a Bishop nerf, I think your post is a good jump off point so I will work off from it.

"Bishop does not complement any particular 5* or strategy."

Bishop makes a great partner for Jessica Jones in normal PvP events. Offensively, he allows a player facing a 5* team to quickly meet her blue passive threshold so they can identify where her trap tiles are without actually having to chase blue which frees up said player to focus on chasing red and black. Defensively this team is also a pain to deal with if you don't have a counter character like Surfer, since it's more than likely your team will be stun locked for a few turns, allowing Jessica to collect AP and possibly trigger her traps. 

With that said, a Thor/Surfer team is more than capable of countering this team. The key is to basically chase red, blue and black and have Surfer take the stun hit. I won't candy coat it, there is a good chance you will need a health pack or two after this fight but as long as Jessica doesn't bomb you with her trap tiles, a player should emerge victorious more often than not assuming all things are equal. Obviously, picking a fight with a high level Jessica Jones and/or Bishop raises the stakes, as it should.

However, the common PvP team of Okoye/Thor will have trouble fighting this team since they have no effective means of dealing with Bishop's stun which I think is a good thing. Once again, success rate depends on champ levels but players who are used to winning matches very quickly and mostly unscathed will naturally have a distaste for fighting this pair as Bishop will not only delay the match significantly but his Overclocked power will chip away at Thor's health. 

Another great partner is 5* Thor. While it has long been held that Thor is rather weak defensively, the delay Bishop causes increases the risk that Thor will be able to gather the AP he needs to nuke the opponent team. Furthermore, you can run a 50% below health Thor without worrying about taking much or any damage since Bishop will soak it up. The only big risk is a cascade generating a critical tile that will down your Bishop before you are able to use his stun. And of course, you will need a health pack after one or two matches.

A final example that comes to mind is Dr. Strange. You will find a few people running a Bishop/Dr Strange combo SHIELD Simulator simply because Dr. Strange has the stronger blue power and is a great counter against other Bishop teams since his Flames of Faltine will trigger when the opponent Bishop goes to stun a teammate. Usually in that scenario, Doctor Strange has enough blue to cast Crimson Bands on the opponent Bishop and remove him from play. 

Basically, Bishop makes a great partner for any 5* character that has strong offensive abilities that aren't too expensive or involve complicated conditions. However, since most competitive PvP players are looking to minimize resource use and maximize utility, it's unlikely you will see many high end players running around with Green Goblin/Bishop teams simply because it has poor cost performance and speed in comparison to Okoye/Thor.

"He needs no specific teammate or board condition."

Bishop is not winning all these matches by himself. As I just illustrated, he works best when paired with a strong offensive type. What Bishop essentially does is delay the opposing team long enough for the defending team to gather enough AP or build enough offensive power to cause significant damage or defeat. His overclocked doing additionally is just the cherry on top. However, this doesn't come for free. The trade off for using you him is that you will more than likely need a health pack. 

For most players, this means using him in following circumstances:

1. end of climb, first shield. This depends more on what team you are using, whether you have a high level Jessica Jones and/or Bishop (possibly Thor?), and how confident you feel about climbing to your first shield. 

2. shield hops as most players should have enough health packs to accommodate running Bishop during their hop.

3. A scarecrow for those that want to float before making their final push.

4. special circumstances such as a player struggling to make it 1200 and the only worthwhile Q is a higher level 5* team with a lot of points. 

 Obviously, there are different play styles so I am sure there are other reasons people may choose to run a Bishop team but these are the main ones that come to mind. 

"And now we have worthy Cap..."

I find this significant. Despite the complaints regarding Bishop, the dev team has incorporated a similar mechanic in another 4*. And it seems Worthy Cap will have some very interesting interactions with some characters in both the 4* and 5* tiers. I think this speaks volumes but I will allow you to decide for yourself what it means. 

"There is no counter to Bishop for 5* players"

There are. I have already listed them but your comments on Surfer and Black Panther are telling. Surfer not only resists Bishop' stun, he is also capable of healing off the damage Bishop inflicts. Where Surfer runs into trouble is if the teammate Bishop is running with, such as Jessica Jones, is a high damage dealer. Then things can get a bit tricky since there is potential he will be overwhelmed before he can heal. But that's what I believe makes such matches interesting (although no question, a Surfer buff would be appreciated.) 

As for Black Panther, I have seen a few players running a Thanos/Panther team make quick work of Bishop teams although admittedly they were running 500+ 5* teams. I do not think the 4-turn wait is a fair criticism though. Most good offensive abilities are dependent on collecting 9AP-12AP which I imagine normally takes at least 3-4 turns to collect. Why do you think this too slow?

The truth of the matter

Bishop is a problem for a specific segment of the player base, specifically those who do not have the means or know-how to handle battles with him. He will be particularly troublesome for players running low champed level 5* teams and more of an annoyance for those who have high champed level 5*s. As I have stated earlier, I do think more counter solutions should definitely be implemented and a buff for Silver Surfer with a special vault store would be good, as well.  But I do think it is disingenuous to suggest that there are no solutions available to 5* players. No doubt, for those without a Surfer, the means to deal with Bishop are severely limited and for some, non-existent. The lack of clear means to acquire Surfer is also a significant issue. 

But I think this situation perfectly illustrates some of the drawbacks and pitfalls of having a more diverse 5* meta. But it is a cause I believe worth championing (no pun intended). 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Traditional Meta  vs  A Diverse Meta

Up until recently, the meta was rather simple: the PvP meta was ruled by a Hegemon, be it a power couple like OML/Phoenix or a single character like Gambit. Depending how far the power gap was between the Hegemon and those in the next tier of power determined how bearable it was to play in said meta without using the Hegemon. For example, while not ideal, it was perfectly possible to do well in PvP with Silver Surfer/OML team even though OML/Phoenix was significantly faster and complemented each other better. On the other hand, PvP became nearly unplayable for those who did not have Gambit during his reign over the meta. 

However, we have a bit of a unique case with Okoye/Thor. While without question they are the best offensive team in the game in terms of speed and power, they are not so tough on defense which allowed players to use a greater variety of teams in PvP. Be that as it may, until the arrival of Kitty, if you were playing PvP competitively, there was no question about which was the best team to use. 

But things are changing. We currently have two main staples in the PvP competitive and it seems we may even get a third: Bishop and Jessica Jones. I personally find it rather exciting but I understand the leeriness of those who have grown used to the period of a safe meta under Okoye/Thor. Changes are afoot and I think it is worthwhile to consider both the strengths and weaknesses of Traditional Meta model and  A Diverse Meta model

The Traditional Meta
For the sake of covering all my bases, I think it might be helpful here to distinguish between soft meta and hard meta.

A soft meta is a meta where the hegemon is the best but not oppressive (think Okoye/Thor)
A hard meta is a meta where the hegemon is dominant and oppressive (think Gambit) 

I will use "SM" (for soft meta) and "HM" (for hard meta) in front of the plus (+) or minus (-) to indicate whether this trait is specific to such a meta 

Pros:

+ easy to understand the meta and one's ability to win a match
+ once you have acquired the Hegemon, you are basically set. PvP isn't a huge challenge in terms of reaching the progression goal (unless playing in certain slices)

SM+ players are able to run a variety of teams besides the Hegemon
HM + players are unlikely to be attacked by non-Hegemon teams (champ level dependent)

Cons:

- Most competitive players will run the same team leading to a lack of variety (especially true for HM)
- Since the win conditions are basically the same, the actual match becomes less interesting since you are basically repeating the same actions for each match.
- The Hegemon eventually is nerfed or overthrown and sees little use in competitive PvP play (champ level dependent) 
- devalues most of non-Hegemon characters in terms of competitive attractiveness (ex: Why use Archangel? Hela is fun in PvE but not so great in PvP, etc) 

HM- If you do not have the Hegemon, you are going to have a less pleasant PvP experience 

A Diverse Meta

Pros:

+ encourages a wider use of roster
+ no one team is dominant
+ the greater the variety of viable teams, the more carefully a player has to approach a battle

Cons:

- the meta becomes more difficult to read and the player will have to do a bit of trial and error to ascertain how capable they are of handling new mechanics and combos
- if a player lacks a proper counter, certain specialist characters become significantly problematic (Kitty/Grocket, Bishop)
- the current distribution model makes it difficult for less competitive and newer players to attain counter characters
- the meta become more difficult for those who lack roster depth
- the meta becomes unwieldy and a large number of nerfs occur in an attempt to balance it out, possibly reverting back to a traditional meta

To be honest, I have no idea how feasible a diverse meta is or whether it would be sustainable. And I think the point that @firethorne made about the real problem being a player's ability to acquire counter characters within a reasonable time frame is a legitimate concern and critique of moving towards a more diverse meta.

But I do think it is at least worth attempting. 

I do want to thank and apologize to  @tiomono as I do know you feel passionately about the issue of Bishop and I appreciate your feedback. I tend to not hold back when debating someone but my intention is not to offend or disrespect you. I just want to challenge the ideas you have put forth. If it is any consolation, I tend to be wrong when trying to divine the dev's intentions and future meta developments. 

Anywhoo, it's way past my bedtime. Sorry for the long spiel! I tend to ramble on when I write late into the night. Have a good weekend everyone!

Warbringa

My favorite Bishop sim teams are:

Bishop/5Strange/5Daredevil

Bishop/5Doom/Mysterio 

Both work really well.  Strange blue being fueled by Bishop with awesome stun and damage booster from DD, who provides another stun avenue and self healing.  

More impressively, I have found that Doom/Bishop/Mysterio is very effective.  Bishop creates blue, which in turn Mysterio converts to yellow which Doom then uses to boardshake and heal Bishop.  Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.  Not a fast team but very effective and I normally only have to use 1 health pack for Bishop.  Mysterio is very valuable too because I gather enough blue that he usually ends up just autostunning one of the opposing teams characters for the entire match, or most of it at least. 

I think the OP post on the new meta hits home for me.  None of the PvP teams I use in the Sim are all 5* teams, and it has been that way for a while.  I am fine with that as I prefer the game to be more balanced where you have a chance to build effective new combinations.

tiomono

@fight4thedream

I dont feel offended or disrespected. I feel we mostly agree. 

IMO low level 5* players need multiple "great" counter options to deal with bishop. Right now the counter options are either not effective vs all that bishop does or are very situational and risky.

There is no way for low level 5* players to get around bishop. Every other character has a way to deal with them. Low level 5* players can not target bishop first, they cannot target him last, they can not save up to nuke him, they can not deny him ap. The only way around bishop is straight through him. And they will take heavy damage in a high risk match on the way through him.

jp1

In the most recent PVPs I’ve forgone Bishop altogether because defensive losses are becoming much more common. With the recent boost list, combos such as Rogue/GED have been my replacement. I’ve seen many other teams as well though...with very little Bishop and that’s playing all the way to 1200 with an MMR where I see people with full 550 rosters.

I still think the problem he presents is greatly exaggerated, and people just generally don’t like a match without a 90% plus chance of guaranteed win.

I also don’t understand why a team is okay if they are completely dominate offensively, but broken if they are a defensive challenge.

Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread into yet another nerf Bishop discussion. The more important discussion here in my opinion is “Do we need a bridge from 4 to 5 land?” I think we do. Moreover, I think it makes the game more interesting and the more 4s that become relevant when paired with 5s the better. I don’t really enjoy having 180 plus bench warmers on my roster. 

Boosted Rogue with GED was such a fun team to play with and added some much needed variety to my usual grind. Unfortunately, as good as Rogue is, she needs the boost to be truly relevant here. On the other hand teams like Okoye/Xpool/Sabretooth are relevant even without boosts. 

I would love to see more 4s released who utilize an even larger portion of the 5* tier.

tiomono

jp1 said:

In the most recent PVPs I’ve forgone Bishop altogether because defensive losses are becoming much more common. With the recent boost list, combos such as Rogue/GED have been my replacement. I’ve seen many other teams as well though...with very little Bishop and that’s playing all the way to 1200 with an MMR where I see people with full 550 rosters.

I still think the problem he presents is greatly exaggerated, and people just generally don’t like a match without a 90% plus chance of guaranteed win.

I also don’t understand why a team is okay if they are completely dominate offensively, but broken if they are a defensive challenge.

Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread into yet another nerf Bishop discussion. The more important discussion here in my opinion is “Do we need a bridge from 4 to 5 land?” I think we do. Moreover, I think it makes the game more interesting and the more 4s that become relevant when paired with 5s the better. I don’t really enjoy having 180 plus bench warmers on my roster. 

Boosted Rogue with GED was such a fun team to play with and added some much needed variety to my usual grind. Unfortunately, as good as Rogue is, she needs the boost to be truly relevant here. On the other hand teams like Okoye/Xpool/Sabretooth are relevant even without boosts. 

I would love to see more 4s released who utilize an even larger portion of the 5* tier.

How often do you play 3* characters unless they are required by the node you are on? At some point to feel progress, it is logical to cross the bridge and be on the other side. Not be stuck with one leg on the bridge because that bridge is so good at what it does.

jp1

@tiomono Sorry, but I disagree. 5*s are so far removed from the 4* tier that it makes sense to have some interaction there. 

With th the four star tier being so incredibly large, I like to see it become more useful as well. I don’t care if I’m far enough into 5 land to avoid it...there are interesting characters to explore.

I have 10 five star champs, with two more fully covered. Most of the meta and top tier. I would still like to be able to use more of my roster.

tiomono

jp1 said:

@tiomono Sorry, but I disagree. 5*s are so far removed from the 4* tier that it makes sense to have some interaction there. 

With th the four star tier being so incredibly large, I like to see it become more useful as well. I don’t care if I’m far enough into 5 land to avoid it...there are interesting characters to explore.

I have 10 five star champs, with two more fully covered. Most of the meta and top tier. I would still like to be able to use more of my roster.

I love using more of my roster as well. I just feel at the tippy top of competitive versus play it would make more sense to be building teams from the highest tier and not having to make part or most of my team up from a lower tier because that rolls over the higher tier. It makes advancing to the higher tier feel pointless when you continue to rely on the lower tier as your bread and butter. 

Story mode is always there to let you use as many characters from any tier you want and experiment for fun or odd strategies. Versus should incentivize upward progress to the strongest tier of play. Why advance into 5* when 4* has such a more broad and varied experience? If I have already advanced to 5* why should I feel like I have to incorporate 4* characters to be relevant in versus mode? If I have the meta 5* characters why am i struggling vs teams that incorporate 4*'s. Should I expect a 3* player to be able to field two 3*'s and a 4* and do just fine vs a meta 4* team?

Does it make sense for a team to have a 180 level advantage but struggle, or just scrape through with a win? That's the equivalent of a champed 3* having a hard time fighting a level 1 1* character. Its absurd to think the 1* should even be a blip on your radar.

But that's just my opinion. Some people will agree, others will not.  

jp1

tiomono said:

jp1 said:

@tiomono Sorry, but I disagree. 5*s are so far removed from the 4* tier that it makes sense to have some interaction there. 

With th the four star tier being so incredibly large, I like to see it become more useful as well. I don’t care if I’m far enough into 5 land to avoid it...there are interesting characters to explore.

I have 10 five star champs, with two more fully covered. Most of the meta and top tier. I would still like to be able to use more of my roster.

I love using more of my roster as well. I just feel at the tippy top of competitive versus play it would make more sense to be building teams from the highest tier and not having to make part or most of my team up from a lower tier because that rolls over the higher tier. It makes advancing to the higher tier feel pointless when you continue to rely on the lower tier as your bread and butter. 

Story mode is always there to let you use as many characters from any tier you want and experiment for fun or odd strategies. Versus should incentivize upward progress to the strongest tier of play. Why advance into 5* when 4* has such a more broad and varied experience? If I have already advanced to 5* why should I feel like I have to incorporate 4* characters to be relevant in versus mode? If I have the meta 5* characters why am i struggling vs teams that incorporate 4*'s. Should I expect a 3* player to be able to field two 3*'s and a 4* and do just fine vs a meta 4* team?

Does it make sense for a team to have a 180 level advantage but struggle, or just scrape through with a win? That's the equivalent of a champed 3* having a hard time fighting a level 1 1* character. Its absurd to think the 1* should even be a blip on your radar.

But that's just my opinion. Some people will agree, others will not.  

I don’t understand this at all. If you win, you win. If they released a 3* tomorrow that had some magic synergy with a four and a five To form a new meta, I’d roll with it all day long. I have four 5*s that never get off the bench if you want to talk about progress feeling useless, also almost every 4* character that I cover and invest 360k ISO in then use once or twice a year if I’m lucky. 

Give me someone in 4* land that makes Cap Mar5el, Cable, or Loki a serious contender and I’m a happy camper. 

The 3* to 1* comparison is a nonstarter for me. That transition is much easier and that level of the game is far removed from making your way all the way through the 4* tier and then the giant leap to 5*. It’s an entirely different game at that point.

Also, I don’t mean this as an insult or to be offensive at all, it’s just my personal feeling on it...but, wanting or feeling the urge to change the game up and try to get them to nerf a character just so you can roll out exclusively with your 5s feels elitist and prideful to me. That’s just my perspective, I’m not claiming it is the only reasonable way to look at it. Use the best tools available for the job.

If a certain hammer is supposed to be the best (and is extremely difficult to obtain) and is underwhelming... would you get the objectively better hammer for less and be happy to call it a day? I sure would.

I use an IPhone because of the convenience and quality control I get from having a controlled and integrated market. You can bet your bottom dollar if someone else comes along and provides a viable (superior) alternative to that for a much more reasonable cost I will switch up, even if it isn’t  “top tier”. 

Tl;dr - I have some 4*s who I like more than most of my 5* roster. Synergy makes the game more interesting for me, so I have no hang ups on what tier of character I am using to succeed in my objective as long as it is effective.

tiomono

jp1 said:

tiomono said:

jp1 said:

@tiomono Sorry, but I disagree. 5*s are so far removed from the 4* tier that it makes sense to have some interaction there. 

With th the four star tier being so incredibly large, I like to see it become more useful as well. I don’t care if I’m far enough into 5 land to avoid it...there are interesting characters to explore.

I have 10 five star champs, with two more fully covered. Most of the meta and top tier. I would still like to be able to use more of my roster.

I love using more of my roster as well. I just feel at the tippy top of competitive versus play it would make more sense to be building teams from the highest tier and not having to make part or most of my team up from a lower tier because that rolls over the higher tier. It makes advancing to the higher tier feel pointless when you continue to rely on the lower tier as your bread and butter. 

Story mode is always there to let you use as many characters from any tier you want and experiment for fun or odd strategies. Versus should incentivize upward progress to the strongest tier of play. Why advance into 5* when 4* has such a more broad and varied experience? If I have already advanced to 5* why should I feel like I have to incorporate 4* characters to be relevant in versus mode? If I have the meta 5* characters why am i struggling vs teams that incorporate 4*'s. Should I expect a 3* player to be able to field two 3*'s and a 4* and do just fine vs a meta 4* team?

Does it make sense for a team to have a 180 level advantage but struggle, or just scrape through with a win? That's the equivalent of a champed 3* having a hard time fighting a level 1 1* character. Its absurd to think the 1* should even be a blip on your radar.

But that's just my opinion. Some people will agree, others will not.  

I don’t understand this at all. If you win, you win. If they released a 3* tomorrow that had some magic synergy with a four and a five To form a new meta, I’d roll with it all day long. I have four 5*s that never get off the bench if you want to talk about progress feeling useless, also almost every 4* character that I cover and invest 360k ISO in then use once or twice a year if I’m lucky. 

Give me someone in 4* land that makes Cap Mar5el, Cable, or Loki a serious contender and I’m a happy camper. 

The 3* to 1* comparison is a nonstarter for me. That transition is much easier and that level of the game is far removed from making your way all the way through the 4* tier and then the giant leap to 5*. It’s an entirely different game at that point.

Also, I don’t mean this as an insult or to be offensive at all, it’s just my personal feeling on it...but, wanting or feeling the urge to change the game up and try to get them to nerf a character just so you can roll out exclusively with your 5s feels elitist and prideful to me. That’s just my perspective, I’m not claiming it is the only reasonable way to look at it. Use the best tools available for the job.

If a certain hammer is supposed to be the best (and is extremely difficult to obtain) and is underwhelming... would you get the objectively better hammer for less and be happy to call it a day? I sure would.

I use an IPhone because of the convenience and quality control I get from having a controlled and integrated market. You can bet your bottom dollar if someone else comes along and provides a viable (superior) alternative to that for a much more reasonable cost I will switch up, even if it isn’t  “top tier”. 

Tl;dr - I have some 4*s who I like more than most of my 5* roster. Synergy makes the game more interesting for me, so I have no hang ups on what tier of character I am using to succeed in my objective as long as it is effective.

Show me where I have said nerf bishop. I want great counters to bishop for low level 5* characters.

I'm done discussing bishop. It's just a brick wall everytime I state my opinion and in game facts that frustrate a portion of the playerbase. It's a massive circular argument that will not be resolved when I say we need great counters to bishop and you respond why do you want to nerf bishop?

I have stated I'm ok with 4* characters complementing 5*. I just feel bishop is an outlier in this situation. In that he is too good versus low level 5* champs. I am hoping as the 5* tier grows so will the options for fielding a team of three 5*'s that are clearly the best option.

jp1

tiomono said:

jp1 said:

tiomono said:

jp1 said:

@tiomono Sorry, but I disagree. 5*s are so far removed from the 4* tier that it makes sense to have some interaction there. 

With th the four star tier being so incredibly large, I like to see it become more useful as well. I don’t care if I’m far enough into 5 land to avoid it...there are interesting characters to explore.

I have 10 five star champs, with two more fully covered. Most of the meta and top tier. I would still like to be able to use more of my roster.

I love using more of my roster as well. I just feel at the tippy top of competitive versus play it would make more sense to be building teams from the highest tier and not having to make part or most of my team up from a lower tier because that rolls over the higher tier. It makes advancing to the higher tier feel pointless when you continue to rely on the lower tier as your bread and butter. 

Story mode is always there to let you use as many characters from any tier you want and experiment for fun or odd strategies. Versus should incentivize upward progress to the strongest tier of play. Why advance into 5* when 4* has such a more broad and varied experience? If I have already advanced to 5* why should I feel like I have to incorporate 4* characters to be relevant in versus mode? If I have the meta 5* characters why am i struggling vs teams that incorporate 4*'s. Should I expect a 3* player to be able to field two 3*'s and a 4* and do just fine vs a meta 4* team?

Does it make sense for a team to have a 180 level advantage but struggle, or just scrape through with a win? That's the equivalent of a champed 3* having a hard time fighting a level 1 1* character. Its absurd to think the 1* should even be a blip on your radar.

But that's just my opinion. Some people will agree, others will not.  

I don’t understand this at all. If you win, you win. If they released a 3* tomorrow that had some magic synergy with a four and a five To form a new meta, I’d roll with it all day long. I have four 5*s that never get off the bench if you want to talk about progress feeling useless, also almost every 4* character that I cover and invest 360k ISO in then use once or twice a year if I’m lucky. 

Give me someone in 4* land that makes Cap Mar5el, Cable, or Loki a serious contender and I’m a happy camper. 

The 3* to 1* comparison is a nonstarter for me. That transition is much easier and that level of the game is far removed from making your way all the way through the 4* tier and then the giant leap to 5*. It’s an entirely different game at that point.

Also, I don’t mean this as an insult or to be offensive at all, it’s just my personal feeling on it...but, wanting or feeling the urge to change the game up and try to get them to nerf a character just so you can roll out exclusively with your 5s feels elitist and prideful to me. That’s just my perspective, I’m not claiming it is the only reasonable way to look at it. Use the best tools available for the job.

If a certain hammer is supposed to be the best (and is extremely difficult to obtain) and is underwhelming... would you get the objectively better hammer for less and be happy to call it a day? I sure would.

I use an IPhone because of the convenience and quality control I get from having a controlled and integrated market. You can bet your bottom dollar if someone else comes along and provides a viable (superior) alternative to that for a much more reasonable cost I will switch up, even if it isn’t  “top tier”. 

Tl;dr - I have some 4*s who I like more than most of my 5* roster. Synergy makes the game more interesting for me, so I have no hang ups on what tier of character I am using to succeed in my objective as long as it is effective.

Show me where I have said nerf bishop. I want great counters to bishop for low level 5* characters.

I'm done discussing bishop. It's just a brick wall everytime I state my opinion and in game facts that frustrate a portion of the playerbase. It's a massive circular argument that will not be resolved when I say we need great counters to bishop and you respond why do you want to nerf bishop?

I have stated I'm ok with 4* characters complementing 5*. I just feel bishop is an outlier in this situation. In that he is too good versus low level 5* champs. I am hoping as the 5* tier grows so will the options for fielding a team of three 5*'s that are clearly the best option.

That particular sentence was constructed in a way that made it seem as though it was only directed at you. That’s my bad. I may have been under the impression you were pro-nerf due to how vocal you have been about him being OP or broken, but the point was an “in general” flavor and really meant to state my own personal feelings.

Its not a personal attack. I do think we need to start distinguishing facts from opinions though. 

I agree, absolutely nothing would make me happier than to be done discussing Bishop, mainly because this is all that ever comes with it.

Still, apologies if you felt offended...that wasn’t my intention. Poor wording on my part despite the efforts to put a disclaimer in there.

bluewolf

Purple Man:  PASSIVE: "Why are you hitting yourself?"  All match dmg is reversed and hits you instead.  Also generates 4 AP in all colors every time you make a match.

He could make any 5 viable.  Win!

Enchantress:  Passive: "Obey your mistress".  All male character's abilities' damage are cast against their team.  Female teammates' match dmg and abilities are halved as they become increasingly frustrated with the stupid men.  Run with any 5. Win!

jp1

One above all - Passive: “How dare you?”
If the opposing team utilizes characters from different tiers disintegrate all of the opposing characters at start of battle.

Win.

Galactus - Passive: “Mmmmm”
If any character on the opposing team should possess the ability to stun, eat whoever stands in front. Steal all of the opposing team AP.

Active: - 3 Blue Ap “Still hungry”
Galactus cleans his plate by finishing off the opposing team in one big gulp.

Win.

tiomono

@jp1 I'm not offended. I'm just done. I have stated facts before expressing my frustrations with bishop. And have had people just brush off or ignore that and focus on something else. 

Bishop is fine in the 4* game. He is OP when he faces low level 5* champs. I say he is OP in that situation because he doubles 5* champs match damage and generates more than double the ap the 5* can every turn till he dies. It does not matter what the 5* player does, bishop does this every turn and forces you to deal with him until he dies. He does that to all 37 5* characters, and his stun (which he often will have on his first turn defensively) shuts down all but Surfer, panther, and doc ock (in rare circumstances).

These are not opinions. These are in game facts. Someone may disagree that gaining more than double the opponents ap every turn and doing double the match damage is OP. But that he does it is not an opinion. It is fact.