Captain Hammertime and his broken friends

12357…10

Comments

  • jredd
    jredd Posts: 1,387 Chairperson of the Boards
    Dhaunas said:
    Bishop and Worthy are fine, as is, imo.

    Yes, they require more thought and, often, more time to defeat (which is an issue for many, due to how the game has built itself towards speed in recent years) than what people are used to. The truth is, they are not difficult to counter IF you have a deep roster -- and this is where the problem lies. Dilution needs to be addressed, particularly in regards to 5* classics... making feeders for all classic 5*s a priority would be a huge help for those who need it.

    For Gritty / Bishop, I've had tremendous success using: BSSM / SS / Chavez, BSSM / Bishop / Sabretooth. Will I occasionally lose? Yep. But that's the point, isn't it? 100% success isn't a reasonable expectation; bad boards or bad choices tend to be the only time I lose here... I'd say a win is roughly 95% assured as long as I don't screw up.

    HE / Worthy: 5trange / Bishop / G4mora, 5trange / Bishop / 5piderman, Thano5 / 5piderman / Chavez, Cpt M4rvel / (any 4* stunner) / 4* JG, the list goes on.

    The point is, you have to be creative; at the same time, you can easily see that both are greatly assisted by 5* classics that not everyone, particularly relative newcomers, has covered (or means to reasonably do so). This is why it's a dilution issue, which needs to be addressed. Hobbling new covers due to a dilution problem isn't the answer. :#
    and yet, another point is, you shouldn't essentially lose a match on your first turn making a match 3 in a match 3 game.

    everyone seems to want to agree to disagree here. 4* players are loving this cause they can punch above their weight class. 5* players hate this because they can't do the most basic thing in the game against these 2.

    now we all appreciate your contribution and suggestions but you know as does everyone else that competitive pvp is not built around being 1 team. if it was this would be a non issue.
  • Dhaunas
    Dhaunas Posts: 54 Match Maker
    edited October 2019
    jredd said:

    and yet, another point is, you shouldn't essentially lose a match on your first turn making a match 3 in a match 3 game.

    everyone seems to want to agree to disagree here. 4* players are loving this cause they can punch above their weight class. 5* players hate this because they can't do the most basic thing in the game against these 2.

    now we all appreciate your contribution and suggestions but you know as does everyone else that competitive pvp is not built around being 1 team. if it was this would be a non issue.
    Here's the thing: if you're losing the match on your first turn making a match 3, then chances are it's because you went into the match refusing to build a team designed to properly take on the team you are challenging.

    You talk about competitive pvp, but seem to want 4* players to not be able to compete? I understand the frustration in not being able to easily use a 5* only team in every match due to these 2 characters. However, true competitive pvp involves smart team building on both offense and defense -- not just being able to bulldoze everyone to a high score.
     
     I understand it's frustrating, especially due to the course set by d3go over the past several years that has encouraged speed over strategy. You say that everyone knows that competitive pvp is not built around being 1 team; I agree, and I mentioned several different teams that can effectively counter the current metas -- this is why I consider it to be a non issue. The only issue is the lack of access to those counters for a large number of players, which is a dilution issue.
  • Kolence
    Kolence Posts: 969 Critical Contributor
    @Dhaunas
    If we could independently set the defensive team for pvp in this game, from the team we use on offense, I could agree more with your point of view.

    But as it is, first - having the wide enough roster, and then second - being creative and beating (I believe that was a typo in the previous response you quoted?) one of these nasty teams will only result in (several? many?) other players with "average" and better 5* teams beat on you making you lose much more points than you have gained in the first place. 

    Also, the game favoring speed over anything else has been true from the beginning, not just last several years (which could still be technically correct though...  :)  ).

    And 5* rosters should definitely beat 4* rosters always for placement, if they wish to. If 4* players feel they are not able to win adequate rewards in pvp because 5* players are taking all the top spots, that's more a problem of poor use of different SCL's and rewards offered in them. Which also hasn't changed in last several years! :p 
  • Dhaunas
    Dhaunas Posts: 54 Match Maker
    edited October 2019
    dkffiv said:
    Dhaunas said:
    Bishop and Worthy are fine, as is, imo.

    Yes, they require more thought and, often, more time to defeat (which is an issue for many, due to how the game has built itself towards speed in recent years) than what people are used to. The truth is, they are not difficult to counter IF you have a deep roster -- and this is where the problem lies. Dilution needs to be addressed, particularly in regards to 5* classics... making feeders for all classic 5*s a priority would be a huge help for those who need it.

    For Gritty / Bishop, I've had tremendous success using: BSSM / SS / Chavez, BSSM / Bishop / Sabretooth. Will I occasionally lose? Yep. But that's the point, isn't it? 100% success isn't a reasonable expectation; bad boards or bad choices tend to be the only time I lose here... I'd say a win is roughly 95% assured as long as I don't screw up.

    HE / Worthy: 5trange / Bishop / G4mora, 5trange / Bishop / 5piderman, Thano5 / 5piderman / Chavez, Cpt M4rvel / (any 4* stunner) / 4* JG, the list goes on.

    The point is, you have to be creative; at the same time, you can easily see that both are greatly assisted by 5* classics that not everyone, particularly relative newcomers, has covered (or means to reasonably do so). This is why it's a dilution issue, which needs to be addressed. Hobbling new covers due to a dilution problem isn't the answer. :#
    For PvE maybe but your counter team loses hard to the team its "countering."  BSSM SS Chavez would get absolutely destroyed by Bishop Gritty once they stun spiderman.  Your opponent can beat you twice for every victory you "earn," not to mention every climbing team will nail you over Gritty since your team poses 0 threat.  Your creativity earned you a net point loss while not addressing the issue at all.

    When paired with Peggy none of the teams you listed would win even 10% of the time for HE Worthy.  Strange is not an effective counter because 2/3 of your team is stunned and you're eating a 10k+ nuke.  Your counter flame is also triggering Cap if Strange wasnt the one stunned. 


    As far as Bishop / Gritty, my opponent has never beaten my BSSM SS Chavez team twice for every victory I earn; as I mentioned in that paragraph, I win 95% of those matches. Bad boards tend to account for the 5% loss -- when Spiderman is forced to be the one to match, risking him being stunned (often, grocket fires his blue as opposed to bishop firing his, saving it). However, with SS tanking red and black (and being immune from the likely stun attempt following it), Chavez tanking yellow (which doesn't trigger Bishop), I earn a net point gain WHILE addressing the issue -- contrary to what you seem to think.


    As far as Peggy with HE Worthy, the last team I mentioned handles that matchup easily. It's slower, obviously, but being all 4*s, it doesn't trigger Worthy. 4* Marvel / Peggy / Bishop handles them with ease. To blanket state that none of the teams I mentioned would win even 10% of the time is grossly misinformed.

    I understand people's frustrations with these characters; being forced to slow down when being accustomed to mowing down everyone in your path can be frustrating. Doesn't mean it's broken.
  • BriMan2222
    BriMan2222 Posts: 1,419 Chairperson of the Boards
    Dhaunas said:
    dkffiv said:
    Dhaunas said:
    Bishop and Worthy are fine, as is, imo.

    Yes, they require more thought and, often, more time to defeat (which is an issue for many, due to how the game has built itself towards speed in recent years) than what people are used to. The truth is, they are not difficult to counter IF you have a deep roster -- and this is where the problem lies. Dilution needs to be addressed, particularly in regards to 5* classics... making feeders for all classic 5*s a priority would be a huge help for those who need it.

    For Gritty / Bishop, I've had tremendous success using: BSSM / SS / Chavez, BSSM / Bishop / Sabretooth. Will I occasionally lose? Yep. But that's the point, isn't it? 100% success isn't a reasonable expectation; bad boards or bad choices tend to be the only time I lose here... I'd say a win is roughly 95% assured as long as I don't screw up.

    HE / Worthy: 5trange / Bishop / G4mora, 5trange / Bishop / 5piderman, Thano5 / 5piderman / Chavez, Cpt M4rvel / (any 4* stunner) / 4* JG, the list goes on.

    The point is, you have to be creative; at the same time, you can easily see that both are greatly assisted by 5* classics that not everyone, particularly relative newcomers, has covered (or means to reasonably do so). This is why it's a dilution issue, which needs to be addressed. Hobbling new covers due to a dilution problem isn't the answer. :#
    For PvE maybe but your counter team loses hard to the team its "countering."  BSSM SS Chavez would get absolutely destroyed by Bishop Gritty once they stun spiderman.  Your opponent can beat you twice for every victory you "earn," not to mention every climbing team will nail you over Gritty since your team poses 0 threat.  Your creativity earned you a net point loss while not addressing the issue at all.

    When paired with Peggy none of the teams you listed would win even 10% of the time for HE Worthy.  Strange is not an effective counter because 2/3 of your team is stunned and you're eating a 10k+ nuke.  Your counter flame is also triggering Cap if Strange wasnt the one stunned. 


    As far as Bishop / Gritty, my opponent has never beaten my BSSM SS Chavez team twice for every victory I earn; as I mentioned in that paragraph, I win 95% of those matches. Bad boards tend to account for the 5% loss -- when Spiderman is forced to be the one to match, risking him being stunned (often, grocket fires his blue as opposed to bishop firing his, saving it). However, with SS tanking red and black (and being immune from the likely stun attempt following it), Chavez tanking yellow (which doesn't trigger Bishop), I earn a net point gain WHILE addressing the issue -- contrary to what you seem to think.


    As far as Peggy with HE Worthy, the last team I mentioned handles that matchup easily. It's slower, obviously, but being all 4*s, it doesn't trigger Worthy. 4* Marvel / Peggy / Bishop handles them with ease. To blanket state that none of the teams I mentioned would win even 10% of the time is grossly misinformed.

    I understand people's frustrations with these characters; being forced to slow down when being accustomed to mowing down everyone in your path can be frustrating. Doesn't mean it's broken.
    If a 5 star player being shut down by a 4 star character and having to use an inferior tier of characters that they grown out of doesn't sound broken then I don't know what is.

    Imagine champing your first set of 3 stars and growing your 3 star roster and then suddenly they release a 2 star character that stuns and outdamages your entire 3 star team and having to not use your champed 3 star roster but rather use your 2 stars instead and then getting destroyed by 3 star teams on defense because your 2 stars are easy for them.  Does that not sound broken for a lower tier character destroying the entire tier above them?

    At this point if I wasn't already in 5 star land I would just never level up any 5 stars.
  • Vins2
    Vins2 Posts: 183 Tile Toppler
    When I was a 3* player I didn't expect to beat a 4* team or expect to outrank/outscore a 4* player in pve/pvp.   Did anybody? 

  • Borstock
    Borstock Posts: 2,836 Chairperson of the Boards
    Vins2 said:
    When I was a 3* player I didn't expect to beat a 4* team or expect to outrank/outscore a 4* player in pve/pvp.   Did anybody? 

    I mean, it happened often, especially with mixed teams. 
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    As Borstock stated, it happens often.

    When I first break out in 4* land, Gritty + GotG/Medusa/ was a common opponents at the higher level in Shield Simulator. The team I used to beat them consisted of 3* and 2* characters.

    In PvE, I'm outscoring players with more than 5 champed 5* in SCL 7.

    It seems like some don't like the feeling of lower tier characters beating them. It is expected by some that the upper tier characters must bulldoze the lower tiers by default. 

    I believe that the world is not just black and white. I believe that the world is colourful. 
  • Dhaunas
    Dhaunas Posts: 54 Match Maker
    dkffiv said:
    Dhaunas said:
    As far as Bishop / Gritty, my opponent has never beaten my BSSM SS Chavez team twice for every victory I earn; as I mentioned in that paragraph, I win 95% of those matches. Bad boards tend to account for the 5% loss -- when Spiderman is forced to be the one to match, risking him being stunned (often, grocket fires his blue as opposed to bishop firing his, saving it). However, with SS tanking red and black (and being immune from the likely stun attempt following it), Chavez tanking yellow (which doesn't trigger Bishop), I earn a net point gain WHILE addressing the issue -- contrary to what you seem to think.
    If we're both at 1k points and I'm running Bishop Gritty, I will win two victories against you in the time it takes you to beat my team once.  All the way you're getting nailed by every other climber out there because your team poses no threat.  I'm coasting to 1.2k and you're stabilizing, at best, at 800.  Your solution is "fine" for PvE but does not work in actual pvp settings.
    Again, you are making incorrect assumptions. Stabilizing, at best, at 800? I easily get 900... though I admit, it's not worth the slog to 1200. And maybe it's the timing of when I choose to pvp (usually within an hour of the end of the slice I choose to play), but I climb to 900 within 30 minutes and rarely get attacked on my way up; if I was targeted during my climb, it would absolutely slow things down and make it much more frustrating.

    Thing is, as previous posters have mentioned, those who view themselves as competitive pvp'ers are accustomed to being able to bulldoze everyone in their path; as I've mentioned, that isn't competitive, at all. I like the diversity that well crafted characters bring to the table, regardless of their * rating.

    As far as being "fine" for PvE, let's be honest... PvE generally doesn't require as much thought / strategy as pvp does.

    That being said, I concede that the thresholds for Bishop / Worthy's passives to trigger are way too low; rather than any damage past a certain point triggering them, perhaps damage from abilities only trigger them (or they trigger on match 4+, a la 3* Loki's ap steal). But I'd rather leave them as is, forcing players to dig into their roster to counter them, than to ask for a nerf -- their history of nerfs demonstrate that, far more often than not, they destroy the character rather than 'balance' them. /shrug
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited October 2019
    I don't think there are players playing PvP 24/7. What you are suggesting is the worst case scenario. Most people here knows that there are timings in PvP: timing where very few players climb at the same time as you, which means you don't get attack often.

    I hit 1000 often in PvPs and I don't get 2 losses for every win I get even though I put out unboosted champed 4*. 

    After going through both Bishop and Cap Worthy threads calling for nerfs, there are a few common themes or rules that some certain group of players created for themselves and sort of expect the devs to follow those rules when creating new 4*/5* characters. Here are the rules "created":

    1) 4* characters should be easily bulldozed by 5* characters and not create much interference to their 5* team, or 4* + 5* team should be taken out easily.

    2) If there are meta teams, the counter team shouldn't consist of 5* characters belonging to the non-meta tier. For example, Silver Surfer is an automatic solution to Bishop due to his immunity to stun. However, we get 101 reasons why Silver Surfer is not a counter. The core reason (apart from dilution) is always: if we put up this team to counter that meta team, our defensive team will be weak and we will get attack often. Therefore, this is not a counter team.

    3) X teams used in PvP should end a match within Y turns or within Z minutes. If not, that character or team is weak or considered non-meta.

    4) If there is new meta team, the obvious counter team(s) should be made available immediately instead of having to wait X months or weeks to champ them.

    5) Healthpack usages should be kept to the minimum.

    On the other hand,

    A) They are worried about how 4* players can transition to 5* plays with dilution in the game but see point 1 above.

    2) They are always feedbacking about how classic characters are difficult to champ but see point 2&3 above. It's as if they will use them more frequently than meta team once they champ them all. 

    The point is, these people are in the minority and expect the devs to abide by their rules and anytime you find the above rules broken, expect displeasure.

  • BigSoftieFF
    BigSoftieFF Posts: 454 Mover and Shaker
    Dhaunas said:
    dkffiv said:
    Dhaunas said:
    As far as Bishop / Gritty, my opponent has never beaten my BSSM SS Chavez team twice for every victory I earn; as I mentioned in that paragraph, I win 95% of those matches. Bad boards tend to account for the 5% loss -- when Spiderman is forced to be the one to match, risking him being stunned (often, grocket fires his blue as opposed to bishop firing his, saving it). However, with SS tanking red and black (and being immune from the likely stun attempt following it), Chavez tanking yellow (which doesn't trigger Bishop), I earn a net point gain WHILE addressing the issue -- contrary to what you seem to think.
    If we're both at 1k points and I'm running Bishop Gritty, I will win two victories against you in the time it takes you to beat my team once.  All the way you're getting nailed by every other climber out there because your team poses no threat.  I'm coasting to 1.2k and you're stabilizing, at best, at 800.  Your solution is "fine" for PvE but does not work in actual pvp settings.


    As far as being "fine" for PvE, let's be honest... PvE generally doesn't require as much thought / strategy as pvp does.


    Please tell me this is sarcasm?
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards
    OJSP said:
    Vins2 said:
    When I was a 3* player I didn't expect to beat a 4* team or expect to outrank/outscore a 4* player in pve/pvp.   Did anybody? 
    Not sure when you started playing the game, but back in the days, due to community scaling and cupcaking, it was entirely possible for 3* players to do just that. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, but it did. Then 5*s were introduced and Thanos.. 
    Just for my own benefit, are you talking about all the soft-cappers gaming the roster-based scaling  system in the pre-champion days or was it also possible to game the community-based scaling system, too?  Community scaling died before I transitioned out of 2*’s so I had no idea exactly what top-level PVE play looked like in those days...
  • Xair
    Xair Posts: 77 Match Maker
    edited October 2019
    the problem is that mmr is determined by champion levels, and when u introduce low level meta chars, u cause the players to have to deal with meta teams from lower rankings then you would otherwise.
  • Dhaunas
    Dhaunas Posts: 54 Match Maker
    edited October 2019
    BigSoftieFF said:
    Dhaunas said:



    As far as being "fine" for PvE, let's be honest... PvE generally doesn't require as much thought / strategy as pvp does.


    Please tell me this is sarcasm?
    It's not, but let me clarify.

    In PvE, most of the time, I'm able to run a specific team, built for speed, all the way through the normal nodes w/o use of health packs. The essential nodes most often allow the same thing: the essential plus 2 of your preferred speed clearers. The 5* essential, if it uses one of the preferred characters you are already using, allows you to put another strong speed character in.

    Rarely, events will require strategy for one specific node. And while there is a strategy for trying to attain max points in a PvE event, it's relatively easy to achieve -- the differences between those who are clearing optimally exist mainly due to clear speed of those above you being more efficient.


    PvP requires more thought / strategy, even when not facing Bishop / Worthy teams, because you have to not only think about the current match you are facing, but also about other players targeting you -- which you have no control over. You don't have to strategize to minimize point loss due to other players in PvE. Also, as mentioned before, particularly with the advent of Bishop / Worthy, you are forced to change up your teams often, depending on who you are challenging -- all the while keeping your ability to defend while doing so in mind.
  • Warbringa
    Warbringa Posts: 1,303 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited October 2019
    Flawed character design is the issue. This takes into account actual cover powers and potential combinations with other characters.  Just as in other "collectible" card game etc, cards (in MPQ, covers) are designed and then found out to be flawed after release.  In card games those cards (or combinations resulting from said card) are banned if they impact the game too much.  In this case, the devs made 4* characters to counter other 4* characters and didn't anticipate the impact those characters would have throughout other major parts of the game.  They refuse to address their mistake for either monetary reasons or pride. It will eventually kill the PvP side of the game, which is already struggling based on low point slices across most of the board. The idea of counter characters are ok but the way the devs made them create an unreasonable amount of AP at the start of matches is the problem.  Flawed character design.  

Categories