Captain Hammertime and his broken friends

12357…10

Comments

  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    jp1 said:
    bluewolf said:
    I am not going to pretend that any nerf will occur. Not enough staff anymore, not any money in it.

    I would like to know how people feel once Hammercap has been given out in PVE 1-2 more times and suddenly there are a lot more champs walking around.

    Sim will be a choice of skipping Grittyshop or Troll Team Cap.

    Although Okoye/Strange/Bishop does work well against this particular flavor of "make a match and suffer".
    Oh, I feel it now personally. Not even going to pretend it isn’t annoying. I can’t just subvert everything I believe about nerfs now that one of these super meta teams haven’t shaken out in my favor though.

    I’ll be hoping for a useful and obtainable counter, until then I’ll suffer like the Bishop haters. Mild solidarity achieved.
    Welcome to the counter hoper club.
  • Godzillafan67
    Godzillafan67 Posts: 598 Critical Contributor
    OJSP said:
    Hawkeye5, Peggy and Hammercap. 
    dkffiv said:
    Turn 1 the AI has a minimum 8 red 12 blue AP.  Peggy blue is going off because its the most expensive ability. 
    Cap has 20k+ hp.  Flame does 6k+ counter damage so its probably going to take 3-4 to down him.  Each flame that doesn't kill Cap is giving them another 8 red / 12 blue AP.  
    Bishop is effectively useless because he will be stunned the entire time.  
    The game isn't balanced around having enough AP to use the most expensive abilities turn 1. 
    Not saying it's not tough, but I beat that team with Strange, Peggy, Bishop. Ended with Peggy vs Peggy one-on-one. If our powers cost more due to Peggy, it's only fair to bring our own Peggy too.. :smile:
    Why are you smiling?

    Because we have a Peggy.

    HY-RU-KIN-ULTIMATE-SOLDIER!! *pow*
  • acescracked
    acescracked Posts: 1,197 Chairperson of the Boards
    Tony_Foot said:
    bluewolf said:
    I am not going to pretend that any nerf will occur. Not enough staff anymore, not any money in it.

    I would like to know how people feel once Hammercap has been given out in PVE 1-2 more times and suddenly there are a lot more champs walking around.

    Sim will be a choice of skipping Grittyshop or Troll Team Cap.
    Sadly true, only way for sim is 75 wins then chuck out a troll team. If you want anything actually done about this the top end of the player base has to stop playing pvp. Play to 575 and all just quit and sit there. But greed and all that. 
    You've been hating on PvP long before bishop/worthy. This just a new excuse.

    PvP is the only reason I and many people play MPQ. It's unfortunate you find it difficult.
  • Tony_Foot
    Tony_Foot Posts: 1,814 Chairperson of the Boards
    acescracked said:
    Tony_Foot said:
    bluewolf said:
    I am not going to pretend that any nerf will occur. Not enough staff anymore, not any money in it.

    I would like to know how people feel once Hammercap has been given out in PVE 1-2 more times and suddenly there are a lot more champs walking around.

    Sim will be a choice of skipping Grittyshop or Troll Team Cap.
    Sadly true, only way for sim is 75 wins then chuck out a troll team. If you want anything actually done about this the top end of the player base has to stop playing pvp. Play to 575 and all just quit and sit there. But greed and all that. 
    You've been hating on PvP long before bishop/worthy. This just a new excuse.

    PvP is the only reason I and many people play MPQ. It's unfortunate you find it difficult.
    Unsurprisingly you have completely missed the point and got it backwards.

    My point is there is no use complaining about the mode and keep on doing the exact same thing. It’s like complaining iPhones are too expensive then giving them 1k every year.

    I don’t find PVP difficult, the exact opposite for my goals. My dislike of pvp has nothing to do with bishop and co, it’s because it isn’t difficult, it’s a group of players holding hands in collaboration manipulation. I’ve stated that view point a few times and how I’d like names removed. I’d score less and it would be harder but so what. The handholding and people crying when I hit them on a hop is laughable. I’d ask yourself who actually desires easier gameplay.

    Bishop doesn’t make it harder for me, it makes it easier. I can float higher and get to my end goal easier. Yet that doesn’t stop me understanding why he’s so broken. What is your motivation for keeping him as he is I wonder. 
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,821 Chairperson of the Boards
    I'm so happy to not have Pick 3 PVP for a couple events, at least.
  • 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: 1,290 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: 2,733 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...

Categories