MPQ Halloween 2021 Activities

Bad

entrailbucket said:

This sort of communication is extremely common in competitive games.  Magic does it.  League of Legends does it.  Fortnite does it.  It's really hard to find examples of popular games that don't do something like this.

I think it's not fair to compare those games to this one as the way to adquire meta characters or cards is way different. In those games it isn't needed to merge as in this one(13 covers for champing and +100 covers to max it). In those games it is possible to provide any type of information or to retire a card giving a fair and exact compensation.
The information in there should be better for to entice players to buy the new product, or they are open to balance things as the way cards can synergice in magic i.e can be extremely complicated.
This game had a good communication with devs. I wasn't there at the beginning and I never was in line but that communication expired.
There are games whose devs provide a lot of communication, but there are a lot of games wich don't provide it.
Players should take that as everything is all right. There was a time were the trending was to nerf, obviously the trending right now it isn't. So the character should be ok since its release and each player free to investing in it without more surprises than those logical surprises on a gacha game: to reach a day when that character is no good anymore.

About ihulk, actually everyone has him as baby champed so no one was harmed by a strong counter. But don't lose sight on him because if gamora proves good enough Ihulk will experience a comeback.
And finally polaris. She is the best 4* however she needs support. Without support she can't do pretty much. Also there is the fact that AI matches special tiles on pure luck. Imo a character like that will never see a nerf.

entrailbucket

I guess I'm just floored that after *years* of players asking for D3 and Demiurge to communicate better, keep players in the loop on their plans, and to give us advance warning of big changes, the playerbase would now prefer to be kept in the dark and told nothing at all until the day a change is made. 

How did this happen?  What am I missing?

Bad

Personally I always thought that request was a privilege more than a real need.
And if it happened it should be appraised.
A good question could be if devs really have the direction they are moving so clear as to be giving info about it.
If they are planning their releases so ahead on time as many think.
Or if they are tired on giving info and noticing the playerbase was not happy with the outcome. 
Personally my only need is to give suggestions that can improve the game. I don't need to talk with them or to give them an ok for nothing they can do.

entrailbucket

I think the issue might be that the topic moved to nerfs.  Everyone has nerf PTSD...I've noticed that even putting the word "nerf" in a post often gets abuse flags. 

I think people don't want communication about nerfs because they don't want nerfs, not because they don't want communication.


I don't believe they will ever nerf another character again.  I think they're doing counters now. 

To restate: I think it would be useful if they told us who a character was intended to counter, why they chose to make a counter for them, and how they'll tell if the counter was successful. 

Is it necessary?  No.  Would it be helpful to know that, say, they noticed SW was becoming dominant, so they created Gamora, and if Gamora doesn't help, they'll try to make a stronger counter?  I think so.  What's the downside of that?

HoundofShadow

I played in late 2017 and there were times I sold multiple-covered (up to 7) 3* to roster another 3* or 4* due to lack of roster slot. At that point of time, I asked myself, "How much do I like his/her ability?" Do their abilities fit my playstyle?" There were times where the 3* or 4* I sold pops up a day or two later. Then, I'll have a very small regret for a couple minutes but I simply move on because to me that's life. It's impossible to be perfect in real life. So, I can't expect things to go well perfectly in an online game as well.

To this:

To restate: I think it would be useful if they told us who a character was intended to counter, why they chose to make a counter for them, and how they'll tell if the counter was successful. 

By observation, the meta changes once or twice every year, depending on how you count it.  Since the game strives to be rock/scissor/paper, naturally, counters are released. It's a natural occurence in such game to have counters and anti-counters. It's not a question of if, but when. So, that answers why make a counter for them.

However, whether a counter is a counter can be subjective.

During the terror of Bishop, Silver Surfer and Dr Ock were counters due to the fact that they are or could be immuned to stun.  5* players were getting stunlocked. Baby champed classic 5* were also counters because they didn't triggered his jump in ability. However, they were disregarded as counters because of a variety of reasons. Some reasons were they are in Classics hell or they invite attacks on defense. 

As for iHulkoye, before Wanda, there was already counter like Kitty/BRB. For some, they weren't counter because they were slow.

Next, if you've played seriously long enough, I don't think you need them to tell you whether a character is a counter or not. If not, by using deduction, you would have arrived at a logical conclusion. For example, Ultron is a logical counter to Wanda because he bypasses her damage reduction. However, players were down on him because he isn't better than Kitty or because he can't call Sentry Fighter to destroy tiles. I find the part about wanting him to destroy tiles randomly and passively every turn like Sentry Fighter does amusing. This ability is probably one of the most irritating and hateful ability in the game (voted by forum players) and yet those players want to experience such ability in pvps every day. Of course there are surprises, like in the case of Gambit. Gambit was simply too fast for IWCap and Archangel. But, it's a pretty rare occurence. 

Will they make a stronger counter? Yes and no. Ultron was our first counter and Gamora was our second. Again, it depends on your definition of stronger counter. History has shown that synergy can either demote or elevate a character's ranking. Hawkeye was irrelevant until CapWorthy appeared and elevated his ranking. Most importantly, MPQ is largely a pick-2 or pick 3 game, not a pick-1.

How do they know if counters are working? Via players' feedbacks and their metrics shared 3 years ago. If you want to know in-depth details of their metrics, I'm afraid you have to apply as a game developer with Demiurge.

entrailbucket

I guess I'm unique then.  I would like to have some idea of the general direction that they plan to take the game in the future.  Over the years, most players expressed a similar sentiment. 

It seems that now, players prefer a game in which we are kept completely in the dark about things of that nature.  In the future, maybe they can provide even less communication, to suit your preferences.

HoundofShadow

I think players, if they observe and deduce, can estimate when changes occur.

As mentioned, the game strives to achieve a state of rock/scissor/paper. Naturally, there will be counters and anti-counters. You should be expecting constant change. But how constant should change be?

From 2018 till now, there are 2 meta releases per year. For every meta out there, there are on average 2-3 counters.

There are 12 5* released in a year.
 
For those who can catch up, it take them between 1 day to 4 months to fully champ a 5* after new 5* enters LT. As we know, dev also use metrics and players' feedbacks to determine whether they should shake up data.  However, there must be enough data to make better decision. From here, we know the minimum period a meta will persist is 3-4 months in order to get the widest feedbacks. Two-three months or two to three seasons of data is reasonable. Your long time whales provide the first trench of dataset, followed by long time players, followed by players who can manage to catchup just in time. If we plot it logically, we would see:

Month 1: Meta enters LT
Month 4: Meta leaves LT
Month 5-6: Dev gathers a lot of data and feedbacks. So, they have a brief idea of what counters to create.
Month 7-12: creates 2-3 anti-meta counter and observe data again. Then, we probably a new meta or an anti- anti-meta.

So, this goes on like a cycle. Due to the constant cycle of counters and anti-counters, it's possible for old meta to be revived.

Therefore, I don't think they need to explicitly state that a counter will be created. By the natural law of rock/paper/scissor and the need to have large data, players should expect changes every 6-8 months.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

I think players, if they observe and deduce, can estimate when changes occur.

As mentioned, the game strives to achieve a state of rock/scissor/paper. Naturally, there will be counters and anti-counters. You should be expecting constant change. But how constant should change be?

From 2018 till now, there are 2 meta releases per year. For every meta out there, there are on average 2-3 counters.

There are 12 5* released in a year.
 
For those who can catch up, it take them between 1 day to 4 months to fully champ a 5* after new 5* enters LT. As we know, dev also use metrics and players' feedbacks to determine whether they should shake up data.  However, there must be enough data to make better decision. From here, we know the minimum period a meta will persist is 3-4 months in order to get the widest feedbacks. Two-three months or two to three seasons of data is reasonable. Your long time whales provide the first trench of dataset, followed by long time players, followed by players who can manage to catchup just in time. If we plot it logically, we would see:

Month 1: Meta enters LT
Month 4: Meta leaves LT
Month 5-6: Dev gathers a lot of data and feedbacks. So, they have a brief idea of what counters to create.
Month 7-12: creates 2-3 anti-meta counter and observe data again. Then, we probably a new meta or an anti- anti-meta.

So, this goes on like a cycle. Due to the constant cycle of counters and anti-counters, it's possible for old meta to be revived.

Therefore, I don't think they need to explicitly state that a counter will be created. By the natural law of rock/paper/scissor and the need to have large data, players should expect changes every 6-8 months.

That's very interesting stuff.  Why did you choose to set the cutoff at 2018?  Can you break down the specifics of each metagame during the full time period, how the teams were used by high-level players and how they changed/were countered? 

I assume you've been playing at a very high level during this time, competing for #1 placements in PvP, etc, to gather such extensive knowledge.

HoundofShadow

The reason why 2018 was chosen is because in the first years of many games, changes are made frequently. It's logical because the metric and data that dev relies on in the first few years largely come from players' feedbacks. Over time, they would have gathered large amount of data/metric, refined and tweaked those metrics, and fewer changes are expected because things more or less stabilise. In terms of no of nerf, if we compare the first 4 years of nerfs to the last 4 years of nerfs, I believe there are more nerfs from 2014-2017 compared to 2018 to 2021. Players who play from 2014 can verify if what I said is accurate.

Since I only started playing in late 2017, I can't break down the entire meta set and I will limit it to only 5* meta play. The first 5* was created in September 2015. In late 2017, the meta was 3* and 5* Gambit. 

Timeline of 5* meta from late 2017 to 2021, based on imperfect memory:

Late 2017
Gambit reigns lasted from October 2017 to July 2018 - 9 months reign. Archangel was the first counter release in December 2017 and Cap (IW) was the second counter released in April 2018. Gambit was finally nerfed in July 2018. Because Gambit received strong feedbacks, that probably explains why a counter was also released 2 months later. The next counter happened 4 months later. I think Thor was also part of the Gambit meta later but I can't be sure

2018
Okoye was released in May 2018 and Kitty in September 2018. After Gambit was nerfed, the meta shifted to more Thorokoye: an offensive glass cannon that doesn't need a counter. The only thing wrong with this meta is that they made pvps boring. I think Hela (released April 2019) was the first 5* to directly counter this meta a little because Thor operates at <50% health and she punishes opponents for having 10 or more green aps.

Kitty pops up in September 2018 to create another meta with R4G but she didn't have an edge over Okoye. So, essentially we have 1 + 2 metas. Players were looking for counters but SM(BiB) was already a counter. I think 4* players were more unhappy with Kitty, rather than 5* players since they have Okoye to true heal.

Bishop popped in November 2018 and became a 5* meta, who unintentionally killed these two metas but requires a lot of healthpacks.

2019
Bishop continues his reign of terror until his nerf in September 2020. This is probably the longest reign a controversial "meta" has achieved.  Bishop managed to bring out the difference in thinking or grievances between non-5* and 5* players.

Non-5* players: Bishop allows them to punch up and they are sick of getting steamrolled by 5* players in pvps. With Bishop, 5* players are afraid of beating them.

5* players: they are getting punished for making match-3 and getting stunlocked by Bishop. Bishop made all 5* useless.

Meanwhile, Professor X (August released), Worthy Cap (September) and BRB (December released) were released. I often see Professor X paired with America Chavez. I think some players were using him to counter Bishop with success. Then Hawkeye/Worthy Cap meta was created. I think Bishop and Worthy Cap were called the Stunner Bros.

2020
BRB/Bishop and Hawkeye/Worthy Cap were the common pairs until The Hulk (Immortal) was released on 26 March. I can't remember if Hulkoye was killing these two teams before their nerfs.

Then, on 7 May, Apocalypse (Classic) was released with immunity to stun. I can't remember who was paired with Apocalypse often. Probably Kitty or Thor.

After Stunner Bros were nerfed, iHulkoye  and Kitty BRB reigned supreme in pvps. At this point of time, we have these two as our core metas. This is where 5* meta really have a rock/scissor/paper.

Kitty/BRB was eaten by Apocalypse/Thor, who was eaten by iHulkoye, who was eaten by Kitty/BRB.

2021
Wanda was created in April and killed iHulkoye. She and Colossus formed a new defensive meta until Ultron and Gamora arrives in September/October to counter them. During these six months, Apocalypse + Wanda/Colossus were probably the fastest counters to Wanda/Colossus, before 5* boost week kicks in.

With the exception of Bishop , completely dominant 5* meta rarely last more than 1 year. I suppose they were busy with Shards/Mighty Tokens project from late 2019 to mid 2020 and didn't focus too much on Stunner Bros. After they were more or less done with shards, they focused on Stunner Bros.

I don't compete for T1 in pvps because I'm not interested in Line coordination and I don't have time to shield hop frequently. Besides, you don't need to be T1 in pvps to know who the meta are. Once you cross 1000-1200 points, the metas show up. And those extensive knowledge comes from experiences of other players who share them in the forum. Also, those top players who lock themselves in Line will come back and post in the forums when they have beefs with the developers. So, that's where you see things from the really top players' experiences.

Bad

Just to remark that the trackings on 2020 could be totally differents of those on 2018 because it was implemented the current release system 2 5*s per month.
That could change simultaneously the new counter character and not nerfing policy, and the less communication policy too, as logically the studio could had experimented a high increase in work applied to this game on designing factor, and on monitoring trackings.
Also as the game expands and expands their characters it should be harder to design new ones or the time rebalancing them should be bigger.

Tony_Foot

I don’t want meta characters all the time or even great ones. It allows me to save CP and unload when a decent one comes out. I also don’t think there’s any conspiracy. I just don’t think they are very good at knowing or releasing good characters. 

I’m not talking about great releases, just about every single non meta release people from here can instantly spot a DOA release and a simple rework to make a useless release more interesting but still mid tier instead of never used. Like a loki for instance. It was obvious on day one his repeater was too long and thus he would never get used despite some really interesting mechanics. 

This simple fix from the people on here has been spotted more times than I can remember. So either they are oblivious to these design flaws or they just don’t care about releases no one will use.

People were disappointed with Gamora because of leaks. If we hadn’t seen that black ability prior to pre release nerf I don’t think people would be so vocal on her release and their dissatisfaction.

Again I don’t care if they only release one or two meta 5* per year. It saves me a lot of CP pressure but I don’t see why they come up with such interesting mechanics and teather them to a release no one will ever use. This has been the hardest year as a hoarder as even I have struggled to find reason to break on one poor release after another. 

Ptahhotep

Nerfing a character affects their use in both PVP and PVE whereas releasing a counter only affects PVP.

Srheer0

"This has been the hardest year as a hoarder as even I have struggled to find reason to break on one poor release after another. "

What? Shangchi, wanda and colossus not good enough for you? Saving for 3 metas in a special store or 3 metas in Latest at the same time? @Tony_Foot

HoundofShadow

I haven't seen any of her leaks (I assume datamined infor), so I've no idea how her black look like. Ignorance is bliss? 

Sekilicious

Srheer0 said:

"This has been the hardest year as a hoarder as even I have struggled to find reason to break on one poor release after another. "

What? Shangchi, wanda and colossus not good enough for you? Saving for 3 metas in a special store or 3 metas in Latest at the same time?

This definitely seems to be a case of ignoring characters with interesting mechanics because they aren’t meta. Knull, Ronan, Electro, Odin, Gamora, and frankly Shang-Chi all do unique things but do not offer speed reasons to play. They are solidly mid-tier, with SC on the upper end. Maybe Ultron sucks but still would be ok on teams with partners that offer synergy, especially when boosted. Look at Cyclops, universally panned as trash tier yet I would take him now to pair with Shang-Chi because of their synergy. The people who look at 4* characters and wish they were 5*s probably would complain about them as well if they were released as 5s. Other than Hydra Stomper. He would be insane as a 550 and paired with Apocalypse.

If your having trouble finding a reason to break your hoard then maybe your problem is hoarding. If you are in 5* land you have choices. Save for 1800 pulls and get 3 or more 550s with champion rewards and trades with customer service after all three in LL are max champed. Or don’t hoard and play your 450s when they are god boosted. I don’t want to assume that 5* Ghost Rider being rebalanced will become a pattern as there really haven’t been that many characters rebalanced in the last couple of years. But if rebalance does become the norm then you probably want all the 5* characters on your roster.

Besides, for every Loki that people turned out to have correctly predicted to be awful, there is a Kitty or Colossus that people predicted would be mid-tier.

HoundofShadow

As proven time and time again, whether a character is good, mediocre or DOA is subjective, to that player's own internal standard. Of course, there are some 5* that hasn't found any good partner yet.

This is 2021 release:

14 Jan - Yellow Jacket
11 Feb - Cyclops (Phoenix Force)
11 Mar - Colossus (Phoenix Force)
8 Apr - Scarlet Witch (WandaVision)
6 May - Knull (King In Black)
3 Jun - Ronan (The Accuser)
1 Jul - Electro (Francine Frye)
29 Jul - Odin (All-Father)
26 Aug - Shang-Chi (Origin)
23 Sep - Ultron (Age of Ultron)
21 Oct - Gamora (Deadliest Woman)

I don't see any DOA or mediocre at all in this list. Based on my memory of others' feedbacks, probably Cyclops, Knull, Ronan, Odin and Ultron are DOA or mediocre.  Strangely enough, apart from Ultron, I see these 4 quite often in shield sim.  

I don't think it's easy to solve the problem of what defines a good character, because it is subjective and it depends on the player's playstyle. And, strangely enough, 5* release often are evaluated as a standalone character rather than the synergy they can create with other characters. MPQ is 90% pick-2 and pick-3, isn't it?

dianetics

Of the 2021 releases the only ones I don't really see are Yellowjacket, Odin, and Ultron.

Ultron might change because it is still early in his release cycle.

Everyone else shows up pretty regularly in pick 2 and pick 3 from what I'm seeing. Recently Electro has been showing up a lot even when she isn't boosted.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

The reason why 2018 was chosen is because in the first years of many games, changes are made frequently. It's logical because the metric and data that dev relies on in the first few years largely come from players' feedbacks. Over time, they would have gathered large amount of data/metric, refined and tweaked those metrics, and fewer changes are expected because things more or less stabilise. In terms of no of nerf, if we compare the first 4 years of nerfs to the last 4 years of nerfs, I believe there are more nerfs from 2014-2017 compared to 2018 to 2021. Players who play from 2014 can verify if what I said is accurate.

Since I only started playing in late 2017, I can't break down the entire meta set and I will limit it to only 5* meta play. The first 5* was created in September 2015. In late 2017, the meta was 3* and 5* Gambit. 

Timeline of 5* meta from late 2017 to 2021, based on imperfect memory:

Late 2017
Gambit reigns lasted from October 2017 to July 2018 - 9 months reign. Archangel was the first counter release in December 2017 and Cap (IW) was the second counter released in April 2018. Gambit was finally nerfed in July 2018. Because Gambit received strong feedbacks, that probably explains why a counter was also released 2 months later. The next counter happened 4 months later. I think Thor was also part of the Gambit meta later but I can't be sure

2018
Okoye was released in May 2018 and Kitty in September 2018. After Gambit was nerfed, the meta shifted to more Thorokoye: an offensive glass cannon that doesn't need a counter. The only thing wrong with this meta is that they made pvps boring. I think Hela (released April 2019) was the first 5* to directly counter this meta a little because Thor operates at <50% health and she punishes opponents for having 10 or more green aps.

Kitty pops up in September 2018 to create another meta with R4G but she didn't have an edge over Okoye. So, essentially we have 1 + 2 metas. Players were looking for counters but SM(BiB) was already a counter. I think 4* players were more unhappy with Kitty, rather than 5* players since they have Okoye to true heal.

Bishop popped in November 2018 and became a 5* meta, who unintentionally killed these two metas but requires a lot of healthpacks.

2019
Bishop continues his reign of terror until his nerf in September 2020. This is probably the longest reign a controversial "meta" has achieved.  Bishop managed to bring out the difference in thinking or grievances between non-5* and 5* players.

Non-5* players: Bishop allows them to punch up and they are sick of getting steamrolled by 5* players in pvps. With Bishop, 5* players are afraid of beating them.

5* players: they are getting punished for making match-3 and getting stunlocked by Bishop. Bishop made all 5* useless.

Meanwhile, Professor X (August released), Worthy Cap (September) and BRB (December released) were released. I often see Professor X paired with America Chavez. I think some players were using him to counter Bishop with success. Then Hawkeye/Worthy Cap meta was created. I think Bishop and Worthy Cap were called the Stunner Bros.

2020
BRB/Bishop and Hawkeye/Worthy Cap were the common pairs until The Hulk (Immortal) was released on 26 March. I can't remember if Hulkoye was killing these two teams before their nerfs.

Then, on 7 May, Apocalypse (Classic) was released with immunity to stun. I can't remember who was paired with Apocalypse often. Probably Kitty or Thor.

After Stunner Bros were nerfed, iHulkoye  and Kitty BRB reigned supreme in pvps. At this point of time, we have these two as our core metas. This is where 5* meta really have a rock/scissor/paper.

Kitty/BRB was eaten by Apocalypse/Thor, who was eaten by iHulkoye, who was eaten by Kitty/BRB.

2021
Wanda was created in April and killed iHulkoye. She and Colossus formed a new defensive meta until Ultron and Gamora arrives in September/October to counter them. During these six months, Apocalypse + Wanda/Colossus were probably the fastest counters to Wanda/Colossus, before 5* boost week kicks in.

With the exception of Bishop , completely dominant 5* meta rarely last more than 1 year. I suppose they were busy with Shards/Mighty Tokens project from late 2019 to mid 2020 and didn't focus too much on Stunner Bros. After they were more or less done with shards, they focused on Stunner Bros.

I don't compete for T1 in pvps because I'm not interested in Line coordination and I don't have time to shield hop frequently. Besides, you don't need to be T1 in pvps to know who the meta are. Once you cross 1000-1200 points, the metas show up. And those extensive knowledge comes from experiences of other players who share them in the forum. Also, those top players who lock themselves in Line will come back and post in the forums when they have beefs with the developers. So, that's where you see things from the really top players' experiences.

Your recollections of the metagame over these years are completely different from mine.  I was playing at a very high level during that time, and I remember exactly what was being used.  I've been a 5* player literally since 5* existed.  You're reconstructing a meta that you were not a part of based on forum posts and guesswork.  

Some of the teams you cite were never used at all, or were never a significant share of the metagame.  Almost nothing of what you wrote matches up with the highly specific timing of the cycle of releases and counters that you constructed, again via guesswork, in the previous post.

Going back to your previous point, no, it is not at all clear or easy to deduce their plans for countering characters or changing the metagame.

DAZ0273

HoundofShadow said:

I haven't seen any of her leaks (I assume datamined infor), so I've no idea how her black look like. Ignorance is bliss? 

I don't think people have any right to get stroppy based upon information datamined and intended not for public consumption. If there are people upset about changes made prior to any release then boo hoo to them or maybe don't read the online messages sharing this stuff in case you end up disappointed with what you end up getting.

HoundofShadow

I'm curious, how does the late 2017 to 2021 meta look like for you if it's not what I and some other experienced? Also, more importantly, what mmr level are you using? 

As for datamined info, those info aren't  made public because it's not official for release. Players who consume such  info run a risk of getting upset or angry. It also proves that the developer do re-balances from time to time before character releases. Unfortunately, players who read such info frame such changes that they don't like as "nerf".

Anyway, those who have champed GR, please do a review over the weekend to share with players how the new GR compares to the old GR.