How much of a change would 5* Scarlet Witch need to *only* be viable when boosted?

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

I promise you I hold no vendetta about anything you may have done in game. If I went after everyone who attacked me in PVP, I’d be a very busy guy. I also attack everyone in PVP (alliance mates included) because I’m horrendous at looking at names- so no hard feelings if you did hit me. Make no mistake that everything I’m commenting on is a  direct reaction to what you yourself post here, and has zero to do with how you play in game.  If you want to continue to avoid my points/posts/questions that’s fine. But please don’t misrepresent me as having some personal vendetta as a way to do it.

Is this really a problem for the top 1% of the 1% or just you? I think you discussed in the past that conventional wisdom was to hoard for the best characters in the game, 550 them and dominate.  If I recall you were pretty happy at the prospect of “conventional wisdom” changing (I remember saying something to the affect that those on top would stay on top and these boosts would effect very little). You talk a lot about being the only person to go “all-in on classics”. So my guess if the top of the top are a bunch of folks who hoarded and unloaded on 550 meta characters, they are still dominating and thus probably happy (as happy as that jaded group of players can be).

The top meta characters being more powerful than the rest of the characters only seems to be problematic for the person who went “all in on classics”. i don’t see them doing widespread nerfs to top meta characters to make that extremely small (but equally vocal) minority happy. It’d have to have a Bishop level impact to gain traction.

Seems like the optimal strategy is still to chase the best characters (despite god boosts), and I get why you think that’d be a problem and why it would hinder your gaming experience. I’m sorry boosts didn’t quite work out the way you’d hoped when they first dropped and conventional strategy didn’t seem to change much for the tippy top players. This is actually good business because if everyone is equal then there’s no incentive to keep chasing better characters. 

The baby champ meta seems to be as diverse as it has ever been in my time as a 5* player, as rotating boosts really set the tone for what the meta is that week.  Seems to be working as intended at my level.

Finally, I’m glad you learned a lesson. But we don’t have to wonder what the game would be like if they nerfed Switch. Hulkoye would be running rampant. Or some other meta would be used ad nauseum. We’ve already experienced a world without her. And I’m sure one day a new best team will emerge to supplant her and Colossus. That’s the nature of the game. There’s always been a best and the one thing you learn about MPQ is that you have to learn to adapt. 

No one's avoiding anything.  I'm actually unclear about why you're having such a strong reaction to this innocuous post if it's not about me personally.  You're also continuing to make this about me personally and my roster, so yeah, I'm a little bit suspicious.

I'm glad things are diverse at your level.  If some of the top characters got a little worse, would that impact you at all?  If you're not seeing or using these characters, why do you care so much about how strong they are?

I think you are, but that's okay and expected.  I just request that you don't paint me as having a vendetta when it's untrue in order to do so.

Now to answer your questions, I just haven't seen others calling Switch a problem (at least not widespread).  Those at the tippy top are using her, those at the top are using the boosted to beat her. Those in the middle are probably stunning her and everyone else with Polaris.  And those at the bottom don't see her.  So I wonder (just positing, same as you) if the problem is specific to your roster/playstyle.  Not trying to attack, just trying to figure out the root of the "problem" before delving into nerfs (or whatever you choose to name making a character less useful) as a "solution".  If you feel personally attacked, I am sorry.  Just trying to understand, especially since others have mentioned, you have a tendency to waver, which for me can make following a bit of a struggle (and I own that).

When did I say I don't see or use these characters? I see and use almost everyone.  Hopefully those I don't see get boosted to the point where I start seeing them.  That'd be my goal personally and it seems the devs are slowly starting to bring some of those characters up which I'm so appreciative of! 

entrailbucket

So, if diversity at a tier is a noble goal which makes the game more fun (and we agree about this), then why are changes that would increase diversity at your tier good and changes that would increase diversity at my tier bad? 

It is simply not true that there's never been diversity at the top of the metagame.  Players will gravitate to small edges, yes, but small edges are just that.  We're not talking about small edges. 

During the Sentry/Hood metagame, that team was the best for quick hops, but was terrible in every other situation.  There was diversity at the top of the meta, despite the presence of a clear best team.  During the very brief Hulkbuster/Teen Jean meta, the best team changed every week with 4* buffs.  That team was usable every week, but had a tough time against boosted characters.  If you wanted to dominate every week, you had to cover a large number of bases.


I'm glad you do, but I don't see every character.  I don't see a majority of characters.  I see the same number of characters that I saw before 5* boosts existed.  The boosts allow me to use more characters, which is great, but because of the nature of these fights, many characters are still unusable even at +100 levels.

Without negatively changing characters, what are some ways for the devs to increase diversity at my tier?  Or are you saying that the devs should ignore what happens at the top of the metagame?

Bad

By the way SW is not so great. She is a great character for to synergy, but she by herself is all but great.
As a SW user since her release, if she is the last character standing I can swear how miserable she can turn you in, hoping for big cascades on enemy turn but at the same time hoping they don't match her repeater, because that's is only the weapon she has, or matching a lot of blue for her hex, and then hoping for big cascades but at the same time repeater and cd not being matched.
Not the best performance for a candidate to getting nerf!

entrailbucket

Bad said:

By the way SW is not so great. She is a great character for to synergy, but she by herself is all but great.
As a SW user since her release, if she is the last character standing I can swear how miserable she can turn you in, hoping for big cascades on enemy turn but at the same time hoping they don't match her repeater, because that's is only the weapon she has, or matching a lot of blue for her hex, and then hoping for big cascades but at the same time repeater and cd not being matched.
Not the best performance for a candidate to getting nerf!

This would be a fantastic argument to counter someone calling for a nerf to a character.  Sadly, this thread does not do that.

DAZ0273

entrailbucket said:

Bad said:

By the way SW is not so great. She is a great character for to synergy, but she by herself is all but great.
As a SW user since her release, if she is the last character standing I can swear how miserable she can turn you in, hoping for big cascades on enemy turn but at the same time hoping they don't match her repeater, because that's is only the weapon she has, or matching a lot of blue for her hex, and then hoping for big cascades but at the same time repeater and cd not being matched.
Not the best performance for a candidate to getting nerf!

This would be a fantastic argument to counter someone calling for a nerf to a character.  Sadly, this thread does not do that.

But...you said Ghost Rider is unusable when not boosted. Then Ghost Rider and buddies best a "meta" team unboosted. And your opening post refers to "let's try one going the other way" referring to Scarlet Witch. The only other way is down.

So by your words you say we need to take Scarlet Witch the opposite way to 5* getting buffs to create some sort of equilibrium because she is usable no matter what and then she gets beaten by Ghost Rider and Electro (who cannot beat her ever, your post).

None of it makes sense. 

entrailbucket

DAZ0273 said:

entrailbucket said:

Bad said:

By the way SW is not so great. She is a great character for to synergy, but she by herself is all but great.
As a SW user since her release, if she is the last character standing I can swear how miserable she can turn you in, hoping for big cascades on enemy turn but at the same time hoping they don't match her repeater, because that's is only the weapon she has, or matching a lot of blue for her hex, and then hoping for big cascades but at the same time repeater and cd not being matched.
Not the best performance for a candidate to getting nerf!

This would be a fantastic argument to counter someone calling for a nerf to a character.  Sadly, this thread does not do that.

But...you said Ghost Rider is unusable when not boosted. Then Ghost Rider and buddies best a "meta" team unboosted. And your opening post refers to "let's try one going the other way" referring to Scarlet Witch. The only other way is down.

So by your words you say we need to take Scarlet Witch the opposite way to 5* getting buffs to create some sort of equilibrium because she is usable no matter what and then she gets beaten by Ghost Rider and Electro (who cannot beat her ever, your post).

None of it makes sense. 

We're not the developers!  Speculation is what the forum is about.

The post didn't say anything about needing to do anything.  Asking the forum what kind of changes the developers have to make for a character to be not-"meta" but still useful is...asking a question.  I have an opinion, of course, which a bunch of people attacked instead of answering the question.  Nerf PTSD kicks in immediately and people get very angry.

The other thread asked what it would take to make a character usable but not "meta." I just flipped it around because I thought it was an interesting question.

Daredevil217

I should have said in the entirety of the time I've been a 5* player (tail end of Gambit entering into Thorkoye) there has never been a diverse meta (so for literal YEARS).

You claim that you can win matches with your boosted guys when you couldn't before.  So already there is an increase in diversity in your play (if you CHOOSE to use it).  Those who chose to only chase the meta and not go all in on OML (by way of going all in on classics... I know you didn't target him specifically) probably are going to use their 550 SW/Colosus/Apoc/etc. instead.  So for them, that may be their best tool.  For you, you have options and that is great!  Now I get you're not seeing a lot of diversity at the top top, but maybe that's because those players took a more conventional path to 550s.  They seem to be okay with it, and you yourself have more options to play with, so it seems like we've moved the needle in the right direction?

I'm generally anti-nerf with few exceptions because it has a trickle down effect and impacts those who put time and energy into chasing and building their rosters. I'd rather we get counters over nerfs personally.

By the way, Switch is not a god tier best option in ever situation.  She's pretty trash in PVE where speed-clearing is the goal if you want the best rewards.  She also isn't the best one v. one either.  Great character, but has her limitations, much like the Sentry example.

entrailbucket

Daredevil217 said:

I should have said in the entirety of the time I've been a 5* player (tail end of Gambit entering into Thorkoye) there has never been a diverse meta (so for literal YEARS).

You claim that you can win matches with your boosted guys when you couldn't before.  So already there is an increase in diversity in your play (if you CHOOSE to use it).  Those who chose to only chase the meta and not go all in on OML (by way of going all in on classics... I know you didn't target him specifically) probably are going to use their 550 SW/Colosus/Apoc/etc. instead.  So for them, that may be their best tool.  For you, you have options and that is great!  Now I get you're not seeing a lot of diversity at the top top, but maybe that's because those players took a more conventional path to 550s.  They seem to be okay with it, and you yourself have more options to play with, so it seems like we've moved the needle in the right direction?

I'm generally anti-nerf with few exceptions because it has a trickle down effect and impacts those who put time and energy into chasing and building their rosters. I'd rather we get counters over nerfs personally.

By the way, Switch is not a god tier best option in ever situation.  She's pretty trash in PVE where speed-clearing is the goal if you want the best rewards.  She also isn't the best one v. one either.  Great character, but has her limitations, much like the Sentry example.

That actually explains a lot of your perspective about this, because you've only played during unbalanced metagames.  It doesn't have to be that way!

Did you support the Gambit nerf at the time?  Do you support it in retrospect?  I'm anti-nerf in almost every situation as well, but they so badly boxed themselves in there that I don't think they had another decent way out. An actually-effective Gambit counter would've been so good that he'd have eaten the entire game.

To me it's a bit like the situation they've boxed themselves into now.  They had a big problem (Hulk) but after the Gambit deal they're not going to nerf again under any circumstances.  The only way to counter an overpowered strategy is with a different overpowered strategy.  So they created an overpowered counter to an overpowered character, which worked! but created a different problem.

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

I should have said in the entirety of the time I've been a 5* player (tail end of Gambit entering into Thorkoye) there has never been a diverse meta (so for literal YEARS).

You claim that you can win matches with your boosted guys when you couldn't before.  So already there is an increase in diversity in your play (if you CHOOSE to use it).  Those who chose to only chase the meta and not go all in on OML (by way of going all in on classics... I know you didn't target him specifically) probably are going to use their 550 SW/Colosus/Apoc/etc. instead.  So for them, that may be their best tool.  For you, you have options and that is great!  Now I get you're not seeing a lot of diversity at the top top, but maybe that's because those players took a more conventional path to 550s.  They seem to be okay with it, and you yourself have more options to play with, so it seems like we've moved the needle in the right direction?

I'm generally anti-nerf with few exceptions because it has a trickle down effect and impacts those who put time and energy into chasing and building their rosters. I'd rather we get counters over nerfs personally.

By the way, Switch is not a god tier best option in ever situation.  She's pretty trash in PVE where speed-clearing is the goal if you want the best rewards.  She also isn't the best one v. one either.  Great character, but has her limitations, much like the Sentry example.

That actually explains a lot of your perspective about this, because you've only played during unbalanced metagames.  It doesn't have to be that way!

Did you support the Gambit nerf at the time?  Do you support it in retrospect?  I'm anti-nerf in almost every situation as well, but they so badly boxed themselves in there that I don't think they had another decent way out. An actually-effective Gambit counter would've been so good that he'd have eaten the entire game.

To me it's a bit like the situation they've boxed themselves into now.  They had a big problem (Hulk) but after the Gambit deal they're not going to nerf again under any circumstances.  The only way to counter an overpowered strategy is with a different overpowered strategy.  So they created an overpowered counter to an overpowered character, which worked! but created a different problem.

I was anti-Gambit nerf, but pro-Bishop nerf (not that you asked).  That's why I said "generally".  Since he stunlocked your whole team just for matching, it made the game almost unplayable for me if I faced him.  He was the closest thing to a free shield I've ever had in the game though (I'm guessing 550s murdered him easily).

DAZ0273

entrailbucket said:

DAZ0273 said:

entrailbucket said:

Bad said:

By the way SW is not so great. She is a great character for to synergy, but she by herself is all but great.
As a SW user since her release, if she is the last character standing I can swear how miserable she can turn you in, hoping for big cascades on enemy turn but at the same time hoping they don't match her repeater, because that's is only the weapon she has, or matching a lot of blue for her hex, and then hoping for big cascades but at the same time repeater and cd not being matched.
Not the best performance for a candidate to getting nerf!

This would be a fantastic argument to counter someone calling for a nerf to a character.  Sadly, this thread does not do that.

But...you said Ghost Rider is unusable when not boosted. Then Ghost Rider and buddies best a "meta" team unboosted. And your opening post refers to "let's try one going the other way" referring to Scarlet Witch. The only other way is down.

So by your words you say we need to take Scarlet Witch the opposite way to 5* getting buffs to create some sort of equilibrium because she is usable no matter what and then she gets beaten by Ghost Rider and Electro (who cannot beat her ever, your post).

None of it makes sense. 

We're not the developers!  Speculation is what the forum is about.

The post didn't say anything about needing to do anything.  Asking the forum what kind of changes the developers have to make for a character to be not-"meta" but still useful is...asking a question.  I have an opinion, of course, which a bunch of people attacked instead of answering the question.  Nerf PTSD kicks in immediately and people get very angry.

The other thread asked what it would take to make a character usable but not "meta." I just flipped it around because I thought it was an interesting question.

But...your concept got disproved. Twice! Nothing needs to be done to make Switch "unusable" because the other characters mentioned have proved "usable" unboosted. Are they all equal? No but they are not "unusable" because they beat the meta team! Twice!

entrailbucket

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

I should have said in the entirety of the time I've been a 5* player (tail end of Gambit entering into Thorkoye) there has never been a diverse meta (so for literal YEARS).

You claim that you can win matches with your boosted guys when you couldn't before.  So already there is an increase in diversity in your play (if you CHOOSE to use it).  Those who chose to only chase the meta and not go all in on OML (by way of going all in on classics... I know you didn't target him specifically) probably are going to use their 550 SW/Colosus/Apoc/etc. instead.  So for them, that may be their best tool.  For you, you have options and that is great!  Now I get you're not seeing a lot of diversity at the top top, but maybe that's because those players took a more conventional path to 550s.  They seem to be okay with it, and you yourself have more options to play with, so it seems like we've moved the needle in the right direction?

I'm generally anti-nerf with few exceptions because it has a trickle down effect and impacts those who put time and energy into chasing and building their rosters. I'd rather we get counters over nerfs personally.

By the way, Switch is not a god tier best option in ever situation.  She's pretty trash in PVE where speed-clearing is the goal if you want the best rewards.  She also isn't the best one v. one either.  Great character, but has her limitations, much like the Sentry example.

That actually explains a lot of your perspective about this, because you've only played during unbalanced metagames.  It doesn't have to be that way!

Did you support the Gambit nerf at the time?  Do you support it in retrospect?  I'm anti-nerf in almost every situation as well, but they so badly boxed themselves in there that I don't think they had another decent way out. An actually-effective Gambit counter would've been so good that he'd have eaten the entire game.

To me it's a bit like the situation they've boxed themselves into now.  They had a big problem (Hulk) but after the Gambit deal they're not going to nerf again under any circumstances.  The only way to counter an overpowered strategy is with a different overpowered strategy.  So they created an overpowered counter to an overpowered character, which worked! but created a different problem.

I was anti-Gambit nerf, but pro-Bishop nerf (not that you asked).  That's why I said "generally".  Since he stunlocked your whole team just for matching, it made the game almost unplayable for me if I faced him.  He was the closest thing to a free shield I've ever had in the game though (I'm guessing 550s murdered him easily).

Are you pro-Gambit nerf in retrospect?  I've noticed that over time, a lot of players have changed their minds on that one.  I'm frequently seeing "oh yeah, they had to do Gambit because he was so good, and everyone supported it." Everyone most definitely did not support it! 

I supported it at the time and I support it now because he just invalidated the rest of the game, but at the time it was *extraordinarily* unpopular.

Bishop was so clearly a mistake that I don't understand how anyone thought that one was ok, but he also had legions of defenders.  550s didn't murder him easily at all...he was just as annoying for us as he was for you.

entrailbucket

DAZ0273 said:

entrailbucket said:

DAZ0273 said:

entrailbucket said:

Bad said:

By the way SW is not so great. She is a great character for to synergy, but she by herself is all but great.
As a SW user since her release, if she is the last character standing I can swear how miserable she can turn you in, hoping for big cascades on enemy turn but at the same time hoping they don't match her repeater, because that's is only the weapon she has, or matching a lot of blue for her hex, and then hoping for big cascades but at the same time repeater and cd not being matched.
Not the best performance for a candidate to getting nerf!

This would be a fantastic argument to counter someone calling for a nerf to a character.  Sadly, this thread does not do that.

But...you said Ghost Rider is unusable when not boosted. Then Ghost Rider and buddies best a "meta" team unboosted. And your opening post refers to "let's try one going the other way" referring to Scarlet Witch. The only other way is down.

So by your words you say we need to take Scarlet Witch the opposite way to 5* getting buffs to create some sort of equilibrium because she is usable no matter what and then she gets beaten by Ghost Rider and Electro (who cannot beat her ever, your post).

None of it makes sense. 

We're not the developers!  Speculation is what the forum is about.

The post didn't say anything about needing to do anything.  Asking the forum what kind of changes the developers have to make for a character to be not-"meta" but still useful is...asking a question.  I have an opinion, of course, which a bunch of people attacked instead of answering the question.  Nerf PTSD kicks in immediately and people get very angry.

The other thread asked what it would take to make a character usable but not "meta." I just flipped it around because I thought it was an interesting question.

But...your concept got disproved. Twice! Nothing needs to be done to make Switch "unusable" because the other characters mentioned have proved "usable" unboosted. Are they all equal? No but they are not "unusable" because they beat the meta team! Twice!

Another thread asked, "what buffs would it take for Thanos to be usable when boosted (but not so good that he was usable unboosted)?"

I asked, "what change would it take for scarlet witch to be usable when boosted (but not so good that she was usable unboosted)?"

That's it!  It's the same question, from a different direction!

JackDeath666

I thought that the original post was a pretty funny inversion of other recent posts and an interesting theoretical discussion. I'm a bit baffled by the reactions which mostly seem to miss this point and are pretty aggressive in places.

I'm certain that @entrailbucket doesn't need any help playing and I don't think that the offers of this were that well intentioned. 

On topic, I spend a lot of time up against 550 SW and Colossus teams. Individually SW and Colossus are not that bad, but what makes them amazing/horrendous (depending on your perspective) is the combination of them together. Whatever the outcome it is a slog and just a bit dull. As MPQ is supposed to be entertaining I'd rather play with and against more aggressive/offensive characters, but that's just me.

I'd like to hear a bit more about the 550 Ultron player who was mentioned. They sound like an absolute legend. 

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

I should have said in the entirety of the time I've been a 5* player (tail end of Gambit entering into Thorkoye) there has never been a diverse meta (so for literal YEARS).

You claim that you can win matches with your boosted guys when you couldn't before.  So already there is an increase in diversity in your play (if you CHOOSE to use it).  Those who chose to only chase the meta and not go all in on OML (by way of going all in on classics... I know you didn't target him specifically) probably are going to use their 550 SW/Colosus/Apoc/etc. instead.  So for them, that may be their best tool.  For you, you have options and that is great!  Now I get you're not seeing a lot of diversity at the top top, but maybe that's because those players took a more conventional path to 550s.  They seem to be okay with it, and you yourself have more options to play with, so it seems like we've moved the needle in the right direction?

I'm generally anti-nerf with few exceptions because it has a trickle down effect and impacts those who put time and energy into chasing and building their rosters. I'd rather we get counters over nerfs personally.

By the way, Switch is not a god tier best option in ever situation.  She's pretty trash in PVE where speed-clearing is the goal if you want the best rewards.  She also isn't the best one v. one either.  Great character, but has her limitations, much like the Sentry example.

That actually explains a lot of your perspective about this, because you've only played during unbalanced metagames.  It doesn't have to be that way!

Did you support the Gambit nerf at the time?  Do you support it in retrospect?  I'm anti-nerf in almost every situation as well, but they so badly boxed themselves in there that I don't think they had another decent way out. An actually-effective Gambit counter would've been so good that he'd have eaten the entire game.

To me it's a bit like the situation they've boxed themselves into now.  They had a big problem (Hulk) but after the Gambit deal they're not going to nerf again under any circumstances.  The only way to counter an overpowered strategy is with a different overpowered strategy.  So they created an overpowered counter to an overpowered character, which worked! but created a different problem.

I was anti-Gambit nerf, but pro-Bishop nerf (not that you asked).  That's why I said "generally".  Since he stunlocked your whole team just for matching, it made the game almost unplayable for me if I faced him.  He was the closest thing to a free shield I've ever had in the game though (I'm guessing 550s murdered him easily).

Are you pro-Gambit nerf in retrospect?  I've noticed that over time, a lot of players have changed their minds on that one.  I'm frequently seeing "oh yeah, they had to do Gambit because he was so good, and everyone supported it." Everyone most definitely did not support it! 

I supported it at the time and I support it now because he just invalidated the rest of the game, but at the time it was *extraordinarily* unpopular.

Bishop was so clearly a mistake that I don't understand how anyone thought that one was ok, but he also had legions of defenders.  550s didn't murder him easily at all...he was just as annoying for us as he was for you.

In retrospect? Absolutely not. The game clearly passed him by and I don’t think he’d be much of a factor in todays meta. Still wish they’d roll back the nerf as he’d be so much better than he is now. Right now the purple/red block makes him a liability. I dropped him significantly in the rankings after 5* boosts because if he doesn’t have a small set of very specific partners boosted with him, he’s not good, and even if he does, he still might not be the best option. 

entrailbucket

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

I should have said in the entirety of the time I've been a 5* player (tail end of Gambit entering into Thorkoye) there has never been a diverse meta (so for literal YEARS).

You claim that you can win matches with your boosted guys when you couldn't before.  So already there is an increase in diversity in your play (if you CHOOSE to use it).  Those who chose to only chase the meta and not go all in on OML (by way of going all in on classics... I know you didn't target him specifically) probably are going to use their 550 SW/Colosus/Apoc/etc. instead.  So for them, that may be their best tool.  For you, you have options and that is great!  Now I get you're not seeing a lot of diversity at the top top, but maybe that's because those players took a more conventional path to 550s.  They seem to be okay with it, and you yourself have more options to play with, so it seems like we've moved the needle in the right direction?

I'm generally anti-nerf with few exceptions because it has a trickle down effect and impacts those who put time and energy into chasing and building their rosters. I'd rather we get counters over nerfs personally.

By the way, Switch is not a god tier best option in ever situation.  She's pretty trash in PVE where speed-clearing is the goal if you want the best rewards.  She also isn't the best one v. one either.  Great character, but has her limitations, much like the Sentry example.

That actually explains a lot of your perspective about this, because you've only played during unbalanced metagames.  It doesn't have to be that way!

Did you support the Gambit nerf at the time?  Do you support it in retrospect?  I'm anti-nerf in almost every situation as well, but they so badly boxed themselves in there that I don't think they had another decent way out. An actually-effective Gambit counter would've been so good that he'd have eaten the entire game.

To me it's a bit like the situation they've boxed themselves into now.  They had a big problem (Hulk) but after the Gambit deal they're not going to nerf again under any circumstances.  The only way to counter an overpowered strategy is with a different overpowered strategy.  So they created an overpowered counter to an overpowered character, which worked! but created a different problem.

I was anti-Gambit nerf, but pro-Bishop nerf (not that you asked).  That's why I said "generally".  Since he stunlocked your whole team just for matching, it made the game almost unplayable for me if I faced him.  He was the closest thing to a free shield I've ever had in the game though (I'm guessing 550s murdered him easily).

Are you pro-Gambit nerf in retrospect?  I've noticed that over time, a lot of players have changed their minds on that one.  I'm frequently seeing "oh yeah, they had to do Gambit because he was so good, and everyone supported it." Everyone most definitely did not support it! 

I supported it at the time and I support it now because he just invalidated the rest of the game, but at the time it was *extraordinarily* unpopular.

Bishop was so clearly a mistake that I don't understand how anyone thought that one was ok, but he also had legions of defenders.  550s didn't murder him easily at all...he was just as annoying for us as he was for you.

In retrospect? Absolutely not. The game clearly passed him by and I don’t think he’d be much of a factor in todays meta. Still wish they’d roll back the nerf as he’d be so much better than he is now. Right now the purple/red block makes him a liability. I dropped him significantly in the rankings after 5* boosts because if he doesn’t have a small set of very specific partners boosted with him, he’s not good, and even if he does, he still might not be the best option. 

No, obviously he's underpowered now.  I think they should buff him now, and I supported his nerf at that time.

In retrospect, do you think they should've done what they did at that time?  How would you have countered Gambit, in that metagame, in a way that didn't completely take over the game with the counter?

KGB

entrailbucket said:

No, obviously he's underpowered now.  I think they should buff him now, and I supported his nerf at that time.

In retrospect, do you think they should've done what they did at that time?  How would you have countered Gambit, in that metagame, in a way that didn't completely take over the game with the counter?

If they had just waited another month or two everything would have resolved itself. Kitty was released about a month or so after Gambit's nerf. Had they waited, Kitty/Grocket would have handily countered Gambit because his AP destruction would not have mattered to that team and by the time his Purple was ready to fire Kitty would have buffed Grockets strikes a few times and killed Gambit.

KGB

Bad

If colSW were so big problem people would use gamora. But the only time I saw gamora was on the off season pvp family bounds.
So I think it's not so big problem and people is already used to fight them without needing gamora.
Yes, SW retaliates with damage, but she never will do the same collective damage as ihulkoye was doing. 
The answer for this post, how much of a change would need SW to be viable only when boosted, is pretty easy: changing anything about her.

entrailbucket

KGB said:

entrailbucket said:

No, obviously he's underpowered now.  I think they should buff him now, and I supported his nerf at that time.

In retrospect, do you think they should've done what they did at that time?  How would you have countered Gambit, in that metagame, in a way that didn't completely take over the game with the counter?

If they had just waited another month or two everything would have resolved itself. Kitty was released about a month or so after Gambit's nerf. Had they waited, Kitty/Grocket would have handily countered Gambit because his AP destruction would not have mattered to that team and by the time his Purple was ready to fire Kitty would have buffed Grockets strikes a few times and killed Gambit.

KGB

Were you playing Gambit back then?  The top team at the time was Gambit/Thor, and that was 100% of the PvP meta.  Kitty would've been dead before she boosted anything enough to make an impact. 

Actually, nobody would've even discovered that Kitty was good.  At the time, all new 5* were deemed "DOA" by Gambit users, which was the entire top of the game.  Nobody was pulling for anyone because there was no reason to.

Sekilicious

So I think that a problem with Wanda is she is oppressive at the 550 meta but not at lower stages. Most of us do not intuitively understand what the 550 meta is like, and so gravitate towards our own understanding. It must be like if you recently champed OML after his nerf. As others have stated, having non meta characters as your first champed 5* makes PvP a slog. The disconnect for us seems to be that Wanda is not oppressive at the baby champ tier, so we don’t really understand how bad she is at the top of the meta. So yeah, I probably would find it awful to take on Baby Champed Wanda with an unboosted GRRR. I’m still not sure a nerf is in order. 

Pantera236

I think this is/was more of a thought experiment. Correct me if I'm wrong @entrailbucket (don't think I am as they've stated many times) but they're not calling for a nerf.