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

entrailbucket

Daredevil217 said:

Again, EB, if you felt attacked, I apologized.  But the intention wasn't to attack.  From the jump I named that I was trying to clarify where the problem is.  I thought it was clear that she doesn't appear problematic at my level, but I guess I should have been more explicit.  I love Hound's math because I was starting to think the characters don't scale proportionately, or that crits drop more frequently at 550 than 450.  My question is fighting a 450 with a 550 the same as fighting a 550 with a 650? Hound, get on that!

I also told you I enjoy this conversation and don't feel triggered at all (that might be a projection).  I'm trying to be more sensitive to your feelings going forward.  It's a discussion board.  I like to discuss the root of problems (again, one last time, I apologize if that triggered, and I don't mind discussing the personal back and forth over PM as to not derail the topic of the thread).

I think if you had a public poll like the other threads, that would have been helpful for you to know where people stand.  I feel that people have been pretty transparent about their experiences, but that could be helpful if you plan to do more in the future.

Yeah, I mean, this thread is as derailed as any thread on any message board has ever been, and it was derailed immediately, so I don't think anybody's saving it at this point.

ViralCore

Pantera236 said:

ViralCore said:

Pantera236 said:

https://youtu.be/WprUCQgP8Rw

Do you really think 450 Electro can beat 450 SW/Colossus?  Have you tried this?

She can't. She should be able to, easily. That's the entire problem.

Seems possible 🤷‍♂️

Rather disingenuous to talk about the pick-2 meta than post a video of a pick-3 match

See my second video comment. And to be clear I'm not against EB here. His post was a thought experiment, as also previously stated, and my video posts were in line with that. I'm actually regretting doing them as people keep citing them in their arguments.

Your second video was a pick-3 sim game too.
Tell me which 5* has a good of a stun as polaris's?

entrailbucket

Actually -- many players have made it clear that they've only played this game during times when the metagame was severely unbalanced, and prefer a game that's in that state, with one clear "best" strategy that forces all others out.

Has anyone ever played any competitive game (video game, card game, sport etc) where the game makers care about balance and try to maintain it? 

I was a competitive Magic: The Gathering player for many years, and the makers of that game don't nerf -- they just ban overpowered stuff that they've made by accident.  If you invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into strategies you know are overpowered, you run the risk of that strategy just going poof, with zero compensation.  The makers of that game care about balance and enforce it even when it makes players upset.

Tons of other competitive games nerf, buff, and/or ban regularly.  The major eSports do this constantly.

Why are players of this game so dead-set against competitive balance changes?  Why does anyone suggesting the whiff of a change result in such rage?  Is it because they don't have any experience with other competitive games?  Is it because they prefer unbalanced games?

HoundofShadow

Those are not even theorycrafting. Those are pure mathematics, and experiences at 450 scaled to 550. The point is to proof that the Colossus/Wanda meta at 550 isn't any different from the Colossus/Wanda meta at 450. It's simply because every stats are scaled linearly by ~2.16x. If players at 450 can use Electro or Gamora to beat them, then players who have them at 550 will be able to beat them too. Whether that player has them at 550 is a personal choice or a hoard issue. 

If you lose to Okoye/Chavez in a single turn, obviously it is a luck issue and has nothing to do with the characters. However if you are losing to Okoye/Chavez 8 out of 10 matches in a single turn, then I recommend you to contact support.

The problem at 550 tier has more to do with the demographic, rather than the usability of characters. At the 550 tier, the demographic are largely your super hardcore, super competitive players who break their hoard for only meta characters, and no one else.

At the baby champed 5* level, our demographics are much more diversed. If the goal of EB is to see more diversity at 550 tier behind such thread, the only logical solutions are:

1)the demographic has to change, which is impossible unless the developer upgrade everyone's 5* to 550 for free, or

2) the dev cap the maximum level of 5* to 450 and compensate every players.

3) EB sell his 550 and whatever non-meta and aged 5* that caused his mmr to be matched with meta 550  and come to baby champed territory.

4) the rules of pvps change permanently.

Pantera236

ViralCore said:

Pantera236 said:

ViralCore said:

Pantera236 said:

https://youtu.be/WprUCQgP8Rw

Do you really think 450 Electro can beat 450 SW/Colossus?  Have you tried this?

She can't. She should be able to, easily. That's the entire problem.

Seems possible 🤷‍♂️

Rather disingenuous to talk about the pick-2 meta than post a video of a pick-3 match

See my second video comment. And to be clear I'm not against EB here. His post was a thought experiment, as also previously stated, and my video posts were in line with that. I'm actually regretting doing them as people keep citing them in their arguments.

Your second video was a pick-3 sim game too.
Tell me which 5* has a good of a stun as polaris's?

Second video comment.

Daredevil217

Are there limits to the Electro challenge? Can a person use Yellowjacket/Onslaught as a second for an invisible strategy or Shang for a winfinite strategy? Can I use Switch to fuel black or Colossus (since he's his own best counter) to limit match damage, or does that defeat the point? Electro is best used as a counter when the enemy has AOE, which Scarlet Steel don't have, so you really are nullifying her best power bringing her to that fight.  Doesn't make her unusuable, but that is a bad matchup. Still seems fun none the less.

Since this is off-topic already, I have a question about Electro.  Does her yellow reduce damage and gather AP when she's the only character standing? The trigger is "Whenever an enemy power would deal damage to Electro's entire team". When Electro is last standing, is she her entire team?  Ronan's red says "If all enemies were damaged by this power, destroy a random 3x3 block of tiles" and that works when one person is standing.

HoundofShadow

Another way of looking at this is Wanda counters multi-hit attack in a single turn with her repeater tile. Therefore, bringing characters with a single nuke or characters who don't trigger AoE, don't creates attack tiles or deal multi attacks in any form at the early part of game or at the start the turn passively etc is a good counter against her. The reason is Wanda takes 100% damage for the first hit and deals a match-damage like retal per charge.  Electro has a single nuke which deals about 65% of Wanda's max health. Electro is just as effective and ineffective depending on how you use Electro. 

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

Actually -- many players have made it clear that they've only played this game during times when the metagame was severely unbalanced, and prefer a game that's in that state, with one clear "best" strategy that forces all others out.

Has anyone ever played any competitive game (video game, card game, sport etc) where the game makers care about balance and try to maintain it? 

I was a competitive Magic: The Gathering player for many years, and the makers of that game don't nerf -- they just ban overpowered stuff that they've made by accident.  If you invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into strategies you know are overpowered, you run the risk of that strategy just going poof, with zero compensation.  The makers of that game care about balance and enforce it even when it makes players upset.

Tons of other competitive games nerf, buff, and/or ban regularly.  The major eSports do this constantly.

Why are players of this game so dead-set against competitive balance changes?  Why does anyone suggesting the whiff of a change result in such rage?  Is it because they don't have any experience with other competitive games?  Is it because they prefer unbalanced games?

I'm not dead set against it.  I do wonder if it's possible.  Was there a time when every single character in the game was as good as every other character?   Did they never have sets of characters that were inherently better than others.  I mean even at the 1* tier Spidey, Juggs, and Widow are best, Yelena, IM and Venom are trash.  Storm is somewhere in the middle, Hawkeye is a specialist (like Sersi in the 5* tier).  I'm probably forgetting others, but you get the point.  As the number of characters grow, you have more and more niche characters, specialists, people who are great in certain situations (Storm in Puzzle Gauntlet for example) bad in others (Switch in PVE).

I actually made a thread once asking about nerfing the top and buffing the bottom so everyone is more or less Cable-tier and it didn't get a lot of traction, lol.  So, I'm not as angry/agitated as you might think I am about this topic.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

Another way of looking at this is Wanda counters multi-hit attack in a single turn with her repeater tile. Therefore, bringing characters with a single nuke or characters who don't trigger AoE, don't creates attack tiles or deal multi attacks in any form at the early part of game or at the start the turn passively etc is a good counter against her. The reason is Wanda takes 100% damage for the first hit and deals a match-damage like retal per charge.  Electro has a single nuke which deals about 65% of Wanda's max health. Electro is just as effective and ineffective depending on how you use Electro. 

Moving the board just once per turn is fine when you're playing uncompetitive matches that take 5-10 minutes.

When you need to get into and out of a match in 1-2 minutes at most, that requires a significantly different match strategy.  Generally that involves moving the board in a way that generates multiple matches per move. 

Players who've played tens of thousands of competitive matches in this way over a period of many years may find it difficult to move the board in a less optimal way.

ThaRoadWarrior

I tried to confirm that Electro gains AP if she is alone for you, but it turns out she can’t solo long enough agains this boost week to tell one way or the other.

entrailbucket

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Actually -- many players have made it clear that they've only played this game during times when the metagame was severely unbalanced, and prefer a game that's in that state, with one clear "best" strategy that forces all others out.

Has anyone ever played any competitive game (video game, card game, sport etc) where the game makers care about balance and try to maintain it? 

I was a competitive Magic: The Gathering player for many years, and the makers of that game don't nerf -- they just ban overpowered stuff that they've made by accident.  If you invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into strategies you know are overpowered, you run the risk of that strategy just going poof, with zero compensation.  The makers of that game care about balance and enforce it even when it makes players upset.

Tons of other competitive games nerf, buff, and/or ban regularly.  The major eSports do this constantly.

Why are players of this game so dead-set against competitive balance changes?  Why does anyone suggesting the whiff of a change result in such rage?  Is it because they don't have any experience with other competitive games?  Is it because they prefer unbalanced games?

I'm not dead set against it.  I do wonder if it's possible.  Was there a time when every single character in the game was as good as every other character?   Did they never have sets of characters that were inherently better than others.  I mean even at the 1* tier Spidey, Juggs, and Widow are best, Yelena, IM and Venom are trash.  Storm is somewhere in the middle, Hawkeye is a specialist (like Sersi in the 5* tier).  I'm probably forgetting others, but you get the point.  As the number of characters grow, you have more and more niche characters, specialists, people who are great in certain situations (Storm in Puzzle Gauntlet for example) bad in others (Switch in PVE).

I actually made a thread once asking about nerfing the top and buffing the bottom so everyone is more or less Cable-tier and it didn't get a lot of traction, lol.  So, I'm not as angry/agitated as you might think I am about this topic.

The game has always had sets of characters that were better than others, but (pre-Okoye) when one strategy overpowered everything else the devs made changes. 

Here's how the MPQ meta, and incidentally, every single other competitive game's meta) evolves:

1.  Nobody knows what's best. The metagame is chaos and involves all sorts of strategies.  Players theorycraft and test those theories.

2.  Several strong strategies arise based on player consensus.  This is the process of "solving" a metagame.  It might happen very fast or very slow.

3.  After high level testing and competition, either one or more strategies emerge as the very best.  At this point the metagame is considered "solved."

(A solved metagame is BORING.  Once the most competitive strategy has been identified, all competitive players adopt that strategy or a counter to that strategy if one exists.  Game makers try very very hard to create metagames that are difficult to solve)

4.  The game maker acts, either a ban, nerf, buff, or introduction of new strategies.  Ideally this sends the metagame back to #1.


The high level, competitive MPQ metagame prior to Okoye followed this pattern.  Once the metagame was definitively solved, say with 2* Wolverine/Thor or Patch/Magneto, or X-Force/4Thor, the devs took action, which forced the game back to step #1: utter chaos.  Then players began the process of solving the new metagame.

Daredevil217

ThaRoadWarrior said:

I tried to confirm that Electro gains AP if she is alone for you, but it turns out she can’t solo long enough agains this boost week to tell one way or the other.

I appreciate the attempt!

Bad

entrailbucket said:

Why are players of this game so dead-set against competitive balance changes?  Why does anyone suggesting the whiff of a change result in such rage?  Is it because they don't have any experience with other competitive games?  Is it because they prefer unbalanced games?

Because 5*s are really expensive?
I've invested a good amount of resources into SW. I wouldn't accept any change. 
I switched the thopic to okoye and that didnt seem to be of anyone liking.
But it's the same case, a 5* that many have invested a crazy amount of resources and they don't want to hear the slightest change for her.
ColSW are prevalent on 550 MMR? That is sad but I don't think nerfing her will make for a more diverse experience. 
It will make a lot of players angry, like this thread, that's for sure.

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Actually -- many players have made it clear that they've only played this game during times when the metagame was severely unbalanced, and prefer a game that's in that state, with one clear "best" strategy that forces all others out.

Has anyone ever played any competitive game (video game, card game, sport etc) where the game makers care about balance and try to maintain it? 

I was a competitive Magic: The Gathering player for many years, and the makers of that game don't nerf -- they just ban overpowered stuff that they've made by accident.  If you invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into strategies you know are overpowered, you run the risk of that strategy just going poof, with zero compensation.  The makers of that game care about balance and enforce it even when it makes players upset.

Tons of other competitive games nerf, buff, and/or ban regularly.  The major eSports do this constantly.

Why are players of this game so dead-set against competitive balance changes?  Why does anyone suggesting the whiff of a change result in such rage?  Is it because they don't have any experience with other competitive games?  Is it because they prefer unbalanced games?

I'm not dead set against it.  I do wonder if it's possible.  Was there a time when every single character in the game was as good as every other character?   Did they never have sets of characters that were inherently better than others.  I mean even at the 1* tier Spidey, Juggs, and Widow are best, Yelena, IM and Venom are trash.  Storm is somewhere in the middle, Hawkeye is a specialist (like Sersi in the 5* tier).  I'm probably forgetting others, but you get the point.  As the number of characters grow, you have more and more niche characters, specialists, people who are great in certain situations (Storm in Puzzle Gauntlet for example) bad in others (Switch in PVE).

I actually made a thread once asking about nerfing the top and buffing the bottom so everyone is more or less Cable-tier and it didn't get a lot of traction, lol.  So, I'm not as angry/agitated as you might think I am about this topic.

The game has always had sets of characters that were better than others, but (pre-Okoye) when one strategy overpowered everything else the devs made changes. 

Here's how the MPQ meta, and incidentally, every single other competitive game's meta) evolves:

1.  Nobody knows what's best. The metagame is chaos and involves all sorts of strategies.  Players theorycraft and test those theories.

2.  Several strong strategies arise based on player consensus.  This is the process of "solving" a metagame.  It might happen very fast or very slow.

3.  After high level testing and competition, either one or more strategies emerge as the very best.  At this point the metagame is considered "solved."

(A solved metagame is BORING.  Once the most competitive strategy has been identified, all competitive players adopt that strategy or a counter to that strategy if one exists.  Game makers try very very hard to create metagames that are difficult to solve)

4.  The game maker acts, either a ban, nerf, buff, or introduction of new strategies.  Ideally this sends the metagame back to #1.


The high level, competitive MPQ metagame prior to Okoye followed this pattern.  Once the metagame was definitively solved, say with 2* Wolverine/Thor or Patch/Magneto, or X-Force/4Thor, the devs took action, which forced the game back to step #1: utter chaos.  Then players began the process of solving the new metagame.

I'd argue the devs are still doing that.  They no longer nerf, but create new problems to "solve" by introducing new counters and stronger characters to chase. We had the boosted damage meta, special tile meta, match damage meta, defensive meta, rotating boosted meta, and then Shang-Chi is his own wacky thing until himself. I'm actually impressed how well they've switched up since Okoye.  And I do think the meta is more diverse than it has been in the past.

entrailbucket

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Actually -- many players have made it clear that they've only played this game during times when the metagame was severely unbalanced, and prefer a game that's in that state, with one clear "best" strategy that forces all others out.

Has anyone ever played any competitive game (video game, card game, sport etc) where the game makers care about balance and try to maintain it? 

I was a competitive Magic: The Gathering player for many years, and the makers of that game don't nerf -- they just ban overpowered stuff that they've made by accident.  If you invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into strategies you know are overpowered, you run the risk of that strategy just going poof, with zero compensation.  The makers of that game care about balance and enforce it even when it makes players upset.

Tons of other competitive games nerf, buff, and/or ban regularly.  The major eSports do this constantly.

Why are players of this game so dead-set against competitive balance changes?  Why does anyone suggesting the whiff of a change result in such rage?  Is it because they don't have any experience with other competitive games?  Is it because they prefer unbalanced games?

I'm not dead set against it.  I do wonder if it's possible.  Was there a time when every single character in the game was as good as every other character?   Did they never have sets of characters that were inherently better than others.  I mean even at the 1* tier Spidey, Juggs, and Widow are best, Yelena, IM and Venom are trash.  Storm is somewhere in the middle, Hawkeye is a specialist (like Sersi in the 5* tier).  I'm probably forgetting others, but you get the point.  As the number of characters grow, you have more and more niche characters, specialists, people who are great in certain situations (Storm in Puzzle Gauntlet for example) bad in others (Switch in PVE).

I actually made a thread once asking about nerfing the top and buffing the bottom so everyone is more or less Cable-tier and it didn't get a lot of traction, lol.  So, I'm not as angry/agitated as you might think I am about this topic.

The game has always had sets of characters that were better than others, but (pre-Okoye) when one strategy overpowered everything else the devs made changes. 

Here's how the MPQ meta, and incidentally, every single other competitive game's meta) evolves:

1.  Nobody knows what's best. The metagame is chaos and involves all sorts of strategies.  Players theorycraft and test those theories.

2.  Several strong strategies arise based on player consensus.  This is the process of "solving" a metagame.  It might happen very fast or very slow.

3.  After high level testing and competition, either one or more strategies emerge as the very best.  At this point the metagame is considered "solved."

(A solved metagame is BORING.  Once the most competitive strategy has been identified, all competitive players adopt that strategy or a counter to that strategy if one exists.  Game makers try very very hard to create metagames that are difficult to solve)

4.  The game maker acts, either a ban, nerf, buff, or introduction of new strategies.  Ideally this sends the metagame back to #1.


The high level, competitive MPQ metagame prior to Okoye followed this pattern.  Once the metagame was definitively solved, say with 2* Wolverine/Thor or Patch/Magneto, or X-Force/4Thor, the devs took action, which forced the game back to step #1: utter chaos.  Then players began the process of solving the new metagame.

I'd argue the devs are still doing that.  They no longer nerf, but create new problems to "solve" by introducing new counters and stronger characters to chase. We had the boosted damage meta, special tile meta, match damage meta, defensive meta, rotating boosted meta, and then Shang-Chi is his own wacky thing until himself. I'm actually impressed how well they've switched up since Okoye.  And I do think the meta is more diverse than it has been in the past.

I think that's reflecting the difference between tiers, though.  From my vantage point, high level players have immediately solved each metagame post-Gambit (which was, what, 4 years ago?).

When Gambit disappeared they immediately switched to Okoye/Thor. 

When Hulk arrived they switched to Okoye/Hulk. 

When SW arrived they switched to SW/Colossus.

None of the other things you mentioned (the highly technical term for all those other strategies is "jank," btw) have appeared at the top tier of the game at all. 

You can, of course, argue that they shouldn't worry about what the top of the game looks like, but most successful competitive games don't work that way.  They balance for the top then those changes filter down.  Creating a game that offers lots of potential off-meta/jank strategies at lower tiers is pretty straightforward.

HoundofShadow

If you would stop exaggerating... It would be nice. If you are taking 5-10 minutes using Electro and her team against Wanda/Colossus consistently for 7/10 matches, it's a skill problem, not the character problem. Either that, stop multitasking. 

Also, you need to stop changing the direction of your intention/question. In the beginning, it was about usability of 5*, then it became a diversity problem at 550 level and now it's about finishing a match within 1-2 minutes. All these are different questions. 

To answer your ever evolving questions 

Why are players of this game so dead-set against competitive balance changes?  Why does anyone suggesting the whiff of a change result in such rage?  Is it because they don't have any experience with other competitive games?  Is it because they prefer unbalanced games?

Nobody is dead-set against competitive balance changes. What you've missed out is that you are dealing with humans. Because we are humans, we have preferences, biases, goals, priorities, different viewpoints of what things should be. Simply put, your vision(s) of what MPQ at the competitive level or diversity level should be is different from other players' visions of what things should be. None of our visions is correct or wrong. It's simply a preference. None of us are game developers, except a few here, and even game developers disagree with one another about how things should be. And  The reason why you think other developers are doing a good job of how balances are made is because their way of balancing fits your vision of how balancing should be done. 

To me, a balanced MPQ means releasing characters with different or interesting (subjective) mechanics, instead of releasing all characters that can finish matches in 1-2 minutes. On top of that, there should be some wind/earth/water/fire element-like strategy, instead of any character can beat any character in under 1-2 minutes.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

Also, you need to stop changing the direction of your intention/question. In the beginning, it was about usability of 5*, then it became a diversity problem at 550 level and now it's about finishing a match within 1-2 minutes. All these are different questions. 

You're wrong, I'm sorry.  This is all the same question/problem.  It's about diversity among strategies at the top tier of the metagame.  Finishing a match within 1-2 minutes is a requirement for any such strategy.

I understand that you are not competitive and don't play in the top tier of the game.  For you, many strategies are viable.  That's great, for you.

ViralCore

Bad said:

entrailbucket said:

Why are players of this game so dead-set against competitive balance changes?  Why does anyone suggesting the whiff of a change result in such rage?  Is it because they don't have any experience with other competitive games?  Is it because they prefer unbalanced games?

Because 5*s are really expensive?
I've invested a good amount of resources into SW. I wouldn't accept any change. 
I switched the thopic to okoye and that didnt seem to be of anyone liking.
But it's the same case, a 5* that many have invested a crazy amount of resources and they don't want to hear the slightest change for her.
ColSW are prevalent on 550 MMR? That is sad but I don't think nerfing her will make for a more diverse experience. 
It will make a lot of players angry, like this thread, that's for sure.

wrong, we advocated for a Gambit nerf when we had all invested heavily for him.

Bad

ViralCore said:

wrong, we advocated for a Gambit nerf when we had all invested heavily for him.

And SW is like gambit pre-nerf?

entrailbucket

Let's use an example from sports. 

A few players are top auto racers.  Everyone who has a chance of winning the race drives a very similar car, with its performance optimized as much as possible within the acceptable limits for the racing organization.  If the best driver in the world chose to enter the race in a slightly substandard car, he would unquestionably lose.

This race is open, though.  Anyone who chooses to do so can enter.  A driver can enter the race with any number of vehicles -- a golf cart, a unicycle, or a skateboard -- and can finish as many laps as the top drivers will do, technically completing the race. 

Some drivers here are debating whether the organization should reduce the allowable tire pressure by 1% or change the embankment angle of curves by a few degrees. 

Other drivers are strenuously arguing that none of that matters, because they can complete 100 laps around the track in a golf cart.  While technically correct, it's completely missing the point.