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

entrailbucket

That was way, way more insulting that it was meant to be.  None of you drive a golf cart.

Well, if you're winning matches with an unboosted Wasp, that's a unicycle.

Phumade

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've heard that Rocket league is quite balanced.  Even though they have hundreds of different car types,  there are only 6-8 hit boxes and the car graphics are merely just a skin for the basic hit box.  Another thing they do which is interesting is that a central server manages the physics of ball and hit collision.  the client merely displays the graphics.  this has a bonus effect of preventing client side cheats.  Such as rerolling LTs  (Does anyone remember that nugget?).

So the developer focuses mainly on cosmetics and providing lots of different tourney/play opportunities.  Maybe thats a new revenue stream where you could spend gold to play in a special tournament that runs concurrent with standard events.

I know we had that many many years ago when I was a noob player.  I wonder why they have never experimented or retried that format.  Yes, this would not be focused/appropriate at new 3/4* players. But with so many "experts" in the current environment maybe it would have a chance at success?  I think its super important to keep introducing new formats to appeal to a maturing playerbase,  unless the really think the game is all 3*/4* rosters.

HoundofShadow

Finally, after 7 pages, you revealed your critieria for what a diversified 550 tier where all characters are usable boosted or unboosted looks like. If only you have stated this criteria right at the first page, we wouldn't have gone in so many directions, with you disagreeing with what were said by many. Here is the most important critieria for those who missed it:

1) Finishing a match within 1-2 minutes is a requirement for any such strategy.

Basically, it means the dev have to rework almost the entire 5* tier and make sure every character can finish a match within 1-2 minutes, regardless of who they are facing, and what support abilities they have.

What's very strange and confusing is that you don't play competitively anymore and yet you restrict yourself to such 1-2 minutes criteria.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

Finally, after 7 pages, you revealed your critieria for what a diversified 550 tier where all characters are usable boosted or unboosted looks like. If only you have stated this criteria right at the first page, we wouldn't have gone in so many directions, with you disagreeing with what were said by many. Here is the most important critieria for those who missed it:

1) Finishing a match within 1-2 minutes is a requirement for any such strategy.

Basically, it means the dev have to rework almost the entire 5* tier and make sure every character can finish a match within 1-2 minutes, regardless of who they are facing, and what support abilities they have.

What's very strange and confusing is that you don't play competitively anymore and yet you restrict yourself to such 1-2 minutes criteria.

Obviously no other driver needs a highly-tuned race car, when you can ride 100 laps around the course on a bicycle and say you've finished the race.  Other drivers' concerns about competitive balance in the top cars are ridiculous and unnecessary, because they should just ride bicycles too!


Play 800-1000 PvP matches a week over a period of several years, then get back to me with your thoughts about the competitive metagame.  It's not terribly easy to abandon that sort of playstyle -- I just limit myself to short bursts now.

HoundofShadow

Let's assume that dev rework the entire 5* tier and every character can finish a match in 1-2 minutes, while it fulfill your goal of a diversified 550 world where you see different characters boosted or unboosted, what have been traded off are interesting mechanics for this dull and lack of depth "diversified" gameplay. Because if any character can win matches again any team in 1-2 minutes, there is zero strategy. 

entrailbucket

You could not be more wrong.  Playing that quickly requires an immense amount of actual skill,  concentration, and strategy.  We're not talking about trivial matches against weak opponents -- that's no fun at all.

It does, unfortunately, require characters that do useful things, when compared to the other characters, but there is no reason they can't make every character do useful things. 

Then it's simply down to a player's individual skill level and preference to find a character or strategy that works best for them -- just like fighting games.  If you can win a match in 2 minutes with Okoye or Scarlet Witch or Wasp, I should be able to win a match in 2 minutes with OML or Electro or Colossus.

entrailbucket

Phumade 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've heard that Rocket league is quite balanced.  Even though they have hundreds of different car types,  there are only 6-8 hit boxes and the car graphics are merely just a skin for the basic hit box.  Another thing they do which is interesting is that a central server manages the physics of ball and hit collision.  the client merely displays the graphics.  this has a bonus effect of preventing client side cheats.  Such as rerolling LTs  (Does anyone remember that nugget?).

So the developer focuses mainly on cosmetics and providing lots of different tourney/play opportunities.  Maybe thats a new revenue stream where you could spend gold to play in a special tournament that runs concurrent with standard events.

I know we had that many many years ago when I was a noob player.  I wonder why they have never experimented or retried that format.  Yes, this would not be focused/appropriate at new 3/4* players. But with so many "experts" in the current environment maybe it would have a chance at success?  I think its super important to keep introducing new formats to appeal to a maturing playerbase,  unless the really think the game is all 3*/4* rosters.

Tons of games far more complicated than that do competitive balance between high-level strategies.  I mentioned Magic, where there are tens of thousands of cards and usually between 4 and 10 "best" decks after a format is solved.  If there are only one or two best decks they ban.  Aggressively.  Until the format opens up.  Players frequently cheer such bans, despite losing hundreds or thousands of dollars in cards, because they want to play a fun, balanced game and they're sick of seeing the same stuff.

League of Legends is crazy deep, and has 100+ characters that are meticulously balanced frequently. 

Clash of Clans balances.  Fortnite balances. 

Most of these game makers are totally open about which strategies players are using, and if something is being used too much or is too powerful, players know about that well before any intervention.

Basically any game that's in any way competitive tries to maintain some semblance of competitive balance, and players generally applaud such efforts. 

This is the only game I play or have ever played where players *demand* an unbalanced metagame.  It's weird.

Daredevil217

Yeah the 1-2 minute match parameters are helpful to know and put a lot of these comments into perspective.  People have been saying from the jump “define useful”, “define diverse”, etc. Now that we’re finally getting some definitions of how people are defining these things, it helps with the miscommunications.

I don’t think what the OP wants is really possible since a lot of characters are defensive (Odin, Switch, Colossus, etc.) and their whole schtick/specialty is making it so you can’t just win a match in 2 minutes.  Annoying to face when that’s what you’re used to (even for me in unboosted events, I much preferred the healthpack draining but way quicker Hulkoye meta), but MPQ is all about adapting to new and differing metas. Like Hulkoye, Thorkoye, Gambit, etc. this meta too shall pass.

Different note, but I still want to know: If a 450 vs 450 match is the same as a 550 vs 550, is a 650 vs a 550 is the same as a 550 vs a 450. I have no idea how the scaling in this game works (even within the same tier) and would love someone way smarter than me to explain it. 

HoundofShadow

To me, you are ignoring or not interested in the Rock Paper Scissors strategies. All you are interested is bashing another team within 1-2 minutes, regardless of what advantages or disadvantages you have against them.

If I bring a rock against paper, I'm expected to lose or have a hard time winning. If I bring a rock against scissor, I'm expected to win and to win easily.

What you are suggesting, is if you bring a rock against paper, you should be able to defeat paper as fast as a rock beating scissor. 

To me, that is totally unrealistic, and if it is a reality, it is a very dull reality. However, to you, that's what diversification is about. Neither one of us is wrong. Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for others, the dev hasn't yet subscribed to that vision of diversification. For the past six or seven years, 65 5* have been released, only ~11% of them live up to your 1-2 minutes criteria. 

ThaRoadWarrior

I think this game should aspire to the “mega man” flavor of row-sham-bow. By that I mean that you can beat any robot master with the standard buster canon, but there is a clear advantage to using the correct weapon against the correct boss. I think it’s largely been good at that *assuming level parity is present.* but as we all know there are some outliers at both ends of the spectrum that are pretty seriously ahead of the pack and behind the pack. I’m more fine with the ones that are very far ahead existing, and don’t think any 5* should be as bad as some of the notably bad or useless ones we have.

entrailbucket

I'd love a rock/paper/scissors metagame!  That requires players to have a wide range of available, very high-level characters if they want to compete at all.  If you go all-in on scissors, you can't beat rock at all.

That is nowhere even close to what we have now, where having 2-4 "meta" characters maxed out means you utterly dominate everything forever.


I can't assess what 650 vs 550 is because the next question is "which 650?"  I have OML at that level, and when boosted he's significantly worse than the unboosted 550s.  See, that's the problem... Apocalypse at 650 is probably pretty great!


As far as definitions/criteria/etc, remember I haven't been back here *that* long, and before that I spent about 7 years talking only to players who would've intuitively understood all of those things without having to define them.  I thought I was being clear!

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

I'd love a rock/paper/scissors metagame!  That requires players to have a wide range of available, very high-level characters if they want to compete at all.  If you go all-in on scissors, you can't beat rock at all.

That is nowhere even close to what we have now, where having 2-4 "meta" characters maxed out means you utterly dominate everything forever.


I can't assess what 650 vs 550 is because the next question is "which 650?"  I have OML at that level, and when boosted he's significantly worse than the unboosted 550s.  See, that's the problem... Apocalypse at 650 is probably pretty great!


As far as definitions/criteria/etc, remember I haven't been back here *that* long, and before that I spent about 7 years talking only to players who would've intuitively understood all of those things without having to define them.  I thought I was being clear!

To be clearer… I’m assuming the characters are the same. If I take on a 450 Switch with a 550 OML is it the same as a 650 OML taking on a 550 Switch? Do they scale the same? If so I could at least get some insight into what it’s like for you in-match (another cool benefit of god boosts). 

entrailbucket

I think they scale the same, yes.  You can get a sense of it in PvE -- I think in CL10 enemies top out at 650?  They haven't put Scarlet Witch in any fights (yet?) though.

HoundofShadow

550 when boosted is 672, whereas 450 when boosted is 469.

I got matched with a few 672 but I forgot to note it down. However, here is the approximate multipliers:

450 to 550: x 2.16
450 to 569: x2.5

entrailbucket

ThaRoadWarrior said:

I think this game should aspire to the “mega man” flavor of row-sham-bow. By that I mean that you can beat any robot master with the standard buster canon, but there is a clear advantage to using the correct weapon against the correct boss. I think it’s largely been good at that *assuming level parity is present.* but as we all know there are some outliers at both ends of the spectrum that are pretty seriously ahead of the pack and behind the pack. I’m more fine with the ones that are very far ahead existing, and don’t think any 5* should be as bad as some of the notably bad or useless ones we have.

"Assuming level parity is present" is interesting, because of that inertia factor that I mentioned earlier.  The last few changes to the metagame came about because new characters arrived who invalidated those old characters completely, and did it at a very low level.

Hulk showed up and immediately retired Thor, because even at 450, an enemy Hulk makes your Thor completely unplayable.  You can't consistently fight Hulk with Thor because of Hulk's unavoidable free AoE.

Likewise SW showed up and immediately retired Hulk.  Hulk just cannot beat an enemy SW at all, even if she's 450.

For awhile I thought we'd get more of these super hard counters, but they seem to have given up on that.  Gamora was an attempt, but her counter power is active and relies on sticking a tile -- she's just way too slow and unreliable when you're facing free passives. 

Maybe she's a good counter at 550 but nobody will ever find out, because she's not overcoming that inertia.  I think when some people talk about someone being DOA that's what they mean.

HoundofShadow

MPQ is largely a pick-2 in pvp and split between pick-2 and pick-3 in pve.

Your scenarios are largely true for pick-1 but for pick-2 or pick-3, it's not necessarily true. IHulk can still beat SW, but if you are healthpack-aversive, then iHulk will never beat SW.  

To find a boosted 650, it means that the unboosted level is between 528 to 531.

Since you have a few 550 and we are talking about pvp, we should be looking at 672 rather than 650?

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

I think they scale the same, yes.  You can get a sense of it in PvE -- I think in CL10 enemies top out at 650?  They haven't put Scarlet Witch in any fights (yet?) though.

I was thinking the inverse. Not what it’s like to fight a boosted switch (since that only happens like once every 16-18 weeks?). But what it’s like for you to fight unboosted Switch (550) with older boosted characters (650s). 

Bad

Sekilicious said:

Yeah I am probably being more toxic than I should be. I will try to do better. 

Oh, don't stop.
This is a good thread for to be toxic, imo.
And pretending the day to be night and the opposite just raises it.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

MPQ is largely a pick-2 in pvp and split between pick-2 and pick-3 in pve.

Your scenarios are largely true for pick-1 but for pick-2 or pick-3, it's not necessarily true. IHulk can still beat SW, but if you are healthpack-aversive, then iHulk will never beat SW.  

To find a boosted 650, it means that the unboosted level is between 528 to 531.

Since you have a few 550 and we are talking about pvp, we should be looking at 672 rather than 650?

So which is it?  Is it rock-paper-scissors, where scissors can't beat rock?  Or is it a free for all where any character can beat any character unless the player is doing it wrong?  (Doing it wrong, I guess, means doing it in a way that's different from you.)  You seem to think it is currently both ways.

I do apologize for rounding the levels in that way.  I frequently refer to the 5* boost as +100 levels to save time, but of course it's +122 levels or whatever.  Referring to characters as level 650 vs 672 is inaccurate and unacceptable.

DAZ0273

Wait...you can't flag somebody called "Bad" for wanting to continue being "bad"...can you?!?!?