Would PvP be better with no meta?

HoundofShadow

The reason why MPQ has only "one meta" is simply because of the rules we have and the lack of rules. My point is the rules or conditions of the game contribute to the potential meta variety of the game. 

Again, it doesn't make sense to apply one state of the game to another state of the game without considering the rules that makes up of the game.

In a collectible card game, you can't choose what cards they can have at the start of the game, whereas we can more or less do that. If we can do that in a collectible card game, we'll obviously choose a deck that is weak against our deck or a deck we have high chance of winning, unless we want some challenge.

Likewise, if, instead of letting competitive players choose their opponents in pvps, the dev decided to remove all boost,  hide all AI's teams until the game start and has a penalty for retreating immediately or within a certain number of turns, can it shake up the meta in pvp? It definitely will. Imagine you confidently bringing SC and America Chavez into pvp and the enemy team consist of Killmonger and Colossus, you will think pretty hard on who to choose in the next match. Alternatively, if pvp rules changed in such a way that each node has different winning condition, will it change the variety of meta? It definitely will. For example, if the nodes requires matching web tiles to deal damage, do you think iHulkoye will be faster than a Spidey team of SM2099 and SMIW? Obviously not.

How about this, is it good for the dev to focus on making things great for 1% of the players or is it better to make things great for 99% of the players?

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

I will say that it seems like at every MMR but the top .1%, PVP is finally diverse thanks to boosts. Past 1K the last few events I’ve seen every combination of IHulk, Rider, Bill, and Pool. Next week I likely won’t see any of them.

It’s very a much appreciated change and actually rewards you for being a collector. I think the boosts are probably the best they can do to shift the meta because there is such a wide chasm between characters at the 5* level, that so many would need to be rebalanced that it would take an ungodly amount of developer time. And after all that labor we’d still find the best combo and run it into the ground. Might as well start MPQ2 at that point.

I think the game has settled on not all being equal and I think that’s okay. Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.

I think at this point the game strikes a good balance between giving us characters for everyone.

I agree with pretty much everything you said and I *really* don't really want to start another 200,000-word debate (my hands hurt from writing that much).

I don't think the amount of adjustments they'd need to do to fix the chasm is that huge.  We all agree that tier 1 and tier 3 are really small relative to tier 2.  If they did do it, the .01% PvP meta would look like it does for you -- rotating boosted characters would change the best combo every week. 

They could even start with tier 3, fix those guys, then see if the tier 1 guys were still overused.

The few members of the 99.9% who are exclusively using the overpowered characters might suffer at first, yes, but...wouldn't they have more fun using different characters occasionally, like you, and hound, and others do?  If they didn't have more fun, is that the game's problem or theirs?

Remember, they're never all going to be equal. It's not possible. All I (and some others, and I think you secretly) want is for them to be more equal-er than they are now.

“Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.”

Thoughts in this specifically?

Bad

Can you repeat the question?

Without repeating what I already said in other threads, I think that meta changes according to the rules too.
All classics should be rebalanced for they could have equality on numbers, and then a player vs on real time should be implemented. 
In there we would see actually which character is meta and which one not, when the real thing is happening. Vs an AI that only shakes tiles the meta is totally different than having in front a seasoned player.
That would be true competition indeed.
Actually I fail to understand why the 1% of the top competitive players are not asking for this mode yet.

Sekilicious

Seems to me the meta changes weekly in Pick-2 if you don’t have 550 MMR. My self, I haven’t played Shang-Chi in two weeks or seen Switch at all. So the no-meta game exists. 

Rather than trying to optimize the game for a single, very vocal player, he should probably optimize his roster to the game. Sell some 550s or your top-10 characters. Balancing characters won’t change who is played at 550 anyways because there are very few 550s out there in the first place. The game is balanced for baby champed 5*s. Not max champed. Or you can admit to yourself that the reason you are bored in PvP is probably because you have been playing a match-3 game 30 to 50 times a day, every day for 8 years. Changing the way we match-3 slightly every few months won’t actually change that fact. 

As for card games not having a meta, that is because you all apparently don’t play card games. Hearthstone, as an example had metas that last for entire rotations (exaggeration I know) after which a new meta comes out because the old cards get shifted to Wild. The meta in Wild rarely changes because the developers know their business is based on new decks being released.  I’ve heard MtG has a similar dynamic but am less familiar.

wymtime

Other

I feel like with weekly boosted characters there is new Meta every week.  Yea it is true if you have high enough level top tier characters you can survive PVP, but if you have good leveled boosted characters you can climb as high with a mix of those characters compared to if there were no boosted characters.  

There will always be top tier characters that become to top used teams.  The weekly boosted characters make it so you don’t have to use those 2 main characters every week 

entrailbucket

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

I will say that it seems like at every MMR but the top .1%, PVP is finally diverse thanks to boosts. Past 1K the last few events I’ve seen every combination of IHulk, Rider, Bill, and Pool. Next week I likely won’t see any of them.

It’s very a much appreciated change and actually rewards you for being a collector. I think the boosts are probably the best they can do to shift the meta because there is such a wide chasm between characters at the 5* level, that so many would need to be rebalanced that it would take an ungodly amount of developer time. And after all that labor we’d still find the best combo and run it into the ground. Might as well start MPQ2 at that point.

I think the game has settled on not all being equal and I think that’s okay. Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.

I think at this point the game strikes a good balance between giving us characters for everyone.

I agree with pretty much everything you said and I *really* don't really want to start another 200,000-word debate (my hands hurt from writing that much).

I don't think the amount of adjustments they'd need to do to fix the chasm is that huge.  We all agree that tier 1 and tier 3 are really small relative to tier 2.  If they did do it, the .01% PvP meta would look like it does for you -- rotating boosted characters would change the best combo every week. 

They could even start with tier 3, fix those guys, then see if the tier 1 guys were still overused.

The few members of the 99.9% who are exclusively using the overpowered characters might suffer at first, yes, but...wouldn't they have more fun using different characters occasionally, like you, and hound, and others do?  If they didn't have more fun, is that the game's problem or theirs?

Remember, they're never all going to be equal. It's not possible. All I (and some others, and I think you secretly) want is for them to be more equal-er than they are now.

“Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.”

Thoughts in this specifically?

What do you think about the players who show up here and say that every character is completely useless unless they're "meta?"

Isn't using different characters more fun? 

Wouldn't those PvE players have more fun if they used different characters?  Should the game cater to players who want to use the same guy for everything forever?

entrailbucket

Sekilicious said:

Seems to me the meta changes weekly in Pick-2 if you don’t have 550 MMR. My self, I haven’t played Shang-Chi in two weeks or seen Switch at all. So the no-meta game exists. 

Rather than trying to optimize the game for a single, very vocal player, he should probably optimize his roster to the game. Sell some 550s or your top-10 characters. Balancing characters won’t change who is played at 550 anyways because there are very few 550s out there in the first place. The game is balanced for baby champed 5*s. Not max champed. Or you can admit to yourself that the reason you are bored in PvP is probably because you have been playing a match-3 game 30 to 50 times a day, every day for 8 years. Changing the way we match-3 slightly every few months won’t actually change that fact. 

As for card games not having a meta, that is because you all apparently don’t play card games. Hearthstone, as an example had metas that last for entire rotations (exaggeration I know) after which a new meta comes out because the old cards get shifted to Wild. The meta in Wild rarely changes because the developers know their business is based on new decks being released.  I’ve heard MtG has a similar dynamic but am less familiar.

Hearthstone issues balance patches every month or two to nerf and buff overplayed or underplayed cards.  Yes, there are top decks.  If the top .01% of competitive Hearthstone players all used the same deck (and that information is public) it would be a massive embarrassment and they would immediately move to nerf or buff cards.

Magic just banned several cards this week!  Not because they were overpowered -- because they were overplayed, among the top players.  Bans are cheered because players want to play a fun, diverse game.

Some noncompetitive players doing fair things with those cards did suffer, and some players lost a lot of money, but game makers really, really care about having a diverse metagame because stagnant metagames are boring.

HoundofShadow

I find it strange that for someone who aren't interested to be in the top 1% or the 1% of the 1% (I think) anymore, you are very concerned about the staleness of the meta game at that tier and pushing the 1-2 minutes rules to the majority of the 5* design. Surely, there must be some benefits you derive from this change. Or perhaps, you're a hired mercenary of those 1% hiding inside their Line groups to push this narrative?

Moving on to the serious side of thing, Currently, our meta changes about 9-12 months. If we change the meta every six months, those 1% won't have as much advantage because they will have to break their hoard more frequently, which means they can't 550 their meta characters in the future. It takes these 1% about 15 months to 550 metas.

If metas are changed every 6 months it means that they can only hoard around 720 pulls before they have to break it. 720 pulls mean 103 covers, which means their meta 5* will be at around 472. Given that the 1% want to be way ahead of the crowd instead of being part of the crowd, do they really want the meta at the top 1% to change more frequently? The difference between 450 and 472 is pretty insignificant. It looks more to me that the dev are aware of their LT earn rate and release meta at a rate where they can 550 metas, rather than 472 them.

Most importantly, do they want players like me who aren't part of their alliance groups to "steal" their T10 placements in SCL10 if meta are changed frequently? 

entrailbucket

I'm not interested in being part of that because it's not fun the way it is now.  It's been fun at many times in the past, when the game was more balanced and you could compete with many strategies -- even ones that were slightly suboptimal.  If it was fun, I'd love to compete again.

I don't want the metagame to change every 6 months, I want it to change every week.

And -- *unequivocally, yes*, I want you (and other players willing to adapt) to be able to steal their placements.

The 2 minutes rule is a red herring.  If one character can win in two minutes, then several characters must be able to.  But if no characters can win in 2 minutes...

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

I will say that it seems like at every MMR but the top .1%, PVP is finally diverse thanks to boosts. Past 1K the last few events I’ve seen every combination of IHulk, Rider, Bill, and Pool. Next week I likely won’t see any of them.

It’s very a much appreciated change and actually rewards you for being a collector. I think the boosts are probably the best they can do to shift the meta because there is such a wide chasm between characters at the 5* level, that so many would need to be rebalanced that it would take an ungodly amount of developer time. And after all that labor we’d still find the best combo and run it into the ground. Might as well start MPQ2 at that point.

I think the game has settled on not all being equal and I think that’s okay. Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.

I think at this point the game strikes a good balance between giving us characters for everyone.

I agree with pretty much everything you said and I *really* don't really want to start another 200,000-word debate (my hands hurt from writing that much).

I don't think the amount of adjustments they'd need to do to fix the chasm is that huge.  We all agree that tier 1 and tier 3 are really small relative to tier 2.  If they did do it, the .01% PvP meta would look like it does for you -- rotating boosted characters would change the best combo every week. 

They could even start with tier 3, fix those guys, then see if the tier 1 guys were still overused.

The few members of the 99.9% who are exclusively using the overpowered characters might suffer at first, yes, but...wouldn't they have more fun using different characters occasionally, like you, and hound, and others do?  If they didn't have more fun, is that the game's problem or theirs?

Remember, they're never all going to be equal. It's not possible. All I (and some others, and I think you secretly) want is for them to be more equal-er than they are now.

“Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.”

Thoughts in this specifically?

What do you think about the players who show up here and say that every character is completely useless unless they're "meta?"

Isn't using different characters more fun? 

Wouldn't those PvE players have more fun if they used different characters?  Should the game cater to players who want to use the same guy for everything forever?

I don't understand why you are answering my question with a completely different question.  But I'll bite. There are plenty of progression-only people who use fun teams and can net top 100 (that's top 10%) playing sort of optimally, and have lots of fun.  To them, most are usable, and the ones that aren't... hopefully, the developers buff them.  The folks saying a character is only useful when meta are those who will only use the best tools (read: fastest team they have) no matter how many characters get reworked.  Nerfing will only make those competitive people slower. And it will slow down those who some days want to use fast characters to blaze through PVE.  I like that there are options for most playstyles right now.

entrailbucket

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

I will say that it seems like at every MMR but the top .1%, PVP is finally diverse thanks to boosts. Past 1K the last few events I’ve seen every combination of IHulk, Rider, Bill, and Pool. Next week I likely won’t see any of them.

It’s very a much appreciated change and actually rewards you for being a collector. I think the boosts are probably the best they can do to shift the meta because there is such a wide chasm between characters at the 5* level, that so many would need to be rebalanced that it would take an ungodly amount of developer time. And after all that labor we’d still find the best combo and run it into the ground. Might as well start MPQ2 at that point.

I think the game has settled on not all being equal and I think that’s okay. Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.

I think at this point the game strikes a good balance between giving us characters for everyone.

I agree with pretty much everything you said and I *really* don't really want to start another 200,000-word debate (my hands hurt from writing that much).

I don't think the amount of adjustments they'd need to do to fix the chasm is that huge.  We all agree that tier 1 and tier 3 are really small relative to tier 2.  If they did do it, the .01% PvP meta would look like it does for you -- rotating boosted characters would change the best combo every week. 

They could even start with tier 3, fix those guys, then see if the tier 1 guys were still overused.

The few members of the 99.9% who are exclusively using the overpowered characters might suffer at first, yes, but...wouldn't they have more fun using different characters occasionally, like you, and hound, and others do?  If they didn't have more fun, is that the game's problem or theirs?

Remember, they're never all going to be equal. It's not possible. All I (and some others, and I think you secretly) want is for them to be more equal-er than they are now.

“Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.”

Thoughts in this specifically?

What do you think about the players who show up here and say that every character is completely useless unless they're "meta?"

Isn't using different characters more fun? 

Wouldn't those PvE players have more fun if they used different characters?  Should the game cater to players who want to use the same guy for everything forever?

I don't understand why you are answering my question with a completely different question.  But I'll bite. There are plenty of progression-only people who use fun teams and can net top 100 (that's top 10%) playing sort of optimally, and have lots of fun.  To them, most are usable, and the ones that aren't... hopefully, the developers buff them.  The folks saying a character is only useful when meta are those who will only use the best tools (read: fastest team they have) no matter how many characters get reworked.  Nerfing will only make those competitive people slower. And it will slow down those who some days want to use fast characters to blaze through PVE.  I like that there are options for most playstyles right now.

It was the same question!  I remember somewhere you said those players are "jaded." Don't you think they're missing out on a fun game?  Don't you find those comments tedious?  I do.  Why should the devs cater to them at the expense of everyone else?

Use an extreme hypothetical example, that I suggested earlier.  Let's say they make a guy who ends every match in 1 hit.  1 move, game over, you win. 

This guy would be great for noncompetitive players who want to save time -- they could use him sometimes if they want to go fast, and use other guys if they want to have fun.  They would resist the temptation to use One Hit Guy for everything because they play for fun.

But he's going to be 100% of the competitive metagame.  If I want to have any chance at winning anything, I have to use this guy for *everything* all the time.

Every other game I'm aware of would consider that guy a huge problem.  Every other game that I'm aware of would eventually say, "sorry, noncompetitive players, we know that sometimes you use One Hit Guy for fun, but we can't allow a competitive game that is 100% One Hit Guy."

That's why I asked about other games people play.  If you're aware of a game that would view One Hit Guy as acceptable, I'd like to know about it.

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

I'm not interested in being part of that because it's not fun the way it is now.  It's been fun at many times in the past, when the game was more balanced and you could compete with many strategies -- even ones that were slightly suboptimal.  If it was fun, I'd love to compete again.

I’m curious when the last time it was fun for you was? What did the meta game look like (ie what were the different characters teams and strategies)? How long ago was this?

Borstock

entrailbucket said:

Borstock said:

Metas are good. It means there exists a fast and efficient option for people who don't want to spend forever playing this game.

If they made a new guy who insta-killed the enemy team every time he made a match, he'd be fast and efficient.  Would that be good for the metagame?

Extreme examples don't prove your point, as much as you'd like them to. There's a difference between meta and broken.

I need there to be fast options or I'd stop playing. I don't always play them. Sometimes I enjoy the slow options. The meta can change based on boosts, if you want. I don't care. But there needs to be a fast and efficient option every time I play or I'd stop playing.

entrailbucket

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

I'm not interested in being part of that because it's not fun the way it is now.  It's been fun at many times in the past, when the game was more balanced and you could compete with many strategies -- even ones that were slightly suboptimal.  If it was fun, I'd love to compete again.

I’m curious when the last time it was fun for you was? What did the meta game look like (ie what were the different characters teams and strategies)? How long ago was this?

You're asking two questions.  The game *is* fun for me now because I'm *not* competing.  If I was playing competitively it wouldn't be fun.

The last time *competing* was fun and diverse was Pre-Gambit.  Panthos was the best team for eating cupcakes, omlpnx was still fairly widely used but easily countered, and almost every other 5* could be run competitively.  Maxed out (370) boosted 4* were also viable, and I spent a lot of events exclusively using 4* to compete with 5*.

When Gambit showed up he was One Hit Guy -- your choices were to use Gambit or lose.  Since then, one or more characters have always occupied that role.

LavaManLee

I think one big reason meta dominates is inherent in the game being a 3 vs 3 at most.  If you are restricted to 3 (or even 2 in the case of PVP), the meta is quickly going to be discovered and played by most.  Think about when Balance of Power is run.  Every player is boosted but you still end up seeing some variation of 6 - 8 characters.

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

Daredevil217 said:

entrailbucket said:

I'm not interested in being part of that because it's not fun the way it is now.  It's been fun at many times in the past, when the game was more balanced and you could compete with many strategies -- even ones that were slightly suboptimal.  If it was fun, I'd love to compete again.

I’m curious when the last time it was fun for you was? What did the meta game look like (ie what were the different characters teams and strategies)? How long ago was this?

You're asking two questions.  The game *is* fun for me now because I'm *not* competing.  If I was playing competitively it wouldn't be fun.

The last time *competing* was fun and diverse was Pre-Gambit.  Panthos was the best team for eating cupcakes, omlpnx was still fairly widely used but easily countered, and almost every other 5* could be run competitively.  Maxed out (370) boosted 4* were also viable, and I spent a lot of events exclusively using 4* to compete with 5*.

When Gambit showed up he was One Hit Guy -- your choices were to use Gambit or lose.  Since then, one or more characters have always occupied that role.

So you're talking 5 years ago.  Half a decade.  The game had less than 20 5* then.  Way easier to balance.  But even back then, you're telling me that FA Cap, Iron Man, Banner, Star-Lord and Ock were competing with those two teams?  I doubt it, but want to check since you were atop the meta back then.  The ability to even have 550s, let alone a bunch of players at that level had only existed for less than a year and a half.  It was a very very different game back then for sure.  If you want a game where everyone is more or less on the same level (again, I don't think that was the case even back then as there's a wide range between Banner and Daredevil), you might want to chase a different game, or sell off your 550s (I know others have suggested this).  Then you'd have your weekly meta changes, and since you're not playing competitive anyways, all the better!  Slowing down the game for everyone else so one player can feel more of a sense of balance doesn't seem likely.

Sekilicious

Hearthstone releases cards three times a year and nerfs cards about once between rotation. In standard there are only about 3 or 4 decks that are playable at any given time. Meta changes quite a bit because cards rotate out of standard into wild. Wild is rarely to never balanced. I have been there when nerfs happened soon after release so apparently ‘massive embarrassments’ happen quite frequently. I would be on board with a Standard (Maybe last 12 to 15 4 and 5*s in PvP) and Wild (in PvE) in MPQ, but the developers quite clearly are not. 

You missed the part where a nerf to Switch or Okoye would not affect who you see at all. Unless everyone with 550s quit immediately. But maybe that is what you want. As for the part where you are still having fun because you don’t play competitively it is shocking how much you care about the well being for competitive players (while deriding their life choices in other places) the majority of which are not even on this website anymore. 

entrailbucket

I'm clearly not making this argument very well, and I think anyone who might agree with me has long since quit the game or abandoned this forum. 

I give up.  You guys win!  I concede!


I did see quite a few D3 tags lurking in this thread and the other one, so hopefully some of you found this interesting or thought-provoking in some way.

Sekilicious

Sekilicious said:

Hearthstone releases cards three times a year and nerfs cards about once between rotation. In standard there are only about 3 or 4 decks that are playable at any given time. Meta changes quite a bit because cards rotate out of standard into wild. Wild is rarely to never balanced. I have been there when nerfs happened soon after release so apparently ‘massive embarrassments’ happen quite frequently. I would be on board with a Standard (Maybe last 12 to 15 4 and 5*s in PvP) and Wild (in PvE) in MPQ, but the developers quite clearly are not. 

You missed the part where a nerf to Switch or Okoye would not affect who you see at all. Unless everyone with 550s quit immediately. But maybe that is what you want. As for the part where you are still having fun because you don’t play competitively it is shocking how much you care about the well being for competitive players (while deriding their life choices in other places) the majority of which are not even on this website anymore. 

As an aside, you don’t have to take my word for the meta of Hearthstone, like you do here.  That game is much more popular than this one so the peripheral websites actually survive (rip Gamependium, *pours one out). Viscous Syndicate tracks the meta weekly using tracked data. Hearthstone has other problems. Aside over. I will not be mentioning that game again.

HoundofShadow

The 1-2 minutes "rule" is part of a vision of your diversified (unboosted/boosted) 5* metagame at 550 tier, which came from your previous experience playing competitively.  You said Electro isn't usable unboosted because she can't beat meta teams in under 2 minutes in the other thread. This applies to other characters/teams who can't do that.

Ultimately, how enjoyable MPQ is are largely determined by the "internal rules" set by the players themselves. If you set this <2 minutes for every characters without taking their roles, strengths, weaknesses, synergies and abilities into account, then that probably explains why only 6 -7 5* characters are usable out of 65 5* unboosted.

Cleric/Fighter/Wizard is a classic rpg team because they synergise with one another. Cleric is typically weak in combat, has low health and stay in the back to heal its allies. Fighter has high health, can tank for allies and deal higher damage than Cleric. Wizard has much high damage than Fighter but has weak constitution. If Cleric can heal, tank, deal high damage at the same time, why would you need a Fighter or Wizard? One might as well compose a team of three Clerics. Likewise, if a Fighter can heal as well as Cleric, why would you want to use Cleric? If Fighter, Wizard and Cleric can do everything equally well, aren't they simply different characters in name?