Would PvP be better with no meta?

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

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?

Isn't that the argument against "meta" characters?  That one guy shouldn't be the best booster, the best tank, *and* the best damage dealer?  If one character is the best at all those jobs (like the "meta" guys are), then why would you use any other character?

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

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.

As soon as I read Hounds post I knew he’d draw draw you right back in. 😂

Mainly because I think his comparison isn’t perfect. But the point is these characters work in tandem with one another. There is no character in the game who is the best at everything. But the meta characters are the best at a lot of things. Okoye is the best power booster and one of the best healers. Hulk is the best at passive AOE. Solo they are weak but put them together and look out!  Kitty is the best tile booster. Bill and Polaris are the best tile spammers (Bill also becomes a good battery with a board of protects and Polaris is one of the best stunners). Colossus the best match damage defender.  Switch is the best power defender and also a decent battery and passive damage dealer. Apocalypse is the best active damage dealer and second best power booster. Onslaught is the best cascade creator. Thor the best at AP collection. And we can go on and on. 

Where his comparison falls flat is we have way more than three “classes” and i don’t know if those games have a “best cleric”, “best fighter” and “best healer” or if they are all balanced unlike our game. 

As to the post I quoted, I could give you feedback as to why I (and I imagine others) struggle with how you structure your arguments, if you’re interested. Though I imagine a lot of it is stuff you’re aware of and it’d be super off topic anyway. It doesn’t bother me though. Far from it. 

As an aside, have you given serious thought to dropping down to a more interesting MMR by selling off 550s?  Since you don’t play to compete and only really play for fun these days, I think it would help immensely with that goal as you’d have your rotating meta (I personally find it tons of fun). I do agree with hounds point that in a game like this you do have to set your own “fun goals” within the parameters we are given. 

HoundofShadow

It's about how synergy creates a well rounded team, and how each character covers one another characters' weaknesses and leverage on another's strengths. It's not a hard and fast rule. Players don't have to always have a team of these three. If players want to go with a team without Cleric, it's also possible, as long as the lack of healing won't lead them into defeat. Ultimately, the team composition depends on the context, difficulty and players' risk appetite of each fight. Anyway, this is just to illustrate basic concept of synergy, strengths and weaknesses.

Edit: there are other more classes of characters but if I bring in Bard, Assassin, Barbarian and others, it will be very lengthy, so I stick with the basic cleric/fighter/wizard comparison.

As far as MPQ is concerned, I don't remember any meta characters who are the gold standard for every (meta) mechanics in the game.

Okoye: boosting allies' powers damage and true heal
Apocalypse: boosting allies and offensive power damage
Kitty: boosting friendly special tiles and removing four types of special tiles passively.
Thor: ap feeders in green/red/yellow
IHulk: AoE
Wanda: protect allies and herself against multi attacks in a single turn
Colossus: gives allies 83% physical defense and a 126% boost to his own match damage
Shang Chi: super offensive match damage mutiplier for self with true heal, and good board manipulation.

If at least two characters in MPQ can perform all the above abilities in the game, then it's time to ask what's the point of using other characters, besides giving yourself some challenge?

entrailbucket

I mean, Hound and I want the same thing.  I want a game full of clerics, bards, fighters and wizards that are each good at exactly one thing.  We totally agree on this, and I'm glad he's finally on my side!

Unfortunately what we actually have is a game with a few superwizardclericfighters and a bunch of regular guys, which is exactly what he doesn't want, because the super guys make everyone else seem useless.


I know exactly what the problem with my argument is -- it's that the first post could be construed as a request for a nerf.  Once you say anything that's even close to that in this game, with these players, it's *over*.  You're done.  People not only tune you out, they get really really angry.  There is no argument of any kind that anyone can make that even gets anywhere near that topic.  It is that-which-shall-not-be-named.  I get that and I still go there... so I get what I deserve.  It's only a little bit on purpose.

At least nobody is threatening to kill me this time (which was not just a one-time thing in the past)!


I will never, ever drop down.  Ever.  If I did, I wouldn't be able to fight those hoarders anymore.  Even when I was competitive, I never cared about scoring points.  Our alliance was always interested in *taking away* points, and that's what I still find fun.  (Our alliance is why s2 has a bad reputation).

There is nothing more fun than stopping someone from getting a progression reward, or taking 500 points off them when they're hopping, or watching a player with 550 "meta" characters shield at 800 points.  If that means fighting the same two characters forever, well, that's a small price to pay.

HoundofShadow

Actually, what I meant is that each character has strengths and weaknesses. Building teams around synergy are what's important to me and what makes things fun. And what I want to see in MPQ are more interesting or fun mechanics or synergies. Releasing half or more characters under offensive meta the likes of Okoye or Apocalyse  don't look fun to me. Again, fun is subjective.

In the context of MPQ, I believe that every characters have potential to be good and fun in their own ways, and I don't expect every character to be meta. I have all the meta champed but I still like to use trash, average or bottom tier characters like Knull, Sinister, Ronan, Storm because they are more fun to me. If I want to pump up some adrenaline (speed play against top rosters), I'll use meta characters.

I think one of your argument quirks is using extreme cases to support your arguments or asking a question of one extreme end to another. Something in between do exists, at least for me. 

I still want to know the frequency of 550 Colossus dealing critical match cascade often and easily. Is it a case of negative bias or is something that exists in the 550 tier? If Colossus dealing critical match damage is a common occurrence, I believe we'd have seen discussions around this over the past few months. In the context of 450 Colossus, it's equivalent to him dealing 100k/2.16 = 46.3k damage in a single cascade. If this is hidden perks of 550 tiers, I think it does change the landscape of 450 meta and 550 of the same teams.

Daredevil217

entrailbucket said:

I mean, Hound and I want the same thing.  I want a game full of clerics, bards, fighters and wizards that are each good at exactly one thing.  We totally agree on this, and I'm glad he's finally on my side!

Unfortunately what we actually have is a game with a few superwizardclericfighters and a bunch of regular guys, which is exactly what he doesn't want, because the super guys make everyone else seem useless.


I know exactly what the problem with my argument is -- it's that the first post could be construed as a request for a nerf.  Once you say anything that's even close to that in this game, with these players, it's *over*.  You're done.  People not only tune you out, they get really really angry.  There is no argument of any kind that anyone can make that even gets anywhere near that topic.  It is that-which-shall-not-be-named.  I get that and I still go there... so I get what I deserve.  It's only a little bit on purpose.

At least nobody is threatening to kill me this time (which was not just a one-time thing in the past)!


I will never, ever drop down.  Ever.  If I did, I wouldn't be able to fight those hoarders anymore.  Even when I was competitive, I never cared about scoring points.  Our alliance was always interested in *taking away* points, and that's what I still find fun.  (Our alliance is why s2 has a bad reputation).

There is nothing more fun than stopping someone from getting a progression reward, or taking 500 points off them when they're hopping, or watching a player with 550 "meta" characters shield at 800 points.  If that means fighting the same two characters forever, well, that's a small price to pay.

Nah, for me the issue is actually illustrated in this post here. I’ll put it in spoiler tags because it’s long, but basically spells out why 1) people might have difficulty understanding you and 2) why I’m not upset with you (and it’s precisely because I do understand you and it’s easier to side step all the extra stuff when you see it and not take it personal when you understand another persons motives).

You make things very personal. You mentioned in the other thread that you were almost “banned”. Did anyone even so much as flag you? You mention vendettas, anger, and people out to “get you” which I know is persecutory thinking because I didn’t even remember the thing you told me I had a vendetta about until you mentioned it. I think you like stirring the pot (even if only a little bit on purpose) so you can be in that victim/everyone is after me!! place. I work with kids like this all the time (psychologist) which is why it doesn’t bother me- I get it.  But if you’re actually interested in a good debate, depersonalizing would help. Other than that, moving the goalposts, throwing out red herrings, using examples no one can prove (like all the players who feel like you exist, but we can’t talk to them. Or the day 1 550 meta was this diverse utopia where banners and ocks could top the leader boards almost aa easily as Panthos. Since none us played at that level we can’t dispute no matter how sketchy it feels). The extreme examples as your base arguments (no, Switch is not even close to being good at everything let alone the half of the game where all the good rewards are). I’ve seen others question your motives (like caring so much about the experience of 550 players- who again do not seem to be complaining at least here- when it supports your position, but in the next post talk about how much you like making them miserable), plus the “flip flopping” that a couple have mentioned as well. Add it all up and I can see why some struggle to understand where you’re coming from. A lot of it feels like what you want is really to support your play and roster-building style (and that’s okay, I’d just say be transparent and name it up front) but it’s couched as being in the best interest of the game or a tier of players that you seemingly have a contentious relationship with.

This will hopefully be the last time I get this off-topicy and make it solely about how you post instead of what you post, but wanted to put it out there so you know where I’m coming from when responding to you since you have said things that didn’t quite represent how I’m seeing you multiple times. Also know these are my perceptions and I’m more than okay with being wrong on some of them. 

As for dropping down, it actually makes it easier to keep up if baby champ MMR is your roster building goal and diversity is your gameplay goal. I’m sitting on something like 900 pulls. When Abby rotates in Im statistically guaranteed to cover her, BW, and Sersi. And then by the time the next three rotate in I should be able to cover them too if I stop at baby champ. We’re fortunately at a level where we can “keep up” with pulls to spare to dip into special stores and whatnot if we want. I guess I am a “hoarder” but not to get to 550s. Just to 450s, which means I don’t really have to hoard long. Just in very small spurts. I can see how waiting to pull can be boring, but I have to weigh that against the boredom of a less diverse MMR. 

Back to the topic, I found the thread I made where I asked would the game be better if Bishop/Rocket/Thor/Okoye (meta of the time) were removed or nerfed. Similar concept (and I didn’t get death threats!) as it didn’t seem like there was a clear best team after Gritty/Thorkoye/Bish. To compensate I said PVE would reduce number of clears substantially in my fantasy world since I wouldn’t want longer grinds. People were still mostly against it because “there will always be a best team and once found everyone will gravitate to it” (though no one could name what that team would be). The other issue was taking away either thousands of dollars or years of work. I can’t imagine how many people quit after Gambit and OML, I think they want to avoid mass exodus from their playerbase so really want to move to buffs and counters over nerfs and bans. 

Sekilicious

HoundofShadow said:

Okoye: boosting allies' powers damage and true heal
Apocalypse: boosting allies and offensive power damage
Kitty: boosting friendly special tiles and removing four types of special tiles passively.
Thor: ap feeders in green/red/yellow
IHulk: AoE
Wanda: protect allies and herself against multi attacks in a single turn
Colossus: gives allies 83% physical defense and a 126% boost to his own match damage
Shang Chi: super offensive match damage mutiplier for self with true heal, and good board manipulation.

Good list. Most people become fixated on these (and BRB/Polaris) because they are the best of the best. But there are quite a few synergies outside the meta in the 5* tier for those willing to look. Most aren’t because they are trying to maximize their roster for PvP purposes. 

But frankly, you can reach the highest levels of competitive PvP without any of these at 550, since that is more about relationships formed on Line and spending to get HP for shields. Even in the Blade PvP, where Apocalypse and Kitty currently rule all, I am currently sitting at 1100 pts with Yelena and Wasp lined up at 75pts and Shang-Chi and Chavez at 70pts. I can beat either of those teams quite easily with Polaris and Grocket if I wanted to, much less my 4 meta 5*s. Once you get past a certain point PvP is less about synergies and more about shield hopping off of grills the top competitive players leave out. That is probably the most annoying part about hyperbole that certain characters are dominant in PvP. 

Not to detract from your point. There is a lack of balance in D&D too. The D&D 5e Reddit is full of boost recommendations for melee classes because the magic classes are much more versatile and powerful. I agree that synergies are important there as well. 

LavaManLee

entrailbucket said:

There is nothing more fun than stopping someone from getting a progression reward, or taking 500 points off them when they're hopping, or watching a player with 550 "meta" characters shield at 800 points.  If that means fighting the same two characters forever, well, that's a small price to pay.

This right here shows why you're playing a completely different game than others.  You aren't playing the same PVP game, you're playing a "take away" game.  If that is fun for you (and I really don't understand it) than all the best.  But coming at it from that angle is different from the majority of players so how you view the game is completely different as well.

Reminds me of the wise lyrics of Sum41: "You don't know us at all, we laugh when old people fall."

HoundofShadow

I think balancing game isn't easy. And there are always something to improve on. On top of that, this is something affect humans, and they have biases. So, not everyone will agree with the balances. I wonder, is there a game where all players agree with their dev' balances every time?

I think sniper seems like his role in pvps. They are there to suppress scores. S2 is one of the suppression slices. That explains why he always play in S2. 

Sekilicious

Score suppression is a valuable role. It keeps plebs like me investing in shields. 

But yeah, people think that developers are ruining every single game out there. They like to point out flaws and wax poetic about how if they just shifted the vision of the game to whatever the op’s post was about then the game would be saved. Then they go play 30 to 50 times a day for about a decade. 

entrailbucket

Sekilicious said:

Score suppression is a valuable role. It keeps plebs like me investing in shields. 

But yeah, people think that developers are ruining every single game out there. They like to point out flaws and wax poetic about how if they just shifted the vision of the game to whatever the op’s post was about then the game would be saved. Then they go play 30 to 50 times a day for about a decade. 

I actually think they're doing a really good job, and I think the game is fun. 

I made some suggestions that I think would make it more fun for me.  I guess you're saying that the game is absolutely perfect for you.  That's great!  Then why would you get so upset about someone else making suggestions?  If they're bad ideas that will never get implemented, who cares?

Sekilicious

entrailbucket said:

Sekilicious said:

Score suppression is a valuable role. It keeps plebs like me investing in shields. 

But yeah, people think that developers are ruining every single game out there. They like to point out flaws and wax poetic about how if they just shifted the vision of the game to whatever the op’s post was about then the game would be saved. Then they go play 30 to 50 times a day for about a decade. 

I actually think they're doing a really good job, and I think the game is fun. 

I made some suggestions that I think would make it more fun for me.  I guess you're saying that the game is absolutely perfect for you.  That's great!  Then why would you get so upset about someone else making suggestions?  If they're bad ideas that will never get implemented, who cares?

The game isn’t perfect for me. None of the games I have played are. I mostly like to push back on calling characters trash before anyone plays with them, or calling for nerfs for characters that I don’t see as problematic. As much as I think some things could change I am not all that confident that I would enjoy the game if my changes were implemented. 

With you I have trouble with argument style and your occasional shots at developers decisions because they don’t design to fit your vision of the game. It is important for you to know that I don’t consider either of these problems with you. 

bbigler

I think it’s childish and immature to enjoy knocking people down. Instead of being jealous of their success, one could congratulate them and put their own ego aside. A mature person thinks of everyone’s needs, not just their own. I believe this is true in MPQ as well as real life.

Regarding PVP climbing, you can only gain points by making others lose points. Nevertheless, I believe we can still fight in a civil way. It shouldn’t be personal, just the business of gaining points. Repeatedly hitting someone or having your battle alliance target someone is immature, IMO, unless they’re being a jerk and you’re trying to change their behavior. Unfortunately, some people only respond to a show of force. 

entrailbucket

They're not perfect either, they make mistakes just like anybody else does.  For example, Bishop was a mistake -- they didn't test his passive against 5* match damage.  Saying "Bishop was a mistake" isn't an insult or shot at them, and it doesn't mean they're incompetent.  It just means they made a mistake, which they eventually corrected.

Speculating that something else is a mistake is way better than the alternative.  The people I can't stand are the ones convinced that the developers do evil things on purpose according to some kind of multiyear evil genius master plan.  Bishop wasn't a pump-and-dump scam where they made a guy that was too good on purpose to generate sales then nerfed him once sales dried up.

Sekilicious

entrailbucket said:

They're not perfect either, they make mistakes just like anybody else does.  For example, Bishop was a mistake -- they didn't test his passive against 5* match damage.  Saying "Bishop was a mistake" isn't an insult or shot at them, and it doesn't mean they're incompetent.  It just means they made a mistake, which they eventually corrected.

Speculating that something else is a mistake is way better than the alternative.  The people I can't stand are the ones convinced that the developers do evil things on purpose according to some kind of multiyear evil genius master plan.  Bishop wasn't a pump-and-dump scam where they made a guy that was too good on purpose to generate sales then nerfed him once sales dried up.

You’re misinterpreting what I mean by shot though. As an example in the May thread after it was revealed she only gave ap once per turn you commented that they were learning. I mean maybe, but more likely there was a typo in the release thread. This happens quite often though I’m sure you don’t even notice. And if it bothers me that really isn’t on you. 

Sekilicious

Sekilicious said:

entrailbucket said:

They're not perfect either, they make mistakes just like anybody else does.  For example, Bishop was a mistake -- they didn't test his passive against 5* match damage.  Saying "Bishop was a mistake" isn't an insult or shot at them, and it doesn't mean they're incompetent.  It just means they made a mistake, which they eventually corrected.

Speculating that something else is a mistake is way better than the alternative.  The people I can't stand are the ones convinced that the developers do evil things on purpose according to some kind of multiyear evil genius master plan.  Bishop wasn't a pump-and-dump scam where they made a guy that was too good on purpose to generate sales then nerfed him once sales dried up.

You’re misinterpreting what I mean by shot though. As an example in the May thread after it was revealed she only gave ap once per turn you commented that they were learning. I mean maybe, but more likely there was a typo in the release thread. This happens quite often though I’m sure you don’t even notice. And if it bothers me that really isn’t on you. 

Though since the nerf Polaris thread was necroed Bishop would be a pretty good Polaris deterrent in his original form

JackDeath666

Entrail is a late climber not a sniper. Wouldn't be much good at the latter as he only plays 90m every 60h.

It's a whole other conversation, but based on its name PVP is supposed to be fighting against other players, not colluding with them. Top players that choose to play in a suppression slice do so willingly. I suppose for end time, or for easier placement or because they don't want to get involved with artificially inflated scores in other slices. Sure it's not much fun getting drained by someone, but it's a dog eat dog world and happens in reverse too. Other multiple hits in someone might be due to trying to climb by hitting from above. 70 point grills as mentioned above are non-existent. Even 1.2k is usually a battle for one reason or another. 

There was a comment in an earlier post in this thread about MPQ lacking the psychological edge of other competitive games. I think it is rich with this - knowing when to shield, when to stay out, when to dump, when to fake shield, how others play, when they play, how they hop. That's what makes high level PVP a lot of fun for me and many others. 

entrailbucket

Sekilicious said:

entrailbucket said:

They're not perfect either, they make mistakes just like anybody else does.  For example, Bishop was a mistake -- they didn't test his passive against 5* match damage.  Saying "Bishop was a mistake" isn't an insult or shot at them, and it doesn't mean they're incompetent.  It just means they made a mistake, which they eventually corrected.

Speculating that something else is a mistake is way better than the alternative.  The people I can't stand are the ones convinced that the developers do evil things on purpose according to some kind of multiyear evil genius master plan.  Bishop wasn't a pump-and-dump scam where they made a guy that was too good on purpose to generate sales then nerfed him once sales dried up.

You’re misinterpreting what I mean by shot though. As an example in the May thread after it was revealed she only gave ap once per turn you commented that they were learning. I mean maybe, but more likely there was a typo in the release thread. This happens quite often though I’m sure you don’t even notice. And if it bothers me that really isn’t on you. 

Oh no -- they post those previews before they've finished the final testing cycle and they're always subject to change if they find an issue in testing.

Previous infinite combos they've made were mistakes.  This time someone caught the issue in their testing.  They're a really, really small team and with the release schedules they're on, playtesting often gets shorted.  It's not evil and it's not incompetence, it's just reality.

How do I know this?  They've posted certain things over the years, and they interact with players occasionally in other places.  I don't know that was what happened with May specifically, but it fits the pattern of what I know about their process and things that I do know have happened before.

I wish they'd be more open and communicative here so people didn't have to guess about this stuff or seek them out in other places.

Sekilicious

entrailbucket said:

  I don't know that was what happened with May.

I kept the only fact in your thread. The rest was assuming incompetence because they do not operate the way you think they should. Bishop was nerfed after a year or two so they were obviously fine with his interaction with the 5* meta, except for maybe his interaction with BRB on top. Worthy was nerfed quicker so they maybe they were not. 

entrailbucket

Sekilicious said:

entrailbucket said:

  I don't know that was what happened with May.

I kept the only fact in your thread. The rest was assuming incompetence because they do not operate the way you think they should. Bishop was nerfed after a year or two so they were obviously fine with his interaction with the 5* meta, except for maybe his interaction with BRB on top. Worthy was nerfed quicker so they maybe they were not. 

Sorry, but those were not assumptions.  I'd suggest seeking out some of the folks who work on the game and talking to them, as I and others have many, many times.