***** Elektra (Woman Without Fear) *****

entrailbucket

"Meta" is a silly word that's being misused for this purpose and I'm consciously choosing to use it as little as possible, or derisively if I absolutely must. 

From now on characters are "good."

HoundofShadow

We are talking about different things. I'm talking about meta. You are talking about good.

Like I said, I used history and number to predict the future. I'm not sure how that become a rule. 5* was created in 2015. I'm hesistant to use 5* from 2015-2016 because they were still a new tier, and they are susceptible to frequent changes because there were't many benchmarks to use against. 

My point is why compare every 5* release to meta characters when history have proven that meta characters are few or two a years? Wouldn't it be better to compare them to good characters instead to have a better comparison?

entrailbucket

What does "meta" mean?  Does it mean the characters that make up the majority of the metagame?  If so, your list is completely incorrect.

Your list is a list of the two best characters released in each year.  It bears no resemblance to the actual PvP metagame during those years.

entrailbucket

Adam Warlock is typically used by fast PvE players.  The player who won your most recent PvE bracket probably used him, as did most of the top 10.  That means he's a huge part of the metagame. 

Does that make him "meta?" Is there another word for "meta but only in PvE?"

Or is the silly word "meta" totally unrelated to any actual metagame state and just a synonym for "really good" that everyone uses?

HoundofShadow

I'm not sure why you have problem with the word meta. Meta has been used frequently here. Apocalypse is meta. Okoye is meta. Hardly anyone here uses Onslaught or Adam Warlock as a benchmark against new releases. But people use Okoye/Apocalypse/Kitty (for buff SAP ability) as a benchmark against new 5*.

Again, my point has been, given that history since 2018 has proven that meta releases are few, wouldn't it make sense to compare releases with non-meta or good characters, rather than against meta since majority of them won't measure up against meta?

entrailbucket

What is special about certain 5* characters that sets them apart from other 5* characters?  Where, in the game, does it tell me that Okoye is in her own special category and shouldn't be compared to other characters at her star level?  Is she harder to obtain than other 5*?  Is she more expensive? 

Why wouldn't you compare a 5* to all the other 5*?

HoundofShadow

I'm think you are trying to be funny so let's move on from this. 

entrailbucket

No, I'd like you to point out where, in the game, it tells me that Okoye is at a higher tier than Elektra and thus they should not be compared. 

Do they have different odds in tokens? 

Is it reverse power creep?  We shouldn't compare new, weaker, characters to old, stronger ones?

I know that I shouldn't compare Apocalypse to Echo, because Echo is a 4*.  Where does the game tell me that Okoye and Elektra are at different tiers?

HoundofShadow

Let's move on. I'm sure you already know the answer. Besides, since majority of 5* releases won't measure up to meta characters, we'll have a 85% chance of talking about this again. We had this in Abigail Brand thread, and if the next 5* is not meta, we might have similar conversation again. 

-- The End --

Ladies and Gentlemen, please continue with coming up with more teammates for Elektra.

I think Ultron could be fun with her against characters who creates strike tiles easily.  

Vhailorx

So I think hound is using "meta" to mean something like "the best of the best," and that may be causing some confusion as it is not what I would consider the usual definition.

I would say that being "meta" means "having a role in the very highest levels of play." In MPQ the 'highest levels of play' means PVE and PVP for placement. I would say those are the highest tiers of play because they offer the best rewards and are therefore define the outer limit of what is possible in terms of no-real-money resource acquisition. 

IMO, demi has actually done a decent job of releasing new meta 5*s over the past 12-18 months without completely invalidating the old meta characters, so the meta is actually a bit more varied now than it was in 2018 and 2019.

In PVE the meta is usually built around fast clears using some combination of damage booster + passive aoe damage (and the damage boosters should ideally be at 500+). That can be achieved with okoye + adam warlock, or Gritty, or Grocket + thanos. There is also a place in the meta for challenge-node specific teams built around stunners like polaris. And Shang chi has a place too, which will likely expand after he is avaialable again next week (meaning another influx of people will cover and use him).

I am a bit more out of date on PVP, but I think the meta there is currently split between glass-cannon speed (mostly shang chi right now, but other glass cannons like polaris have also been used here) and slower, defensive-first teams to slow down incoming hits (BRB, SW/Colossus, Prof/Onslaught, hulkoye, etc).

There are also some quirks based on timing too. Colossus is probably played slightly more than would be merited by his strength alone, but he was in tokens with switch at a time when lots of people broke hoards, so plenty of people have him champed. Conversely, characters like Onslaught, Carbage, and Onslaught were not viewed well on release, but are now viewed more favorably by the community (either because of subsequent 5* synergies, or because the community underestimated the value of some abilities). And the advent of regular 5* boosts in 2021 affects character usage too.

I don't think that the historical data supports a "2 metas per year release" rule by demi, either as something that existed in the past or as something to anticipate going forward. Nor would I say the strength of 5* releases is "completely random."  I would say that demi has some idea of who is strong and who isn't, but they also make mistakes. I would also snarkily suggest that the devs don't understand the elder game as well as the playerbase, which may further increase the variance on character strengh (and to be fair, the playerbase also gets evaluations wrong sometimes too). I think demi probably wants to have 1 very strong character released at fairly predictable intervals, just to keep players spending, but doesn't want to cannibalize their own sales by having multiple meta-shaping characters out at once or in quick succession.  Character design, however, is as much art as science. On a 0(worst) to 100(best) scale, I bet demi tries to target most characters in the 60-80 range, but have a high variance like +/- 30. So sometimes they release real trash like wasp when they target low and miss lower; other times they target high and then come in hot like original Gambit who was probably a 110.

also Hound said:

My point is why compare every 5* release to meta characters when history have proven that meta characters are few or two a years? Wouldn't it be better to compare them to good characters instead to have a better comparison?

and my response is that I think that's what I'm doing. If I say that I think a new character is "good" or "really good" i think they have a role in the current state of end game play. I don't know if that's comparing them to meta as you define it, but to me it's comparing new releases to other good characters.

HoundofShadow

I'm anti-meta comparison and not pro-meta comparison. Over the years, it's quite boring to see new characters being compared against meta characters because the discussion are typically one-dimensional. However, comparing new characters in in terms of fun or good yields a more fruitful discussion.

entrailbucket

You're missing the history. 

A certain group on this forum believes that the developers purposely create a secret extra class of 5* characters that are designed to be super-powerful, that they're released on a particular schedule (the 2 per year thing is cited as fact constantly), and that they plan these designs out years in advance. 

They use "meta" as a noun to describe characters in this secret class.  (As in "Okoye is a meta.")  I don't think it's related to the state of the metagame except tangentially. 

Suggesting any of this is wrong means that *you* know better than the developers and is highly offensive, so you're going to get piled on there.

It's a cargo cult situation that's been created by a near-total blackout of meaningful communication from the developers.  I don't really blame these folks but their ideas don't make very much sense.

dianetics

This whole back and forth is kind of strange. Explaining the term meta and using it to meet certain expectations for characters.

I use Apocalypse as a benchmark for well designed characters. We could easily change out Apoc for Beta Ray Bill and still have the same discussion.

We don't make the comparison because they are meta. The comparison is made because they are well designed, and because they are so well designed they become useful to a point where many players use them regularly.

entrailbucket

Smart players assess abilities based on their floor, ceiling, and the relative probability of either outcome.

Elektra's red has a floor of "2 turn stun for 9ap." This ability is not playable.  The ceiling is "2 turn stun plus 20k damage for 9ap."  It's a bit more complicated than that because the damage is delayed 2 turns and that's always less valuable than immediate damage.

What's the probability of either outcome?  Based on tens of thousands of matches, I've found it to be quite difficult to protect an unfortified CD tile that's randomly placed.  I'd say it's no more than a 50/50 shot that the CD resolves, and maybe lower.


Compare this power to Dr. Strange.  The floor on his blue is a 3 turn stun for 9ap.  This is ok, if a bit weak.  The ceiling is a 3 turn stun plus X damage (30,000 for me) plus 0-9 enemy AP destroyed.  This ability is very good.

What's the probability?  Well, I can place Dr. Strange's CD tile, so I can stick it in a corner where it's less likely to get blown up.  I'd estimate it at 75% or higher because of this.

dianetics

Wouldn't be better to compare the stun against Ghostpool?

HoundofShadow

This is what I remember about the state of meta game over the years:

1. Thorokoye: pvp was boring seeing them over and over again, even though they are glass cannon
2. Kitty/R4G: healthpack eating machine unless you have SMBiB
3. Bishop: stunlock hell and impossible to beat
4. Kitty/BRB: matches are very slow and boring
5. IHulkoye: healthpack eating machine and "impossible* to beat, if you are using BRB/Kitty, matches are slow.
6. Colossus/Wanda: slow meta

For pve, it was Thanos. Then SCL 10 came and it's iHulkoye + Adam Warlock + some other 4* like Scorpion.

Abilities are considered well designed because it fits a certain personal preference of what should be based on past data or stats. And this stats were built up from comparison of damage/ap, ease of use and speed over the years. The way I see things, many are risk averse and impatience. That's why almost every cd or repeater based power damage got to be 1 turn and fortified. If not, it's not good. Likewise, support characters the likes of Abigail Brand/Ultron are bottom tier because they aren't playing the role similar to Kitty/Okoye/Apocalypse. Also, trap tile mechanics are also typically disliked.

Just imagine, if the dev made every powers to have the same minimum typical charactertistics of each class of "good design", the game would get stale quickly because the final comparison will be down to damage/ap and strenghts of effects. If every character's powers design start to become good, this "good design" will turn to a norm. When things are the norm, people get bored quickly and want something more exciting. This extra excitement are likely going to come from higher damage or increasing more effects. Then players complain about power creep. We already have people wanting all hp and match damage to be updated due to power creep. If this "good design" becomes a norm, I won't be surprised that every cds and repeaters both in the past and future got to be 1-turn and fortified.

Meta characters like Apocalypse and Okoye has twisted the critieria of what is good design because they are overpowered. And just so you know, I'm in the nerf Thor/Okoye/Apocalypse camp because of this.

dianetics

I don't know who thinks Ultron is bottom tier, he's a mid tier character that works well with some teams.

The good design aspect of Apocalypse is that his abilities feed into each other to make him stronger, not unlike Beta Ray Bill or Shang Chi.

HoundofShadow

Look at Ultron thread, you'll see who they are.

There are other characters that have abilities that feed each others as well, but they are not considered good because it doesn't fit that certain criteria.

Apocalypse power are good even though his repeaters are 2 turns. It's because he has 3 backup to maintain his power boost. Let's imagine his power buff is based on the number of repeaters on the board capped at 4 each. For example his 9k buff is split among 4 repeaters at 2.25k each. I believe his rating will get a downgrade because of this.

entrailbucket

Yeah I just picked something at random to do floor/ceiling on it and explain how we evaluate stuff based on those characteristics plus probability.

Gamora's stun is weird because the floor on that is "do 10,000 damage for 7ap."  The ceiling is significantly higher and involves the damage reduction and repeatable stuns, but like I said, one nice thing they've been doing is raising the floor on most abilities.  If that tile gets blown up right away, well, at least you got a decent shot of damage out of it.

We all do this analysis without thinking about it.  Players like abilities where the floor *is* the ceiling, but that's kind of boring. 

What they should do is give us more stuff with a low floor but a very very high ceiling, to incentivize risk-taking.  With Apocalypse red you take no risk whatsoever, so that ability should be much weaker than the ceiling of a high-variance power.  Unfortunately it's not, so there's no reason to use riskier stuff.

entrailbucket

Basically, it's not about players having low risk tolerance.  It's about the game not giving players any incentive to take risks. 

Why am I going to choose a power that has a chance of doing nothing at all and a chance of doing 20,000 damage when I can choose a power that does 20,000 guaranteed damage?  It's totally illogical, nobody would ever make that tradeoff. 

The bad characters have powers that are risks without commensurate rewards.