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

HoundofShadow

I'm have been stating verifiable facts whereas you are the one making things up about me making things up. All those release month and year can be verified by anyone.

What I did was to use those facts and histories and state the probability of something happening. It looks made up to you because you don't analyse such stuff.

Onslaught and Adam Warlock are not meta in pvps. Apart from boost weeks, when was the last time you see Adam Warlock?

Edit: As for SC, his status as meta is glass cannon in pvp and I don't think top players use SC to get T1 or T5.

I'm not sure why you got triggered by my facts and statistics. Do you even remember that you said there are only 7-8 meta 5*? 8/65= 12.3%

Please show me some facts that 50% or majority of the 5* are meta.

entrailbucket

What you've done is go back through each calendar year, pick the two best characters from that year, then say "see, we only get two good characters a year!" That is not how that works at all.

HoundofShadow

I'm not sure why you got so triggered when you are one who said that there are only 7-8 meta characters in the game. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to understand 8/65 =12.3%. And besides I state meta multiple time, not good. So I'm not sure why you keep putting different adjectives into what I said.

Like I said, if anyone disagree with the list of meta characters I pointed out, they can point that out. 

bbigler

I disagree, Shang is meta, no doubt, I see him everywhere.  Onslaught is also seen frequently in PVP. Even Ghostpool.  

The meta is not defined by the top 0.1% of players.  The most frequently used characters at each level of the game define the meta.  

entrailbucket

I see.  So now the had and fast rule is that they release two characters who are "meta in PvP" (whatever that means).

So you went back to 2018, chose the best two characters from each year, then claimed that it shows that the developers release only two good characters each year, *and* that this is clearly their intention going forward. 

You then calculated your artificial two characters per year divided by the total number of characters, to show that the developers clearly only intend a certain number of characters to be good.

When presented with evidence counter to your "facts" (other good characters that have achieved a high percentage of the metagame) you simply dismiss that or move the goalposts.


If course I analyze such stuff.  Which characters were you using to win PvPs in 2018?  Forgive me if I disagree with your historical recollections of a time when you weren't even playing the game.

HoundofShadow

The reason why I'm hesistate to put SC into the list is because he's glass cannon in pvp. If he's released in 2018, he will be in there. I think I'm the only who was super hype for his release because I know he will be awesome, like Karnak. 

Even if we place him there, meta release last year is only 25%.

As for Onslaught, I don't remember players comparing every 5* release to him, which means player don't use him as a benchmark to compare the metaness. I do see players comparing new 5* release to Okoye/Apocalypse/Kitty very often.

HoundofShadow

I'm not sure why you are arguing about "good" when I'm talking about meta. Meta is different from good. Onslaught is good. Adam Warlock is good. How many players here compare every new 5* release and measure them against Onslaught or Adam Warlock? 

I'm still waiting for you to list out meta characters for each year from 2018 onwards. Given that you said that there are only 7-8 meta characters, I don't think it's too difficult to do that. 

Like said, simple maths say that 8/65 = 12.3%. 12.3% of the 5* are meta to you. 87.7% therefore are not meta. What's so difficult to comprehend about this?

entrailbucket

The number of good characters released per year is totally random and is not set or predetermined in any way. 

Which characters will take over the metagame is often related to circumstance as much as it is to power level, and again, there is no rule, law, or developer goal that says the metagame must change at any particular rate.

In 2018 and 2019 Okoye/Thor was the entire 450+ PvP metagame.  Professor X made no impact whatsoever until Onslaught was released.  Kitty didn't show up in any real numbers until Beta Ray Bill was released.

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.