The ChaHulk meta

Daredevil217

@entrailbucket said:

@DAZ0273 said:
If Kang isn't meant to be a Chasm/iHulk counter then I am not sure what he is supposed to be because I really don't see how an auto-win character benefits MPQ myself. I am glad Kang is fun but the AP restore would have been enough and that affects more than just Chasm. Auto-win is potentially off the scales OP apart from against the team that people are moaning about which seems crazy. My god boosted 500+ character is no use if some cheesy Kang team can just send them away and beat me without trying. We are now going to have to watch the next few releases very carefully for any sort of blue AP generation or AP cost reduction which puts Kang completely beyond control.

Time (ha!) will tell I guess.

This is the problem with the "counters, not nerfs" philosophy that players say they want. Chasm is overpowered. A counter to Chasm (that isn't incredibly narrow) will also have to be overpowered, or it won't work. Except then you've created a new problem, and now that problem needs a counter top.

You end up in this arms race where the overall power level goes crazy, when all you really had to do was fix the problem character.

That’s exactly what I was saying (just longer winded). Chasm broke the curve. Characters are either DOA or have to be massively overpowered to matter. The reality is that Chasm made all other characters (aside from Hulk) mostly unnecessary/obsolete in PVP. That’s not good for the health of the game. GhostPool/Ronin/Kamala were good levels to shoot for when designing a character. Great boosted, otherwise you won’t use them when other characters are boosted instead. Now you can just use Hulkgasm no matter what (with the exception of some specific boost lists). So now that Hulkgasm has broken the curve, you can’t make a character like Ronin and make them matter anymore. Instead we get broken mechanics to make a character worth chasing (I.e. Kang).

Remember how Chasm “broke MPQ” with all the bugs and weird interactions that needed to be patched? I’d argue he’s still “breaking the game”. For some I get he isn’t a problem. Either they aren’t seeing him nearly as much as others or are and don’t mind fighting a wall of the same team. But for me, it’s a definite quality of life suck, and I’m not excited for Kang giving any 3* a fast track to beating any team they want. Ah well… this is where we’re at now.

DAZ0273

@Bowgentle said:
Isn't power creep included in the business model?
Why keep spending, if new guys aren't massively better than old guys?
Which is why it's so surprising seeing them do balance passes on old 5s.

Yeah and not really monetise the rebalances as much as they could have. They even tried to give long term players a "fix" to the Chasm situation with the Silver Surfer re-work. Mine isn't high enough that I ever really tried him out but feedback otherwise says it didn't work but that seems over and above just a standard rebalance. Maybe they just saw Surfer's kit and thought it was a workable fit but the fact they even thought about it is interesting.

Daredevil217

@Bowgentle said:
Isn't power creep included in the business model?
Why keep spending, if new guys aren't massively better than old guys?
Which is why it's so surprising seeing them do balance passes on old 5s.

I think that was indeed the old business model. I think god boosts made the new business model, “don’t skip anyone or you will miss out on the weekly meta”. I think it was a better model. It deterred going “all in” on three characters and riding them for a year while you stack resources to 550 another 3 and not spend a dime. The champ em all model is better for the devs (more than 3-5 characters that they part hard work into get to matter) and it deters hoarding. Chasm broke that business model.

entrailbucket

@Bowgentle said:
Isn't power creep included in the business model?
Why keep spending, if new guys aren't massively better than old guys?
Which is why it's so surprising seeing them do balance passes on old 5s.

This game has never, and probably will never, get a significant amount of income from selling characters. They sell roster slots, and they sell them mainly to lower tier players than us. The whales are all extinct anyway. They could release the most OP 5* in the history of the game, and it'd just be f2p hoarders who maxed him out. Nobody is spending $10,000 on a character these days.

entrailbucket

Incidentally, the whales all went extinct because spending money stopped being an advantage. F2p players could max out the very few good characters easily, and everyone else was useless.

Basically you could max out the Okoyes and Apocalypses without spending. Spending would be necessary if you wanted to also max out Kingpin and Abigail Brand and Elektra, except there was zero incentive to do that.

Boosts and buffs were a step on the path to fixing that problem, and then Chasm.

Sekilicious

Your causation is backwards. I have played many games with viable F2P models that make millions per day through whales. Treating your customers like trash doesn’t bring in whales, though it does seem that with more whales the more developers treat their customers like trash. Besides, there are likely a couple of 550 Kangs out there right now so they aren’t extinct yet. Shang-Chi had videos of him on this forum at 550 with only his hp store available.

DAZ0273

@entrailbucket said:
Incidentally, the whales all went extinct because spending money stopped being an advantage. F2p players could max out the very few good characters easily, and everyone else was useless.

Basically you could max out the Okoyes and Apocalypses without spending. Spending would be necessary if you wanted to also max out Kingpin and Abigail Brand and Elektra, except there was zero incentive to do that.

Boosts and buffs were a step on the path to fixing that problem, and then Chasm.

Well if the Devs want to have a pop at hoarding and f2p players AND introduce incentives to chase every character then you introduce time expiry limits on LT's OR you introduce Character Specific tokens. I mean it wont impact all those enormous CP mountains but it will start to eat into them. And we might get a 71 page thread to read!

entrailbucket

@Sekilicious said:
Your causation is backwards. I have played many games with viable F2P models that make millions per day through whales. Treating your customers like trash doesn’t bring in whales, though it does seem that with more whales the more developers treat their customers like trash. Besides, there are likely a couple of 550 Kangs out there right now so they aren’t extinct yet. Shang-Chi had videos of him on this forum at 550 with only his hp store available.

Those videos you see are from sandboxed accounts (notice they're always on Steam?).

I'm confused about how creating a balanced, diverse metagame is "treating your customers like trash."

Sekilicious

Oh good. We have reached the ‘taking points out of context’ phase of your argument style. I will tap out before you reach the ‘making up data’ phase.

entrailbucket

Can you explain what you mean by "treating your customers like trash," then?

killahKlown

Winner: Sekilicious

entrailbucket

Also, just out of curiosity, in which real world business would you consider a person who spends $0 a "customer?" Remember MPQ doesn't have ads, so they're not monetizing the time you spend playing.

liminal_lad

I find the level of aggression here really confusing. It's a mobile game. It is still profitable. We don't need to backseat MBA their choices.

I'm not really sure what the argument here is. I think the current state of the meta is unpleasant. It also inspired me to spend some money to ensure I had a Kang. I'm not sure if that's good for me as a player, but I assume it's good for them as a business.

liminal_lad

To be fair, I think Chasm should be nerfed but that is a topic for another thread.

Sekilicious

@liminal_lad said:
To be fair, I think Chasm should be nerfed but that is a topic for another thread.

Nope. Chasm is the topic of this thread.

killahKlown

Looks like he knows exactly what the argument is.

entrailbucket

This was the "nerf Chasm" thread, then a bunch of unpopular opinions about all sorts of things got randomly moved here.

liminal_lad

OOOOOPS. OK. I thought I was in the Kang thread. I don't know if this has been said already, but why not just add:

"Chasm's loss of identity is a significant weakness. Without someone to reinforce his self-image or provide direction, Chasm's web begins to unravel before ultimately returning to the void. Web tiles no longer work after his last ally has been downed OR Chasm loses x permanent health per round."

entrailbucket

Yeah, someone further back (up?) suggested having Chasm take permanent damage from his passive, which I think is a pretty reasonable fix. She-Hulk takes more damage after she's resurrected, and Hulk hurts the team when he resurrects, but Chasm has absolutely no downside and can basically resurrect with full health forever.

Bad

I think it's unfair for the new devs to talk about past nerfs.
This is the first situation where a nerf could be needed and still it's not sure how the future will work out.
Indeed HM wasn't enough for to stop the chahulk team, and probably kang is the real hard counter released. Still until at least his arrival on LL chasm will be safe as the 3* version can't really fight Ihulk.
Different approaches, different business.
On my alliance 3 members put money for kang 3*, so it should be expected a good playerbase doing the same. That's a direct money incoming for a new character, besides the hp 5* store.
And actually it's fun to play the 1/1/1 3* version and finish one tough character.
I think that is what devs are chasing: fun mechanics.
And pay attention to this: if in the future kang defeats the current meta, there will be a new character with a passive triggering and punishing (or negating) away status, according to the rock-paper system.