Autopilot

jredd

@entrailbucket said:
Chasm "leaks" into every thread because he's way too good. The same happened with every other overpowered character they've ever done, and people are right to complain about them.

At the same time, if you're concerned the devs will...make him worse...as a result of these complaints, the previous regime demonstrated over and over again that they won't ever address those complaints. This makes sense -- 5* players are a tiny minority of the playerbase, they don't need us, and we don't really impact the bottom line. If a character starts causing problems for the 95% they'll act pretty quickly.

It remains to be seen if the new devs will act any differently, but I highly doubt it. Let people complain, they're just screaming into the void.

they nerfed oml and gambit even though neither really deserved it. complain long and hard enough and something will happen.

HoundofShadow

There's no difference between 550 players fighting against 550 Chasm/mThor and a 450 players fighting against 450 Chasm/mThor because the power and match damage are scaled linearly in the game, which means they use the same number of turns/match damaged to be downed, assuming all are at the same level. The main difference is 550/672 players can beat other non-550 team faster due to level advantage.

This brings me to baby champed Chasm/mThor. On defense, they are weak. You can bring even Chasm/Emma against them and they get melt quickly with her constant minimum of 70% boost to Chasm's passive damage. Even when he's paired with She-Hulk, he's still not strong enough to deter attacks.

I've not tested Chasm/mThor on offense since they are somewhat RNG based for those big match damage and those tiles destruction that trigger other effects can take a slightly longer time to resolve. I would recommend trying out Chasm/Emma instead for consistent boosted damage and Emma contributes non of those "lag time" that mThor has.

entrailbucket

@jredd said:

@entrailbucket said:
Chasm "leaks" into every thread because he's way too good. The same happened with every other overpowered character they've ever done, and people are right to complain about them.

At the same time, if you're concerned the devs will...make him worse...as a result of these complaints, the previous regime demonstrated over and over again that they won't ever address those complaints. This makes sense -- 5* players are a tiny minority of the playerbase, they don't need us, and we don't really impact the bottom line. If a character starts causing problems for the 95% they'll act pretty quickly.

It remains to be seen if the new devs will act any differently, but I highly doubt it. Let people complain, they're just screaming into the void.

they nerfed oml and gambit even though neither really deserved it. complain long and hard enough and something will happen.

OML and Gambit absolutely "deserved it" and so does Chasm. But both those nerfed guys totally dominated the high level game for what, a year, before they did anything? Longer? People complained about Bishop forever and they ignored those complaints forever.

TheXMan

@entrailbucket said:

@Bowgentle said:
I liked Sham's salads.

"Cupcake" is a term from American college football -- huge schools with $100million football budgets choose their own opponents, and they play a few games every year against schools who can barely afford proper equipment. They win these games by a score of like 124-3. This is a "cupcake" game. The guys who named MPQ cupcakes were college football fans.

The problem is that the term loses its connotation outside of that specific culture, so a lot of players never understood what it meant, beyond "different fights are food now," and it all just degenerated into nonsense from there.

Anyway, I prefer "cupcake," as I really enjoy the idea of people who consider themselves to be big, important, self-serious, super tough MPQ killers sitting down at a child's tea party to eat cupcakes.

You mean like Georgia vs TCU? Someone had to say it

entrailbucket

@HoundofShadow said:
There's no difference between 550 players fighting against 550 Chasm/mThor and a 450 players fighting against 450 Chasm/mThor because the power and match damage are scaled linearly in the game, which means they use the same number of turns/match damaged to be downed, assuming all are at the same level. The main difference is 550/672 players can beat other non-550 team faster due to level advantage.

This brings me to baby champed Chasm/mThor. On defense, they are weak. You can bring even Chasm/Emma against them and they get melt quickly with her constant minimum of 70% boost to Chasm's passive damage. Even when he's paired with She-Hulk, he's still not strong enough to deter attacks.

I've not tested Chasm/mThor on offense since they are somewhat RNG based for those big match damage and those tiles destruction that trigger other effects can take a slightly longer time to resolve. I would recommend trying out Chasm/Emma instead for consistent boosted damage and Emma contributes non of those "lag time" that mThor has.

These players spent massive hoards to get Chasm/Thor/She Hulk to 550. They don't have Emma. I'm not sure what other point you're trying to make.

HoundofShadow

The point is for non-550 players who decided to try out Chasm/mThor for faster offense, they might want to try out Emma instead, provided both mThor and Emma are at similar level.

DAZ0273

@entrailbucket said:

@jredd said:

@entrailbucket said:
Chasm "leaks" into every thread because he's way too good. The same happened with every other overpowered character they've ever done, and people are right to complain about them.

At the same time, if you're concerned the devs will...make him worse...as a result of these complaints, the previous regime demonstrated over and over again that they won't ever address those complaints. This makes sense -- 5* players are a tiny minority of the playerbase, they don't need us, and we don't really impact the bottom line. If a character starts causing problems for the 95% they'll act pretty quickly.

It remains to be seen if the new devs will act any differently, but I highly doubt it. Let people complain, they're just screaming into the void.

they nerfed oml and gambit even though neither really deserved it. complain long and hard enough and something will happen.

OML and Gambit absolutely "deserved it" and so does Chasm. But both those nerfed guys totally dominated the high level game for what, a year, before they did anything? Longer? People complained about Bishop forever and they ignored those complaints forever.

Actually these two are an interesting polar opposite for nerfs.

OML was nerfed because he provided too much benefit to players at just a few yellow covers to the detriment of the game at multiple tiers in the Devs opinion. The Devs used game metrics to decide that he was too dominant at multiple tiers.

Gambit was nerfed because he reduced the 5* game to a sum zero game where it was have Gambit or not to win situation. The Devs had a lot of player pressure and acted based on that and the loophole with his black power which meant never ending purple & red AP for a deliberately 0/0/X build.

I guess Chasm falls into the second category (although I am not sure he is the single driving force Gambit was) but then the Devs could look at his overall effect on the game and use that as a policy driver. Last time they said anything they seemed to be falling on the "He's fine" side of things but I guess game stats could change that.

HoundofShadow

IHulkoye was a problem.
Chasm/iHulk was a problem.
What they have in common is iHulk.
If anything, iHulk should be nerfed, and nerfing iHulk could shake up placement in pve as well because iHulkoye is the go to team for many nodes. I won't deny that Shang Chi will be 550 players back up plan.

DAZ0273

@HoundofShadow said:
IHulkoye was a problem.
Chasm/iHulk was a problem.
What they have in common is iHulk.
If anything, iHulk should be nerfed, and nerfing iHulk could shake up placement in pve as well because iHulkoye is the go to team for many nodes. I won't deny that Shang Chi will be 550 players back up plan.

Well Shang Chi is a "problem" too. He is ridiculously overpowered and clearly allows massive "punching up" like really no other character in MPQ history but of course he is too complex for the AI to make any sense of which makes him useless on defence. Shang Chi features in every PVP regardless of boost lists despite this. The difference is that iHulk needs a partner and Shang Chi needs nobody. I doubt either will be touched.

Bad

Ihulk already has an excellent counter for him, and it's a monkey.
I'm still waiting for the excellent counter for chasm.

DAZ0273

@Bad said:
Ihulk already has an excellent counter for him, and it's a monkey.
I'm still waiting for the excellent counter for chasm.

Isn't Scarlet Witch iHulk's counter? iHulk is a hero so he doesn't get affected by Hit Monkey's down villains power.

Bad

The monkey will down him forever with his red because Ihulk has low health.
SW will damage ihulk's partners but she can't kill him unless he is the final one.

DAZ0273

@Bad said:
The monkey will down him forever with his red because Ihulk has low health.
SW will damage ihulk's partners but she can't kill him unless he is the final one.

Ah yeah, so iHulk is pretty well countered on his own. I know I have used Switch to render Hulkoye powerless, I only have one 5* HM cover so far so not tried him out.

entrailbucket

@DAZ0273 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@jredd said:

@entrailbucket said:
Chasm "leaks" into every thread because he's way too good. The same happened with every other overpowered character they've ever done, and people are right to complain about them.

At the same time, if you're concerned the devs will...make him worse...as a result of these complaints, the previous regime demonstrated over and over again that they won't ever address those complaints. This makes sense -- 5* players are a tiny minority of the playerbase, they don't need us, and we don't really impact the bottom line. If a character starts causing problems for the 95% they'll act pretty quickly.

It remains to be seen if the new devs will act any differently, but I highly doubt it. Let people complain, they're just screaming into the void.

they nerfed oml and gambit even though neither really deserved it. complain long and hard enough and something will happen.

OML and Gambit absolutely "deserved it" and so does Chasm. But both those nerfed guys totally dominated the high level game for what, a year, before they did anything? Longer? People complained about Bishop forever and they ignored those complaints forever.

Actually these two are an interesting polar opposite for nerfs.

OML was nerfed because he provided too much benefit to players at just a few yellow covers to the detriment of the game at multiple tiers in the Devs opinion. The Devs used game metrics to decide that he was too dominant at multiple tiers.

Gambit was nerfed because he reduced the 5* game to a sum zero game where it was have Gambit or not to win situation. The Devs had a lot of player pressure and acted based on that and the loophole with his black power which meant never ending purple & red AP for a deliberately 0/0/X build.

I guess Chasm falls into the second category (although I am not sure he is the single driving force Gambit was) but then the Devs could look at his overall effect on the game and use that as a policy driver. Last time they said anything they seemed to be falling on the "He's fine" side of things but I guess game stats could change that.

Remember we have a completely different dev team right now, so I'm not sure how relevant Demiurge's past behavior is.

3* Gambit was the one who was 0/0/X, and he was nerfed fast. I think he had a month or so in that state before they hit him.

5* Gambit could technically be 0/0/X and cause trouble, but 5* were so rare at the time that nobody built him that way. The problem with 5* Gambit was his passive that generated red/purple AP and also drained enemy AP. The game back then revolved around matching tiles and casting stuff -- we hadn't yet reached the current passive-ocalypse.

So you pretty much had to have Gambit to fight Gambit because friendly Gambit's AP generation counteracted enemy Gambit's AP drain. Using any other available character at that time basically meant match-damaging Gambit to death while he killed you with his powers.

There are some interesting parallels to be drawn between Gambit and Chasm (left as exercise for reader).

MrDupaTM

To all these that are tired of constant “Chasm is bad” threads: I know it is tiresome. But so is trying to find a non-Chasm match in PVP on high levels. Fighting Chasm (paired with anyone to be honest, but particularly with mThor and iHulk - Apple made product) is boring, frustrating and absolutely random. Polaris was boring but you could just stun and down her quickly and somehow still enjoy the match against the team running Polaris. Chasm is just busted.

I hope the devs just introduce a character that massively punish “autopilot” chars (both the enemy’s and YOURS too so players don’t just play him along mThor or Chasm) while being pretty pointless against teams running chars without passives.

MrDupaTM

Just to add: they could just rework 5* Magneto so he denies all the passives. It would fit him and make the game a little more fun.

entrailbucket

At this point I don't think they can do a character that shuts off passives. Certain passives are required to keep characters in line power-wise, and in other cases, turning off a passive would cause weird mechanics problems.

Look at Riri, for example. Disabling her passive doesn't hurt her, in fact it makes her way, way better. Or look at the way Emma's blue works. It's an active power that places a CD tile, and while that tile is on the board her passive turns on. A theoretical Magneto would allow her to place the tile -- it just wouldn't do anything!

MrDupaTM

@entrailbucket said:
At this point I don't think they can do a character that shuts off passives. Certain passives are required to keep characters in line power-wise, and in other cases, turning off a passive would cause weird mechanics problems.

Look at Riri, for example. Disabling her passive doesn't hurt her, in fact it makes her way, way better. Or look at the way Emma's blue works. It's an active power that places a CD tile, and while that tile is on the board her passive turns on. A theoretical Magneto would allow her to place the tile -- it just wouldn't do anything!

They could make it that only passives that require some sort of action (needing to activate them by spending colours or meeting some threshold) would work. It’s the free always active passives that are breaking the game, look at the list of characters we complained the most: Gambit, Thor, Okoye, Polaris, Kitty, Bishop, iHulk and now Chasm and mThor - all have one thing in common - busted passives.

entrailbucket

Yeah, I mean...they could also just fix all those guys, and stop making more guys that compound the problem.

acescracked

@MrDupaTM said:
Just to add: they could just rework 5* Magneto so he denies all the passives. It would fit him and make the game a little more fun.

So for Magneto would that be a passive power that denies passives? You bring your own Magneto to deny the AI passive that denies passives. That would be passive-aggressive.