I wrote a big dumb thing in one of the Kang threads about this and it got lost, but I'm curious about what people think.
Can an MPQ character ever be too good on offense? This hasn't come up very much in the last several years -- the last group of nerfs they did was to address characters that were too good on defense (and in general, people seemed ok with/supportive of those fixes).
So, in your opinion, can any theoretical or existing character ever be too good, from an offensive perspective only? Why do you feel that way? What would that character look like? There are no wrong answers.
There have been plenty of high offense metas in the game's history, though not so much recently apart from (arguably) Shang-Chi
Off the top of my head: 3* sentry/hood, 4thorverine, and imhb/3if. All three of those combos spent significant time at the best available team in the game. They were all strong based entirely on their offensive prowess as the ai can't play any of those teams for ****.
2 of those 3 teams were nerfed into the ground. And imhb/if was phased out by the introduction of a pure 4* meta and then the release of 5*s later that year. So demiurge definitely thought pick 2 team could be offensively OP.
As for a single character, SC is probably the strongest offensive force the game has ever seen. But he is mostly a non factor in pvp and doesn't seem to be a problem for the player base at all.
Personally, I think that the biggest risk for game balance is a team that can (1) reliably AND quickly win pvp matches, but is also (2) not fun to play against. That's when the community flips out. Strong offense by itself isn't a problem if it is also slow or not functional when played by the ai.
So it sounds like some level of "good on defense" is required?
What about (and obviously this will never happen, but it's a theoretical discussion) a guy with a passive that said "make a match-3: you win the game" but this passive only worked on offense? On defense he has no abilities.
Like obviously that guy is way overpowered, but he has zero defensive value. I'd end up drawing my Line of Acceptability somewhere between that guy and Shang-Chi, but it'd be way closer to Shang-Chi than to one punch guy.
I guess what I was asking here is, is one punch guy ok? If he's not, how close to him is a character allowed to be before he's a problem?
Edit: and I'm not trying to troll or trick people into saying something so I can attack them or fight about it or whatever -- I am genuinely interested in the answers, and this is very much a "no wrong answers" question.
One punch guy would be a huge problem for the rewards economy of the game. Placement us based on speed, and one punch guy would make speed a technical issue of loading and ping times rather than a test of roster strength and willingness to boost.
That would not matter to 90% of players, but it would definitely require the devs to implement either a placement system change or a nerf. Otherwise there would be sustained outrage from whales.
Also, it seems worth noting that we do, in fact, already have this experience in pve trivial nodes. Absent the need to win games quickly for rewards, one punch guy would not be a lot of fun to play. Who enjoys trivial nodes with thanos or jugs + grocket? That would be a less quantifiable, but no less significant problem for the game.
I didn't even think about trivial PvE nodes as a comparison! That's a fantastic catch.
I wonder if there are players who'd like it if the entire game was made of trivial PvE nodes?
What if One Punch Guy was an opponent in PVE? Would he not be able to one-punch you because he is technically on defense? If he could do it, that would probably not be a great challenge node experience for players who didn't have the Revive Squad available to them.
No, AI operated one punch guy has no powers at all. He only has powers when a human uses him.
(Just go with me here, this is about philosophy, not specifics! He could obviously never exist.)
One-Punch man would be op on offense and defense. The power would be make a match and down the opponent and the opponent does no match or power damage. If they were staying true to the character as depicted that is.
@Sekilicious said: One-Punch man would be op on offense and defense. The power would be make a match and down the opponent and the opponent does no match or power damage. If they were staying true to the character as depicted that is.
He has no powers at all when operated by the AI, his passive only works when a human is playing him.
You need to watch the show. He is op on defense. Nothing can hurt him. The only thing that could stop him is if He would end the game since the impending lawsuit would cripple BC and 505 games
Actually 90% of the characters only have powers when human uses them, as many characters need an order of operations which AI can randomly do or not. I.e Apocalypse is a great character in offense and an awful one on defense as AI will fire his black without waiting to fire first SS and 2 turns more to get protects. SC is a character that AI will trigger just by pure luck. It happens sometimes,then he stomps over your team, but it's so difficult that it happens maybe in a 5% of the battles. Kang also will be played awfully by AI, and it will be annoying to have a character away if he successfully fires it, then the player will try to kill Kang or to destroy a fortified CD, or to deny him of getting more blue. In all of these 3 options the player is free to choose the best way to engage the battle and that is what players ultimately want, so despite Kang having a superior skill as SC the player can play their game. Chasm is a character with totally superior skills however the player doesn't have more options than try to somehow gain AP while trying to not lose them so it isn't viable to wait for the right time to fire it.
@Sekilicious said: You need to watch the show. He is op on defense. Nothing can hurt him. The only thing that could stop him is if He would end the game since the impending lawsuit would cripple BC and 505 games
Note that we are talking about the entirely fictitious one punch GUY. Any relation to real anime, living or dead, is purely coincidental. . .
@Bad said: Actually 90% of the characters only have powers when human uses them, as many characters need an order of operations which AI can randomly do or not. I.e Apocalypse is a great character in offense and an awful one on defense as AI will fire his black without waiting to fire first SS and 2 turns more to get protects. SC is a character that AI will trigger just by pure luck. It happens sometimes,then he stomps over your team, but it's so difficult that it happens maybe in a 5% of the battles. Kang also will be played awfully by AI, and it will be annoying to have a character away if he successfully fires it, then the player will try to kill Kang or to destroy a fortified CD, or to deny him of getting more blue. In all of these 3 options the player is free to choose the best way to engage the battle and that is what players ultimately want, so despite Kang having a superior skill as SC the player can play their game. Chasm is a character with totally superior skills however the player doesn't have more options than try to somehow gain AP while trying to not lose them so it isn't viable to wait for the right time to fire it.
This is missing the point. Obvious the ai is dumb as a bag of rocks and always has been. Obviously that affects the way that characters play on defense. The point of this discussion (i think) was to imagine a character that was maximally powerful on offense with absolutely no consideration of defense at all. Hence the obviously too-extreme-to-be-real hypothetical.
Since speed has been the measuring stick for characters, it makes sense to use pve speed clear time to determine that. If a 450 5* can clear scl 10 pves faster than 550 Hulkokoye to get T1 placement consistently, then it's overpowered. Or if it can secure T5 consistently against 672 Hulkoye, it's overpowered. All the above applies to only first bracket.
@Vhailorx said: @Bad said: Actually 90% of the characters only have powers when human uses them, as many characters need an order of operations which AI can randomly do or not. I.e Apocalypse is a great character in offense and an awful one on defense as AI will fire his black without waiting to fire first SS and 2 turns more to get protects. SC is a character that AI will trigger just by pure luck. It happens sometimes,then he stomps over your team, but it's so difficult that it happens maybe in a 5% of the battles. Kang also will be played awfully by AI, and it will be annoying to have a character away if he successfully fires it, then the player will try to kill Kang or to destroy a fortified CD, or to deny him of getting more blue. In all of these 3 options the player is free to choose the best way to engage the battle and that is what players ultimately want, so despite Kang having a superior skill as SC the player can play their game. Chasm is a character with totally superior skills however the player doesn't have more options than try to somehow gain AP while trying to not lose them so it isn't viable to wait for the right time to fire it. This is missing the point. Obvious the ai is dumb as a bag of rocks and always has been. Obviously that affects the way that characters play on defense. The point of this discussion (i think) was to imagine a character that was maximally powerful on offense with absolutely not consideration of defense at all. Hence the obviously too-extreme-to-be-real hypothetical.
@Vhailorx said:
This is missing the point. Obvious the ai is dumb as a bag of rocks and always has been. Obviously that affects the way that characters play on defense. The point of this discussion (i think) was to imagine a character that was maximally powerful on offense with absolutely not consideration of defense at all. Hence the obviously too-extreme-to-be-real hypothetical.
That's exactly what I was after. To me, that character would go too far -- I'd draw the line way before we got to that point. But others might not, and that's ok too. I was interested in how they'd decide what's too strong (if anything) and why.
For me it's felt sense. Chasm is unfun. Shang is fun. Kang is fun. OPG (tm) sounds unfun. One-swipe matches are boring on the trivial nodes. If that was the whole game, people would likely quit. Maybe Gambit, or Thorkoye, or Hulkoye, or Kangers were "the line" for some folks and they actually did quit due to them being "too powerful" on offense (during their primes). Who knows? I know for me, all of the "offense-only" characters have been fine. If they cross the line, I'll let everyone know on these here forums I'm sure, because I'll likely still be playing, lol. Since you posited the question, where is your line? 2-Slap Pym?
@Vhailorx said: Note that we are talking about the entirely fictitious one punch GUY. Any relation to real anime, living or dead, is purely coincidental. . .
I may have seemed short and pedantic, but I was just really excited about talking about a work of cinematic art…
@Daredevil217 said: For me it's felt sense. Chasm is unfun. Shang is fun. Kang is fun. OPG (tm) sounds unfun. One-swipe matches are boring on the trivial nodes. If that was the whole game, people would likely quit. Maybe Gambit, or Thorkoye, or Hulkoye, or Kangers were "the line" for some folks and they actually did quit due to them being "too powerful" on offense (during their primes). Who knows? I know for me, all of the "offense-only" characters have been fine. If they cross the line, I'll let everyone know on these here forums I'm sure, because I'll likely still be playing, lol. Since you posited the question, where is your line? 2-Slap Pym?
I don't think anybody ever quit because characters were too powerful on offense. In fact, it's something most players don't really seem to think about -- that's why I asked!
One punch guy seems to be too much for everyone, so (at least so far) it sounds like the answer to "could a character ever be too good on offense?" is mostly "yes," but it required a really crazy impossible example to get there.
I honestly wasn't sure...a player who's only playing for the rewards and not the gameplay might want a character like that, and they wouldn't be wrong.
I think for me the line would be an offensively powerful character that's both very consistent -- who can win every match with zero risk of losing due to randomness, and who's also non-interactive in that the player's decisions don't really matter, or the player doesn't have to make any decisions at all.
@Daredevil217 said: One-swipe matches are boring on the trivial nodes. If that was the whole game, people would likely quit. Maybe Gambit, or Thorkoye, or Hulkoye, or Kangers were "the line" for some folks and they actually did quit due to them being "too powerful" on offense (during their primes). @entrailbucket said: I honestly wasn't sure...a player who's only playing for the rewards and not the gameplay might want a character like that, and they wouldn't be wrong.
@Daredevil217 said: One-swipe matches are boring on the trivial nodes. If that was the whole game, people would likely quit. Maybe Gambit, or Thorkoye, or Hulkoye, or Kangers were "the line" for some folks and they actually did quit due to them being "too powerful" on offense (during their primes).
@entrailbucket said: I honestly wasn't sure...a player who's only playing for the rewards and not the gameplay might want a character like that, and they wouldn't be wrong.
These two comments make me think that it also matters how difficult it would be to get OPG. I know this is not a 3star Kang thread but it’s a relevant example. If OPG is only achievable after a lot of commitment into the game, people might not quit as easily as you think. Sure, people who whale big $$ to get OPG might, but those who spent years to get to fully cover OPG might use him to speed through certain parts of the game and round out their roster, while using other teams for fun play. The previous years of commitment indicates a love (addiction?) for the game that might be hard to kick. They’ll find ways to have fun still. See current booster approach as an example.
But if OPG would be a 3star, it would be the end of this game as we know it. Too easy, too fast.
Curious how that resonates, but this thread does have relevance to the current Kang situation imho.
@HoundofShadow said: Since speed has been the measuring stick for characters, it makes sense to use pve speed clear time to determine that. If a 450 5* can clear scl 10 pves faster than 550 Hulkokoye to get T1 placement consistently, then it's overpowered. Or if it can secure T5 consistently against 672 Hulkoye, it's overpowered. All the above applies to only first bracket.
This is too simplistic an analysis. It's not just speed in pve, sustainability matters too. Consider a character like one punch guy who wins every match on offense instantly, but also dies and needs a healthpack. Now the fastest pve clears cost 40-50 healthpacks. Some players might choose a slower team to conserve other resources at the cost of top placement.
Now consider a OPG who drains champ levels from teammates, or who consumes roster spots with each revive. Would that character dominate the meta? They would definitely be the fastest. . .
all other things being equal speed is king in mpq because speed = better rewards and less grind. But all things are not equal for all players.
Ultimately, top/competitive players play for speed because of placement rewards in pves. If you've been securing T1/T5 in pves using 550 Hulkoye in first brackets for years and some newbie baby champed some characters that allow him to secure T1 consistently, then obviously it's overpowered. If you can secure T1 in first bracket, you are clearing pves in ~16 minutes. Easy nodes take a total of ~2 minutes 15 seconds, which leaves us with 13 minutes 45 seconds for 21 more clears. That's approximately 40 seconds per clear. You need to try playing under 20 minutes to understand how little healthpacks you need when you are getting even T10. Even if that character require you to use 1 healthpack every match, that's only 21 healthpacks. 21-10 = 11 healthpacks cost only 400 HP. So, healthpacks or HP is hardly a deterrent factor for speed players.
1200 HP as a tradeoff for scl 10 pve T1 placement is worth it. We are talking about trading 1200 HP for 2 LT, 150 5* shards, 190 HP, 2 4* covers, 500 4* shards, 3 Mighty Tokens, 1 3* covers and 3 Heroics. And this does not include sub-placement rewards. You get 120 HP, 5 CP, 1 Mighty and 2 vault tokens per day. In actual fact, you are using only 650 HP for the above rewards.
PvPs is all about using shields and coordinations. I've seen 4* rosters getting higher placements than me in seasons and I hit 1200 for pvps and 2k for sims.