Debate on Character Valuation

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: New Character - ***** Magik (Phoenix Five) *****.

HoundofShadow

I think it's players' expectations. They expect every 5* to hit hard by not doing much. By that, I meant they want those 5* to be similar to iHulkoye, Hulk/Chasm etc. Almost every conversations revolve around comparing who has the highest raw damage in 1v1 and 1v2 comparison when the reality is that, it's about synergy in a pick-2 or pick-3 match. And the funny thing is, when the damage is too high, players cry about eating too much healthpacks and want nerfs. Hulkoye was one example, and Wanda/Colossus is another one.

If you compare every 5* to only big hitters, majority of them would be not up to par. If every new 5* deals more damage, players are going to complain about power creeps.

Note:"players" doesn't refer to only one group of players.

entrailbucket

@HoundofShadow said:
I think it's players' expectations. They expect every 5* to hit hard by not doing much. By that, I meant they want those 5* to be similar to iHulkoye, Hulk/Chasm etc. Almost every conversations revolve around comparing who has the highest raw damage in 1v1 and 1v2 comparison when the reality is that, it's about synergy in a pick-2 or pick-3 match. And the funny thing is, when the damage is too high, players cry about eating too much healthpacks and want nerfs. Hulkoye was one example, and Wanda/Colossus is another one.

If you compare every 5* to only big hitters, majority of them would be not up to par. If every new 5* deals more damage, players are going to complain about power creeps.

Note:"players" doesn't refer to only one group of players.

So not only do you do 10 total fights in every PvP to reach max prog, you're able to get 8 Magik repeaters out every fight, and you ALSO do all your matches with characters who do the lowest possible damage? If you prefer characters with very low damage, do you use unboosted 3* to do your 4 fights every event? I'm beginning to think this person is not serious.

We want characters who do damage because, puzzle gauntlet notwithstanding, doing damage is the only way to win MPQ fights. It's a pretty simple game.

HoundofShadow

I like how you and Bad always like to add hyperbole to my statements.

Fact Check:
1) I hit 1200 in 18-22 wins typically, unless I don't have much time to play pvps.
2) I didn't say I get 8 repeaters out every fight. I said I can easily get 4 or more repeaters out. I can get more than 10 out as well, using certain team compositions.
3) I didn't say I prefer character with low damage.
4) My Chasm counter teams don't consists of only 3* and 4* characters. (To Bad).

entrailbucket

Most players like characters who are good.

Good characters do damage.

We compare every new character to the good characters (who are good because they do damage) because you can only use 2 (or sometimes 3) characters at a time, and most people choose to use the ones that are good at winning fights. This is not some personality flaw of those players. When your goal is to win fights, why would you choose to use a character that's worse at winning fights?

Sometimes, I use the bad characters on purpose, because it's fun. That does not make them good characters, even though I can win every fight with them. It does not mean I have some superior intellect or skill, or that I'm somehow better than anyone else. It just means that I'm screwing around with bad characters for fun.

Alex502

@entrailbucket said:

We want characters who do damage because, puzzle gauntlet notwithstanding, doing damage is the only way to win MPQ fights. It's a pretty simple game.

No, actually I'm not solely focused on damage. Yes, damage is the result of everything, but there's many paths to synergy to take the win. Its your kind of attitude that's damaging reception of these characters that have great synergy.

Like 3* Magik, I'm actually loving using her with 4's and 5's. Like Domino, Deahtlok, Dark Beast, Karnak, Chavez? She's great with 5* like Cyclops, SWitch, Iceman, Apocalypse, MThor.

I want synergy. I want power interactions. I don't want just meta meta meta meta meta meta meta.

I actually hate playing PvP because all I get is meta teams. Sick of it. There's nearly 300 characters in the game, easily half of them are playable at nearly any level in PvE.

Now I get it, PvP by nature is competitive, but I wish they'd make puzzle mechanics worked into PvP to FORCE YOU ALL AWAY FROM YOUR DUMB META TEAMS.

Rant over. For now.

HoundofShadow

If you reduce MPQ to simply a game of doing damage (in the fastest time possible), then a lot of characters will be useless. If players write down new characters because they can't replace or be on equal footing with meta, then they are setting themselves up for disappointment. We even have at least one (non-550) player who has accumulated over 20k cp with nothing much to spend on.

For the past 5 years, majority of new releases can't match up to meta. It's a fact. When it comes to fun factor, a lot could be fun. This is a expectation problem. I've been expecting most characters to not overtake meta and instead focus on having fun with MPQ, using combination of 2/3/4* with my 5*. If I want high damage output, I simply slot in Apocalypse or Okoye as a booster. Or I simply SC enemies away with crits.

If those top players are serious about seeing diverse enemies in pvps, it start with them not using only meta and be opened to using non-meta fun teams. I've been doing it and I don't need the dev to force me to use non-meta team.

Alex502

@HoundofShadow said:

Oh my goodness, Hound, you speak words like feel like a fresh spring breeze. I'm glad to see someone else speak up for the fun interplay.

Scofie

Mod mode off

I get both sides of the argument. I like diversity and fun synergy. But I also like to place fairly highly and I have limited time in the day to play. I think boosted 5s has moved the needle in PvP but PvE is very competitive in some slices and whilst I'd love to just play for pure fun and try out teams, I can't fit that in with real life and get full rewards and decent placement.

So it's a choice between the "synergy premium" or the "rewards premium" or somewhere in the middle and it's every players personal choice as to what they look for in the game - there are some that find fun in the trial of new teams, others in the competition. Neither is wrong and both can co-exist. So for new characters, the view is either "good synergy", "adds to speed" or "part of a new meta" which is the only thin slice of the Venn diagram where the two ideologies live in harmony. Like with Chasm... 😜 (please do not turn this into another Chasm thread!).

Bad

@HoundofShadow said:
If you reduce MPQ to simply a game of doing damage (in the fastest time possible), then a lot of characters will be useless.

If you reduce it? Sorry, but for pve and pvp, probably 80% of the game, this is the best way to get better rewards. We aren't reducing anything, we are playing just like the game is intended.
You suggested somewhere a chahulk counter involving 3* Marvel in order to get red. Are you playing yourself your great counter? And when you are high in points too? If not, why the reason of suggesting that?
If the game has characters totally OP and broken obviously players will use them. Is the blame on players for taking advantage of it, or on devs side who release a character totally broken who they even still don't understand, to the point of releasing dozens of counters?

fight4thedream

@Alex502 said:
I want synergy. I want power interactions. I don't want just meta meta meta meta meta meta meta.

I actually hate playing PvP because all I get is meta teams. Sick of it. There's nearly 300 characters in the game, easily half of them are playable at nearly any level in PvE.

Now I get it, PvP by nature is competitive, but I wish they'd make puzzle mechanics worked into PvP to FORCE YOU ALL AWAY FROM YOUR DUMB META TEAMS.

Rant over. For now.

The lack of variety in PvP is a product of the event format. The game mode known as PvP does not encourage players to use variety beyond the superficial weekly boost list which itself usually ends up with most top players using the strongest characters from that list or a meta team they feel is equivalent or superior to the characters offered on the boost list.

It encourages players to think of the event as a competition where the higher a player ranks, the better the rewards they will receive. So the end goal for a player who wishes to gain the most resources as possible is to rank as high as possible.

It discourages players from using less powerful teams, with the notable exception of cupcakes, grills and the like, because using a less powerful team comes with negative consequences:

1.) resource drain: Taking a weaker team against a stronger will more than likely result in said team taking significant damage during battle resulting in the need to use the limited resource known as health packs. It also increases the risk of losing the battle. These are factors many players consider when approaching a PvP event.

2.) defensive vulnerability: Due to the structure of PvP, using a weaker team against a stronger team usually means your battle takes more time, thus leaving your team more exposed to attack while you do battle. Additionally, it means the player you attacked can easily defeat your team if they decide to retaliate.

For players wanting to avoid taking hits during their climb, the ideal situation is to always put out their strongest team. There is nothing in the current PvP format or in the game that incentivizes them to do otherwise; contrastingly, there are negative consequences toward using a non-meta team.

Of course, this mainly applies to players who are playing competitively but it also affects casual players as the players with the highest point are normally competitive players.

Depending on a player's MMR, they could very well end up in a situation where they are only seeing a wall of meta teams or top boosted list characters. So even if said player wanted to experiment a bit or play a non-meta team, their choices are slim and the risk of losing a battle high.

Now that we have identified what is causing this lack of variety, let's consider some possible solutions:

1. Get rid of health packs and have teams automatically refresh to full health after every battle. Very unlikely to happen but had to be said because this is very much a significant factor in player behavior. If the overall goal is to increase user engagement of the PvP event mode and encourage variety, doing away with the current health pack system would be a big boon to casual players and see them engage the event with different teams.

2. Introduce variety in game nodes. I actually wrote a suggestion a month or two ago (link here) about this very topic. One other significant reason we don't see much in terms of variety in PvP is because battles all happen in the same environment. If they introduced different node environments where different skillsets thrived it could potentially open up the game mode to more variety.

There are a few more ideas that I can think of but I am concerned that they would exacerbate the cooperative politics that go on at high end play that I am not fond of.

Hopefully, I've shed a light on why the current PvP game mode isn't really conducive towards character variety. I share in your frustration as I think it's a shame the game disincentivizes the active use of more fun team combos at the higher end of play and I hope it's something the new dev team will consider changing in the future.

Alex502

I appreciate you both (Scofie and fight4thedream), totally valid views that take in the full scope of the game.

Here's the core of my issue, I've been a casual player for seven years or so, give or take. I've only recently, in the last year, champed my first 5* (Jessica Jones, mid-tier but nice to have) and now the only thing I see is a wall of meta. The game has decided I'm in full 5* land and go against all champed 5* opponents. I might see the odd meta 4* paired with someone, like Karnak or Chavez, but usually its all just the same same same.

Now here's the bonus, I've figured out several teams that can handle that "same same same" troupe that's driving me nuts. But then I have to flex down through the roster and get creative (which I like, when I have the time) but the disparity I feel at facing the same meta teams over and over is just exhausting.

I'd like have some hope for the Supports introduced to PvP, but that's going to address this issue of bland meta teams that are exhausting to combat.

HoundofShadow

Again, it's an expectation issue. The core phrases surroundings these problems all these years are "impatience", "wanting the best of both worlds", and "refusing to take ownership of one's choices".

Impatience: wanting to earn lots of rewards as fast as possible due to "lack of time" to play with varities. Strong FOMO. Result: blame developers.

Wanting the best of both worlds: want to play with non-meta teams and at the same time, not wanting to be attacked by other players. Because they prioritise speed/defense over variety and refuse to take ownership of their choice, they push the blame to the dev or to the game. The game "forced" them to use nothing but meta. The game is all about speed. Let's be honest, even if the dev change the game to be puzzly, placement will still be determined by speed. The dev is not going to spend time to determine placement by reviewing all gameplays and award top placement to the most creative players.

Ultimately, it's the players who choose the path they walk. Remember, if the game is all about speed, it's because you make it all about speed.

Currently, ~20 minutes of clear/grind net you T10 in pve, first bracket. Puzzle nodes take approximately 2-3 minutes to complete. We have ~10 recurring nodes in pves. That's a total increase of 20 minutes in playtime for top players. And people talk about not having enough time to play non-meta team when their suggestions to turn all pve events into puzzle events will increase playtime for them.

If the dev want to shake things up in pvps easily regardless of what metas will be in the future, they need to "punish" (one of the favourite words of some players) those meta chasers. Since meta teams are obvious and everyone here will agree who are the meta in pvps, the dev can put a meta tag on meta teams. For example, if players use Chasm/iHulk to beat and defeat non-meta teams, they will earn 0.5x of the original points they see. On the other hand, players who use non-meta teams to beat meta teams get a x1.5 to x2 multipliers and this can scale up depending on the level difference. So, a 75 points Chasm/iHulk will be worth 110 - 150 points or more, per match. The players who field Chasm/iHulk and lose defensively will also receive a x1.5-2x or more in point losses. This will strongly discourage these players from fielding only meta teams.

Daredevil217

Hound, I’m confused. Didn’t you assert that most players aren’t interested in the meta and play the game super casually? So when you are lumping all “players” together like you typically do, it seems like they are whatever you need them to be for the purposes of your argument or to defend the developers against attacks that aren’t actually being lobbied. It’s what’s called an “invisible army” and it’s one of the weakest forms of debate. By saying “players do this”, then move the goal post and say “players do that”, it just lands as very weak and it is hard to take you seriously. If your ultimate thesis is that there are groups of players who value/play the game differently, then… okay? I don’t think you are breaking any new ground here. There are going to be all sorts of players from casual to super meta. There’s nothing wrong with folks speaking their displeasure from their own point of view. Their perception/expectations are just fine and aren’t looking for you to “teach them” how to enjoy the game in the same ways other groups do.

Methods you employ that are helpful/credible:

• Direct quotes from developers
• Statistics
• Video evidence
• Speaking to posters you disagree. With directly

Methods you often employ that harm credibility:

• Invisible army
• Strawmen/invisible enemy
• Hyperbole
• Lumping everyone together/ being vague
• Talking down to others about their lack of “skill”
• Lack of basic human empathy
• Moving the goalposts/ changing the argument
• White Knighting
• Speaking for other posters (“you won’t be happy until X”, “even if the developers did this you would complain”)

dianetics

@Daredevil217 said:

• Strawmen/invisible enemy
• Hyperbole
• Lumping everyone together/ being vague
• Moving the goalposts/ changing the argument
• White Knighting

Something like that.

HoundofShadow

Lack of basic human sympathy... This applies to almost all the players who post regularly in this forum.

The argument about how I lump all players together is getting old. I've been acknowledging different camps of players for years.

Daredevil217

@HoundofShadow said:
Lack of basic human sympathy... This applies to almost all the players who post regularly in this forum.

The argument about how I lump all players together is getting old. I've been acknowledging different camps of players for years.

But if that’s the case, then you’re not really saying anything. There are some players who min max and only care about super strong meta releases. There are other players who want progression-only, hate competing and want to just play fun teams. I don’t think either group have “perception” problems. They just like what they like and want to see the game reflect more of that. I personally like the game as is and think it strikes a good balance between casual and competitive. Others may not, and if so it is within their right to use the forums to communicate their desires/concerns. As long as people are being respectful and are not being abusive about it. If they are, then that’s why we have mods.

dianetics

@HoundofShadow said:
Lack of basic human sympathy... This applies to almost all the players who post regularly in this forum.

I agree lack of sympathy doesn't matter, that is just perception of arguments. We should be able to speak plainly even if we don't agree on everything.

Bowgentle

@dianetics said:

@HoundofShadow said:
Lack of basic human sympathy... This applies to almost all the players who post regularly in this forum.

I agree lack of sympathy doesn't matter, that is just perception of arguments. We should be able to speak plainly even if we don't agree on everything.

Speaking plainly is fine.
Approaching every discussion like a robot who never had an in person argument with a real human is not.

Daredevil217

@dianetics said:

@HoundofShadow said:
Lack of basic human sympathy... This applies to almost all the players who post regularly in this forum.

I agree lack of sympathy doesn't matter, that is just perception of arguments. We should be able to speak plainly even if we don't agree on everything.

I disagree. I said empathy, not sympathy. There’s a huge difference in the two words. If you don’t have a basic understanding of where the other person is coming from (read: empathy), then you really shouldn’t be speaking to their experience. This could’ve arguably been bullet point number 1, because if you can’t understand (but think that you do), then everything else falls apart.

entrailbucket

@Alex502 said:

@entrailbucket said:

We want characters who do damage because, puzzle gauntlet notwithstanding, doing damage is the only way to win MPQ fights. It's a pretty simple game.

No, actually I'm not solely focused on damage. Yes, damage is the result of everything, but there's many paths to synergy to take the win. Its your kind of attitude that's damaging reception of these characters that have great synergy.

Like 3* Magik, I'm actually loving using her with 4's and 5's. Like Domino, Deahtlok, Dark Beast, Karnak, Chavez? She's great with 5* like Cyclops, SWitch, Iceman, Apocalypse, MThor.

I want synergy. I want power interactions. I don't want just meta meta meta meta meta meta meta.

I actually hate playing PvP because all I get is meta teams. Sick of it. There's nearly 300 characters in the game, easily half of them are playable at nearly any level in PvE.

Now I get it, PvP by nature is competitive, but I wish they'd make puzzle mechanics worked into PvP to FORCE YOU ALL AWAY FROM YOUR DUMB META TEAMS.

Rant over. For now.

You said it yourself -- "synergy" just results in doing damage. If it doesn't, you can't win fights. Show me a character with "synergy" that doesn't ultimately result in doing damage, and I will show you a bad character.

Listen, I'm the very last person to be arguing for "meta" all the time. I have 13 550s, and none of them are Chasm, or Okoye, or Apocalypse. I hate seeing all those guys all the time. I mean, I just finished maxing out Starlord. I love smashing Chasm with lvl672s like 5Cap, Iron Man, and Phoenix.

The fix for variety is very simple. The top players will choose the best possible team every time, and currently the best possible teams are really, really good -- way better than every other team, and even better than most weekly boosted characters. They're acting rationally, in response to an extremely unbalanced metagame. If you want more variety, the answer is either to make a lot more characters who are that good, or to somehow make the very best characters worse.