If the devs want to make speed irrelevant/non-optimal, there are plenty of ways for them to do that. They haven't. Players who prefer slow characters are welcome to their preference, but they are a minority and always will be, as long as the game remains speed-focused.
Is it so shocking, then, that a majority of players dismiss slow characters as bad? Does it really make them stupid, or narrow-minded, or unskilled, because they play the game a different way than you do?
If you acknowledge that you're in the minority because you prefer to play very slowly (and btw, I seem to remember that you compete in PvE, do you compete using slow "synergy" teams there?), then why are you so upset to find that others disagree with you on these evaluations?
It would be very simple to say "I personally like this character, because even though she's slow and probably unappealing to many, I enjoy using unique mechanics, and she's fun for me to use in events where there's no time pressure."
Instead, we constantly get the equivalent of "wow, you are all so stupid, you're playing the game wrong, this character is fantastic, why can't you see what us intellectually superior players can all see!?!"
**Mod edit to remove off topic content **
The whole point to this conversation (thank you for spliting this, by the way) was addressing how characters are evaluated.
Frankly the system is skewed beyond just the mechanics at play between characters. When my single champed Jessica Jones means I face off with champed Hulkoye or iChasm's every match, where is the equity in that? I'm not exactly suggesting a shift to the MMR in whole, but there's a serious issue of disparity between rosters in PvP.
Further more, the Dev's are clearly trying to address each layer of their player base, that's one of the biggest reasons they're releasing more 3* characters. To go out of the way to compare every character to 550 Meta is going to cast nearly all into the "garbage" category because you're only working with two categories "PvP meta" and "garbage".
Well, frankly, there's a lot more to the game than that, and the "synergy without damage" question you're asking is entirely ridiculous. Of course all paths in the game lead to damage! The point was there are many paths to that end, including teams that AIM TO SLOW AND STUN AND CONTROL THE BOARD ENOUGH TO SURVIVE AGAINST HIGHER LEVELED CHARACTERS.
You really have no idea what it's like to play at my level. You've been high enough in the 550's for so long that you're only interested in playing that way because it keeps you where you are. The characters they've released lately are for the lower cast of players to be able to knock your Chasm's off their high horse, and some of it is working, most of it is not.
Just say eb, only my grandma calls me entrailbucket. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. If you think I'm not being civil, or I'm being abusive, please feel free to report me to the moderators. This forum is very tightly moderated, they deal with those issues very quickly and ban frequently.
I'm a proud instigator because I have no particular interest in tiptoeing around issues. I argue directly and take no offense at others doing the same. Likewise, I intend no offense. This is a dumb superhero phone game, it's not politics or religion. I can quite easily separate someone's opinion about a phone game from their value as a person.
I just finished saying that I have 13 550s and none of them are Chasm. I have zero interest in running the "meta" characters, and I avoid doing so wherever possible. I beat "meta" characters with non-meta characters all day, every day, because it's more fun for me. I don't split characters into "meta" or "trash," personally, but you have to understand that literally everyone else does.
I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. The problem occurs when, as you so elegantly indicated with the Jessica vs Chasm example, the best characters are a million times better than everyone else. When the best characters are only a little bit better than everyone else, there are many more viable strategies, and the tiers are less obvious. When the best characters are WAY better, you get what we have now -- "meta" and "trash."
I absolutely don't blame every other player for only using those guys, though, because levelling up the best guys and solely using the best guys is SMART. I purposely do non-optimal stuff because it's fun for me.
The difference is that I acknowledge it's not optimal. I find it more fun, but I'm not going to accuse others of being unskilled, or unintelligent, or shortsighted, like Hound constantly does, because they choose to play in a way that's smart. (I will accuse them of being unfun and unoriginal though, because that's true.)
I have edited out and deleted comments referring to other forum users. Please keep on topic and disagree with respect to all other forum users.
@Scofie said: I have edited out and deleted comments referring to other forum users. Please keep on topic and disagree with respect to all other forum users.
Sorry! I just made your job even worse by posting that wall of text. I'll delete it myself if you'd prefer!
@entrailbucket said: @Scofie said: I have edited out and deleted comments referring to other forum users. Please keep on topic and disagree with respect to all other forum users. Sorry! I just made your job even worse by posting that wall of text. I'll delete it myself if you'd prefer!
@entrailbucket said:
I've tried to leave as much actual discussion of the topic as possible in all of the posts to keep the conversation going...
If its such a simple thing for Hound to admit that it is a personal bias, how come the reverse isn’t true; why is the whole argument about this precious objective truth that you hold; which is these new chars are trash because chasm.
Its always meta in top end pvp as the only metric that matters. And that is an exceedingly narrow definition that does not serve the other 95% of players who do not have a 5* champed yet.
When some forumites reject the echo chamber of the clique they get treated like garbage.
@dianetics said: The higher you climb the more often you see the chasm teams. Right now I’m in the sc shethor and a third group. If I push another couple hundreds points it will be all chasm ihulk ishulk. I felt his pain when I made the jump a couple years ago with heimdall. I ran into okoye ihulk and couldn’t do anything in pvp either.
@dianetics said: The higher you climb the more often you see the chasm teams. Right now I’m in the sc shethor and a third group. If I push another couple hundreds points it will be all chasm ihulk ishulk.
I felt his pain when I made the jump a couple years ago with heimdall. I ran into okoye ihulk and couldn’t do anything in pvp either.
And, like, see, this should not ever happen. In a game with some semblance of balance at character tiers, it wouldn't happen. You should be able to win fights against any character at a particular tier with any other character at that tier.
We shouldn't HAVE a "meta tier" or "trash tier," it should just be whatever you prefer to use. Maybe some guys would be a little slower or a bit less hard-hitting, but that's not at all what we have now. Now, with unboosted Heimdall, for example, against unboosted Chasm/Hulk, you're trying to fight a Sherman tank with a toothpick.
The way this game is set up, matchmaking expects that you can beat all the guys at a star level with all other guys at that star level -- so why do people always argue that the tiers are meant to be so unbalanced, like they are now?
Let's lean back on the topic, Scofie was right to curb this conversation.
I wish there was more visibility for the structure of MMR and how I could work with it.
And I know I could push more to get more out of PvP and that would help my roster get closer to competitive, but that incline is very steep. I've been playing for over seven years, and only have my single champed 5 star. I have nearly all of them rostered, mind you, but the extreme majority have 5 or less covers.
There's many layers of failings around this transition from 4 to 5 star play. The 4's don't really get enough covers regularly to push out the shards to get a measly one cover for a 5 star they happen to feed, but further more there's so many 4 star's that don't feed anyone!
I'm constantly discouraged from trying to get the new 5 star release, good bad or mid, simply because by the time I get to 10 wins in PvP, I'm at such a disadvantage that I can't keep up with wins or points. And there are so few ways to earn shards for 5 star characters. Even just an odds rebalance to the vaults would help a lot. (I know I suck at hording)
I've added some examples of the matches I get out the gate on the Symbiote PvP right now. I've done no matches so far, skipped a few. These matches are close to my roster strength, and I could easily strategize in how to beat each of them, but three wins in I'm going to have a much different issue.
Besides, how am I suppose to properly combat Shangi Chi when my own has only 5 covers? Mirror matching these characters doesn't work. I skip 50 matches for every 1 I take on, and I might still lose the one I try. Irritating.
The pictures themselves are huge, I don't want to post several of those. I'll just put their stats:
Jessica Jones lvl 451 + 5trange lvl 405 Infinity Parker lvl 573 + Karnak lvl 420 MThor lvl 452 (5/3/5) + Polaris lvl 354 Shang Chi lvl 405 (4/4/2) + 5Witch lvl 345 (1/2/3)
So what's the evaluation going on behind the scenes? Do all characters of the same star level have the same effect on your MMR, or are they weighted differently?
Matchmaking assumes a 450 Wasp is the same as a 450 Apocalypse.
The devs can try to shorten the gap but it will take a lot of work. The devs can introduce hard counters to increase variation, but there will still be different tiers of characters.
I just wonder should the devs waste a lot of time bringing characters like Wasp close to the meta of just a tiny fraction of players will ever champion her going forward.
The goal should be to bring a diverse set of characters with good power levels that are usable. They have done alright with that, and I would say they are better at it than d3 was.
I know I’m beating a dead horse at this point but if they want to tamp down chasmihulk they need to punish revives, or limit teams to one reviver.
Yeah, I mean, you're just describing the massive, massive balance problem they've created at the 5* tier.
At every single point in this game, the game assumes that all 5* are roughly equivalent -- when it comes to rewards (you always get X 5* shards at a reward tier), matchmaking (the algorithm assumes all 5* have equivalent power), and in tokens (equal chance to draw each character).
The problem is not that they're not all equal -- that is both impossible to achieve and undesirable (it'd be tremendously boring). The problem is that they're SO unequal that some characters appear to live at a completely different tier.
I'm hearing things that have been said for years. Change the odds on pulls, update older characters that are dead to power creep, drive variety by introducing dynamic characters (something they've done better at, absolutely) and finally, acknowledge that Chasm is entirely too much and needs to be changed badly. Not to spin yet another topic into Anti-Chasm issues, but this conversation is about character evalution, yes?
Evalution: Chasm breaks every level of game play, and needs neutered, and not just by new character dynamics.
The sheer number of times phrases like this have been used by an overwhelming majority of this forum base should be a clear call to do something about it. Gambit broke the game, too, and we had to beg, fight, scratch, and demand a change for that too.
No need to list the pros/cons again. The mods here have seen it all. I'm sure one more straw on that back won't change much.
Looking at that fabulous Tier List from Daredevil (link below) the top 10 haven't changed much, and the next ten behind them? Effective, great characters, plenty of them are in PvP too, but after that there is this extreme cliff of effectiveness that's just so hard for anyone under that top 20 to be of much any use, and that's just sad to see happen because of a handful of characters.
And for the 4 stars? I'd be willing to contribute to an equivalent guide for them too, but to what use? Would that be of any help, when its less than a dozen characters that rule so much of the gameplay?
https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/88338/daredevil-217-s-mpq-5-star-analysis-rankings-guide-updated-04-08-23#latest
In fact, what some other posters in this thread are saying is that your evaluation of Jessica vs Chasm is wrong, and that it's your problem that you can't win, because you're not creative enough to find a synergy team that works.
Some other posters think (and say repeatedly) that evaluating characters based on their relationship to the very best characters is wrong, and that Jessica is an excellent character for some other playstyle, or in some other synergy team that you and I are too narrow-minded to see.
How does that make you feel? Perhaps a little aggressive? As if you're being gaslit? How would you respond to someone making that argument (that you're simply too unskilled to win those fights)?
This is why other posters have said you're aggressive and combative.
To answer: I've expressly said that I can overcome these teams with creativity, you're literally trying to gaslight me.
Ok, then...what's the problem? Are you also saying that you agree with them, and Jessica and Chasm are equal?
I don't think I could work out a way to consistently, repeatedly beat those teams quickly with your roster using creativity, so no, I'm not trying to gaslight you.
I'm sick of being told that I'm an unskilled player because I think some characters are too good.
To clarify and address the actual things you've said instead of your attitude:
No one ever said Jessica and Chasm are equals, they simply are not.
I'm happy to list some teammates for JJ that would help you with these teams. Plenty of characters are excellent matches for her, but it entirely depends on who you're facing.
My recent favorites for her have been Clea, 3* Strange, 5* Daredevil, Polaris (of course), Arena Hulk is a great pair if you aren't facing Chasm, and I've enjoyed fairly easy matches with her and 5* Cyclops too.
4* Jean, 5* Ice-Man, W4sp, Invisible Woman, any Emma Frost, I really like using her with Cloak and Dagger, 4* Black Widow, Deathlok, Scorpion...
Need I continue? Do you need to continue?
Some of the issues being addressed are the compare and contrast between characters, and how the system values them vs the actual game play of them. And that ultimately, once again, we can point to several mechanic break aspects of Chasm that make this game much harder to enjoy.
PS: No one said anything about your skill as a player, I was giving you feedback about your conversation pattern.
So...you agree with me about Jessica and Chasm?
Did you misread what I wrote? I was characterizing the arguments of others, not my own. Other posters in this thread ABSOLUTELY think all 5* are equivalent, and have said as much. I do not think that. I agree with all the stuff you just wrote...that's what I was saying.
As an example, one particular poster from this thread once spent several hours arguing with me that Wasp (pre buff) was just as good as Apocalypse, and if I disagreed then it meant I was uncreative and a bad player. Those characters are obviously not equivalent, and while it may be possible to beat Apocalypse with Wasp if you work out some synergy, you're at a massive disadvantage if she's your only champion.
entrailbucket like to put argument on either extreme to prove his points. In his world, only two tiers exist: meta and trash/unusable when not boosted.
Another way to look at his view is the "inequality" problem he wants to see solved in MPQ is like solving poverty issue around the world. There are only two classes of people: rich and poor. His solution to solving this is to take away all the rich people money and destroy it or give all the poor people around the world enough money to put them on equal status with the rich.
He forgets that there is many paths to happiness. The poor and rich can both be happy and sad. When you say that human X who came from poor group can be happy in their lives, his counter would be are you saying that X has as much wealth as the rich? He's totally ignoring the journey. Maybe he's not interested in the journey, that's why his matches usually end in 30-45 seconds.
You've introduced a second axis with your wealth argument, one that doesn't correspond to MPQ.
To translate your MPQ argument to the wealth argument, you're saying that rich people and poor people are equally rich, which is just factually inaccurate.