@DrClever said: EB - I agree that the metagame is boring but I disagree about what it is - playing certain powerful teams is still the game, the metagame is structuring your playing time, organising your alliance, and selecting your slices so that playing those teams maximises your placement & rewards. All that stuff can FRO, frankly. A few overpowered teams is way less ghastly.
@DrClever said: EB - I agree that the metagame is boring but I disagree about what it is - playing certain powerful teams is still the game, the metagame is structuring your playing time, organising your alliance, and selecting your slices so that playing those teams maximises your placement & rewards.
All that stuff can FRO, frankly. A few overpowered teams is way less ghastly.
You make a good point about the nature of the metagame. All the stuff you mention is also the metagame, plus more -- all the PvP coordination stuff, plus stuff that nobody actually does anymore, like targeted dumping, enforcing, and sniping for placement.
But the bar to participate in any of that stuff is "you must have these specific few characters, at a reasonably high level," and that's not good, especially when those characters are older or difficult to get.
Off topic, kind of, but here it is anyway: this is an actually good, constructive-ish debate involving multiple parties with opposing views that they express civilly and mostly in good faith and humor. In long form, no less, covering many pages.
It is such a magnificent improvement in the environment here not to have toxic scarecrows constantly erected every time someone tries to express an opinion. The mods here have done a good job removing former participants who poisoned every drinking fountain water cooler we tried to debate around.
I like hearing views that I disagree with on substantive grounds. It sharpens my thinking. Thanks y'all for expressing them. 🙏🏼
@DAZ0273 said: I don't understand what the problem with boosts is. The 4* had them for the longest time when it was the main tier so why not the 5* tier? It took Demiurge a lifetime to even do anything with 5* apart from collect cash - no PvP or anywhere to effectively use them or try them out. It was like they were ashamed that 5* characters existed for so long!
I think the main issue for PvP is that many players end up using the same two or three characters that are determined to be the best among the list. For example this week, it's Kang/Hit-Monkey/Gargantos. Depending on the slice you play in, a good chunk of matches can potentially end up being mirror matches which can get rather repetitive.
Obviously the flip side to that is, if the meta isn't perfectly balanced (wink and a nod to the Mad Titan), you end up with one meta team that completely dominates and you still end up playing a significant amount of mirror matches.
The boost list only provides a sort of respite from the main meta by providing an artificial weekly meta. It doesn't really provide a rich variety of matches nor requires much thought in terms of strategy once you figure out the formula for victory for that week. Sure it is a step up from the "One Meta To Rule Them All" system but I don't think it goes far enough.
Perhaps it's for that very reason that Broken Circle wants to incorporate Supports in PvP. A player would have to check the enemy team's supports and look at their own available supports to gauge their likelihood of success. But that's a different conversation.
Supports are gonna be a mixed bag I reckon.
@fight4thedream said: The boost list only provides a sort of respite from the main meta by providing an artificial weekly meta.
@fight4thedream said:
The boost list only provides a sort of respite from the main meta by providing an artificial weekly meta.
That's much better than nothing IMO
But yes, I'd favour more, and more varied, temporary metas - like a level boost if you have all heroes / villains, or 1 Avenger, 1 X-person, & 1 Runaway, or whatever.
Even without introducing damage types, environments, and all the other extras that have been mooted there are ways to shake things up and keep us thinking.
Nobody will look at enemy supports, when they're implemented in 2026. Everyone will run their best teams, with their best supports, 100% of the time. Like now.
I mean, maybe 550s will, but what are us lower tier players going to do? It's not like we have magic options that'll let us tailor our teams to opponents, while we're trying not to get killed on turn 0 by 550s with 5* supports.
This has been my position from the beginning (and incidentally, I was screaming about boosted 5* long before they implemented them).
It's a band-aid, a quick fix, a low-effort way for them to introduce some variety. Think about the amount of boost -- 100 levels!!! The difference between a 450 and a 550. It takes 100 levels of boost to make some of these guys usable, and worse, some of them aren't even usable at +100 levels! Some people have talked about reducing the boost, but there's a ton of these guys that would be unusable at, say, +50.
THAT's how big the balance problem is in this game. It's just a massive, massive lift to get everybody up to par, and even if they did that, we'd still be able to rank the characters, there'd still be a "best," and we'd still see the best team everywhere.
As it stands, I'll take a meta that changes every week over one that changes...never. It's better than nothing.
my bet is that support in pvp will make things so interesting that, unless it comes with a big pvp overhaul, they will probably offer an apology , a lot of tokens AND disable them within a month of them being activated
I'm not against pvp supports. But... right now there are A LOT of characters bugged. And weeks and months passing by, nothing changes. First the foundation and then the roof, because pvp supports will add more bugs. After saying that, if there are supports in pvp players will probably skip teams if there are a lot of level 5 supports, even if those are bad ones.
@DAZ0273 said: @entrailbucket said: "Fair compensation" would be all the rewards those players earned while using Chasm. As long as they're willing to give all of those back, they can compensate for the nerf. Will they compensate players who didn't use Chasm? Since they're admitting he was an overpowered mistake, it seems like we were unfairly denied rewards that we should have earned. Wait, what? How does this make any sense? How can you compensate somebody for choosing not to use Chasm? You cannot be suggesting that 5* players who were able to champ him did not? And even if they didn't then why should we care. Why don't we compensate the softcappers for the rewards they might have got if they had chosen not to softcap?
@DAZ0273 said:
@entrailbucket said: "Fair compensation" would be all the rewards those players earned while using Chasm. As long as they're willing to give all of those back, they can compensate for the nerf. Will they compensate players who didn't use Chasm? Since they're admitting he was an overpowered mistake, it seems like we were unfairly denied rewards that we should have earned.
@entrailbucket said: "Fair compensation" would be all the rewards those players earned while using Chasm. As long as they're willing to give all of those back, they can compensate for the nerf.
Will they compensate players who didn't use Chasm? Since they're admitting he was an overpowered mistake, it seems like we were unfairly denied rewards that we should have earned.
Wait, what? How does this make any sense? How can you compensate somebody for choosing not to use Chasm? You cannot be suggesting that 5* players who were able to champ him did not? And even if they didn't then why should we care. Why don't we compensate the softcappers for the rewards they might have got if they had chosen not to softcap?
know this an old post but that compensate people couldnt play on google play even if they never played pvp they still got all the rewards for doing nothing
@pepitedechocolat said: my bet is that support in pvp will make things so interesting that, unless it comes with a big pvp overhaul, they will probably offer an apology , a lot of tokens AND disable them within a month of them being activated
Yep, that's about my take, too.
@slidecage said: @DAZ0273 said: @entrailbucket said: "Fair compensation" would be all the rewards those players earned while using Chasm. As long as they're willing to give all of those back, they can compensate for the nerf. Will they compensate players who didn't use Chasm? Since they're admitting he was an overpowered mistake, it seems like we were unfairly denied rewards that we should have earned. Wait, what? How does this make any sense? How can you compensate somebody for choosing not to use Chasm? You cannot be suggesting that 5* players who were able to champ him did not? And even if they didn't then why should we care. Why don't we compensate the softcappers for the rewards they might have got if they had chosen not to softcap? know this an old post but that compensate people couldnt play on google play even if they never played pvp they still got all the rewards for doing nothing
@slidecage said:
The difference between "couldn't" and chose not to in your example extends to a very long time period and was also completely in control of the players as opposed to any outside interference.
@Yepyep said: I'm not really sure where to put it, so I'll put it here: I don't think Chasm is overpowered. This week in PvP is an example of that -- Hit Monkey and Kang laugh at Chasm if they notice him at all. That is also true for many other characters when they are boosted. In other weeks, Chasm and iHulk are a good general-use team, just like Switch and Colossus still are. For sure, Chasm isn't a threat without the right partner, and with that partner there are multiple specific counters. At this point, Chasm doesn't need a nerf as his skillset had been embedded in a power matrix designed to accommodate them. Sure he's strong, but not any more so than others in the top tier of 5*s.
@Yepyep said: I'm not really sure where to put it, so I'll put it here: I don't think Chasm is overpowered. This week in PvP is an example of that -- Hit Monkey and Kang laugh at Chasm if they notice him at all. That is also true for many other characters when they are boosted. In other weeks, Chasm and iHulk are a good general-use team, just like Switch and Colossus still are. For sure, Chasm isn't a threat without the right partner, and with that partner there are multiple specific counters.
At this point, Chasm doesn't need a nerf as his skillset had been embedded in a power matrix designed to accommodate them. Sure he's strong, but not any more so than others in the top tier of 5*s.
Pretty much my experience. Chasm is definitely S tier but I don't find him to be unbeatable. I know that some folks really hate his gameplay in PvP, both inside my alliance and out of it. I know that some folks (myself included) enjoy using him in PvP, sometimes with other revivers and sometimes other S tier characters. Depending on who is boosted I see him often or not very much at all.
I'd argue that several of the characters released around Chasm are also S tier and just as overpowered at times. mThor is seen just as often as Chasm in my queues both boosted and unboosted, Kang is pretty OP both boosted and unboosted. The difference is that fewer folks dislike the mechanics that make them S tier.
@entrailbucket said: I agree that they should (also) nerf Hulk. Unlimited resurrection is too good, and frankly it's surprising that it took till now for a character to exploit it. As for the rest: I mean, yeah, all 5* have "good" and "bad" weeks, I guess, depending on the boost list. Chasm having only one "bad" week out of 52 (and I'm still seeing him everywhere this week anyway) is just more evidence that he's too good. How many bad weeks does everyone else have? Has Ultron ever had a good week?
@entrailbucket said: I agree that they should (also) nerf Hulk. Unlimited resurrection is too good, and frankly it's surprising that it took till now for a character to exploit it.
As for the rest: I mean, yeah, all 5* have "good" and "bad" weeks, I guess, depending on the boost list. Chasm having only one "bad" week out of 52 (and I'm still seeing him everywhere this week anyway) is just more evidence that he's too good. How many bad weeks does everyone else have? Has Ultron ever had a good week?
I don't have the same MMR you do so I can't speak to your experience but in my experience Chasm isn't dominating 51 of 52 weeks. Over the past couple of months he's been a great guy to use about half the time and far from optimal the other half which is perfectly in line with other S tier characters like mThor, SWitch, Colossus, Kang etc. When paired with iHulk he definitely punches above his weight but so do all those other characters.
This week with BRB/Goblin/BSSM/SamuraiWolvie they are a great team to climb with. Last week with Kang/HM/Garg/PPSM he was a liability to climb with. The week before that with Black Bolt/sighclops/Hawkeye/Kamala Khan/Killmonger he was good, the week before that with Adam Warlock, Gamora, Shang Chi, Star-Lord I saw mostly Warlock/Star-Lord. The week before that was Gargantos, Hit Monkey, Spider-Man (Black), Ultron, Wong and he wasn't great against that grouping either. Outside of Shield Sim he isn't any more ubiquitous than Kang or mThor in my queues. Again, YMMV at different MMRs but at the 470 MMR that is what I am seeing.
I'm cool with a nerf. Will be cool with a nerf of any of the OP guys: Shang-Chi, Okoye, Apocalypse, mThor, Kang etc. Part of the game is adapting to changes. But I honestly don't see Chasm as being much different from any of those other S tier guys. Nerfing him won't magically create a dynamic shift in teams. It will just be replaced by the new hotness until that too is replaced.
@revskip said: @Yepyep said: I'm not really sure where to put it, so I'll put it here: I don't think Chasm is overpowered. This week in PvP is an example of that -- Hit Monkey and Kang laugh at Chasm if they notice him at all. That is also true for many other characters when they are boosted. In other weeks, Chasm and iHulk are a good general-use team, just like Switch and Colossus still are. For sure, Chasm isn't a threat without the right partner, and with that partner there are multiple specific counters. At this point, Chasm doesn't need a nerf as his skillset had been embedded in a power matrix designed to accommodate them. Sure he's strong, but not any more so than others in the top tier of 5*s. Pretty much my experience. Chasm is definitely S tier but I don't find him to be unbeatable. I know that some folks really hate his gameplay in PvP, both inside my alliance and out of it. I know that some folks (myself included) enjoy using him in PvP, sometimes with other revivers and sometimes other S tier characters. Depending on who is boosted I see him often or not very much at all. I'd argue that several of the characters released around Chasm are also S tier and just as overpowered at times. mThor is seen just as often as Chasm in my queues both boosted and unboosted, Kang is pretty OP both boosted and unboosted. The difference is that fewer folks dislike the mechanics that make them S tier. @entrailbucket said: I agree that they should (also) nerf Hulk. Unlimited resurrection is too good, and frankly it's surprising that it took till now for a character to exploit it. As for the rest: I mean, yeah, all 5* have "good" and "bad" weeks, I guess, depending on the boost list. Chasm having only one "bad" week out of 52 (and I'm still seeing him everywhere this week anyway) is just more evidence that he's too good. How many bad weeks does everyone else have? Has Ultron ever had a good week? I don't have the same MMR you do so I can't speak to your experience but in my experience Chasm isn't dominating 51 of 52 weeks. Over the past couple of months he's been a great guy to use about half the time and far from optimal the other half which is perfectly in line with other S tier characters like mThor, SWitch, Colossus, Kang etc. When paired with iHulk he definitely punches above his weight but so do all those other characters. This week with BRB/Goblin/BSSM/SamuraiWolvie they are a great team to climb with. Last week with Kang/HM/Garg/PPSM he was a liability to climb with. The week before that with Black Bolt/sighclops/Hawkeye/Kamala Khan/Killmonger he was good, the week before that with Adam Warlock, Gamora, Shang Chi, Star-Lord I saw mostly Warlock/Star-Lord. The week before that was Gargantos, Hit Monkey, Spider-Man (Black), Ultron, Wong and he wasn't great against that grouping either. Outside of Shield Sim he isn't any more ubiquitous than Kang or mThor in my queues. Again, YMMV at different MMRs but at the 470 MMR that is what I am seeing. I'm cool with a nerf. Will be cool with a nerf of any of the OP guys: Shang-Chi, Okoye, Apocalypse, mThor, Kang etc. Part of the game is adapting to changes. But I honestly don't see Chasm as being much different from any of those other S tier guys. Nerfing him won't magically create a dynamic shift in teams. It will just be replaced by the new hotness until that too is replaced.
@revskip said:
Please dont mention shang and nerf in the same sentence again. The guy IS Mpq...
@Jimsta_rooney said: @revskip said: @Yepyep said: I'm not really sure where to put it, so I'll put it here: I don't think Chasm is overpowered. This week in PvP is an example of that -- Hit Monkey and Kang laugh at Chasm if they notice him at all. That is also true for many other characters when they are boosted. In other weeks, Chasm and iHulk are a good general-use team, just like Switch and Colossus still are. For sure, Chasm isn't a threat without the right partner, and with that partner there are multiple specific counters. At this point, Chasm doesn't need a nerf as his skillset had been embedded in a power matrix designed to accommodate them. Sure he's strong, but not any more so than others in the top tier of 5*s. Pretty much my experience. Chasm is definitely S tier but I don't find him to be unbeatable. I know that some folks really hate his gameplay in PvP, both inside my alliance and out of it. I know that some folks (myself included) enjoy using him in PvP, sometimes with other revivers and sometimes other S tier characters. Depending on who is boosted I see him often or not very much at all. I'd argue that several of the characters released around Chasm are also S tier and just as overpowered at times. mThor is seen just as often as Chasm in my queues both boosted and unboosted, Kang is pretty OP both boosted and unboosted. The difference is that fewer folks dislike the mechanics that make them S tier. @entrailbucket said: I agree that they should (also) nerf Hulk. Unlimited resurrection is too good, and frankly it's surprising that it took till now for a character to exploit it. As for the rest: I mean, yeah, all 5* have "good" and "bad" weeks, I guess, depending on the boost list. Chasm having only one "bad" week out of 52 (and I'm still seeing him everywhere this week anyway) is just more evidence that he's too good. How many bad weeks does everyone else have? Has Ultron ever had a good week? I don't have the same MMR you do so I can't speak to your experience but in my experience Chasm isn't dominating 51 of 52 weeks. Over the past couple of months he's been a great guy to use about half the time and far from optimal the other half which is perfectly in line with other S tier characters like mThor, SWitch, Colossus, Kang etc. When paired with iHulk he definitely punches above his weight but so do all those other characters. This week with BRB/Goblin/BSSM/SamuraiWolvie they are a great team to climb with. Last week with Kang/HM/Garg/PPSM he was a liability to climb with. The week before that with Black Bolt/sighclops/Hawkeye/Kamala Khan/Killmonger he was good, the week before that with Adam Warlock, Gamora, Shang Chi, Star-Lord I saw mostly Warlock/Star-Lord. The week before that was Gargantos, Hit Monkey, Spider-Man (Black), Ultron, Wong and he wasn't great against that grouping either. Outside of Shield Sim he isn't any more ubiquitous than Kang or mThor in my queues. Again, YMMV at different MMRs but at the 470 MMR that is what I am seeing. I'm cool with a nerf. Will be cool with a nerf of any of the OP guys: Shang-Chi, Okoye, Apocalypse, mThor, Kang etc. Part of the game is adapting to changes. But I honestly don't see Chasm as being much different from any of those other S tier guys. Nerfing him won't magically create a dynamic shift in teams. It will just be replaced by the new hotness until that too is replaced. Please dont mention shang and nerf in the same sentence again. The guy IS Mpq...
@Jimsta_rooney said:
I don't want to see Shang get nerfed any more than I want Kang, mThor or Chasm nerfed. I like all of their kits and they all punch way above their class. But all are by my definition OP and if any of them got nerfed I would adapt. I'd miss one-shoting challenge node characters with a billion points of damage on a plus 10 combo. Shang-Chi helped me become an SCL10 player precisely because he is overpowered though.
SC needs a lot of conditions and active player guidance to become OP. If not he is just a 5* with low health, poor regeneration and no threat at all. Kang as I said in another thread needs to collect AP for active powers, and we know how poorly AI collects it and fires the powers, so it's hardly a threat. On pve there must work many conditions and supports and characters for his instakill that not always appear at all, so him being OP in pve many times is by pure luck. Mthor is a powerful character if there is great synergy with her team, also if she doesn't lose charged tiles, so not always is a threat. Chasm is a character designed to be annoying in pvp, however he is OP and broken, not because me saying it, anybody playing knows it and finally devs will nerf him, fixing something that they broke in arrival. So > @revskip said:
I don't want to see Shang get nerfed any more than I want Kang, mThor or Chasm nerfed. I like all of their kits and they all punch way above their class. But all are by my definition OP and if any of them got nerfed I would adapt.
I understand this claim as kind of "if you break my beautiful toy I want yours broken too".
So > @revskip said: I don't want to see Shang get nerfed any more than I want Kang, mThor or Chasm nerfed. I like all of their kits and they all punch way above their class. But all are by my definition OP and if any of them got nerfed I would adapt. I understand this claim as kind of "if you break my beautiful toy I want yours broken too".
So > @revskip said:
I read it more as "I don't want you to break any toys but if you do, I'll just find new unbroken toys to play with.
1st thing i thought of when seeing chasms abilities is he was designed to counter shang. It worked to a certain degree
@Scofie said: So > @revskip said: I don't want to see Shang get nerfed any more than I want Kang, mThor or Chasm nerfed. I like all of their kits and they all punch way above their class. But all are by my definition OP and if any of them got nerfed I would adapt. I understand this claim as kind of "if you break my beautiful toy I want yours broken too". I read it more as "I don't want you to break any toys but if you do, I'll just find new unbroken toys to play with.
@Scofie said:
That's how I read it as well.
I share the same sentiment where I don't want to see my favorites get nerfed.. but if and when that does arrive I'll just have to adapt by playing with whatever I have.
@Jimsta_rooney said: 1st thing i thought of when seeing chasms abilities is he was designed to counter shang. It worked to a certain degree
I'd say it worked perfectly and that's one of the reasons he's so reviled. Plus he's pretty effective at whittling down Colossus and Switch, too. Lots of players had their bunkers busted by Chasm and he's resented for it. And, being fair, Hulkasm is my bunker and I don't want it busted.