@Blackstone said: Nerf this thread by ignoring it. I think it's about time, thanks.
@Blackstone said: Nerf this thread by ignoring it.
I think it's about time, thanks.
U ignore it by posting in it, quite defeating the purpose...
I think we can have a nice and fluffy argument on the topic, besides he is the only 2023 5* released that actually changed the meta, while chasm exists it is quite a feat
At this point he's the only reasonable response to Chasm, so honestly I'm not even entertaining he idea of nerfing Kang until Chasm is nerfed -- even as a response to Chasm he's not overwhelmingly good, it just makes it possible to take down iHulk/Chasm. IMO, though, he's reasonable in a vacuum. His blue is a bit too expensive to reliably fire more than once without a feeder, and while it's wonderful to use when the enemy is down to one character, that's hardly an unbalancing factor. His black is good, but does have a drawback (which ranges from trivial to potentially pretty serious depending on luck,) and his purple is pretty meh - it works against you almost as often as it works for you. His AP gain is good but not great - it only really shines with the right partner (such as Hawkeye or Gargantos, who happens to also be boosted this week,) or against the right foe, but in the latter case it's actually hindered by Kang adding 1 to CDs. And sure, he's great with Deathlok, but bringing along a 4* is its own limiting factor.
I think there MAY be cause to revisit this discussion down the line, but the metagame isn't there yet. Currently Kang is providing a sort of counterweight to Chasm (and, btw, some of the other annoying defensive passives). If those other factors were to change, then I could see having a discussion about Kang.
But...that's just how metagame balancing works. If it's unbalanced, you make a change and then monitor the metagame to see if you have to make more changes.
@pepitedechocolat said: @Blackstone said: Nerf this thread by ignoring it. I think it's about time, thanks. U ignore it by posting in it, quite defeating the purpose... I think we can have a nice and fluffy argument on the topic, besides he is the only 2023 5* released that actually changed the meta, while chasm exists it is quite a feat
@pepitedechocolat said:
I wasn't ignoring the post though, I was trolling the OP, mimicking his trolling of the forum. I think you missed the point by assuming something.
And Kang isn't difficult to beat, so...
@entrailbucket said: I think there MAY be cause to revisit this discussion down the line, but the metagame isn't there yet. Currently Kang is providing a sort of counterweight to Chasm (and, btw, some of the other annoying defensive passives). If those other factors were to change, then I could see having a discussion about Kang. But...that's just how metagame balancing works. If it's unbalanced, you make a change and then monitor the metagame to see if you have to make more changes.
@entrailbucket said: I think there MAY be cause to revisit this discussion down the line, but the metagame isn't there yet. Currently Kang is providing a sort of counterweight to Chasm (and, btw, some of the other annoying defensive passives). If those other factors were to change, then I could see having a discussion about Kang.
Like MPQ has ever worked like this in its whole 10 years.
Mpq has been moving from meta to meta but no meta is so bad as chasm ihulk it terms of time consumption and takes the real life out of pvp; for that kang is a blessing but he would the next meta if the hammer does fall on chasm
@Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: I think there MAY be cause to revisit this discussion down the line, but the metagame isn't there yet. Currently Kang is providing a sort of counterweight to Chasm (and, btw, some of the other annoying defensive passives). If those other factors were to change, then I could see having a discussion about Kang. But...that's just how metagame balancing works. If it's unbalanced, you make a change and then monitor the metagame to see if you have to make more changes. Like MPQ has ever worked like this in its whole 10 years.
@Bowgentle said:
It should, though, and there's zero practical reason why it can't.
@entrailbucket said: @Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: I think there MAY be cause to revisit this discussion down the line, but the metagame isn't there yet. Currently Kang is providing a sort of counterweight to Chasm (and, btw, some of the other annoying defensive passives). If those other factors were to change, then I could see having a discussion about Kang. But...that's just how metagame balancing works. If it's unbalanced, you make a change and then monitor the metagame to see if you have to make more changes. Like MPQ has ever worked like this in its whole 10 years. It should, though, and there's zero practical reason why it can't.
@entrailbucket said:
If we take the rock/paper/scissors approach as the strategy for how the game should play, building a balanced metagame should be entirely possible. With however many characters and powers and interactions there are, it will be very complex to do and very time consuming. There will also be issues of rebalance and trying some things that don't work.
You can't move from a "one-changing-meta" game to a fully functioning "tri-meta" model quickly with only 1 release a month for each of the 3, 4 and 5* tiers (because it needs to replicate across all tiers - my view is that if you play only PvE or minimal PvP until 5*land, you're not likely to start when you get there).
You're correct that you can't get to a balanced metagame with one release a month.
Luckily, these characters are digital, not, say, printed paper cards, and so existing characters can be changed in any way, at any time.
Kang is every bit as OP as Chasm. I love his kit and use him daily in PvE and also in PvP. I'm fine with a nerf of either character, anything that changes the day to day is cool with me. Bonus points if it makes the forum and/or Reddit more interesting to read.
When you're using 2 Godboosted and fully covered 5* got kicked by lv360 Kang w/deathlock Of coz ,Kang is fine ,isn't it ?
@revskip said: Kang is every bit as OP as Chasm. I love his kit and use him daily in PvE and also in PvP. I'm fine with a nerf of either character, anything that changes the day to day is cool with me. Bonus points if it makes the forum and/or Reddit more interesting to read.
I totally disagree. Big difference between both and no one will deny it: in defense kang needs to fire active powers, and we know how poorly AI chases its AP, also how it fires powers. This can be applied to any other top character but chasm.
@Scofie said: @entrailbucket said: @Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: I think there MAY be cause to revisit this discussion down the line, but the metagame isn't there yet. Currently Kang is providing a sort of counterweight to Chasm (and, btw, some of the other annoying defensive passives). If those other factors were to change, then I could see having a discussion about Kang. But...that's just how metagame balancing works. If it's unbalanced, you make a change and then monitor the metagame to see if you have to make more changes. Like MPQ has ever worked like this in its whole 10 years. It should, though, and there's zero practical reason why it can't. If we take the rock/paper/scissors approach as the strategy for how the game should play, building a balanced metagame should be entirely possible. With however many characters and powers and interactions there are, it will be very complex to do and very time consuming. There will also be issues of rebalance and trying some things that don't work. You can't move from a "one-changing-meta" game to a fully functioning "tri-meta" model quickly with only 1 release a month for each of the 3, 4 and 5* tiers (because it needs to replicate across all tiers - my view is that if you play only PvE or minimal PvP until 5*land, you're not likely to start when you get there).
@Scofie said:
I agree with the last statement about PVP. I was never heavy into it, but I did use to chase points enough to get covers and CP. Right up until I reached 5* land and now I barely play at all in PVP. IMO it is just too broken, and I’m also unwilling to join in on line and collaborate for points…so I’m at a disadvantage from the start.
I think changes to PVP instead of changes to characters is the key to making it fun and engaging. In all this time the only change has been win counter rewards, encouraging even more collaboration and outside influence. I just don’t understand why they aren’t looking at making this part of the game more accessible.
@jp1 said: @Scofie said: @entrailbucket said: @Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: I think there MAY be cause to revisit this discussion down the line, but the metagame isn't there yet. Currently Kang is providing a sort of counterweight to Chasm (and, btw, some of the other annoying defensive passives). If those other factors were to change, then I could see having a discussion about Kang. But...that's just how metagame balancing works. If it's unbalanced, you make a change and then monitor the metagame to see if you have to make more changes. Like MPQ has ever worked like this in its whole 10 years. It should, though, and there's zero practical reason why it can't. If we take the rock/paper/scissors approach as the strategy for how the game should play, building a balanced metagame should be entirely possible. With however many characters and powers and interactions there are, it will be very complex to do and very time consuming. There will also be issues of rebalance and trying some things that don't work. You can't move from a "one-changing-meta" game to a fully functioning "tri-meta" model quickly with only 1 release a month for each of the 3, 4 and 5* tiers (because it needs to replicate across all tiers - my view is that if you play only PvE or minimal PvP until 5*land, you're not likely to start when you get there). I agree with the last statement about PVP. I was never heavy into it, but I did use to chase points enough to get covers and CP. Right up until I reached 5* land and now I barely play at all in PVP. IMO it is just too broken, and I’m also unwilling to join in on line and collaborate for points…so I’m at a disadvantage from the start. I think changes to PVP instead of changes to characters is the key to making it fun and engaging. In all this time the only change has been win counter rewards, encouraging even more collaboration and outside influence. I just don’t understand why they aren’t looking at making this part of the game more accessible.
@jp1 said:
I guess I'm curious about what sort of changes they could make, that would make PvP more accessible without opening it up to massive exploits. Most of the truly bizarre stuff in PvP (and there is a lot of it) is there because players found a way to break the game, and the devs had to change the rules.
Some of the common answers people give, like "create fake, high-value seed teams" would be broken immediately by players and also...aren't PvP, in the sense that you're not interacting with another player. We already have a PvE mode.
Kang is just so convenient in PVE against those beefy overscaled SCL10 enemies. He just makes those big health bars go away.
I see kang the same way I see shang chi. Great in the players hands, no problem at all in the AI's hands. If OP is serious and not just trolling maybe they can elaborate on what they think is a problem about kang. I can't imagine they're having a problem with them in pvp on offense.
Is it because players that "shouldnt" be able to beat your 550 pvp team are just sending them away? Is it that players that "shouldnt" be able to compete in pve are taking top spots by using the away team?
It's the same players in t10 PVE anyway. Since everyone is using Kang, it still comes down to Gorrkoye.
I think Chasm (and particularly Chasm/Hulk) is so powerful and annoying defensively that a lot of players may have gotten used to relative immunity from attacks.
Remember too that the "best team" before that was SW/Colossus, and the hoarders would've gone from those 550s to Chasm 550...so for a very, very long time, many of the top players have been basically immune to being attacked by anyone with a lesser roster. Kang allows significantly lesser rosters to hit them, and if there's one thing all these players HATE, it's being attacked by anyone, ever. There's a reason they all have truces in place with all the similar rosters.
I still don't think we can actually judge whether or not Kang is a problem until Chasm is gone. He might be!
@Bad said: @revskip said: Kang is every bit as OP as Chasm. I love his kit and use him daily in PvE and also in PvP. I'm fine with a nerf of either character, anything that changes the day to day is cool with me. Bonus points if it makes the forum and/or Reddit more interesting to read. I totally disagree. Big difference between both and no one will deny it: in defense kang needs to fire active powers, and we know how poorly AI chases its AP, also how it fires powers. This can be applied to any other top character but chasm.
@Bad said:
I mean I'm pretty sure everyone already knows where you stand on this particular hill. And your perspective is absolutely valid for you and how you play. As is mine for me and how I play, so I will absolutely say that there isn't a big difference for me between them and would ask that you perhaps restrict your opinion to those same parameters.
Ultimately no matter how you feel about the subject your perspective is just that, a perspective. Not wrong, not right, just how you see things. I don't have time to make the sheer volume of posts on the subject that you do so I'll leave it there.
@jp1 said: @Scofie said: @entrailbucket said:
I barely play at all in PVP. IMO it is just too broken, and I’m also unwilling to join in on line and collaborate for points…so I’m at a disadvantage from the start.
Applies to some extent to PvE too.
Knowing that you'll never achieve high placement if you don't schedule your life around the game does not engender great enthusiasm.