Prevalence of MThor and could she be the target of a rebalance?

entrailbucket

@Vhailorx said:

@entrailbucket said:
Hey, here's one -- how did everyone feel about the Sentry nerf? He was only good on offense, but he let you win any match against any team in 10 seconds. Did you like the Sentry era? Should they have left him alone because he was bad on defense?

Very hard to judge in retrospect because the game was so different then.

Should we still be able to bake cupcakes? I tend to think easy pvp climbing is good for players, but maybe it's only good for veteran players?

I was still below the endgame when sentry was nerfed and didn't have a strong opinion either way. I didn't love the xfw/Jane nerf 5 months later because it was so quickly followed by a shift to a 4* meta that probably would have made it less of a problem.

I don't mind cupcakes as a solution to the irritating PVP scoring system, but it was never great to have so much of the pvp endgame experience on Line instead of in game.

What's "irritating" about the PvP scoring system? And why is easy PvP climbing good for players?

Vhailorx

@entrailbucket said:

@Vhailorx said:

@entrailbucket said:
Hey, here's one -- how did everyone feel about the Sentry nerf? He was only good on offense, but he let you win any match against any team in 10 seconds. Did you like the Sentry era? Should they have left him alone because he was bad on defense?

Very hard to judge in retrospect because the game was so different then.

Should we still be able to bake cupcakes? I tend to think easy pvp climbing is good for players, but maybe it's only good for veteran players?

I was still below the endgame when sentry was nerfed and didn't have a strong opinion either way. I didn't love the xfw/Jane nerf 5 months later because it was so quickly followed by a shift to a 4* meta that probably would have made it less of a problem.

I don't mind cupcakes as a solution to the irritating PVP scoring system, but it was never great to have so much of the pvp endgame experience on Line instead of in game.

What's "irritating" about the PvP scoring system? And why is easy PvP climbing good for players?

the elo-style scoring system in pvp has always been irritating. it is poorly communicated to players, relies on lots of extrinsic factors, and is generally a "skill measuring" system in a "pay to win" freemium game.

i have long since given up expecting/hoping for any change, but the pvp system is fundamentally not great.

as for climbing: easy climbing meams more points in each slice, which makes the experience faster and easier for players. i think that is good.

Daredevil217

Wow this thread blew up. But it’s really just one player arguing with a bunch of people who seem pretty happy with the game and don’t let the presence of one character impact their play style.

What I’ve learned is there is a VAST variety with regards to how people play this game; which is cool. So when arguing with “other players” you need to be specific because there’s actually a wide range. So when you ask “do players really want/like X?”. It’s futile to ask because the answer will inevitably be yes for some and no for others. It’s disingenuous to then take two or three different players opinions and act like “players” on the whole are hypocritical. Of course they are all over the map, because they are different people who want different things! Now if the same player is shifting goal posts, that’s a different issue.

I really don’t think Jane gets nerfed personally. Bad’s Thorkoye example seems pretty spot on and she (and Shang) seem to be ‘23 version of that team. Glass cannon, punches up, used often. So knowing that it isn’t going to happen, if I was THAT bothered by the presence of this character I’d probably move on to a different game.

Also Thor is not the best at everything. She is not CLOSE to the best damage dealer (she’s good though). She’s also not CLOSE to the best defensive character. And is in fact very bad at it, which is where the balance lies. It’s an HUGE part of the game that is conveniently overlooked by her detractor. By the way, ascended 4s are likely the best level for level characters and it’s probably not even close.

There are many reasons why one may choose to play Jane. 1) she is the best fastest option that player has because not everyone has been playing since week 1 and maybe chose to enter the 5* (or 550) tier chasing a set of strong characters that could punch up? Doesn’t seem like a crazy strategy but if you believe everyone should play the game exactly like you, it could be bothersome I’m sure 2) People are creatures of habit and like routine/stability. 3) When paired with Shang it is a great health pack saver 4) Related to 3, if they are just chasing wins, it’s a great team because it invites easy retals while saving said packs 5) Some people play this as a toilet time passer and not everyone is interested in experimentation. So they will use suboptimal teams. 6) probably other reasons I can’t think of. It’s late here lol.

A lot of this is just the nature of the game and has been for 10 years. If the habits of other players that have been entrenched for a decade bother you that much, it might be time for another game.

entrailbucket

Sounds exactly like what Chasm's defenders said...

I still don't understand why you keep saying I want people to play the game like me, or how that invalidates everything I say.

I understand that you've invested a ton of resources into your new powerful toy and you don't want her nerfed, for your personal benefit, but a metagame that's only composed of one character is boring.

Maybe you like it! That's great! Enjoy endless mirror matches forever!

entrailbucket

@Vhailorx said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Vhailorx said:

@entrailbucket said:
Hey, here's one -- how did everyone feel about the Sentry nerf? He was only good on offense, but he let you win any match against any team in 10 seconds. Did you like the Sentry era? Should they have left him alone because he was bad on defense?

Very hard to judge in retrospect because the game was so different then.

Should we still be able to bake cupcakes? I tend to think easy pvp climbing is good for players, but maybe it's only good for veteran players?

I was still below the endgame when sentry was nerfed and didn't have a strong opinion either way. I didn't love the xfw/Jane nerf 5 months later because it was so quickly followed by a shift to a 4* meta that probably would have made it less of a problem.

I don't mind cupcakes as a solution to the irritating PVP scoring system, but it was never great to have so much of the pvp endgame experience on Line instead of in game.

What's "irritating" about the PvP scoring system? And why is easy PvP climbing good for players?

the elo-style scoring system in pvp has always been irritating. it is poorly communicated to players, relies on lots of extrinsic factors, and is generally a "skill measuring" system in a "pay to win" freemium game.

i have long since given up expecting/hoping for any change, but the pvp system is fundamentally not great.

as for climbing: easy climbing meams more points in each slice, which makes the experience faster and easier for players. i think that is good.

I'm not sure easy climbing is good for everyone -- remember each player you attack is losing points, sometimes at a 1-to-1 rate. Someone is paying for all those 75 point matches.

Daredevil217

@entrailbucket said:
Sounds exactly like what Chasm's defenders said...

I don’t know if this is in reference to my post but chasm was more Bishop than Thorkoye. I think many more people were beating that drum for a nerf. Glass cannons usually have a vocal minority crying out but it’s not as pervasive. I actually don’t see many similarities at all. Chasm was played because he was a free shield. He was by no means fast, and was the best defensive character, unlike Thor. Very little of what I wrote applies to Chasm defenders but I guess it’s easier to hand wave away a well constructed post than to actually look at the reality of the situation and debate actual points.

I’ll ask one question and then let you continue to try and convince folks that the way they’ve enjoyed playing the game is wrong. My question- Is unboosted Thor the unequivocally best hands down character every week or is she trivially stomped by the weekly boosted and is not the best character. You’ve been kind of all over the map on that point and I’m unsure what you’re actually arguing. I think another poster asked this earlier and I don’t think you answered. It seems to depend on the point you’re trying to argue. One is a developer issue. Another is a player issue. And when you want to rage against both you end up contradicting yourself.

Daredevil217

@entrailbucket said:
Sounds exactly like what Chasm's defenders said...

I still don't understand why you keep saying I want people to play the game like me, or how that invalidates everything I say.

I understand that you've invested a ton of resources into your new powerful toy and you don't want her nerfed, for your personal benefit, but a metagame that's only composed of one character is boring.

Maybe you like it! That's great! Enjoy endless mirror matches forever!

I see you added to this. Of course I don’t want my toy taken away. I also don’t want to take other people’s toys away. But I’m also not worried in the slightest that she will be taken away either. I lose zero sleep over it because I don’t see her as an issue as much as you try to convince me or others she is an issue. But carry on trying to convince us (I’m legit impressed with the amount of real life time and energy you’ve invested in this even in the short time I stepped away). I’m going to take my own advice and head to bed. Good night to all!

entrailbucket

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Sounds exactly like what Chasm's defenders said...

I don’t know if this is in reference to my post but chasm was more Bishop than Thorkoye. I think many more people were beating that drum for a nerf. Glass cannons usually have a vocal minority crying out but it’s not as pervasive. I actually don’t see many similarities at all. Chasm was played because he was a free shield. He was by no means fast, and was the best defensive character, unlike Thor. Very little of what I wrote applies to Chasm defenders but I guess it’s easier to hand wave away a well constructed post than to actually look at the reality of the situation and debate actual points.

I’ll ask one question and then let you continue to try and convince folks that the way they’ve enjoyed playing the game is wrong. My question- Is unboosted Thor the unequivocally best hands down character every week or is she trivially stomped by the weekly boosted and is not the best character. You’ve been kind of all over the map on that point and I’m unsure what you’re actually arguing. I think another poster asked this earlier and I don’t think you answered. It seems to depend on the point you’re trying to argue. One is a developer issue. Another is a player issue. And when you want to rage against both you end up contradicting yourself.

If you wrote a well-constructed post, I wouldn't handwave it away. I've got no idea what you're trying to say, beyond "the mean man is trying to take my toys."

I've been all over the map on what Thor is because no one else is consistent on what she is. There's 8 different players in here all saying different contradictory things at once. She's the best, they use her for everything, she's good, she's not, there's a wall, there isn't, the wall is good, if there was a wall it'd be fine but there's not... I'm trying to reply to each of them as if their argument is true, and asking "ok then what?"

This is unequivocally a developer issue. Overpowered characters are a developer issue. Players will use the overpowered character until there's an incentive not to.

entrailbucket

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Sounds exactly like what Chasm's defenders said...

I still don't understand why you keep saying I want people to play the game like me, or how that invalidates everything I say.

I understand that you've invested a ton of resources into your new powerful toy and you don't want her nerfed, for your personal benefit, but a metagame that's only composed of one character is boring.

Maybe you like it! That's great! Enjoy endless mirror matches forever!

I see you added to this. Of course I don’t want my toy taken away. I also don’t want to take other people’s toys away. But I’m also not worried in the slightest that she will be taken away either. I lose zero sleep over it because I don’t see her as an issue as much as you try to convince me or others she is an issue. But carry on trying to convince us (I’m legit impressed with the amount of real life time and energy you’ve invested in this even in the short time I stepped away). I’m going to take my own advice and head to bed. Good night to all!

Ah, the classic "you have no life" attack! You're here too. At least I'm not spreadsheet-planning my mobile game resource spend like a retirement account.

Bowgentle

@entrailbucket said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Hey, here's one -- how did everyone feel about the Sentry nerf? He was only good on offense, but he let you win any match against any team in 10 seconds. Did you like the Sentry era? Should they have left him alone because he was bad on defense?

I'm not sure how many people on this post beside you remember that. I've been playing almost since day 1, but at the time that was the meta I probably had like 1 cover for Sentry.

This can't be true, are all of you guys really that new? I think I was doing like 4000 points per event by then, with 10-match, 2-minute hops. I think Bow was around?

I was around, but at the time of the nerf we moved on to 4s.
As you know.

Bad

I'd really would liked EB being just 50% active of what it's being now when we were talking about nerfing chasm. Possibly devs would nerfed him after 2 months!
And chasm was really a broken character, and it changed pvp and the way to play it for everyone...Not like Mthor.

@entrailbucket said:

This is unequivocally a developer issue. Overpowered characters are a developer issue. Players will use the overpowered character until there's an incentive not to.

Actually what you want but you didn't think about it yet is to change subject and ask they nerf SC. He is the real culprit of messing your ideal game. So ask for a nerf for SC. After that ask for a nerf for colossus. He's pretty OP too. You wanted a nerf for SW, but sadly Mthor counters her pretty good, WTH ask another nerf for SW too because she can play without boosts too. Another one for Mthor of course, you earned it.Then okoye. Okoye must be nerfed at all costs in the case they update health and match damage. Another one for half health thor. Another one for Ihulk just in case.
Ok now they all are nerfed and everyone is ok only when boosted. Now you have your ideal game and you can play it happily.
Hey, what happens?
It happens that you are the only one playing it. Everyone has moved to another game.

Daredevil217

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Sounds exactly like what Chasm's defenders said...

I don’t know if this is in reference to my post but chasm was more Bishop than Thorkoye. I think many more people were beating that drum for a nerf. Glass cannons usually have a vocal minority crying out but it’s not as pervasive. I actually don’t see many similarities at all. Chasm was played because he was a free shield. He was by no means fast, and was the best defensive character, unlike Thor. Very little of what I wrote applies to Chasm defenders but I guess it’s easier to hand wave away a well constructed post than to actually look at the reality of the situation and debate actual points.

I’ll ask one question and then let you continue to try and convince folks that the way they’ve enjoyed playing the game is wrong. My question- Is unboosted Thor the unequivocally best hands down character every week or is she trivially stomped by the weekly boosted and is not the best character. You’ve been kind of all over the map on that point and I’m unsure what you’re actually arguing. I think another poster asked this earlier and I don’t think you answered. It seems to depend on the point you’re trying to argue. One is a developer issue. Another is a player issue. And when you want to rage against both you end up contradicting yourself.

If you wrote a well-constructed post, I wouldn't handwave it away. I've got no idea what you're trying to say, beyond "the mean man is trying to take my toys."

I've been all over the map on what Thor is because no one else is consistent on what she is. There's 8 different players in here all saying different contradictory things at once. She's the best, they use her for everything, she's good, she's not, there's a wall, there isn't, the wall is good, if there was a wall it'd be fine but there's not... I'm trying to reply to each of them as if their argument is true, and asking "ok then what?"

This is unequivocally a developer issue. Overpowered characters are a developer issue. Players will use the overpowered character until there's an incentive not to.

I see. So it’s a comprehension issue on your part since you’re not understanding the arguments. That makes sense. Like you said, there’s like 8 different players here. All have their own unique perspective. This makes sense because not everyone plays the game the same way. People strategize differently, allocate resources differently, build their rosters differently, play differently, play at different times, and get different things out of the game than you or I do. For some, depending on the aforementioned factors, Thor is a problem. For others, she is not. But the ways in which Thor is being argued to be problematic is very similar to the ways in which her five star male counterpart was argued against. He was not nerfed. Nor should he have been in my opinion. The people who did want him nerfed would disagree, and say that Jane also needs to be nerfed (I think you fall in that camp?). And that is completely fine. I have said repeatedly while I don’t want anyone’s toys taken away, I’m also not worried about “the mean man” doing so.

It’s not having no life I was commenting on. More the sheer dedication to this one particular thread. Like who are you really trying to convince? That was more my point. I’m sorry if it landed like you have no life. That’s mean and wasn’t my intention. If you’re right and she’s a problem, we’ll see. I don’t have to scream that loud because I believe I’m correct based on history of the game and patterns I’ve seen. If I’m wrong? Oh well. I’ve been wrong before. I have no problem if you want her nerfed (though probably because I believe she won’t be). I think you have a problem with people thinking she’s fine (because I think deep down you also know she won’t be).

You will continue to be confused if you continue to treat eight different people with eight different opinions like one person. Of course, that would be confusing!

As to your last point, you say, Thor is overpowered, but also say she is trivially stomped by the boosted characters of the week. So then what’s the problem? By your own admission she’s not the best. The developers did not make her better/faster than the weekly boosted. People are in fact choosing to play sub-optimal teams by your own admission. That’s a choice they get to make even if it makes EB mad. Chasm was the superior choice over boosted options because of the level of defense/free shield factor. This is opposite of Thor. I would skip Chas in favor of hitting boosted teams. Now I hit Thor/Shang first, mid-tier boosted second, OR/Colossus third, strong boosted 4th when their week comes up. The wall I see is OR/Colossus because of the defensive factor personally. Thats the closest thing to Chasm I see but not brokenly so. But again our experiences will vary based on a ton of factors that I’ve outlined repeatedly.

I’m fine if you don’t like Jane, want her toned down, or even if you’re a “mean man who wants to take players toys away”. None of that bothers me. But I will likely point out bad faith arguments.

TFrame

@entrailbucket said:

@TFrame said:

@entrailbucket said:
I started earlier yesterday and every team was Thor. Also, a bunch of players in this thread are saying they see a wall of Thor in PvP, but it's actually a good thing because...reasons, I guess.

If there's no wall, then that's fine. But why are people here saying that there is a wall and that's the way they like it?

You're still ignoring the fact that any Mthor team is easily beatable by pretty much any 5* roster. So, what, exactly is the problem?

So you don't think it's a problem for everyone to be running the same team, even if they're weak on defense? You don't think it's a problem that every character but two is irrelevant, and that all new characters are instantly DOA?

So, the strange thing is that you are describing a completely different game than I'm seeing and I wonder if it's because we play different slices (someone mentioned this at some point in this astoundingly long thread). What I'm seeing seems to be what you want. So, (and I'm not saying this facetiously, but as a serious suggestion/possible solution to the problem you're having) - have you considered playing pvp in a different slice? Before calling for a nerf?

Also, just to address you're "every new character is DOA" argument: Omega Red would like a word about that.

Bowgentle

@TFrame said:

@entrailbucket said:

@TFrame said:

@entrailbucket said:
I started earlier yesterday and every team was Thor. Also, a bunch of players in this thread are saying they see a wall of Thor in PvP, but it's actually a good thing because...reasons, I guess.

If there's no wall, then that's fine. But why are people here saying that there is a wall and that's the way they like it?

You're still ignoring the fact that any Mthor team is easily beatable by pretty much any 5* roster. So, what, exactly is the problem?

So you don't think it's a problem for everyone to be running the same team, even if they're weak on defense? You don't think it's a problem that every character but two is irrelevant, and that all new characters are instantly DOA?

So, the strange thing is that you are describing a completely different game than I'm seeing and I wonder if it's because we play different slices (someone mentioned this at some point in this astoundingly long thread). What I'm seeing seems to be what you want. So, (and I'm not saying this facetiously, but as a serious suggestion/possible solution to the problem you're having) - have you considered playing pvp in a different slice? Before calling for a nerf?

Also, just to address you're "every new character is DOA" argument: Omega Red would like a word about that.

What, no!
Don't give Bucket any ideas about visiting other slices.
He's perfectly well placed in s2, thank you very much.

MegaBee

@TFrame said:

@entrailbucket said:

@TFrame said:

@entrailbucket said:
I started earlier yesterday and every team was Thor. Also, a bunch of players in this thread are saying they see a wall of Thor in PvP, but it's actually a good thing because...reasons, I guess.

If there's no wall, then that's fine. But why are people here saying that there is a wall and that's the way they like it?

You're still ignoring the fact that any Mthor team is easily beatable by pretty much any 5* roster. So, what, exactly is the problem?

So you don't think it's a problem for everyone to be running the same team, even if they're weak on defense? You don't think it's a problem that every character but two is irrelevant, and that all new characters are instantly DOA?

So, the strange thing is that you are describing a completely different game than I'm seeing and I wonder if it's because we play different slices (someone mentioned this at some point in this astoundingly long thread). What I'm seeing seems to be what you want. So, (and I'm not saying this facetiously, but as a serious suggestion/possible solution to the problem you're having) - have you considered playing pvp in a different slice? Before calling for a nerf?

Also, just to address you're "every new character is DOA" argument: Omega Red would like a word about that.

Entrailbucket has a lot of level 550 characters. It's a whole different game at that level.

entrailbucket

@MegaBee said:

@TFrame said:

@entrailbucket said:

@TFrame said:

@entrailbucket said:
I started earlier yesterday and every team was Thor. Also, a bunch of players in this thread are saying they see a wall of Thor in PvP, but it's actually a good thing because...reasons, I guess.

If there's no wall, then that's fine. But why are people here saying that there is a wall and that's the way they like it?

You're still ignoring the fact that any Mthor team is easily beatable by pretty much any 5* roster. So, what, exactly is the problem?

So you don't think it's a problem for everyone to be running the same team, even if they're weak on defense? You don't think it's a problem that every character but two is irrelevant, and that all new characters are instantly DOA?

So, the strange thing is that you are describing a completely different game than I'm seeing and I wonder if it's because we play different slices (someone mentioned this at some point in this astoundingly long thread). What I'm seeing seems to be what you want. So, (and I'm not saying this facetiously, but as a serious suggestion/possible solution to the problem you're having) - have you considered playing pvp in a different slice? Before calling for a nerf?

Also, just to address you're "every new character is DOA" argument: Omega Red would like a word about that.

Entrailbucket has a lot of level 550 characters. It's a whole different game at that level.

I just finished Wasp today! She's #30!

entrailbucket

I don't think there's really any value in continuing this conversation, at this point. If the impression I'm giving is that I feel like other players are playing the game "wrong," that couldn't be further from the truth. I suspect everyone's interpreting it this way because no one here plays any other competitive games (and we've been over that point before). This is not a player issue, it's a developer issue.

DrClever

I'll add the anecdata here that on my alt account that is at the point where it has all 3s, four champed 4s (guess the fourth), and a smattering of 5s I favourited MThor from the start and use her a lot with great success.

She only needs one cover to be useful and barring those few occasions where she's excluded there's no scenario in which she's not in my most effective team.

revskip

@entrailbucket said:
Sounds exactly like what Chasm's defenders said...

I still don't understand why you keep saying I want people to play the game like me, or how that invalidates everything I say.

I understand that you've invested a ton of resources into your new powerful toy and you don't want her nerfed, for your personal benefit, but a metagame that's only composed of one character is boring.

Maybe you like it! That's great! Enjoy endless mirror matches forever!

This is my exact take. And I said it in a thread about this many pages asking for the Chasm nerf. If the goal is a diverse meta then nerfs and buffs are a constant necessity to keep from having the same characters popping up ad nauseum. When you nerf one the you need to be buffing from the bottom and getting ready to nerf the next most OP of the bunch.

All I'd like to see is consistency. If Chasm was OP enough to have over a dozen pages of folks arguing that he should be nerfed and then he was then every OP character should be nerfed or buffed to a median where diversity is the norm. mThor has clearly crossed that rubicon by having her own 17+ page thread.

It doesn't need to be that big of a nerf to bring her back to the median. Just remove the passive part of her blue power. She'll still be awesome at creating charged tiles, still have massive damage potential and still be very playable. She won't be OP by getting a free cascade machine every turn.

entrailbucket

@revskip said:

@entrailbucket said:
Sounds exactly like what Chasm's defenders said...

I still don't understand why you keep saying I want people to play the game like me, or how that invalidates everything I say.

I understand that you've invested a ton of resources into your new powerful toy and you don't want her nerfed, for your personal benefit, but a metagame that's only composed of one character is boring.

Maybe you like it! That's great! Enjoy endless mirror matches forever!

This is my exact take. And I said it in a thread about this many pages asking for the Chasm nerf. If the goal is a diverse meta then nerfs and buffs are a constant necessity to keep from having the same characters popping up ad nauseum. When you nerf one the you need to be buffing from the bottom and getting ready to nerf the next most OP of the bunch.

All I'd like to see is consistency. If Chasm was OP enough to have over a dozen pages of folks arguing that he should be nerfed and then he was then every OP character should be nerfed or buffed to a median where diversity is the norm. mThor has clearly crossed that rubicon by having her own 17+ page thread.

It doesn't need to be that big of a nerf to bring her back to the median. Just remove the passive part of her blue power. She'll still be awesome at creating charged tiles, still have massive damage potential and still be very playable. She won't be OP by getting a free cascade machine every turn.

Weird, I heard that I was the only player in the entire game that felt this way...