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

entrailbucket

Let's use a different metaphor, since I always forget that nobody here plays or ever has played any modern, balanced game.

What if, in chess, there was a sequence of moves you could do that would win the game for you 100% of the time, in 2 minutes, that couldn't be countered by the other player in any way? If you do this sequence you win the game every time, as long as you go first, no matter what I do.

Every player would always play this way -- in fact, any competitive player would be a fool to NOT use this strategy every time. Every match would be reduced to a coin flip. You go first, you win. But it wouldn't be the players' fault at all -- the fact that this strategy exists and hasn't been banned or removed from the game is 100% on the game designers. Players are incentivized to use the strongest strategy at all times.

Would you like to play chess if that strategy existed? Do you think it would be popular? Would you argue that it was a good thing that all matches ended in 2 minutes, because you just want to get your wins for the day as fast as possible? Would your argument be that the strategy only worked if you went first, so it wasn't really a problem?

What about other players who enjoyed the strategic aspects of the game, who liked variation, thinking, even randomness, generated by two players playing against each other? Would you accuse such a player of "trying to ruin your fun" or "wanting everyone to play the same way?" Are they wrong for liking what they like?

BriMan2222

@entrailbucket said:
Let's use a different metaphor, since I always forget that nobody here plays or ever has played any modern, balanced game.

What if, in chess, there was a sequence of moves you could do that would win the game for you 100% of the time, in 2 minutes, that couldn't be countered by the other player in any way? If you do this sequence you win the game every time, as long as you go first, no matter what I do.

Every player would always play this way -- in fact, any competitive player would be a fool to NOT use this strategy every time. Every match would be reduced to a coin flip. You go first, you win. But it wouldn't be the players' fault at all -- the fact that this strategy exists and hasn't been banned or removed from the game is 100% on the game designers. Players are incentivized to use the strongest strategy at all times.

Would you like to play chess if that strategy existed? Do you think it would be popular? Would you argue that it was a good thing that all matches ended in 2 minutes, because you just want to get your wins for the day as fast as possible? Would your argument be that the strategy only worked if you went first, so it wasn't really a problem?

What about other players who enjoyed the strategic aspects of the game, who liked variation, thinking, even randomness, generated by two players playing against each other? Would you accuse such a player of "trying to ruin your fun" or "wanting everyone to play the same way?" Are they wrong for liking what they like?

In this version of chess are there 2 human players playing, or is there one human player who always goes first against an AI that is significantly dumber than the human to the point where the human doesn't really need to use that sequence of moves because the human player could probably make any moves at random and still win 99% of the time?

entrailbucket

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Let's use a different metaphor, since I always forget that nobody here plays or ever has played any modern, balanced game.

What if, in chess, there was a sequence of moves you could do that would win the game for you 100% of the time, in 2 minutes, that couldn't be countered by the other player in any way? If you do this sequence you win the game every time, as long as you go first, no matter what I do.

Every player would always play this way -- in fact, any competitive player would be a fool to NOT use this strategy every time. Every match would be reduced to a coin flip. You go first, you win. But it wouldn't be the players' fault at all -- the fact that this strategy exists and hasn't been banned or removed from the game is 100% on the game designers. Players are incentivized to use the strongest strategy at all times.

Would you like to play chess if that strategy existed? Do you think it would be popular? Would you argue that it was a good thing that all matches ended in 2 minutes, because you just want to get your wins for the day as fast as possible? Would your argument be that the strategy only worked if you went first, so it wasn't really a problem?

What about other players who enjoyed the strategic aspects of the game, who liked variation, thinking, even randomness, generated by two players playing against each other? Would you accuse such a player of "trying to ruin your fun" or "wanting everyone to play the same way?" Are they wrong for liking what they like?

In this version of chess are there 2 human players playing, or is there one human player who always goes first against an AI that is significantly dumber than the human to the point where the human doesn't really need to use that sequence of moves because the human player could probably make any moves at random and still win 99% of the time?

I'm not comparing an MPQ match to a chess match (I knew somebody would immediately jump on that one, so thanks!).

I'm comparing a game that currently features a diverse set of relatively equal competitive strategies to one that contains one best strategy.

BriMan2222

@entrailbucket said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Let's use a different metaphor, since I always forget that nobody here plays or ever has played any modern, balanced game.

What if, in chess, there was a sequence of moves you could do that would win the game for you 100% of the time, in 2 minutes, that couldn't be countered by the other player in any way? If you do this sequence you win the game every time, as long as you go first, no matter what I do.

Every player would always play this way -- in fact, any competitive player would be a fool to NOT use this strategy every time. Every match would be reduced to a coin flip. You go first, you win. But it wouldn't be the players' fault at all -- the fact that this strategy exists and hasn't been banned or removed from the game is 100% on the game designers. Players are incentivized to use the strongest strategy at all times.

Would you like to play chess if that strategy existed? Do you think it would be popular? Would you argue that it was a good thing that all matches ended in 2 minutes, because you just want to get your wins for the day as fast as possible? Would your argument be that the strategy only worked if you went first, so it wasn't really a problem?

What about other players who enjoyed the strategic aspects of the game, who liked variation, thinking, even randomness, generated by two players playing against each other? Would you accuse such a player of "trying to ruin your fun" or "wanting everyone to play the same way?" Are they wrong for liking what they like?

In this version of chess are there 2 human players playing, or is there one human player who always goes first against an AI that is significantly dumber than the human to the point where the human doesn't really need to use that sequence of moves because the human player could probably make any moves at random and still win 99% of the time?

I'm not comparing an MPQ match to a chess match (I knew somebody would immediately jump on that one, so thanks!).

I'm comparing a game that currently features a diverse set of relatively equal competitive strategies to one that contains one best strategy.

Mpq does have diverse and relatively equal strategies now though. As daredevil has pointed out a few times, you've said that the boosted characters are actually a bit better than the predominant strategy. Just because people choose of their own free will not to use those other equal or even better strategies doesn't mean those strategies don't exist.

entrailbucket

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Let's use a different metaphor, since I always forget that nobody here plays or ever has played any modern, balanced game.

What if, in chess, there was a sequence of moves you could do that would win the game for you 100% of the time, in 2 minutes, that couldn't be countered by the other player in any way? If you do this sequence you win the game every time, as long as you go first, no matter what I do.

Every player would always play this way -- in fact, any competitive player would be a fool to NOT use this strategy every time. Every match would be reduced to a coin flip. You go first, you win. But it wouldn't be the players' fault at all -- the fact that this strategy exists and hasn't been banned or removed from the game is 100% on the game designers. Players are incentivized to use the strongest strategy at all times.

Would you like to play chess if that strategy existed? Do you think it would be popular? Would you argue that it was a good thing that all matches ended in 2 minutes, because you just want to get your wins for the day as fast as possible? Would your argument be that the strategy only worked if you went first, so it wasn't really a problem?

What about other players who enjoyed the strategic aspects of the game, who liked variation, thinking, even randomness, generated by two players playing against each other? Would you accuse such a player of "trying to ruin your fun" or "wanting everyone to play the same way?" Are they wrong for liking what they like?

In this version of chess are there 2 human players playing, or is there one human player who always goes first against an AI that is significantly dumber than the human to the point where the human doesn't really need to use that sequence of moves because the human player could probably make any moves at random and still win 99% of the time?

I'm not comparing an MPQ match to a chess match (I knew somebody would immediately jump on that one, so thanks!).

I'm comparing a game that currently features a diverse set of relatively equal competitive strategies to one that contains one best strategy.

Mpq does have diverse and relatively equal strategies now though. As daredevil has pointed out a few times, you've said that the boosted characters are actually a bit better than the predominant strategy. Just because people choose of their own free will not to use those other equal or even better strategies doesn't mean those strategies don't exist.

Except that's not what multiple people in this thread are arguing, at all. We can have a completely separate discussion about whether Thor herself is overpowered or whether she is bad for the game. I'm not even sure how I feel about that currently.

I'm seeing people argue that even if she's overpowered, even if she's the best by miles, it's actually GOOD for the game, because it lets them win faster, and she's "bad on defense" and that's unequivocally a good thing.

Bad

Mthor is fast? Now I realize it.
By herself all the damage she can do is just an accumulation of 7 blue, 8 yellow and 6 red. Is that fast?
Out of curiosity, people wanting her nef have played her ever?

Scofie

@entrailbucket said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Let's use a different metaphor, since I always forget that nobody here plays or ever has played any modern, balanced game.

What if, in chess, there was a sequence of moves you could do that would win the game for you 100% of the time, in 2 minutes, that couldn't be countered by the other player in any way? If you do this sequence you win the game every time, as long as you go first, no matter what I do.

Every player would always play this way -- in fact, any competitive player would be a fool to NOT use this strategy every time. Every match would be reduced to a coin flip. You go first, you win. But it wouldn't be the players' fault at all -- the fact that this strategy exists and hasn't been banned or removed from the game is 100% on the game designers. Players are incentivized to use the strongest strategy at all times.

Would you like to play chess if that strategy existed? Do you think it would be popular? Would you argue that it was a good thing that all matches ended in 2 minutes, because you just want to get your wins for the day as fast as possible? Would your argument be that the strategy only worked if you went first, so it wasn't really a problem?

What about other players who enjoyed the strategic aspects of the game, who liked variation, thinking, even randomness, generated by two players playing against each other? Would you accuse such a player of "trying to ruin your fun" or "wanting everyone to play the same way?" Are they wrong for liking what they like?

In this version of chess are there 2 human players playing, or is there one human player who always goes first against an AI that is significantly dumber than the human to the point where the human doesn't really need to use that sequence of moves because the human player could probably make any moves at random and still win 99% of the time?

I'm not comparing an MPQ match to a chess match (I knew somebody would immediately jump on that one, so thanks!).

I'm comparing a game that currently features a diverse set of relatively equal competitive strategies to one that contains one best strategy.

Mpq does have diverse and relatively equal strategies now though. As daredevil has pointed out a few times, you've said that the boosted characters are actually a bit better than the predominant strategy. Just because people choose of their own free will not to use those other equal or even better strategies doesn't mean those strategies don't exist.

Except that's not what multiple people in this thread are arguing, at all. We can have a completely separate discussion about whether Thor herself is overpowered or whether she is bad for the game. I'm not even sure how I feel about that currently.

I'm seeing people argue that even if she's overpowered, even if she's the best by miles, it's actually GOOD for the game, because it lets them win faster, and she's "bad on defense" and that's unequivocally a good thing.

Depends on your view. I don't play PvP much. Mostly I forget to join events at all because I have limited time. If I join and there's a wall of boosted 5*s and I have 10 mins left, I may just think I won't bother because it will take a while. If I see a team I can beat easily, I might play. Which is good for the game? Me playing with a strong team, or me not playing? Will it make any difference? Does anyone care?

This is all about time vs enjoyment for me. If that ratio is high, I won't play. If it's low, I might. But if you want me to spend 2 hours playing PvP for the good of the game, then I'll politely decline.

entrailbucket

@Bad said:
Mthor is fast? Now I realize it.
By herself all the damage she can do is just an accumulation of 7 blue, 8 yellow and 6 red. Is that fast?
Out of curiosity, people wanting her nef have played her ever?

If she's no good, why is everyone using her?

entrailbucket

@Scofie said:

@entrailbucket said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Let's use a different metaphor, since I always forget that nobody here plays or ever has played any modern, balanced game.

What if, in chess, there was a sequence of moves you could do that would win the game for you 100% of the time, in 2 minutes, that couldn't be countered by the other player in any way? If you do this sequence you win the game every time, as long as you go first, no matter what I do.

Every player would always play this way -- in fact, any competitive player would be a fool to NOT use this strategy every time. Every match would be reduced to a coin flip. You go first, you win. But it wouldn't be the players' fault at all -- the fact that this strategy exists and hasn't been banned or removed from the game is 100% on the game designers. Players are incentivized to use the strongest strategy at all times.

Would you like to play chess if that strategy existed? Do you think it would be popular? Would you argue that it was a good thing that all matches ended in 2 minutes, because you just want to get your wins for the day as fast as possible? Would your argument be that the strategy only worked if you went first, so it wasn't really a problem?

What about other players who enjoyed the strategic aspects of the game, who liked variation, thinking, even randomness, generated by two players playing against each other? Would you accuse such a player of "trying to ruin your fun" or "wanting everyone to play the same way?" Are they wrong for liking what they like?

In this version of chess are there 2 human players playing, or is there one human player who always goes first against an AI that is significantly dumber than the human to the point where the human doesn't really need to use that sequence of moves because the human player could probably make any moves at random and still win 99% of the time?

I'm not comparing an MPQ match to a chess match (I knew somebody would immediately jump on that one, so thanks!).

I'm comparing a game that currently features a diverse set of relatively equal competitive strategies to one that contains one best strategy.

Mpq does have diverse and relatively equal strategies now though. As daredevil has pointed out a few times, you've said that the boosted characters are actually a bit better than the predominant strategy. Just because people choose of their own free will not to use those other equal or even better strategies doesn't mean those strategies don't exist.

Except that's not what multiple people in this thread are arguing, at all. We can have a completely separate discussion about whether Thor herself is overpowered or whether she is bad for the game. I'm not even sure how I feel about that currently.

I'm seeing people argue that even if she's overpowered, even if she's the best by miles, it's actually GOOD for the game, because it lets them win faster, and she's "bad on defense" and that's unequivocally a good thing.

Depends on your view. I don't play PvP much. Mostly I forget to join events at all because I have limited time. If I join and there's a wall of boosted 5*s and I have 10 mins left, I may just think I won't bother because it will take a while. If I see a team I can beat easily, I might play. Which is good for the game? Me playing with a strong team, or me not playing? Will it make any difference? Does anyone care?

This is all about time vs enjoyment for me. If that ratio is high, I won't play. If it's low, I might. But if you want me to spend 2 hours playing PvP for the good of the game, then I'll politely decline.

This is really really common, to the point where it may be the majority opinion on this forum. But do you think it's a good thing that you don't enjoy playing the game part of the game?

The typical response is "I just want the rewards." But what will you DO with the rewards? They have no out of game value. They can only be used to build your roster, which can only be used to play the game. So what's the point?

skittledaddy

entrailbucket said:

If she's no good, why is everyone using her?

I essentially never use her in PVE or in PVP. And I always seek her out with my PolGrocket team in PVP.
If my team of 4*s that are supposedly countered in a significant way by MThor can beat her with ease, then she really isn't much of a candidate for the nerf bat.

entrailbucket

@skittledaddy said:

entrailbucket said:

If she's no good, why is everyone using her?

I essentially never use her in PVE or in PVP. And I always seek her out with my PolGrocket team in PVP.
If my team of 4*s that are supposedly countered in a significant way by MThor can beat her with ease, then she really isn't much of a candidate for the nerf bat.

If no one is using her, why am I only seeing her in my list of PvP opponents?

Scofie

@entrailbucket said:

@Scofie said:

@entrailbucket said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@entrailbucket said:
Let's use a different metaphor, since I always forget that nobody here plays or ever has played any modern, balanced game.

What if, in chess, there was a sequence of moves you could do that would win the game for you 100% of the time, in 2 minutes, that couldn't be countered by the other player in any way? If you do this sequence you win the game every time, as long as you go first, no matter what I do.

Every player would always play this way -- in fact, any competitive player would be a fool to NOT use this strategy every time. Every match would be reduced to a coin flip. You go first, you win. But it wouldn't be the players' fault at all -- the fact that this strategy exists and hasn't been banned or removed from the game is 100% on the game designers. Players are incentivized to use the strongest strategy at all times.

Would you like to play chess if that strategy existed? Do you think it would be popular? Would you argue that it was a good thing that all matches ended in 2 minutes, because you just want to get your wins for the day as fast as possible? Would your argument be that the strategy only worked if you went first, so it wasn't really a problem?

What about other players who enjoyed the strategic aspects of the game, who liked variation, thinking, even randomness, generated by two players playing against each other? Would you accuse such a player of "trying to ruin your fun" or "wanting everyone to play the same way?" Are they wrong for liking what they like?

In this version of chess are there 2 human players playing, or is there one human player who always goes first against an AI that is significantly dumber than the human to the point where the human doesn't really need to use that sequence of moves because the human player could probably make any moves at random and still win 99% of the time?

I'm not comparing an MPQ match to a chess match (I knew somebody would immediately jump on that one, so thanks!).

I'm comparing a game that currently features a diverse set of relatively equal competitive strategies to one that contains one best strategy.

Mpq does have diverse and relatively equal strategies now though. As daredevil has pointed out a few times, you've said that the boosted characters are actually a bit better than the predominant strategy. Just because people choose of their own free will not to use those other equal or even better strategies doesn't mean those strategies don't exist.

Except that's not what multiple people in this thread are arguing, at all. We can have a completely separate discussion about whether Thor herself is overpowered or whether she is bad for the game. I'm not even sure how I feel about that currently.

I'm seeing people argue that even if she's overpowered, even if she's the best by miles, it's actually GOOD for the game, because it lets them win faster, and she's "bad on defense" and that's unequivocally a good thing.

Depends on your view. I don't play PvP much. Mostly I forget to join events at all because I have limited time. If I join and there's a wall of boosted 5*s and I have 10 mins left, I may just think I won't bother because it will take a while. If I see a team I can beat easily, I might play. Which is good for the game? Me playing with a strong team, or me not playing? Will it make any difference? Does anyone care?

This is all about time vs enjoyment for me. If that ratio is high, I won't play. If it's low, I might. But if you want me to spend 2 hours playing PvP for the good of the game, then I'll politely decline.

This is really really common, to the point where it may be the majority opinion on this forum. But do you think it's a good thing that you don't enjoy playing the game part of the game?

The typical response is "I just want the rewards." But what will you DO with the rewards? They have no out of game value. They can only be used to build your roster, which can only be used to play the game. So what's the point?

I don't think it matters at all that I don't enjoy playing PvP. I still play the game. I'm classed as a hard-core player according to a recent-ish survey. If a get anything at all from bracket sniping then it's a bonus. Those rewards go into characters I use for PvE where I can use them all at different times to my hearts content depending on different scenarios and how much time I have to spare.

Bad

@entrailbucket said:

If she's no good, why is everyone using her?

Maybe because she is fun?

Scofie

@Bad said:

@entrailbucket said:

If she's no good, why is everyone using her?

Maybe because she is fun?

I think she's fun to play against too. Not all the time, but occasionally.

skittledaddy

entrailbucket said:

@skittledaddy said:

entrailbucket said:

If she's no good, why is everyone using her?

I essentially never use her in PVE or in PVP. And I always seek her out with my PolGrocket team in PVP.
If my team of 4*s that are supposedly countered in a significant way by MThor can beat her with ease, then she really isn't much of a candidate for the nerf bat.

If no one is using her, why am I only seeing her in my list of PvP opponents?

I didn't say no one is. I obviously see her, too, if I am able to seek her out of my queues.
I was just responding to your "everyone" comment.

Yes, lots of players are using her. I consider that a good thing because it makes for easy wins when playing against her (at least the soft-capped and baby-champed versions I see).

entrailbucket

@Bad said:

@entrailbucket said:

If she's no good, why is everyone using her?

Maybe because she is fun?

And because she's fun for you, she must be fun for everyone? Everyone should enjoy what you enjoy, or they're wrong?

Scofie

@entrailbucket said:

@Bad said:

@entrailbucket said:

If she's no good, why is everyone using her?

Maybe because she is fun?

And because she's fun for you, she must be fun for everyone? Everyone should enjoy what you enjoy, or they're wrong?

There's a certain irony to that comment that I just can't put my finger on....?

Bowgentle

My god people, STOP.
We're going in circles for the 15th time.

MegaBee

@entrailbucket said:

@Bad said:
Mthor is fast? Now I realize it.
By herself all the damage she can do is just an accumulation of 7 blue, 8 yellow and 6 red. Is that fast?
Out of curiosity, people wanting her nef have played her ever?

If she's no good, why is everyone using her?

I'm not seeing an overwhelming number of people using MThor in PvP. I wish more would since I target those teams!

DrClever

@skittledaddy said:
I always seek her out with my PolGrocket team in PVP.

Interesting. Who do you see her paired with?

Do you find MThor+Polaris just as straightforward?