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

Bowgentle

@entrailbucket said:

@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...

Well naturally the guy who started the thread is still asking for her to get nerfed.

Bad

@revskip said:

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.

Now that's a super funny threshold. If a thread has 17 pages the character should be nerfed. Great stuff here! You only need EB commenting about his ideal game and the thread will have 17 pages.

I like to see consistency too. Bring me a broken character and I'd vote for a nerf.
However chasm has been already nerfed and I don't see any other.

Scofie

I'd say that if there are 9 different ways of playing the game and everyone is happy with how they play then it's not a developer issue.

I get it though: everyone else's choices of play style affect the overall game environment in the way that you want to play. You can't control everyone, or convince them that there's a better way to play, regardless of how much energy you want to spend. And you can't stop people complaining about their experience being less fun as a result of that game environment being worse for them.

But there are always choices to change the environment. Switch slices, start a new roster, play at different times, don't play exclusively on the toilet. The list goes on. That's far easier and more likely to succeed than a succession of nerfs of the next best thing.

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....?