These characters need to be nerfed

Warbringa

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

I agree with the poor ascension plan but don't think she is too powerful as a champed 4*.

She has a low health pool and you can easily kill her. She excels against certain teams if paired correctly but gets ripped to shreds against others. There are certain teams (5* Juggs/5* Sam or Ascended Mbaku/Namor) that can rip her to shreds no matter who she is paired with. Rock/paper/scissors....

entrailbucket

@Warbringa said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

I agree with the poor ascension plan but don't think she is too powerful as a champed 4*.

She has a low health pool and you can easily kill her. She excels against certain teams if paired correctly but gets ripped to shreds against others. There are certain teams (5* Juggs/5* Sam or Ascended Mbaku/Namor) that can rip her to shreds no matter who she is paired with. Rock/paper/scissors....

Except she can beat absolutely anything, of any level. It's not rock/paper/scissors when you can pick rock every time and win every time.

Rock/paper/scissors means you need a team that May (or Hawkeye, or whoever) can't beat, when she's on offense. That metagame would be great!

entrailbucket

The real, real problem is that wins based PvP has created a ton of players who don't care about defense and can't imagine ever caring about defense. If everyone runs a team that wins the first turn on offense and loses the first turn on defense, that's good! We can all just trade instant wins forever, everybody gets their 20 wins in 2 minutes and we all finish at like 500 points.

I wish they'd just get rid of it, or change it so a defensive loss cost you a win.

Borstock

@entrailbucket said:

@Warbringa said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

I agree with the poor ascension plan but don't think she is too powerful as a champed 4*.

She has a low health pool and you can easily kill her. She excels against certain teams if paired correctly but gets ripped to shreds against others. There are certain teams (5* Juggs/5* Sam or Ascended Mbaku/Namor) that can rip her to shreds no matter who she is paired with. Rock/paper/scissors....

Except she can beat absolutely anything, of any level. It's not rock/paper/scissors when you can pick rock every time and win every time.

Rock/paper/scissors means you need a team that May (or Hawkeye, or whoever) can't beat, when she's on offense. That metagame would be great!

I disagree she can beat anyone. She enables your other characters to do that.

There are plenty of AoE teams she has trouble with. She's also a liability if the AI has a heavy hitter that can down your tank in one shot. She can't boost someone who is downed.

There are teams that win immediately without her and have higher health and/or defense. In fact, I use Agatha a lot more lately. She does similar stuff for my match dmg team and has around 100k more health.

DAZ0273

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

entrailbucket

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Warbringa said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

I agree with the poor ascension plan but don't think she is too powerful as a champed 4*.

She has a low health pool and you can easily kill her. She excels against certain teams if paired correctly but gets ripped to shreds against others. There are certain teams (5* Juggs/5* Sam or Ascended Mbaku/Namor) that can rip her to shreds no matter who she is paired with. Rock/paper/scissors....

Except she can beat absolutely anything, of any level. It's not rock/paper/scissors when you can pick rock every time and win every time.

Rock/paper/scissors means you need a team that May (or Hawkeye, or whoever) can't beat, when she's on offense. That metagame would be great!

I disagree she can beat anyone. She enables your other characters to do that.

There are plenty of AoE teams she has trouble with. She's also a liability if the AI has a heavy hitter that can down your tank in one shot. She can't boost someone who is downed.

There are teams that win immediately without her and have higher health and/or defense. In fact, I use Agatha a lot more lately. She does similar stuff for my match dmg team and has around 100k more health.

"Enables your other characters to do that" is arguing semantics. Also, there were teams that won immediately without Chasm. There were teams that could win without Gambit, or Bishop, or the original Sidewinder. Should they not have been nerfed? Chasm had counters too! They didn't need to nerf him because you could "rock/paper/scissors" him with, like Hit Monkey or Venom Rex!

I don't think this debate matters, because there are two groups of players here who just want different things, and we're never going to agree. I don't envy the devs trying to figure it out, either, because they can't make both groups happy at once. Hopefully once they figure out all the bugs they realize what a dumpster fire character balance is, and do something there.

If the game they want is one where everyone instantly wins every single match they play, and we all just trade wins up to 20 or 50 or whatever, they should remove the ELO stuff and the leaderboards entirely and shift PvP to progression only.

Borstock

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

entrailbucket

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

The fix for May is honestly so easy it's stupid.

Change her so her buff is based on who she's buffing, not her own tier. So when she buffs a 5* character they get the "May ascended to 5" level of buff, and when she buffs a 4 they get the current+3000% or whatever.

That leaves her usable for lower tier players, and fixes the munchkin problem where you drag her around as a 4* with a lvl672 Juggernaut or something.

entrailbucket

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

Borstock

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Warbringa said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

I agree with the poor ascension plan but don't think she is too powerful as a champed 4*.

She has a low health pool and you can easily kill her. She excels against certain teams if paired correctly but gets ripped to shreds against others. There are certain teams (5* Juggs/5* Sam or Ascended Mbaku/Namor) that can rip her to shreds no matter who she is paired with. Rock/paper/scissors....

Except she can beat absolutely anything, of any level. It's not rock/paper/scissors when you can pick rock every time and win every time.

Rock/paper/scissors means you need a team that May (or Hawkeye, or whoever) can't beat, when she's on offense. That metagame would be great!

I disagree she can beat anyone. She enables your other characters to do that.

There are plenty of AoE teams she has trouble with. She's also a liability if the AI has a heavy hitter that can down your tank in one shot. She can't boost someone who is downed.

There are teams that win immediately without her and have higher health and/or defense. In fact, I use Agatha a lot more lately. She does similar stuff for my match dmg team and has around 100k more health.

"Enables your other characters to do that" is arguing semantics. Also, there were teams that won immediately without Chasm. There were teams that could win without Gambit, or Bishop, or the original Sidewinder. Should they not have been nerfed? Chasm had counters too! They didn't need to nerf him because you could "rock/paper/scissors" him with, like Hit Monkey or Venom Rex!

I don't think this debate matters, because there are two groups of players here who just want different things, and we're never going to agree. I don't envy the devs trying to figure it out, either, because they can't make both groups happy at once. Hopefully once they figure out all the bugs they realize what a dumpster fire character balance is, and do something there.

If the game they want is one where everyone instantly wins every single match they play, and we all just trade wins up to 20 or 50 or whatever, they should remove the ELO stuff and the leaderboards entirely and shift PvP to progression only.

I remember having this argument about a totally different Marvel game built on the same premise of "you win all your games in PvP, but somehow lost 280 points overall because you didn't shield fast enough". Win 98% of your matches, lose every defensive match isnt a flaw, it's a feature. I don't care if I'm losing to a 550 HE or a 370 May. The losses count the same.

entrailbucket

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Warbringa said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

I agree with the poor ascension plan but don't think she is too powerful as a champed 4*.

She has a low health pool and you can easily kill her. She excels against certain teams if paired correctly but gets ripped to shreds against others. There are certain teams (5* Juggs/5* Sam or Ascended Mbaku/Namor) that can rip her to shreds no matter who she is paired with. Rock/paper/scissors....

Except she can beat absolutely anything, of any level. It's not rock/paper/scissors when you can pick rock every time and win every time.

Rock/paper/scissors means you need a team that May (or Hawkeye, or whoever) can't beat, when she's on offense. That metagame would be great!

I disagree she can beat anyone. She enables your other characters to do that.

There are plenty of AoE teams she has trouble with. She's also a liability if the AI has a heavy hitter that can down your tank in one shot. She can't boost someone who is downed.

There are teams that win immediately without her and have higher health and/or defense. In fact, I use Agatha a lot more lately. She does similar stuff for my match dmg team and has around 100k more health.

"Enables your other characters to do that" is arguing semantics. Also, there were teams that won immediately without Chasm. There were teams that could win without Gambit, or Bishop, or the original Sidewinder. Should they not have been nerfed? Chasm had counters too! They didn't need to nerf him because you could "rock/paper/scissors" him with, like Hit Monkey or Venom Rex!

I don't think this debate matters, because there are two groups of players here who just want different things, and we're never going to agree. I don't envy the devs trying to figure it out, either, because they can't make both groups happy at once. Hopefully once they figure out all the bugs they realize what a dumpster fire character balance is, and do something there.

If the game they want is one where everyone instantly wins every single match they play, and we all just trade wins up to 20 or 50 or whatever, they should remove the ELO stuff and the leaderboards entirely and shift PvP to progression only.

I remember having this argument about a totally different Marvel game built on the same premise of "you win all your games in PvP, but somehow lost 280 points overall because you didn't shield fast enough". Win 98% of your matches, lose every defensive match isnt a flaw, it's a feature. I don't care if I'm losing to a 550 HE or a 370 May. The losses count the same.

MPQ hasn't always been that way, and I don't think that's how it was designed. Yeah, you've always lost 99.9% of defensive fights, but you were losing to peers, and the purpose of building a roster was to limit the relative size of your peer group.

So again, if that's what they want it to be, if every single player should be in my peer group and roster is totally meaningless, fine, get rid of scores, shields, and leaderboards, and just make PvP progression-only.

Borstock

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

Borstock

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Warbringa said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

I agree with the poor ascension plan but don't think she is too powerful as a champed 4*.

She has a low health pool and you can easily kill her. She excels against certain teams if paired correctly but gets ripped to shreds against others. There are certain teams (5* Juggs/5* Sam or Ascended Mbaku/Namor) that can rip her to shreds no matter who she is paired with. Rock/paper/scissors....

Except she can beat absolutely anything, of any level. It's not rock/paper/scissors when you can pick rock every time and win every time.

Rock/paper/scissors means you need a team that May (or Hawkeye, or whoever) can't beat, when she's on offense. That metagame would be great!

I disagree she can beat anyone. She enables your other characters to do that.

There are plenty of AoE teams she has trouble with. She's also a liability if the AI has a heavy hitter that can down your tank in one shot. She can't boost someone who is downed.

There are teams that win immediately without her and have higher health and/or defense. In fact, I use Agatha a lot more lately. She does similar stuff for my match dmg team and has around 100k more health.

"Enables your other characters to do that" is arguing semantics. Also, there were teams that won immediately without Chasm. There were teams that could win without Gambit, or Bishop, or the original Sidewinder. Should they not have been nerfed? Chasm had counters too! They didn't need to nerf him because you could "rock/paper/scissors" him with, like Hit Monkey or Venom Rex!

I don't think this debate matters, because there are two groups of players here who just want different things, and we're never going to agree. I don't envy the devs trying to figure it out, either, because they can't make both groups happy at once. Hopefully once they figure out all the bugs they realize what a dumpster fire character balance is, and do something there.

If the game they want is one where everyone instantly wins every single match they play, and we all just trade wins up to 20 or 50 or whatever, they should remove the ELO stuff and the leaderboards entirely and shift PvP to progression only.

I remember having this argument about a totally different Marvel game built on the same premise of "you win all your games in PvP, but somehow lost 280 points overall because you didn't shield fast enough". Win 98% of your matches, lose every defensive match isnt a flaw, it's a feature. I don't care if I'm losing to a 550 HE or a 370 May. The losses count the same.

MPQ hasn't always been that way, and I don't think that's how it was designed. Yeah, you've always lost 99.9% of defensive fights, but you were losing to peers, and the purpose of building a roster was to limit the relative size of your peer group.

So again, if that's what they want it to be, if every single player should be in my peer group and roster is totally meaningless, fine, get rid of scores, shields, and leaderboards, and just make PvP progression-only.

What is the actual difference in losing to someone you don't consider to be in your peer group, now, versus when everyone was in your peer group? The results are exactly the same. There were WAY more players then.

I'm seeing the same people in PvP I've always seen. The same people run up 20-30 wins against me when they can. Yes, I know you say your experience in your slice is different, but I've played in three different slices recently. It's still that guy who hits me 10x for every one time I hit him, the player who only hits me if I hit them, the player who takes great joy in hitting people on shield hops, etc.... Probably 80 percent of my matches are against names I recognize.

I see no difference in PvP of late. Not really. It's still meta teams with meta supports. It's still getting hit 5x for every win if you're out there long enough at a high enough point value. The only difference I see is fewer people playing. It doesn't bother me to lose those matches to HE and May as opposed to Juggernaut and Sam. I'm losing either way.

entrailbucket

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

Then they need to change how they do the tiers. Currently the game tells you which characters are better by the number of stars. If that's not the case, and some 4* are supposed to be better than 5*, they need to find some new way to tell players that.

Painmonger

@entrailbucket said:

@bluewolf said:

@entrailbucket said:

@LuxAurae said:
I think the larger issue at hand here is playstyle. Defenders are wins only players, within likely a growing roster arguing against veterans with very wide, very deep rosters they built over countless of years and likely are used to shielding and playing for placement. Yes, even the Clochards.

Seeing a 1star you can buy for 20$ skip the entire mid game to compete with years of grind is not only a feel bad, but also economic suicide. That said the entire game repeatedly tries to kill its economy over and over..

Maybe one day we can get back to a place where rarity and grind matters, but it won’t be until 6s become achievable.

Thank you

Actually my only hesitation with Hawkeye etc is the $20. Lots of players are spending the $20, and that should give them an advantage over somebody who spends nothing at all ever -- even if the player who spent nothing was super "smart" and hoarded for years or whatever.

As for May, it's really 6* that signed her death warrant. They need to fix her somehow before 6* start running around, because Galactus plus May will torch the metagame immediately.

We will find out soon enough as the only player with a legit Galactus finished him with the No Pants Bundle.

I'd run Galactus plus May with Omnipotence City on him. If the third is a Godlike his HP should be around a million, and he can still only take 40k damage per turn. So sure, Hawkeye can still go infinite and generate infinite AP, but all those crits after the first will be doing zero damage.

Is it good? I'm not sure. But it'll take you at least 25 turns to kill him, and if the enemy team is getting to move the board at least 25 times, a LOT of things can go wrong for you. He also heals, which can set you back even further!

While playing the current Goose PvP I had a match what no supports triggered & lost SC pretty quick. I wanted to see what would happen, so I kept going with HE & Goose for a while. Eventually I looked at Goose's powers again & realized he has the insta-kill mechanic! It's entirely possible they could still take down Galactus without ever giving the enemy a turn.

entrailbucket

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Warbringa said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

I agree with the poor ascension plan but don't think she is too powerful as a champed 4*.

She has a low health pool and you can easily kill her. She excels against certain teams if paired correctly but gets ripped to shreds against others. There are certain teams (5* Juggs/5* Sam or Ascended Mbaku/Namor) that can rip her to shreds no matter who she is paired with. Rock/paper/scissors....

Except she can beat absolutely anything, of any level. It's not rock/paper/scissors when you can pick rock every time and win every time.

Rock/paper/scissors means you need a team that May (or Hawkeye, or whoever) can't beat, when she's on offense. That metagame would be great!

I disagree she can beat anyone. She enables your other characters to do that.

There are plenty of AoE teams she has trouble with. She's also a liability if the AI has a heavy hitter that can down your tank in one shot. She can't boost someone who is downed.

There are teams that win immediately without her and have higher health and/or defense. In fact, I use Agatha a lot more lately. She does similar stuff for my match dmg team and has around 100k more health.

"Enables your other characters to do that" is arguing semantics. Also, there were teams that won immediately without Chasm. There were teams that could win without Gambit, or Bishop, or the original Sidewinder. Should they not have been nerfed? Chasm had counters too! They didn't need to nerf him because you could "rock/paper/scissors" him with, like Hit Monkey or Venom Rex!

I don't think this debate matters, because there are two groups of players here who just want different things, and we're never going to agree. I don't envy the devs trying to figure it out, either, because they can't make both groups happy at once. Hopefully once they figure out all the bugs they realize what a dumpster fire character balance is, and do something there.

If the game they want is one where everyone instantly wins every single match they play, and we all just trade wins up to 20 or 50 or whatever, they should remove the ELO stuff and the leaderboards entirely and shift PvP to progression only.

I remember having this argument about a totally different Marvel game built on the same premise of "you win all your games in PvP, but somehow lost 280 points overall because you didn't shield fast enough". Win 98% of your matches, lose every defensive match isnt a flaw, it's a feature. I don't care if I'm losing to a 550 HE or a 370 May. The losses count the same.

MPQ hasn't always been that way, and I don't think that's how it was designed. Yeah, you've always lost 99.9% of defensive fights, but you were losing to peers, and the purpose of building a roster was to limit the relative size of your peer group.

So again, if that's what they want it to be, if every single player should be in my peer group and roster is totally meaningless, fine, get rid of scores, shields, and leaderboards, and just make PvP progression-only.

What is the actual difference in losing to someone you don't consider to be in your peer group, now, versus when everyone was in your peer group? The results are exactly the same. There were WAY more players then.

I'm seeing the same people in PvP I've always seen. The same people run up 20-30 wins against me when they can. Yes, I know you say your experience in your slice is different, but I've played in three different slices recently. It's still that guy who hits me 10x for every one time I hit him, the player who only hits me if I hit them, the player who takes great joy in hitting people on shield hops, etc.... Probably 80 percent of my matches are against names I recognize.

I see no difference in PvP of late. Not really. It's still meta teams with meta supports. It's still getting hit 5x for every win if you're out there long enough at a high enough point value. The only difference I see is fewer people playing. It doesn't bother me to lose those matches to HE and May as opposed to Juggernaut and Sam. I'm losing either way.

I do see a pretty significant difference, so I don't know what to tell you.

Borstock

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

Then they need to change how they do the tiers. Currently the game tells you which characters are better by the number of stars. If that's not the case, and some 4* are supposed to be better than 5*, they need to find some new way to tell players that.

Eh. I've never looked at them that way. That's their rarity. That tells me how hard it is to get more covers. One star covers flow freely. Five star covers are a trickle. Six star covers are....non existent?

entrailbucket

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

Then they need to change how they do the tiers. Currently the game tells you which characters are better by the number of stars. If that's not the case, and some 4* are supposed to be better than 5*, they need to find some new way to tell players that.

Eh. I've never looked at them that way. That's their rarity. That tells me how hard it is to get more covers. One star covers flow freely. Five star covers are a trickle. Six star covers are....non existent?

Why would a bad character be harder to get than a good character?

And more importantly, why would a character of higher level be worse than the same character at a lower level? None of this is intuitive, and it's not reversible either.

She's clearly an accident. The 4* version buffs more, because she's meant to be buffing 4*. The 5* version buffs less because she's meant to be buffing 5*. They didn't design her to be used with 672s (or 700s, and that's coming). Yes, it's stupid, because whoever designed her was stupid. It's absolutely fine to acknowledge that this is sort of thing is nonsense and like it anyway, but I don't get how you can pretend that it makes sense.

entrailbucket

@Painmonger said:

@entrailbucket said:

@bluewolf said:

@entrailbucket said:

@LuxAurae said:
I think the larger issue at hand here is playstyle. Defenders are wins only players, within likely a growing roster arguing against veterans with very wide, very deep rosters they built over countless of years and likely are used to shielding and playing for placement. Yes, even the Clochards.

Seeing a 1star you can buy for 20$ skip the entire mid game to compete with years of grind is not only a feel bad, but also economic suicide. That said the entire game repeatedly tries to kill its economy over and over..

Maybe one day we can get back to a place where rarity and grind matters, but it won’t be until 6s become achievable.

Thank you

Actually my only hesitation with Hawkeye etc is the $20. Lots of players are spending the $20, and that should give them an advantage over somebody who spends nothing at all ever -- even if the player who spent nothing was super "smart" and hoarded for years or whatever.

As for May, it's really 6* that signed her death warrant. They need to fix her somehow before 6* start running around, because Galactus plus May will torch the metagame immediately.

We will find out soon enough as the only player with a legit Galactus finished him with the No Pants Bundle.

I'd run Galactus plus May with Omnipotence City on him. If the third is a Godlike his HP should be around a million, and he can still only take 40k damage per turn. So sure, Hawkeye can still go infinite and generate infinite AP, but all those crits after the first will be doing zero damage.

Is it good? I'm not sure. But it'll take you at least 25 turns to kill him, and if the enemy team is getting to move the board at least 25 times, a LOT of things can go wrong for you. He also heals, which can set you back even further!

While playing the current Goose PvP I had a match what no supports triggered & lost SC pretty quick. I wanted to see what would happen, so I kept going with HE & Goose for a while. Eventually I looked at Goose's powers again & realized he has the insta-kill mechanic! It's entirely possible they could still take down Galactus without ever giving the enemy a turn.

There are a few of these, but they mostly require you to give the enemy at least one turn, and Galactus is going to hit really hard with just match damage.

I do agree that if Galactus/May becomes the entire metagame (whenever that is) people will start running stuff like Kang or Multiple Man, because it'll be much faster than waiting 25 turns.

Borstock

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@Borstock said:

@DAZ0273 said:
The fact that 3* May gets actually softcapped by players suggests that she really is a product of bad ascension design. She is waaaaay too powerful a tool for a max champ 4.

We're talking about a character with around 30k health. Is she really the problem? Or is the problem that Nova goes airborne turn 1 and you can't get her down? Or is the problem that Namor fires a crit turn 1 and M'Baku downs your whole team with match damage? Or is the problem that Juggernaut makes one match, Sam floods the board with strikes, and not even Electro can save you from that AoE?

I target May teams. I target 1a5HE teams.

I was talking characters with badly designed ascension characteristics. You shouldn't be able to build a team around a max 4* if you are a 5* player.

Why not? I don't understand this. If you're willing to leave yourself vulnerable by using a character with 30k health, that's a strategic choice. Is it the old "you should have to build up higher tier characters" argument? In a decade plus old game with 50,000 characters, that matters? Do people think they're going to get fewer retals if these characters get nerfed? Because you're not. A lot of the people using these characters at 1a5 550 or 3a4 370 have all the other toys at a high level. They'll just hit you with those.

Because surely the best version of a character should be the highest level they can be? In this case players are deliberately soft capping to get a better result. She completely undermines the whole concept of ascension. She wasn't tested or tried out, it would seem. It makes no real difference to me by the way, just calling out an obvious design flaw.

I think she enhances ascension because you have to ask yourself which version you prefer. I don't consider it a flaw. There's a choice you have to make. I am vehemently opposed to the fact that they don't let you know first, but that's a different issue.

There should never be a case where the ascended version is worse than the lower tier version. Ever. Every character needs to be unequivocally better when you ascend them.

Hard disagree. Ascension isn't only about making the character stronger. There are rewards you're passing up. There's defense you're passing up. I'm absolutely fine with characters being stronger at lower levels as long as there is a trade off. And there is.

Then they need to change how they do the tiers. Currently the game tells you which characters are better by the number of stars. If that's not the case, and some 4* are supposed to be better than 5*, they need to find some new way to tell players that.

Eh. I've never looked at them that way. That's their rarity. That tells me how hard it is to get more covers. One star covers flow freely. Five star covers are a trickle. Six star covers are....non existent?

Why would a bad character be harder to get than a good character?

And more importantly, why would a character of higher level be worse than the same character at a lower level? None of this is intuitive, and it's not reversible either.

She's clearly an accident. The 4* version buffs more, because she's meant to be buffing 4*. The 5* version buffs less because she's meant to be buffing 5*. They didn't design her to be used with 672s (or 700s, and that's coming). Yes, it's stupid, because whoever designed her was stupid. It's absolutely fine to acknowledge that this is sort of thing is nonsense and like it anyway, but I don't get how you can pretend that it makes sense.

Because we play a game where Okoye and Silver Surfer are in the same tier...and she's somehow better than he is (or at least was). The tiers are literally called rarities.