To many Okoyes and Thors on PVP

Phumade said:

Borstock said:

I am currently ranked around 205 in the PvP Simulator. For our purposes, I went through 100 opponents by pressing skip and compiled how many of those teams included Okoye, Thor, Both, or Neither. Obviously, some of the teams showed up more than once, but I think it represents what the matchmaker in this game offered. Here are the results:

Thor+Okoye - 61
Thor only - 16
Okoye only - 5
Neither - 18

Read into it what you will. 

That’s not entirely fair or honest.  In sim you can pick all 3 chars, in pvp only 2 out of 3.  Those selection rules alone will change the ratio.

 205 in sim at this point represents what 1800?  When your scores that high you might as well be faced with a teams.

a. More accurate sample is start psylocke from 0 at the start of event and report your next 20 matches.

not wait till end of event.

First, I resent the premise that I wasn't being honest. I didn't even draw any conclusions. I just posted the data.

Secondly, if the concern is whether or not we see too much of Thor and Okoye, Simulator is just as valid a place as any to check that. So what if you can pick from 3? You still choose from a roster that includes many 5* characters at this point, and people are still picking them over not them a huge majority of the time. 

Finally, at where I am in Simulator, I'm not getting the cream puffs you get at 0, but I am getting more options than if I was #1 overall and the matchmaker was only giving me the same six players to fight over and over. I feel, from where I am ranked in the current sim, the teams I get are the teams most of the players on these forums get, assuming that if you care enough to spend time on the game's dedicated web forum, you're probably playing more than casually. You're also likely to be playing more than casually if you have a representative enough roster to be playing in the 5* tier.

I say enjoy it while it lasts. 5-star Captain Marvel will be the new meta, after her movie arrives next year. Then we can all read complaints about how the only thing anyone sees in PvP is her and <insert character here>.

Thor and Okoye are just the flavor-of-the-month right now. If you don't like it, don't worry - they won't last forever. No 5-star meta ever has.

DeNappa said:

Well, the other choice is to remain in 4* meta, with probably a seemingly endless stream of Grocket/Gamora. 

For non-Simulator PvP I rarely run in to Grocket/Gamora.  When I do and they aren't boosted, its usually a pretty easy win. In the Simulator, they are fairly common (around 20%-40% of my matches), but also fairly easy to beat with a few well known combos. Due to that there is still a fair amount of variety. 

Boost 5* in PVP!!!!

The easiest way to get different 5*s used in PVP is to start boosting some 5* in PVP.  I run Thor Okoye myself because it is fast.  But if say Per Parker was boosted this event that very well may change who I run.  Nobody runs Phoenix because of her baby health but if she were boosted that would change.  We have almost thirty 5* now and none are bad some just need a little boost. (Except Wasp, Banner, and Ock they are bad and need a big boost!)

CharlieCroker said:

Daredevil217 said:

What is crazy is I predicted all this in the thread discussing Gambit’s nerf. People talked about having a whole new world of character diversity that would open up once Gambit was nerfed and I said once people settled on a new meta (which I said would be Thor) we’d go right back to staleness. I was basically told I don’t know what I’m talking about because I’m a 4* player lol. Turns out more and more I’m reading about just how right I was (here, alliance chat, Line). 

But the big difference as many people pointed out at the time is now you don't have to have one specific character to reliably win matches.   As Phumade pointed out, you can reliably beat Okoye/Thor with any combination of 5*s and/or boosted 4*s.  That simply wasn't true during the majority of the era of Gambit.

I also find the current meta much more enjoyable within matches than with Gambit where the strategy was nearly always to hold off firing red/purple until the enemy had.  Which in some cases could go on well past the respective 7ap and 11ap thresholds.  Now I can actually use ap as and when I want to (and can actually collect and keep ap without it being drained with no counter).

You do however have a legitimate point about people reverting to a new meta.  But the way the game is structured, that's not going to change unless the game does.  The vast majority of players will always gravitate towards the latest quickest/strongest combo.

You’re speaking about two separate points that often get convoluted. In fact people made several arguments as to why Gambit should be nerfed and acted like it was all one big argument, but they’re actually separate arguments and only one had any validity.

1) Some people argued that you NEED to have your own Gambit to beat him which was proven false by other posters who not only could beat him without their own Gambit but chose to out of sheer boredom. I remember one person in particular who posted a list of teams he had success with in beating Gambit and did so pretty consistently. 

2) The meta is boring. All I fight is Gambit + X. I remember there was a thread dedicated to people celebrating all the PVP diversity they were enjoying in a post-Gambit world. I of course said this was a honeymoon and once a new meta was settled on we’d be right back at stale. That’s what this thread is really about. It has nothing to do with whether or not the meta is beatable. It’s about it being boring. 

3) Gambit is hard. This is the only real argument people made that I thought had validity. I can beat it, but it’s difficult, it’s not a guarantee and it’s going to cost me health packs to do so. That’s a very fair point. Though it is similar to the Grocket meta. You can beat it. But it will cost you packs. And it’s may be better just to skip. Now people have been able to develop some
niche counters (Dazzler will be one as more people get her) but that’s what happens when you have a tier that’s 75 characters deep.

Malcrof said:

Ok, fellow forumites, i updated my gamependium (below in sig is link), i have lost to the Thorkoye many times, any ideas on a good counter with what i have?

I'll do better than that for you.  I'll join Psylocke PvP and PM wins to you on LINE using those 5*s and perhaps boosted 4* too.  However I will give you that your particular options are particularly slow and outdated even compared to latter low-mid tier releases.  I do not envy your position at all and would not enjoy PvP at all.

@Daredevil217 we and others have debated the Gambit situation numerous times in previous threads and I don't intend to revisit it behind saying that whilst I accept some of your points, MY experience was I hated the Gambit meta, I struggled to beat Gambit without my own (at least before having Thor champed) and I found it extremely boring and repetitive.  No doubt I'll get to that stage with the current meta but I'm not there just yet.

Twomp_thaDJ said:

Daredevil217 said:

What is crazy is I predicted all this in the thread discussing Gambit’s nerf. People talked about having a whole new world of character diversity that would open up once Gambit was nerfed and I said once people settled on a new meta (which I said would be Thor) we’d go right back to staleness. I was basically told I don’t know what I’m talking about because I’m a 4* player lol. Turns out more and more I’m reading about just how right I was (here, alliance chat, Line). 

I said back then Gambit and Thor were symptoms of a bigger problem that is the 5* tier. I would really like to see PVP get an overhaul in general. It’s sad that combined arms is most people’s favorite event and it’s because they can’t play their most powerful characters and instead can use more of their rosters.  What we need is more reasons to use more of our rosters. In the 3/4* tier boost lists do the job pretty well. But other than PVE essentials we have no real reason to use 90% of our characters we worked so hard to build up once we enter the 5* game. I think it was Spider-Man Run I played a long time ago that gave you multipliers for running certain characters each event. They encouraged having a fleshed our roster as any character might be picked each event.  We need something more than our rosters being digital janitors keys that allow us access to a node once a year but sit their doing nothing else otherwise.

This is the predominant reason I am in no rush to champ any 5 star characters. My PvP life does just fine not having to worry bout seeing that every match. I do run into a lot of the boosted 4 stars for that event but that’s constantly changing so I can actually enjoy playin PvP.. well as much as anyone can enjoy playing PvP lol

This is blown way out of proportion. Don’t listen to that. I only had 30+ 4* champs when I champed my first 5*. I haven’t regretted it since. PVE is faster. 1200 in pvp is a piece of cake. You’ll still see your fair share of max champed 4* teams even with multiple 5* champs. There’s plenty of variety in s1, s3, or s4. Between regular teams, grills, & teams used to blow up grills, there’s plenty of variety.

Don’t believe the hype 

Space Dwarf said:

Twomp_thaDJ said:

Daredevil217 said:

What is crazy is I predicted all this in the thread discussing Gambit’s nerf. People talked about having a whole new world of character diversity that would open up once Gambit was nerfed and I said once people settled on a new meta (which I said would be Thor) we’d go right back to staleness. I was basically told I don’t know what I’m talking about because I’m a 4* player lol. Turns out more and more I’m reading about just how right I was (here, alliance chat, Line). 

I said back then Gambit and Thor were symptoms of a bigger problem that is the 5* tier. I would really like to see PVP get an overhaul in general. It’s sad that combined arms is most people’s favorite event and it’s because they can’t play their most powerful characters and instead can use more of their rosters.  What we need is more reasons to use more of our rosters. In the 3/4* tier boost lists do the job pretty well. But other than PVE essentials we have no real reason to use 90% of our characters we worked so hard to build up once we enter the 5* game. I think it was Spider-Man Run I played a long time ago that gave you multipliers for running certain characters each event. They encouraged having a fleshed our roster as any character might be picked each event.  We need something more than our rosters being digital janitors keys that allow us access to a node once a year but sit their doing nothing else otherwise.

This is the predominant reason I am in no rush to champ any 5 star characters. My PvP life does just fine not having to worry bout seeing that every match. I do run into a lot of the boosted 4 stars for that event but that’s constantly changing so I can actually enjoy playin PvP.. well as much as anyone can enjoy playing PvP lol

This is blown way out of proportion. Don’t listen to that. I only had 30+ 4* champs when I champed my first 5*. I haven’t regretted it since. PVE is faster. 1200 in pvp is a piece of cake. You’ll still see your fair share of max champed 4* teams even with multiple 5* champs. There’s plenty of variety in s1, s3, or s4. Between regular teams, grills, & teams used to blow up grills, there’s plenty of variety.

Don’t believe the hype 

It seems for as many people in 5* land who have your experience there are plenty of others who struggle to reach 500 when they used to be able to hit 900 as a 4* player. Do you have all the good meta 5s that are trapped in Classic purgatory? Because I started a thread asking 5* players for their experience and it was all over the board. One of the biggest factors I think was who people had as their champed. So don’t assume your experience is going to be indicative of everyone else’s. 

Spudgutter said: no

Borstock said:

Phumade said:

Borstock said:

I am currently ranked around 205 in the PvP Simulator. For our purposes, I went through 100 opponents by pressing skip and compiled how many of those teams included Okoye, Thor, Both, or Neither. Obviously, some of the teams showed up more than once, but I think it represents what the matchmaker in this game offered. Here are the results:

Thor+Okoye - 61
Thor only - 16
Okoye only - 5
Neither - 18

Read into it what you will. 

That’s not entirely fair or honest.  In sim you can pick all 3 chars, in pvp only 2 out of 3.  Those selection rules alone will change the ratio.

 205 in sim at this point represents what 1800?  When your scores that high you might as well be faced with a teams.

a. More accurate sample is start psylocke from 0 at the start of event and report your next 20 matches.

not wait till end of event.

First, I resent the premise that I wasn't being honest. I didn't even draw any conclusions. I just posted the data.

I guess you are reporting the data, but i think for the purpose if the argument, it is still skewed data. 

By giving your placement instead of score, we can only guess where you are in the field of opponents.  The second half of that is also pertinent, because where you are in the field will also dictate where you are in the meta.

For example, i am at 2 wins, 148 points, 1368th place.  Of the 5 opponents, there are 9 different 5* and 1 4*(America), two people using Thorkoye.  

Next, because of where you are in the meta, you left out how many repeat opponents you saw.  You concede that there were some in there, but how many?  You could have skipped 100 times, but since you weren't progressing in score, you were *more* likely to see repeats due to the broken matchmaking, and giving off a false reading.  Did you see the same 3-5 people over and over again?  After seeing them 20 times, did the game finally give you a break on your MMR and show you a different opponent, only for you to skip them and get back into that 3-5 loop again?

No offense, i applaud the effort, but i think it probably says more about broken matchmaking than it does broken meta.  If i just sat at 2 wins and skipped 100 times, the opponents would be vastly different than at 25 wins, and that is the point that some of us are making, that the *climb* is much more varied now.

If you wanted my score, all you needed to do was ask. It's 1675. And most of the skips yielded different player opponents. Not all, but most by a lot. That was the point of me doing it while there were 200 people above me and why I used that instead of score. The matchmaker offers you more options than if I were top 10, but I'm also matched to players that play often.