entrailbucket said: Daredevil217 said: I will say that it seems like at every MMR but the top .1%, PVP is finally diverse thanks to boosts. Past 1K the last few events I’ve seen every combination of IHulk, Rider, Bill, and Pool. Next week I likely won’t see any of them.It’s very a much appreciated change and actually rewards you for being a collector. I think the boosts are probably the best they can do to shift the meta because there is such a wide chasm between characters at the 5* level, that so many would need to be rebalanced that it would take an ungodly amount of developer time. And after all that labor we’d still find the best combo and run it into the ground. Might as well start MPQ2 at that point.I think the game has settled on not all being equal and I think that’s okay. Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.I think at this point the game strikes a good balance between giving us characters for everyone. I agree with pretty much everything you said and I *really* don't really want to start another 200,000-word debate (my hands hurt from writing that much).I don't think the amount of adjustments they'd need to do to fix the chasm is that huge. We all agree that tier 1 and tier 3 are really small relative to tier 2. If they did do it, the .01% PvP meta would look like it does for you -- rotating boosted characters would change the best combo every week. They could even start with tier 3, fix those guys, then see if the tier 1 guys were still overused.The few members of the 99.9% who are exclusively using the overpowered characters might suffer at first, yes, but...wouldn't they have more fun using different characters occasionally, like you, and hound, and others do? If they didn't have more fun, is that the game's problem or theirs?Remember, they're never all going to be equal. It's not possible. All I (and some others, and I think you secretly) want is for them to be more equal-er than they are now.
Daredevil217 said: I will say that it seems like at every MMR but the top .1%, PVP is finally diverse thanks to boosts. Past 1K the last few events I’ve seen every combination of IHulk, Rider, Bill, and Pool. Next week I likely won’t see any of them.It’s very a much appreciated change and actually rewards you for being a collector. I think the boosts are probably the best they can do to shift the meta because there is such a wide chasm between characters at the 5* level, that so many would need to be rebalanced that it would take an ungodly amount of developer time. And after all that labor we’d still find the best combo and run it into the ground. Might as well start MPQ2 at that point.I think the game has settled on not all being equal and I think that’s okay. Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.I think at this point the game strikes a good balance between giving us characters for everyone.
Daredevil217 said: entrailbucket said: Daredevil217 said: I will say that it seems like at every MMR but the top .1%, PVP is finally diverse thanks to boosts. Past 1K the last few events I’ve seen every combination of IHulk, Rider, Bill, and Pool. Next week I likely won’t see any of them.It’s very a much appreciated change and actually rewards you for being a collector. I think the boosts are probably the best they can do to shift the meta because there is such a wide chasm between characters at the 5* level, that so many would need to be rebalanced that it would take an ungodly amount of developer time. And after all that labor we’d still find the best combo and run it into the ground. Might as well start MPQ2 at that point.I think the game has settled on not all being equal and I think that’s okay. Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.I think at this point the game strikes a good balance between giving us characters for everyone. I agree with pretty much everything you said and I *really* don't really want to start another 200,000-word debate (my hands hurt from writing that much).I don't think the amount of adjustments they'd need to do to fix the chasm is that huge. We all agree that tier 1 and tier 3 are really small relative to tier 2. If they did do it, the .01% PvP meta would look like it does for you -- rotating boosted characters would change the best combo every week. They could even start with tier 3, fix those guys, then see if the tier 1 guys were still overused.The few members of the 99.9% who are exclusively using the overpowered characters might suffer at first, yes, but...wouldn't they have more fun using different characters occasionally, like you, and hound, and others do? If they didn't have more fun, is that the game's problem or theirs?Remember, they're never all going to be equal. It's not possible. All I (and some others, and I think you secretly) want is for them to be more equal-er than they are now. “Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.”Thoughts in this specifically?
Sekilicious said: Seems to me the meta changes weekly in Pick-2 if you don’t have 550 MMR. My self, I haven’t played Shang-Chi in two weeks or seen Switch at all. So the no-meta game exists. Rather than trying to optimize the game for a single, very vocal player, he should probably optimize his roster to the game. Sell some 550s or your top-10 characters. Balancing characters won’t change who is played at 550 anyways because there are very few 550s out there in the first place. The game is balanced for baby champed 5*s. Not max champed. Or you can admit to yourself that the reason you are bored in PvP is probably because you have been playing a match-3 game 30 to 50 times a day, every day for 8 years. Changing the way we match-3 slightly every few months won’t actually change that fact. As for card games not having a meta, that is because you all apparently don’t play card games. Hearthstone, as an example had metas that last for entire rotations (exaggeration I know) after which a new meta comes out because the old cards get shifted to Wild. The meta in Wild rarely changes because the developers know their business is based on new decks being released. I’ve heard MtG has a similar dynamic but am less familiar.
entrailbucket said: Daredevil217 said: entrailbucket said: Daredevil217 said: I will say that it seems like at every MMR but the top .1%, PVP is finally diverse thanks to boosts. Past 1K the last few events I’ve seen every combination of IHulk, Rider, Bill, and Pool. Next week I likely won’t see any of them.It’s very a much appreciated change and actually rewards you for being a collector. I think the boosts are probably the best they can do to shift the meta because there is such a wide chasm between characters at the 5* level, that so many would need to be rebalanced that it would take an ungodly amount of developer time. And after all that labor we’d still find the best combo and run it into the ground. Might as well start MPQ2 at that point.I think the game has settled on not all being equal and I think that’s okay. Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.I think at this point the game strikes a good balance between giving us characters for everyone. I agree with pretty much everything you said and I *really* don't really want to start another 200,000-word debate (my hands hurt from writing that much).I don't think the amount of adjustments they'd need to do to fix the chasm is that huge. We all agree that tier 1 and tier 3 are really small relative to tier 2. If they did do it, the .01% PvP meta would look like it does for you -- rotating boosted characters would change the best combo every week. They could even start with tier 3, fix those guys, then see if the tier 1 guys were still overused.The few members of the 99.9% who are exclusively using the overpowered characters might suffer at first, yes, but...wouldn't they have more fun using different characters occasionally, like you, and hound, and others do? If they didn't have more fun, is that the game's problem or theirs?Remember, they're never all going to be equal. It's not possible. All I (and some others, and I think you secretly) want is for them to be more equal-er than they are now. “Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.”Thoughts in this specifically? What do you think about the players who show up here and say that every character is completely useless unless they're "meta?"Isn't using different characters more fun? Wouldn't those PvE players have more fun if they used different characters? Should the game cater to players who want to use the same guy for everything forever?
Daredevil217 said: entrailbucket said: Daredevil217 said: entrailbucket said: Daredevil217 said: I will say that it seems like at every MMR but the top .1%, PVP is finally diverse thanks to boosts. Past 1K the last few events I’ve seen every combination of IHulk, Rider, Bill, and Pool. Next week I likely won’t see any of them.It’s very a much appreciated change and actually rewards you for being a collector. I think the boosts are probably the best they can do to shift the meta because there is such a wide chasm between characters at the 5* level, that so many would need to be rebalanced that it would take an ungodly amount of developer time. And after all that labor we’d still find the best combo and run it into the ground. Might as well start MPQ2 at that point.I think the game has settled on not all being equal and I think that’s okay. Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.I think at this point the game strikes a good balance between giving us characters for everyone. I agree with pretty much everything you said and I *really* don't really want to start another 200,000-word debate (my hands hurt from writing that much).I don't think the amount of adjustments they'd need to do to fix the chasm is that huge. We all agree that tier 1 and tier 3 are really small relative to tier 2. If they did do it, the .01% PvP meta would look like it does for you -- rotating boosted characters would change the best combo every week. They could even start with tier 3, fix those guys, then see if the tier 1 guys were still overused.The few members of the 99.9% who are exclusively using the overpowered characters might suffer at first, yes, but...wouldn't they have more fun using different characters occasionally, like you, and hound, and others do? If they didn't have more fun, is that the game's problem or theirs?Remember, they're never all going to be equal. It's not possible. All I (and some others, and I think you secretly) want is for them to be more equal-er than they are now. “Nerfs to top characters like Okoye, Shang, Apocalypse, Polaris and Thor might balance PVP more for the .1% but they would anger the 99.9% due to the impact on their PVE timing.”Thoughts in this specifically? What do you think about the players who show up here and say that every character is completely useless unless they're "meta?"Isn't using different characters more fun? Wouldn't those PvE players have more fun if they used different characters? Should the game cater to players who want to use the same guy for everything forever? I don't understand why you are answering my question with a completely different question. But I'll bite. There are plenty of progression-only people who use fun teams and can net top 100 (that's top 10%) playing sort of optimally, and have lots of fun. To them, most are usable, and the ones that aren't... hopefully, the developers buff them. The folks saying a character is only useful when meta are those who will only use the best tools (read: fastest team they have) no matter how many characters get reworked. Nerfing will only make those competitive people slower. And it will slow down those who some days want to use fast characters to blaze through PVE. I like that there are options for most playstyles right now.
entrailbucket said: I'm not interested in being part of that because it's not fun the way it is now. It's been fun at many times in the past, when the game was more balanced and you could compete with many strategies -- even ones that were slightly suboptimal. If it was fun, I'd love to compete again.
entrailbucket said: Borstock said: Metas are good. It means there exists a fast and efficient option for people who don't want to spend forever playing this game. If they made a new guy who insta-killed the enemy team every time he made a match, he'd be fast and efficient. Would that be good for the metagame?
Borstock said: Metas are good. It means there exists a fast and efficient option for people who don't want to spend forever playing this game.
Daredevil217 said: entrailbucket said: I'm not interested in being part of that because it's not fun the way it is now. It's been fun at many times in the past, when the game was more balanced and you could compete with many strategies -- even ones that were slightly suboptimal. If it was fun, I'd love to compete again. I’m curious when the last time it was fun for you was? What did the meta game look like (ie what were the different characters teams and strategies)? How long ago was this?
entrailbucket said: Daredevil217 said: entrailbucket said: I'm not interested in being part of that because it's not fun the way it is now. It's been fun at many times in the past, when the game was more balanced and you could compete with many strategies -- even ones that were slightly suboptimal. If it was fun, I'd love to compete again. I’m curious when the last time it was fun for you was? What did the meta game look like (ie what were the different characters teams and strategies)? How long ago was this? You're asking two questions. The game *is* fun for me now because I'm *not* competing. If I was playing competitively it wouldn't be fun.The last time *competing* was fun and diverse was Pre-Gambit. Panthos was the best team for eating cupcakes, omlpnx was still fairly widely used but easily countered, and almost every other 5* could be run competitively. Maxed out (370) boosted 4* were also viable, and I spent a lot of events exclusively using 4* to compete with 5*.When Gambit showed up he was One Hit Guy -- your choices were to use Gambit or lose. Since then, one or more characters have always occupied that role.
Sekilicious said: Hearthstone releases cards three times a year and nerfs cards about once between rotation. In standard there are only about 3 or 4 decks that are playable at any given time. Meta changes quite a bit because cards rotate out of standard into wild. Wild is rarely to never balanced. I have been there when nerfs happened soon after release so apparently ‘massive embarrassments’ happen quite frequently. I would be on board with a Standard (Maybe last 12 to 15 4 and 5*s in PvP) and Wild (in PvE) in MPQ, but the developers quite clearly are not. You missed the part where a nerf to Switch or Okoye would not affect who you see at all. Unless everyone with 550s quit immediately. But maybe that is what you want. As for the part where you are still having fun because you don’t play competitively it is shocking how much you care about the well being for competitive players (while deriding their life choices in other places) the majority of which are not even on this website anymore.