Who said point of this game is to show off skill?
As long as you have a bigger gun, you win. Nobody cares if you're good with a sward.
I would rather use SL, Blade, Medusa to clear LOL than use carnage, KK or any other Meh tire. ... I dare you to disagree with me and than prove me you're right by defeating LOL or even ROL with your skills and KK only.
Blade requires skills. If you try to casually regenerate him in the middle of the fight without thinking, you will die. And in Act 5, no matter the champion, you still have all those pesky nodes against you that will make you play in different ways. So you actually need skill with any champ to explore it.
Furthermore, if you are using a pillow hands champion against the likes of duped Dormammu or Magik in Act 5, you will die. You need to make those fights short so that their degens and limbo do not kill you just by evading and fighting as usual. I am not even gonna talk about LoL.
I agree that people put Starlord in a pedestal, irrationally, and that is a champ that you need skills to play with. If you cannot avoid getting hit, Starlord is useless. Same with many of the "god-tier" champions. You still need skills to beat hard content with them. Even Iceman.
Act 4 was created before Iceman, Blade and Archangel, and as a general rule, new champions always help beat older content. (That is why I waited a bit before exploring act 5). Same with RttL. The place where you have to compare the champions is on Act 5, LoL and the occasional challenge. There you will find which champions are useful or not. or most importantly, how skilled you are and how much you know about your champions.
I think that hiding in all the hyperbole are a few good points. Namely, people often judge champions based on what they are told about them rather than what they can actually do; people assume that the potential of a champion is always easy to discover quickly by the playerbase; and that skill determines performance as much as champion design does. The problem is that it is lost in a sea of exaggeration.
All champions have different abilities and properties that generally make them good at some things and less good at doing other things. That means that in some situations there will be some champions that can deal with that content easily, some that can only do so with difficulty, and some that point blank cannot deal with it at all. If you can't block, reverse, impair, or outdamage RoL Wolverine's healing then no amount of skill can kill him, so there are some champions that can kill him easily, some that can kill him with significant skill and some that mathematically cannot.
So it isn't true that there is one best champ or just a few best champs. There are champs that are the best at certain content, and champions that are best in one area aren't always the best in other areas. But that doesn't mean all champs are equal and only skill divides them. Some champions have far more strengths relative to weaknesses than other champs. Voodoo has vastly more strengths relative to weaknesses than Falcon or Carnage. We can debate whether Iceman is better than Voodoo or Voodoo is better than Iceman, but there's no serious debate about whether Voodoo is better than Carnage. And that has nothing to do with skill: at any skill level that would be true.
We don't always know what the maximum potential of a champion is. From the time Magik was buffed I've seen at least three different "revelations" about her maximum potential: first her Limbo on defense, then the value of her power control, and then more recently what a very skilled driver can do with Limbo on offense in terms of leveraging it as a controllable heal. We may not yet even know what an even more skilled player might be able to figure out in the future. But the probability that someone will figure out how to skillfully extract enough performance out of Sentry to make him a better champion than Stark Spiderman, for example, is vanishingly low, because the math itself isn't there for skill to manipulate.
Just because the relative value and strengths of champions are blurry and not completely certain, doesn't mean we can't tell the difference between a top performing champion and a bottom performing champion. We might debate top tier and second tier. We will debate second tier and third tier forever. But at the widest margins, saying there aren't really any significant differences in strength, no "god tier" and "meh tier" champions, is a wild exaggeration of the truth that completely masks any reasonable point to be made. Are the strong champions "easier?" Of course: because they do the job. Are weaker champions still able to do the job anyway? Sometimes, yes. That doesn't mean there's no difference.
A car with worse gas mileage might still be able to get to all the places a car with better gas mileage does and just as quickly. But that doesn't mean fuel efficiency doesn't exist or is irrelevant. It just means that in any situations fuel efficiency doesn't define possibility, just practicality. But not always.
So some people agree on a level whereas some of you still think... well normal.
I'll just explain the core feat of this entire thread;
Eg;
Star Lord. 4* R5 Lvl 50 S99.
So long as you smash hit after hit after hit and dont get fragged yourself, hes such a powerful champion. He is one of the most showcased characters by youtubers.
Now i can tell you that sure hes great but everyone only uses him because the Meta grinders/youtubers and no lifers have made characters like him... gods, to the game. Everyone wants him because they seem what he could do.
Now Carnage was the opposite, ignor His sig bleed increase etc, if These meta grinders and youtubers couldnt comprehend Carnage so what did they do, made videos stating hes "Garabage, not Carnage". Now everyone else overlooks him
And its not just these two champs. So many get appraised by skilless players and abused by them and the playerbase is like a herd of sheep.... going where their Shepherd forces them too...
I don’t overlook carnage because some bloke on YouTube told me to. I overlook carnage because he is absolutely dire.
You overlook Carnage because you cannot play with hard tier champions. My point here exactly.
Nope. I’ve used him and there are just so many better options to use. I can play with any champion I want to, but when I have better options why would I take carnage into act 5?
As hard as I will stand by my understanding of all champions as a difficulty, this is good and pretty much what I mean.
You could say that champions with less strength are the "difficult" champions but there are champions that confound that description. Take Ghost Rider for example. Considered one of the strongest champions in the game, but many players don't see that strength. That's because he is an unconventional champion with many oddities to the way you can play him that greatly affect how much performance you get out of him. Because the way you play him determines what you get out of him to a much higher degree than, say, Captain Marvel, I'd say he is a more difficult champion to play effectively.
That means for me there are champions that are "difficult" but still "good" and "easy" champions that are nonetheless generally weaker. And Carnage is a champion that has both an unconventional mechanic that doesn't generate the same return on investment as a champion like Ghost Rider or Gwenpool, which makes Carnage for me both a difficult champion to play to reach its full potential *and* that full potential is lower than most other champions.
I would describe the difference in playstyle necessary to unlock full potential to be "difficulty" compared to the maximum potential of the champion its "strength." If you call relative strength "difficulty" then how do you articulate the difference between complexity of play and intrinsic champion design strengths?
We all know that Rulk in LOL is soloable with SL in about 250 hits no revives needed. Post a video of soloing him with Gamora or Gambit ( no revives) and I will send you a huge in game gift for schooling us.
Okay so we have all seen the posts and rants and videos of champions who fall into God, Great, Good or Meh categories.
A very large percentage of the playerbase will likely go Ballistic here once im done, so sit down have a read and please leave your ego at the beginning of the thread.
Everything you have seen is WRONG.
There are NO GOD TIER champions.
There are NO MEH/BAD champions.
YES, some champions get the job done better than others, and heres why;
Its not God, Great, Good, Meh/Bad.
Its a difficulty system.
You think im wrong or full of S***?
Have a think.
Heres some in the Easy category.
Hyperion, Star Lord, Blade, Scarlet Witch, Thor and Hulk. These champions are considered God by a lot of players. WRONG. They are simple and yes very effective, BUT, Dont think you have actual skill when using these champions as your using champions dumbed down to pure damage and health basis. EASY.
So what about Meh/Bad champions?
Ant-Man, Carnage, Collosus, Luke Cage, Sentry.
These champions all have a certain way to really make them stand out. (Sure Collosus might actually not be any good but hes here so deal with it)
These champions are very difficult to use and succeed frequently. This takes SKILL, and PRECISION. These champions are HARD champions.
Have a think ladies and gentlemen....
I hope I have opened a few eyes, especially Meta Grinders who have to watch youtube to be any good at this game.
Why have I done this?
Because for so long now I have been told that I can only use champions like Star Lord, Hyperion, Scarlett Witch for fights because they stomp all.
****.
I have taken teams of the Hard champions or 'Meh/Bad' against the likes of Maestro or even through Act V. Carnage, Ant-Man, Thor (Jane Foster), Vulture and Spider-Gwen.
These people succeed. They are overlooked because no-one in this game plays specific champions because they like them or they're favorites from comics, most the players grind the Meta and this games meta puts Easy-to-use champions as Gods.
Enjoy people. Enjoy.
hahaha.....I dare u to take carnage she hulk and colossus in map 6. 1 poison immune 1 bleed immune champ as well. Since you say people who use god tier champs have little skill why don't u use these 3 champs in map 6 and complete 3 routes all the days without using items.
Sorry to break it to you, but i probably could. I run Map 5 with Ultron, Carnage, SW (My bleed immune, my 'meh' champ and my nailgun) I usually swap the other two depending on mini bossed and this changes betweem either my 5* Superior Iron-Man or Sparky, then either YJ or Venom.
Probably could is meaningless. Do it then with a high prestige group. But regardless, your main point is flawed. You say people misunderstand. You refer to Carnage as a "hard-tier" champ rather than a bad champ. No one is disputing that bad champs would take more skill to complete hard content. You might as well say that 3*s are misunderstood. Very good players can complete hard content with 3*s. That doesn't make them misunderstood. Even the dev team admitted that they nerfed Carnage too hard before his release. He is a flawed champ and like all flawed champs he can still complete hard content with skill. Everyone knows this. No one is misunderstanding anything. There is nothing to see here. I took a 3* GR to AQ on map 5 for fun the other day. It doesn't make him misunderstood lol.
I really like this post,its thought provoking and I agree in principle, that less efficient champs are almost an increased difficulty curve. Many call out for more difficult content and it got answered with uncollected monthly events (which are great btw) but its no significant difference from using 3*s to 100% the master mode.
The only issue I have is that certain champs abilities do make them specific to overcoming certain obstacles in the game, and so do make them better as they can regenerate/heal block/power lock/reduce ability accuracy and so get past certain nodes that are impossible for other champions, and so hence these champ are a different class ... utility! I'd like these utility abilities that make certain champs "god tier" folded into mastery setups so these skills can be applied to a larger number of champions to reduce the requirement for specific champs (such as reduce the blade-mania that is currently sweeping the battlerealm, its crazy!!!)
Okay so we have all seen the posts and rants and videos of champions who fall into God, Great, Good or Meh categories.
A very large percentage of the playerbase will likely go Ballistic here once im done, so sit down have a read and please leave your ego at the beginning of the thread.
Everything you have seen is WRONG.
There are NO GOD TIER champions.
There are NO MEH/BAD champions.
YES, some champions get the job done better than others, and heres why;
Its not God, Great, Good, Meh/Bad.
Its a difficulty system.
You think im wrong or full of S***?
Have a think.
Heres some in the Easy category.
Hyperion, Star Lord, Blade, Scarlet Witch, Thor and Hulk. These champions are considered God by a lot of players. WRONG. They are simple and yes very effective, BUT, Dont think you have actual skill when using these champions as your using champions dumbed down to pure damage and health basis. EASY.
So what about Meh/Bad champions?
Ant-Man, Carnage, Collosus, Luke Cage, Sentry.
These champions all have a certain way to really make them stand out. (Sure Collosus might actually not be any good but hes here so deal with it)
These champions are very difficult to use and succeed frequently. This takes SKILL, and PRECISION. These champions are HARD champions.
Have a think ladies and gentlemen....
I hope I have opened a few eyes, especially Meta Grinders who have to watch youtube to be any good at this game.
Why have I done this?
Because for so long now I have been told that I can only use champions like Star Lord, Hyperion, Scarlett Witch for fights because they stomp all.
I have taken teams of the Hard champions or 'Meh/Bad' against the likes of Maestro or even through Act V. Carnage, Ant-Man, Thor (Jane Foster), Vulture and Spider-Gwen.
These people succeed. They are overlooked because no-one in this game plays specific champions because they like them or they're favorites from comics, most the players grind the Meta and this games meta puts Easy-to-use champions as Gods.
Enjoy people. Enjoy.
I can agree with this. Cleared much of Act 5.4 bleed lanes with Colossus and Cage (pre buff). Fights were longer but they were efficient and got the job done. Cage tore Morningstar up for me as well in act 5.4. Sometimes it takes creativity. I struggled for finding an answer for Ice Phoenix uncollected in my arsenal and eventually settled on an armor up team including WW2 to endure the snap and it worked perfectly. Sometimes you have to think outside the box and not everyone wants to do that.
I can agree with this. Cleared much of Act 5.4 bleed lanes with Colossus and Cage (pre buff). Fights were longer but they were efficient and got the job done. Cage tore Morningstar up for me as well in act 5.4. Sometimes it takes creativity. I struggled for finding an answer for Ice Phoenix uncollected in my arsenal and eventually settled on an armor up team including WW2 to endure the snap and it worked perfectly. Sometimes you have to think outside the box and not everyone wants to do that.
If you had an equal rank IceMan/GhostRider, would you have still taken Colossus and pre-buff LC into those Lanes?
See Im not fortunate, my best "God Tier" is Gwenpool and shes pretty cool for bleed, but my biggest heavy hitters are Carnage and Superior Iron-Man and I still manage to take down end game content with no Iceman, Star Lord or Blade...
Out of curiosity, I looked you up in-game (given your username, and the champs you refer to, I'm fairly certain I found the correct profile). Your titles do not support the claim that you've taken down much "end game content", other than the first Boss Rush.
In response to the actual topic; you can make the case that some champs are more difficult to play than others. You can make the case that skilled players can take down most content (outside of specific fights which require specific abilities) and unskilled players may not be able to take down that same content with any champ. You can also make the case that situational abilities can determine how useful a champ is. And you can even make the case that some champs are over/under-hyped by the community. But to assert that there is ultimately no difference between the overall usability (champion difficulty and player skill aside) of any champion is, in my opinion, unsupportable. Furthermore, I would argue it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the game meta.
The short version: Should we always listen to YouTubers? No. Do champions ultimately have different levels of usefulness? Yes.
PhonieStark is hilarious.
But are you saying that using "god tier" champs requires no skill? Idk about you but when i got in act 5 and i get hit once i am toast. No matter who you use, you will need some skill
Comments
Who said point of this game is to show off skill?
As long as you have a bigger gun, you win. Nobody cares if you're good with a sward.
I would rather use SL, Blade, Medusa to clear LOL than use carnage, KK or any other Meh tire. ... I dare you to disagree with me and than prove me you're right by defeating LOL or even ROL with your skills and KK only.
Furthermore, if you are using a pillow hands champion against the likes of duped Dormammu or Magik in Act 5, you will die. You need to make those fights short so that their degens and limbo do not kill you just by evading and fighting as usual. I am not even gonna talk about LoL.
I agree that people put Starlord in a pedestal, irrationally, and that is a champ that you need skills to play with. If you cannot avoid getting hit, Starlord is useless. Same with many of the "god-tier" champions. You still need skills to beat hard content with them. Even Iceman.
Act 4 was created before Iceman, Blade and Archangel, and as a general rule, new champions always help beat older content. (That is why I waited a bit before exploring act 5). Same with RttL. The place where you have to compare the champions is on Act 5, LoL and the occasional challenge. There you will find which champions are useful or not. or most importantly, how skilled you are and how much you know about your champions.
All champions have different abilities and properties that generally make them good at some things and less good at doing other things. That means that in some situations there will be some champions that can deal with that content easily, some that can only do so with difficulty, and some that point blank cannot deal with it at all. If you can't block, reverse, impair, or outdamage RoL Wolverine's healing then no amount of skill can kill him, so there are some champions that can kill him easily, some that can kill him with significant skill and some that mathematically cannot.
So it isn't true that there is one best champ or just a few best champs. There are champs that are the best at certain content, and champions that are best in one area aren't always the best in other areas. But that doesn't mean all champs are equal and only skill divides them. Some champions have far more strengths relative to weaknesses than other champs. Voodoo has vastly more strengths relative to weaknesses than Falcon or Carnage. We can debate whether Iceman is better than Voodoo or Voodoo is better than Iceman, but there's no serious debate about whether Voodoo is better than Carnage. And that has nothing to do with skill: at any skill level that would be true.
We don't always know what the maximum potential of a champion is. From the time Magik was buffed I've seen at least three different "revelations" about her maximum potential: first her Limbo on defense, then the value of her power control, and then more recently what a very skilled driver can do with Limbo on offense in terms of leveraging it as a controllable heal. We may not yet even know what an even more skilled player might be able to figure out in the future. But the probability that someone will figure out how to skillfully extract enough performance out of Sentry to make him a better champion than Stark Spiderman, for example, is vanishingly low, because the math itself isn't there for skill to manipulate.
Just because the relative value and strengths of champions are blurry and not completely certain, doesn't mean we can't tell the difference between a top performing champion and a bottom performing champion. We might debate top tier and second tier. We will debate second tier and third tier forever. But at the widest margins, saying there aren't really any significant differences in strength, no "god tier" and "meh tier" champions, is a wild exaggeration of the truth that completely masks any reasonable point to be made. Are the strong champions "easier?" Of course: because they do the job. Are weaker champions still able to do the job anyway? Sometimes, yes. That doesn't mean there's no difference.
A car with worse gas mileage might still be able to get to all the places a car with better gas mileage does and just as quickly. But that doesn't mean fuel efficiency doesn't exist or is irrelevant. It just means that in any situations fuel efficiency doesn't define possibility, just practicality. But not always.
No offense, but you kind of sound like a hipster. “I used Luke Cage before he was good”
Nope. I’ve used him and there are just so many better options to use. I can play with any champion I want to, but when I have better options why would I take carnage into act 5?
You could say that champions with less strength are the "difficult" champions but there are champions that confound that description. Take Ghost Rider for example. Considered one of the strongest champions in the game, but many players don't see that strength. That's because he is an unconventional champion with many oddities to the way you can play him that greatly affect how much performance you get out of him. Because the way you play him determines what you get out of him to a much higher degree than, say, Captain Marvel, I'd say he is a more difficult champion to play effectively.
That means for me there are champions that are "difficult" but still "good" and "easy" champions that are nonetheless generally weaker. And Carnage is a champion that has both an unconventional mechanic that doesn't generate the same return on investment as a champion like Ghost Rider or Gwenpool, which makes Carnage for me both a difficult champion to play to reach its full potential *and* that full potential is lower than most other champions.
I would describe the difference in playstyle necessary to unlock full potential to be "difficulty" compared to the maximum potential of the champion its "strength." If you call relative strength "difficulty" then how do you articulate the difference between complexity of play and intrinsic champion design strengths?
So much for all that skill..smh.
Probably could is meaningless. Do it then with a high prestige group. But regardless, your main point is flawed. You say people misunderstand. You refer to Carnage as a "hard-tier" champ rather than a bad champ. No one is disputing that bad champs would take more skill to complete hard content. You might as well say that 3*s are misunderstood. Very good players can complete hard content with 3*s. That doesn't make them misunderstood. Even the dev team admitted that they nerfed Carnage too hard before his release. He is a flawed champ and like all flawed champs he can still complete hard content with skill. Everyone knows this. No one is misunderstanding anything. There is nothing to see here. I took a 3* GR to AQ on map 5 for fun the other day. It doesn't make him misunderstood lol.
The only issue I have is that certain champs abilities do make them specific to overcoming certain obstacles in the game, and so do make them better as they can regenerate/heal block/power lock/reduce ability accuracy and so get past certain nodes that are impossible for other champions, and so hence these champ are a different class ... utility! I'd like these utility abilities that make certain champs "god tier" folded into mastery setups so these skills can be applied to a larger number of champions to reduce the requirement for specific champs (such as reduce the blade-mania that is currently sweeping the battlerealm, its crazy!!!)
Please rank 5 kamla khan
If you had an equal rank IceMan/GhostRider, would you have still taken Colossus and pre-buff LC into those Lanes?
Out of curiosity, I looked you up in-game (given your username, and the champs you refer to, I'm fairly certain I found the correct profile). Your titles do not support the claim that you've taken down much "end game content", other than the first Boss Rush.
In response to the actual topic; you can make the case that some champs are more difficult to play than others. You can make the case that skilled players can take down most content (outside of specific fights which require specific abilities) and unskilled players may not be able to take down that same content with any champ. You can also make the case that situational abilities can determine how useful a champ is. And you can even make the case that some champs are over/under-hyped by the community. But to assert that there is ultimately no difference between the overall usability (champion difficulty and player skill aside) of any champion is, in my opinion, unsupportable. Furthermore, I would argue it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the game meta.
The short version: Should we always listen to YouTubers? No. Do champions ultimately have different levels of usefulness? Yes.
At any moment Kabam can design content to highlight certain champs and hinder others.
But are you saying that using "god tier" champs requires no skill? Idk about you but when i got in act 5 and i get hit once i am toast. No matter who you use, you will need some skill