The aftermath of selling a post-nerf lvl.519 OML and what it taught me.

veny

After discovering combo 5* Hawkeye + Kamala + Wasp, i am realising how useless OML is (or even was).
And if they nerf Thanos, especially the 3* one, i am leaving for good

Justice Jacks

beyonderbub said:

orbitalint said:

beyonderbub said:

Remember when they first nerfed Silver Surfer after the test drive level 450 loaner node version was trouncing top 3 tier maxxed 4*s? Yeah, I don't believe they ever promised not to nerf 5*s. That's just forum urban legend that supports all these OML nerf whine threads. 

It was a dev response/comment in one of the community videos or posts they did somewhere soon after OML release.

Someone cited it actually during the OML nerf stuff but, go figure, it's really hard to search "OML" and any combination of phrases with any accuracy.

I'll see if I can turn it up again.

If that is the case, I apologize as I did not see that video. Thank you for your effort to find this.

To the OP, I sympathize with your plight; however, I'm sure you curb stomped many players with inferior rosters with your uber OML before you sold him. I'm still sorry if I seemed harsh earlier. Here's my take: if you invested in developing your 5*s (time and $) then you've held an advantage over many of your peers in PVP (climb to 1200 at will bc no one wants to take on 450+ 5* due to insufficient roster or too much time to beat when time is of the essence at end of pvp enemy)  but you have had it rough in PVE due to scaling (probably still good enough for top 25 finish, but top 5 and top 10 denied to you by faster 4* rosters). You've made the choice along which path to progress but should have been expecting that a correction would be coming. You can still have fun and enjoy MPQ but if dominating with OML was your only way to play, then those days are gone for now unless D3 decides to revisit their decision. Good luck and I hope you keep playing and posting. Thank you for your service as an LEO. 

1) Where did they ever promise they wouldn't nerf him?

2) Oh, so they did say they wouldn't nerf 5 stars, my bad. Sorry I sounded so harsh. 

3) You should have expected them to nerf him and it's your fault (not the devs) for making bad decisions in hindsight. 

This chain is an absolute case study in failure for a Logic 101 class. They didn't tell you that! Oh, they did tell you that, well, you shouldn't have believed them. You didn't just move the goalposts, you're playing a completely different sport at this point. 

Justice Jacks

Daredevil217 said:

beyonderbub said:

Phaserhawk said:

One avenue could be if there is proof that said they would never nerf a 5* which there appears to be, in WI verbal contracts are binding. 

IMO, this is forum hearsay attributed to misinterpretations of what was said by company reps in a promo video back in the day. Also people here quickly forget how they nerfed Silver Surfer hard after initial release because he was destroying maxxed 4 stars in a season demo 3-vs. 1 node back when they had those for you to test drive the new character release. 

Not only that, but D3 is protected (I'd imagine) because no one here purchased OML outright. The only thing you can buy with dollars is virtual currency (lots and lots of it) and hope RNG is kind. They don't guarantee anything.  Essentially they are selling virtual currency to purchase virtual lotto tickets. 

You're flat out wrong. Maybe leave the legal analysis to legal folks. If you buy a lottery ticket with a 1 in 10M chance at the $1M advertised prize, and you are lucky enough to get the winning ticket, the sellers can't then say "sorry, we're changing the top prize to $10,000 and a stick of gum."  While it's not a cut and dried issue, it certainly reads like a fairly standard false-advertising claim assuming you can prove that you spent your money specifically chasing OML (and it would help if you can show your reasonably relied on developer Q&A). 

Phaserhawk

I shot this question to a contract lawyer he said, no D3 is protected EULA lets them do anything.  Then I said what if they said this (in reference to never altering (nerfing) a 5* product. He said depending on the method of the promise, verbal, writing etc and the state, they created an amendment to the EULA thycan stand on its own and thus open themselves to litigation if they violated that amendment. It's no different than the constitution. If you don't take the amendments into consideration the federal government can do what they want much like the EULA but do to amendments they can't. So in short yes someone could sue and win easily but they will have to prove they were harmed by the violation and that will rule out most of the average player base but anyone spending cp directly or RNG in the hopes of getting him would have to prove harm and then would win. 

Jaedenkaal

beyonderbub said:

Phaserhawk said:

One avenue could be if there is proof that said they would never nerf a 5* which there appears to be, in WI verbal contracts are binding. 

IMO, this is forum hearsay attributed to misinterpretations of what was said by company reps in a promo video back in the day. Also people here quickly forget how they nerfed Silver Surfer hard after initial release because he was destroying maxxed 4 stars in a season demo 3-vs. 1 node back when they had those for you to test drive the new character release. 

Still waiting for someone to link this interview or video. 

beyonderbub

This is not it but an oldie but goodie re: 5*s 

https://youtu.be/DXYJLAdkmCE

Megdar

Phaserhawk said:

I shot this question to a contract lawyer he said, no D3 is protected EULA lets them do anything.

Not exactly, ask again to your lawyer. An EULA can't breach the law. If there is law that prevent doing something you can't just create a contract to change it.

In an extreme case example, event if you sign a contract that state that if you fail, the other party can kill you, the contract will be void.

It is like Video Game Eula, most of them, if not all of them, before the advent of digital download, were saying you could not resell your physical copy of the game. But I can garantee you that no company would have won in court by sueing you for selling your old game.

Even if they write they can do whatever they want with the product, there is consumer law that they must abid to.

Edit: If you could write anything in a contract, they would write that you could never sue them. And some even do in hope people will abid to it. But I garantee you, you would be able to sue a company even if their contract said you could not. You could probably even sue them over the fact they falsely said you could not sue them.

Phaserhawk

Megdar said:

Phaserhawk said:

I shot this question to a contract lawyer he said, no D3 is protected EULA lets them do anything.

Not exactly, ask again to your lawyer. An EULA can't breach the law. If there is law that prevent doing something you can't just create a contract to change it.

In an extreme case example, event if you sign a contract that state that if you fail, the other party can kill you, the contract will be void.

It is like Video Game Eula, most of them, if not all of them, before the advent of digital download, were saying you could not resell your physical copy of the game. But I can garantee you that no company would have won in court by sueing you for selling your old game.

Even if they write they can do whatever they want with the product, there is consumer law that they must abid to.

Edit: If you could write anything in a contract, they would write that you could never sue them. And some even do in hope people will abid to it. But I garantee you, you would be able to sue a company even if their contract said you could not. You could probably even sue them over the fact they falsely said you could not sue them.

Except you can't put things in contracts that aren't legal themselves or have precedent against them and yes there are many examples of companies going after people violating EULA or other things if they didn't occasionally people would walk all over them. However in what I was referring to, EULA does let them do whatever they want with their game in regards to their proprietary stuff. If they want to edit art to make Iron Man naked they can do that, you have no say. But if they said we will never make Iron man naked, now even though Their contract says they can, they created a new one that says they can't. It's why almost every company never makes a promise, they can be held accountable 

Megdar

Hooo you are the naive kind that think company never put illegal stuff in contract. We can stop talking there then...

Daredevil217

Justice Jacks said:

Daredevil217 said:

beyonderbub said:

Phaserhawk said:

One avenue could be if there is proof that said they would never nerf a 5* which there appears to be, in WI verbal contracts are binding. 

IMO, this is forum hearsay attributed to misinterpretations of what was said by company reps in a promo video back in the day. Also people here quickly forget how they nerfed Silver Surfer hard after initial release because he was destroying maxxed 4 stars in a season demo 3-vs. 1 node back when they had those for you to test drive the new character release. 

Not only that, but D3 is protected (I'd imagine) because no one here purchased OML outright. The only thing you can buy with dollars is virtual currency (lots and lots of it) and hope RNG is kind. They don't guarantee anything.  Essentially they are selling virtual currency to purchase virtual lotto tickets. 

You're flat out wrong. Maybe leave the legal analysis to legal folks. If you buy a lottery ticket with a 1 in 10M chance at the $1M advertised prize, and you are lucky enough to get the winning ticket, the sellers can't then say "sorry, we're changing the top prize to $10,000 and a stick of gum."  While it's not a cut and dried issue, it certainly reads like a fairly standard false-advertising claim assuming you can prove that you spent your money specifically chasing OML (and it would help if you can show your reasonably relied on developer Q&A). 

First, never stated I was a lawyer (I'm a psychologist), hence the "I would imagine" qualifier.

Second, the bolded part of your quote is what I was referring to.  I think it'd be difficult to prove a level 450 OML was purchased outright when only 10 possible covers could have been purchased. 

Phaserhawk

This article should always be near the top 

IlDuderino

Has J1P totally quit? I still feel bad for him

Ducky

***Locking this thread as nothing new is being discussed and discussing other player's play habits is against the rules***