The overwhelming disrespect of the Logan & Gambit Nerfpocolypse ( and why everyone should care)

Jonny1Punch

I am not gonna waste the communities time with regurgitated subject matter or another "nerf gambit!" war-cry tantrum.  My main goal is to simply highlight the disparity between how these two troublesome toons were handled and the blatant disregard D3 has shown for our input & investments. 

The actual nerfs:

With Old man logan we had a middle tier, fan favorite who many chased hard. To my memory no one wanted a nerf nor was he considered OP by anyone. In fact at the time of his nerf he was already being buried alive by the new meta of Panthos. So we had a situation that affected D3's bottom line w/ healthpack sales yet were fed some "10% usage" **** and he was given a few sets of child safety scissors for his claws, overnerfed into the grave and shoved into the bargain bin known as classics. No one wanted this yet it was forced on us and completely devalued our time, energy and money spent.

Enter Gambit. The most ridiculously overpowered, untested, extremely broken & "pvp for dummies" autopilot 6*.... errr.... 5*. Never in my 1530 days of MPQ have I seen such an instant and overwhelming request for a nerf ASAP and with good reason. Players who don't have him of course wanted him nerfed.... what got me was the amount of players who DO have him and at very high levels who seem to want him nerfed just as bad. They know more then anyone how gamebreaking and toxic he is to the overall game and kills every other 5*. So what happens when we actually want a nerf? He gets handled with such delicate, precise care and ends up receiving a buff instead. Unbelievable.  

The compensation:

Now this is where I draw the line. Keep in mind many do not ask for actual refunds or money, but a fair and appropriate level of in-game resources. CS and D3 would have us believe this is actual physical gold we are dealing with when in reality it is absolutely worthless, virtual monopoly money. Yet the characters they change are often those we spend significant time energy and money chasing.

OML had to be at a certain level before he qualified for compensation and then was giventhe insulting & abysmal 2:1 compensation rate. For every 2 champed levels you got 1 token for a random 5*. What a joke right?

Gambit got instant 1:1 compensation. 1 guaranteed 5* token for every cover you had, leveled or not. This was a much better compensation and a step in the right direction. But they were both cash cows at one point and are both 5*.... so why the massive difference in compensation?

Of course I was ignored by CS,Brigby & D3 when I asked for everyone who sold OML to get retroactive compensation due to the fact we got 50% less then what gambit sellers got. Missing out on all those extra 5* covers is huge and completely unfair. This compensation along with how the nerfs/buffs overall have been handled has been extremely insulting to the entire playerbase and very sloppy, bad business overall. Agree or Disagree I don't care, but this affects us all in so many more ways not listed above. Shame on you D3 for being so out of touch with the playerbase.... or maybe you just don't care and want a quick buck while this game slowly circles the drain.

Dangerous precedents have been set in how new characters are being released and old ones nerfed unnecessarily. 

//Removed Profanity -Brigby

Dogface

While i get your point about the difference in nerfing, the part about the compensation falls flat. Who would trade in their G5mbit if, as you say, he only got stronger?

Jonny1Punch

The point had nothing to do with character strength or value. Gambit received 1:1 compensation which was 2x what OML received with 2:1 compensation. Both were the same 5* tier. Both nerfed. So why did one get half the compensation of the other was the point.

Daiches

You forget the part where Gambit is still in Latest and thus available for swaps. Meaning every 550 Gambit, or undercovered Gambit in need of a swap, gets 2 5stars (one other color Gambit/Latest, one token) when they swap. Kinda ridiculous 

RemoDestroyer

Jonny1Punch said

With Old man logan we had a middle tier, fan favorite who many chased hard. To my memory no one wanted a nerf nor was he considered OP by anyone. In fact at the time of his nerf he was already being buried alive by the new meta of Panthos. No one wanted this yet it was forced on us and completely devalued our time, energy and money spent.

For some reason I do remember requests to nerf OML. Maybe it quieted down some since Thanos was released but I'm pretty sure there were still players that thought and voiced their opinions that OML was a little overpowered. Even if it was no longer true at the time he was nerfed.

NewMcG

Oh good, let's revisit the time that someone rage-sold his OML after the nerf because he was "quitting".

bluewolf

A couple thoughts:

It is possible that they learned from the prior compensation and its poor reception and decided to be more fair this time around.

What I think is more likely is this:  While it was certainly possible - somewhat - to still whale OML at the time he was nerfed, most whaling probably had taken place some time (a year or so) before he was nerfed.  All - all - all money spent in game is at best giving you a temporary advantage.  There's no such thing in a game as having a permanent advantage.  The point being, the devs could argue that players who had whaled OML at the time he was the new hotness got a long period of time of using him at full power - and therefore they got a lot of "their money's worth".  Gambit is still the new hotness and is fully a current whaling target, therefore, if somehow a player felt it was worth selling him, they would deserve more compensation in recognition that they did not get as much time using him as a meta-leader.  I personally believe they either slightly reduced his power or just made him powerful in a different way, and did not in any way reduce his status as the most important 5* to have.  But regardless, this is an argument for the compensation difference.  (The devs will never state this, since formally acknowledging the temporariness of your advantage would dissuade people from spending in the first place.)

A slightly different thought is this: 
Both the OML nerf and the introduction of Gambit (in either form) starkly represent something interesting:  the devaluation of the 5* roster and the temporary nature of the advantage gained from whaling. 

OML's nerf showed that no one can expect even a character that they spend $1000s of dollars on to not be nerfed.  You are only buying the character in the state it is in for as long as the developers decide you should have it.  And don't expect to somehow convert that character into the newest character if, down the line, that character is nerfed.  You can be angry about this, but it is 100% the truth about the game and its developers.

Gambit is interesting because in a lot of ways, he shows that you could have spent on every 5* before him and have a lot of them be mostly worthless now.  Yes, there are characters to pair with him (Bolt), and people can use other teams with some success, and Gambit has been reigned in from utter and complete dominance to mostly dominant.  But he still is the 5* champ you need (assuming you have 2+) if you want to compete for top scores in PVP.  So, say, the $20,000 or whatever you spent earlier on 18 5*'s is trumped by whatever you spend on Gambit now.  And I don't believe that was truly the case with any prior 5* - they were all beatable and you could use most of them in some way.  (Ahem, not Hulk).  So now we just wait for the 5.75* character that trumps Gambit to make the investment in him drop in value.

NEVER spend money on this or any game that you can't consider throwaway or fun money.  Some consider $100's or $1000's throwaway money - good for them.   If you can't, stop or at least be aware of what you are doing.

broll

Moral of the story, just don't ask for nerfs and D3 don't try to do them

Sm0keyJ0e

broll said:

Moral of the story, just don't ask for nerfs and D3 don't try to do them

A better moral is play-test your **** and don't release toons that are just stoopid. Then no need for nerfs/buffs.

broll

Sm0keyJ0e said:

broll said:

Moral of the story, just don't ask for nerfs and D3 don't try to do them

A better moral is play-test your tinykitty and don't release toons that are just stoopid. Then no need for nerfs/buffs.

Sure if you want to live in some fantasy land where that's ever gonna happen.  

firethorne

Sm0keyJ0e said:

broll said:

Moral of the story, just don't ask for nerfs and D3 don't try to do them

A better moral is play-test your tinykitty and don't release toons that are just stoopid. Then no need for nerfs/buffs.

Though, I agree with Jonny1Punch.  Gambit was broken, but nothing about OML particularly was.  My opinion is that his nerf was another in a line of Demiurge treating the symptoms rather than the disease.  On the PvP side, he wasn't particularly overpowered.  As others noted, by the time he was nerfed, Panther & Thanos were kicking him around at the top of the leaderboards.  But, he excelled at saving people health packs while climbing.  He helped people circumvent a sort of **** mechanic of the game.  So, the bottom half of the brackets were littered with him.  

And, in PvE, it is more or less the same story.  You could use him, even very poorly covered, to clear out all of the low level fights relatively quickly, so he was used heavily on these low nodes.  But, you didn't use him to clear the last big fights and required nodes.  He excelled at mindlessly chewing through the mind-numbing PvE grind, and that got him to big usage numbers. But, it was far easier for devs to make him a less attractive to use than to address the root causes that led to his over-use.  In the end, he was nerfed he broke parts of the game that players saw as broken or bad design.  

As for the efficacy of the Gambit nerf, or difference in compensation, I think they're probably somewhat related.  They got a big backlash over OML, and probably have more metrics on the aftermath that we aren't seeing.  But, I know I haven't put any money into the game after the OML nerf, the nerf itself being one of a few different motivating factors.  They're probably a bit more cautious of doing anything that would cause a loss of users, or convert paying ones to F2P.

LifeofAgony

They’re not being careful;  they’re just waiting until he’s out of latest before taking any real action.  See day, digital.

The money is coming in faster than ever.  Even people on here who have been extremely vocal about nerfing gambit continued to spend like drunken sailors on leave.

The money is all that matters.  Nothing more, nothing less.  OML was able to be nerfed because he was the antithesis to the new crop of latest 5* and neutering him made people more likely to *need* to spend or utilize their resources to chase the latest toons as OML became less effective.

Plenty of toons released in the last 6-8 months allow for little to no hpk usage (dusa/gams/blade and DD).  Those teams can be used and allow the same type of saving OML used to.  The difference is someone who spent way back on OML had to decide if they wanted to continue to compete, they’d have to invest in the arms race.

Despite their best efforts, it’s not impossible to parse out their motives.

HoundofShadow

I understand that you felt shortchanged but wouldn't it be better to persuade D3 nicely and in a coherent manner, instead of throwing snide remarks around. And you are wondering why they are ignoring you. Let's look at a couple of facts:

1) OML's changes was made in April 2017 whereas 5* Gambit's changes was made in December 2017. Your case would be much stronger if both characters' changes was made in the same month or was made close to each other. The reality is there's an estimated eight month gap between these two characters' changes. Like what firethorn mentioned, maybe they have some kind of data gathered over the past seven to eight months that allow them to make better decision or to test out players' behaviours.

2) In your words, OML is a mid-tier 5* whereas 5* Gambit is an "autopilot 6*.... errr.... 5*." Doesn't it made sense that OML's compensation is not as good Gambit's? Let's suppose that OML received the same compensation as 5* Gambit's, would there be another group of players demanding better compensation for 5* Gambit's since he is much more better than OML?

Since OML isn't as good as Gambit, the probability of players selling OML to get other 5* covers should be much higher compared to 5* Gambit, one of the most feared characters. At this point of time, selling away 5* Gambit is as good as putting yourself at an disadvantage. Could it be that D3 is testing or doing some players' behaviours analysis? Maybe they want to know if players would rather keep 5* Gambit than to sell him away in exchange for other 5*?  With these data, maybe they might want to make changes to 5* Gambit again with the new set of data they gathered.

Let's assume that D3 decided to compensate players like you who sold OML at a "bad deal", do you know what might happen? Then, we would have other players asking for compensation for other things that happened in the past. The reason being, since they have done it for OML, why shouldn't D3 do it for them as well?

To put things in perspective, it's like you sold a car (X brand , model 1) in April 2017 for 50,000 and you felt shortchanged/unfair that other people who sold cars of X brand, model 2 (much better than model 1) in December 2017 got 100,000, twice of what you get and you want the car dealer to compensate you an extra 50,000 for your model 1. Make sense?

Revisit your reasons for a better compensation for OML in a fair tone and they might listen to you. If not, just move on.

CharlieCroker

They offered better compensation for Gambit as (i) he's still in Latest tokens and (ii) even following his rebalancing (I refuse to call it a nerf) he is still way better than any other 5* out there.

As mentioned by Daiches, the only people who really benefited from this were those who needed swaps and thus got two 5*s for the price of one (+2,000iso).  

For me personally this was a mixed blessing as my token from a sold Gambit dupe turned into a 14th Hulk and I felt I had to champ him.  #buffbanner

Daredevil217

Since we’re criticizing the company for moving in a direction where they are giving us more resources, I would like to be compensated all the Iso and HP I spent back when it cost more to Roster and champ a character. Wait... that’s a “silly” request? Yeah I guess you’re right. 

Addaran

Daredevil217 said:

Since we’re criticizing the company for moving in a direction where they are giving us more resources, I would like to be compensated all the Iso and HP I spent back when it cost more to Roster and champ a character. Wait... that’s a “silly” request? Yeah I guess you’re right. 

This exactly. We shouldn't complain when they improve some of their ways. The OP should be happy that the present and futur way of handling mega nerf is better.

wymtime

I will say this about the 2 nerds.
#1 for OML when he got nerfed he was my only championed 5* so I did not sell him.  I continued to use him in PVP and PVE until I got a champed Panthos.  Once I got those 2 5* champed I used them in PVP and continued to use OML and a championed 4* in PVE.  I am now up to 12 championed 5* and I didn’t stop using OML in PVE until I championed Gambit.  Even then I used OML with Gambit but have since then gone on to using other characters depending on the sub and who is boosted.  OML nerf was hard but not game changing and did not mkechim is less ala sentry nerf or Xforce nerf.  He just became weaker and easier to kill in PVP.  In PVE he is still a health pack saver.

#2 with Gambit I am glad they are taking things slow with his nerf.  In mirror matches he is not that bad and the AP destruction is strong but his AP gain is still his most important power.  He is still top 5* and could use some more adjusting but by taking him down on steps the devs are showing they don’t want to nerf him to oblivion like they have in the past.
#3 compensation with OML nerf there were much fewer 5* and much more rare to get.  There were no 5* awarded for champ levels and no CL9 in PVE awarding great amounts of CP.  they still wanted to make the 5* transition slower.  Now with the amount of 5* in the game and how long they have been in the game they are ok with letting players transition to 5* a little faster.  They took feedback from changed the way the compensation worked.  That is good thing.

Sandmaker

I'm pretty sure "retrospective compensation" is something you just made up....

Can you name an example in gaming (or life for that matter) where an improved compensation policy is retrospectively applied to past compensations of different items? 

Maybe if the time frame we're talking about is a couple days or even a couple weeks.     

Borstock

Sandmaker said:

I'm pretty sure "retrospective compensation" is something you just made up....

Can you name an example in gaming (or life for that matter) where an improved compensation policy is retrospectively applied to past compensations of different items? 

Maybe if the time frame we're talking about is a couple days or even a couple weeks.     

Do Shield rank iso bonuses count? What about 5* covers for 4* champ levels?

UNC_Samurai

Jonny1Punch said:

OML had to be at a certain level before he qualified for compensation and then was giventhe insulting & abysmal 2:1 compensation rate. For every 2 champed levels you got 1 token for a random 5*. What a joke right?

Gambit got instant 1:1 compensation. 1 guaranteed 5* token for every cover you had, leveled or not. This was a much better compensation and a step in the right direction. But they were both cash cows at one point and are both 5*.... so why the massive difference in compensation?

I spent 720 CP to finish my 5/2/5 OML on February 10, 2017.  Heck, I even recorded it just to cause pain in the souls of the Puzzle Warriors 3.  Eight weeks later, OML got drug into a back alley and kneecapped.  Compared to the cost I put into him, the compensation offered was an utter farce.

Qubort

Your central complaint is they INCREASED compensation for nerfed characters. Hell of a thing to complain about.

//Removed Insults -Brigby