Un-Nerf 3* Gambit

0_efx_0

Purplemur: Troll so hard) I created this thread because I enjoyed the 3* character Gambit and used him as the Devs intended; trolling on this subject is the last thing I’d want to express to anyone reading and replying to this thread. Let’s move forward and not wastes anyone’s time.
Attack the Moderator) I was warned on my own thread and had no clue as to what I was warned for. Now that I know and did my homework, saying that players are cheaters is a big no-no. So in my response to the moderator, I made sure that I corrected myself in order to fix my problem. 
Name Dropping Cheaters) Never did I drop any player names that I thought were cheating, I’d be a psycho to even try and name drop anyone who I thought would be a cheater. As I was wrong in thinking that players who had a 0/0/5 3* Gambit were cheaters, I stand corrected and own up to it. They are not cheaters.

My intent for this thread, which a lot of people ARE agreeing to, is that we would love to see 3* Gambit revert to the way he was, only fixed. PurpleMur, we see and read your validations and justicfications, and if you were spot on as we all are then you would not be getting the replies from others as you are now. Hence why I asked about your Logic on the subject matter.  I’m not saying that you’re an idiot, but if you think that your ugly then that’s on you, I’m not saying that.

Many have agreed with what we have been saying about Gambit and pointing out the sadness that a character most wanted in the game and was very achievable as a 3* was converted into someone who is now unplayable and I would disagree with you on the notion that I wouldn’t use him in PvP and skip on to using another character instead of him. He went so well with Coulson/Carol. Legitimately stated, we’d like the DEVS to know that they created a wonderful/attainable character for the players who have a hard time reaching 5* land and now he is gone, due to backlash on the harshness for NOT being used as intended.

purplemur

in response,( but lets not make this a thing, ok? )

Daredevil217 said:

purplemur said:

daredevil: yes in one particular case it could be used to create a team that was "winfinite". MOST, a vast majority, of the player base does not have access to this particular combo. 3* players were not fighting it in PvP scl5. yes i went against it,, yes i totally lost. so I skipped it from then on.  I skip Grocket/medusa teams because of healthpack loss does that mean they should be nerfed so I don't have to?  take out spidergwen and is gambatt/thing/whomever instant win? people act like you could add him to any team and he just wins it for the player. not true.
"you can make your own" was to point out the fairness. 
0efx0:  troll so hard! attack the mods, call players names, and then you were like where's your logic. So I replied. and then you move the goalposts, flamebait and fein/accuse ignorance about the underlying basic precept that was being discussed. Gambatt being different than gambit. That "book"(i gave you the tldr so don't front) was to explain the practical downsides of the overhyped gambatt. an attempt at dialogue not a set-up for Al Jaffee's snappy answers to stupid posts.

I'm sure there are holes in my reasoning, exceptions, qualifiers and whatnot. but if you ignore everything I say, even though you understand the bulk and sharpshooter two lines that were not connected thats a logical fallacy. tu quoque, it's also like saying your ugly so I don't have to listen to you. I am ugly and you don't have to listen to me but that's not the causation.
outside of gambatt/thing/gwen where is the game break? are we just going to go back to the one outlying exception to disprove the entire idea? Where is the correlation between me owning a gambatt and your sense of loss? Nothing got taken away from you. T5 PvE isn't suddenly going to the player that grinds with gambatt.
Honestly, I barely used gambatt, you always had to scroll back down to the 70's to select him, He was not as dynamic as well paired active powers, I don't miss him but I don't regret trying it out. it was a neat gimmick. He is not the boogeyman: finish the prologue or baba yaga gambatt will get you!!!.

The original point is bring back 3*gambit. Don't hold up gambatt as an example of how he was broken and the reason why that garbage nerf was handed down. He was nerfed cuz of hysteria. 

Few things.

1. You say it’s fair because everyone has access to Gambit, but then go on to say that most players don’t have access to the broken combo. So is it fair because everyone has access or unfair because few do?

2. You yourself skip the broken combo because it is pretty much unbeatable and don’t see that as a problem? So in sim I could just climb and climb and when I’m done, throw that team up and get skipped again and again, and you don’t see that as a problem either? You also don’t think the person who can’t field or beat that team loses out at all?

3. You say that one team is an outlier and dismiss it as a minor part of the argument. The fact is the game has always nerfed true winfinite characters (Prof/Switch/BW isn’t true winfinite because they need awhile to get going and aren’t fullproof on defense). Heck they nerfed 2* Mags and Mystique. Not exactly powerhouses but part of winfinite builds. 

4. You choosing to skip Grocket because of packs is not the same as you choosing to skip a match because you can’t win. Not even close to the same thing. 

5. On any boost week where there’s a Purple or Red user, Gambat was a must in PVP for fast clears because the reality is no one can fuel faster. And sure everyone could just build there own to create equity, but It still creates a “must play” experience. 

6.  Finally, the developers never intended for people to only play him at 5 covers as a battery for others.  It was an oversight in the character design.  Above all else this is the bottom line. More than the faster clears or broken combo with Gwen/Thing, it really boils down to this is not what the developers intended for the character and they “fixed” it. Obviously they over-corrected, and “fixed” things that weren’t broken, but they still did so because the way people played him was not what they intended for the character. 

1. Most everyone has access to 3* covers, Gambatt is fairplay because newbs can haz him too. Separately; My supposition is that very few have champed Thing&Spidergwens and it's not that impactful because only a few can actually field this "broken" combo.  your accusing me of hypocrisy but your muddling two separate things to beg a loaded question. that's a snark trap. 
2.-a. I skip the "broken combo" cuz it's a drain and i don't have to fight this combo to get points. I have choice to find an easier roster. and I disagree that it is unbeatable.
-b.I do think if you have those three and you can climb and shield that is fair to get skipped. Defense matters.
-c.I don't think that a player loses out on anything by not having the exact same roster. I don't have champed teen jean,or bobby or rhulk and I skip them all the time; im just not there yet. I've only got 25 of the 4*'s, someone with a majority of them  will be able to field a better team. My progress isn't complete, most players rosters aren't. Those with the biggest rosters win. that's totally fair. 
3. Again, You are correct. They always nerf. I haven't dismissed them, to the contrary I've acknowledged it at every point, but a singularity is not an absolute dis-qualifier of everything else. "Sometimes this one thing happens, whelp the game is broken" is drastic overstatement.
4. I don't know, it probably could be beaten. I didn't have the tools to, so I skipped them. There are about 30% of the matchups that I can't win. for health, undercovered,overmatched etc. That's not broken, thats not unfair.
5. The people getting top spots in PvE have grocket/medusa/5*'s/all the boosted, that's true going down to at least SCL6. Those players don't NEED to play gambatt to get rank. All of those players could have gambatt. all those players CHOOSE to compete, nobody is forcing you to go for top placement. Put it in an if/then and frame it accordingly. 
6. how do you know they didn't intend for him to be used like that? you cannot speak on their intentions. Do you have evidence of design? Goons make up about half of the gameplay experience. why wouldn't they want that for players. Why wouldn't they want 3* players to hurry up and get in on 4* play? What's wrong with passive generation? It's a false causality to say because he was nerfed it must have been because they didn't know what they were doing. They may have just listened to the outrage and were indignant and were like fine then-*#$$#@$breaking of toy$#@#- here ya go fixed it for you.

Daredevil217

purplemur said:

6. how do you know they didn't intend for him to be used like that? you cannot speak on their intentions. Do you have evidence of design? Goons make up about half of the gameplay experience. why wouldn't they want that for players. Why wouldn't they want 3* players to hurry up and get in on 4* play? What's wrong with passive generation? It's a false causality to say because he was nerfed it must have been because they didn't know what they were doing. They may have just listened to the outrage and were indignant and were like fine then-*#$$#@$breaking of toy$#@#- here ya go fixed it for you.

Umm...

“There are three key issues with Gambit that we want to address:

• There are times when a Gambit with no Red or Purple covers is better than a Gambit with them. Using covers to train a character should always make them better.
• The AP generation of Stacked Deck is too strong, without any good way to play against it.
• A large number of players use 3-Star Gambit with only Black covers to fuel 5-Star teams. 3-Stars are an integral part of the game, but we never want your opponent's 3-Star character to trump your 5-Star.“

[End Thread]

DeNappa

Daredevil217 said:

purplemur said:

6. how do you know they didn't intend for him to be used like that? you cannot speak on their intentions. Do you have evidence of design? Goons make up about half of the gameplay experience. why wouldn't they want that for players. Why wouldn't they want 3* players to hurry up and get in on 4* play? What's wrong with passive generation? It's a false causality to say because he was nerfed it must have been because they didn't know what they were doing. They may have just listened to the outrage and were indignant and were like fine then-*#$$#@$breaking of toy$#@#- here ya go fixed it for you.

Umm...

“There are three key issues with Gambit that we want to address:

• There are times when a Gambit with no Red or Purple covers is better than a Gambit with them. Using covers to train a character should always make them better.
• The AP generation of Stacked Deck is too strong, without any good way to play against it.
• A large number of players use 3-Star Gambit with only Black covers to fuel 5-Star teams. 3-Stars are an integral part of the game, but we never want your opponent's 3-Star character to trump your 5-Star.“

[End Thread]

But, only in hindsight.

Source: Piecing together Marvel Puzzle Quest: Gambit

Marvel.com: Stacked Deck means allies can’t fire Red or Purple powers? I guess we might want to avoid teaming him up with anyone who uses Red or Purple AP?

Josh Austin: Gambit gets a little selfish with Stacked Deck and will actually block an ally from using a red or purple power—this happens only if the player has a cover in either purple and/or red. So, you would not be able to use Rogue’s Red power (Sugah, You’re Goin’ Down) until Gambit gets downed, stunned, or sent Airborne. Passive powers will still trigger—only powers the player can trigger can be affected.

Also see: Tombstone's response in the thread 'Gambit passive bugged?'

DAZ0273

Right, the dev's via Tombstone response in that thread still figured you could counter the Gambatt/Gwen team with either Silver Surfer, airbourne or speed and you can see their reasoning. Then players added Thing and made it even more effective!

I think that linked thread is pretty telling actually. There is a definite sense of disbelief that players would happily use a character purely as a battery and not care about having any other offence. It seems like a high risk strategy which is why I guess it wasn't taken seriously at first but it just goes to show that player behaviour is not an easy metric to get a hold of or account for.