New Gambit nerf

DeNappa

WEBGAS said:

Why, for Heaven's sake, players have to ask for a nerf?
Couldn't it be way better to ask for a buff to other unplayable characters like Banner or  Ock  for example?

Why don't ask for a good counter?

I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to see him 'nerfed' because the current Gambit uses a fundamentally broken game mechanic (passive unconditional AP generation). I'd probably even call it 'fixed' (unless they overdo it like they completely nuked 3* Gambit into trash tier)

Full disclosure, I'm not really affected by it myself, I'm a 4* player that focuses mainly on PVE and my Gambit is sitting at 4/2/2.

DyingLegend

Gambit may seem like he needs a nerf, but i don't think that is the case. Nerfs are never truly good, i think the game would benefit from increasing the power of under preforming 5 stars then knocking down one. Much like what happened with OML, it's not easy to build up a 5 star and when you nerf its usefulness, it leaves you with a ton of time and effort wasted.

I think some characters could be buffed to counter Gambit. Take Archangel for instance, how about he has a passive that when the enemy fires and ability, dodge the damage and send the character who cast the ability airborne for x amount of turns. Or just give AA the ability to send people airborne either passively or activated.

Maybe introduce a character that stuns the enemy when they cast a power.

I don't like Nerfs, i prefer buffs. Buffs add more variety, nerfs knock off one character only for another to takes it  place as OP, then you call for that one to gets nerfed and the cycle of nerfs continue. 

WEBGAS

DyingLegend said:

Gambit may seem like he needs a nerf, but i don't think that is the case. Nerfs are never truly good, i think the game would benefit from increasing the power of under preforming 5 stars then knocking down one. Much like what happened with OML, it's not easy to build up a 5 star and when you nerf its usefulness, it leaves you with a ton of time and effort wasted.


I don't like Nerfs, i prefer buffs. Buffs add more variety, nerfs knock off one character only for another to takes it  place as OP, then you call for that one to gets nerfed and the cycle of nerfs continue. 

Exactly what I'm saying. Nerfs are like a kick in the @ss for those who have spent time, efforts and money over this game.

If a nerf ever happens, I will keep my vallet sealed and never give a single cent anymore. I'll be a pure F2P , I'll take what I could get
and when the servers will be shutted down, BYE BYE and no regrets   
p.s. : this is not a treat, but a promise. 

Basepuzzler

WEBGAS said:

DyingLegend said:

Gambit may seem like he needs a nerf, but i don't think that is the case. Nerfs are never truly good, i think the game would benefit from increasing the power of under preforming 5 stars then knocking down one. Much like what happened with OML, it's not easy to build up a 5 star and when you nerf its usefulness, it leaves you with a ton of time and effort wasted.


I don't like Nerfs, i prefer buffs. Buffs add more variety, nerfs knock off one character only for another to takes it  place as OP, then you call for that one to gets nerfed and the cycle of nerfs continue. 

Exactly what I'm saying. Nerfs are like a kick in the @ss for those who have spent time, efforts and money over this game.

If a nerf ever happens, I will keep my vallet sealed and never give a single cent anymore. I'll be a pure F2P , I'll take what I could get
and when the servers will be shutted down, BYE BYE and no regrets   
p.s. : this is not a treat, but a promise. 

Is gambit your only champed 5?  I can understand being upset if that’s the case.  But it doesn’t change the facts and the necessity of the nerf.

Bowgentle

Round and round and round we go.

Seriously guys, the developers themselves have said they're aware they need to change Gambit.

It's no use debating IF he should get nerfed - he WILL.

It's only a question of WHEN - and that should have been 6 months ago.

WEBGAS

Basepuzzler said:

Is gambit your only champed 5?  I can understand being upset if that’s the case.  But it doesn’t change the facts and the necessity of the nerf.

no, he's one of my 8  5* champed, but this is not the point.
Nerfing a character after you have spent so many resources to develop it is a total lack of respect for your players.
Hence my reaction.

Bowgentle

OJSP said:

WEBGAS said:
no, he's one of my 8  5* champed

8? I see 4 (unless you have a different ign).

Gambit is so good, he counts as 5 characters.

thedarkphoenix

Gambit was actually fine before the 1st "nerf" which actually buffed him. But people were so bent on his AP being Op when truly it was just a combination of everything in one. And once they nerfed the ap gen a bit but added Ap destruction it was a wrap.

Gambit main's problem has always been his red or his purple, never his black. Red hits to hard and purple hits hard and is on a short counter and overwrites everything.

Even if gambit didn't gain any AP from black he'd still be strong (Not as strong) but again its always been that he had the tools for every situation and good tools at that.


Nerf his red's damage and he's significantly worse
or
Increases purples cost by 3 and counter time by one and he falls in line as strong but not OP
or
remove the AP burn on his black and he's much more manageable.

thedarkphoenix

For the record I wish they'd just release a 5 that counters him (or the use gain or appearance of charged tiles) however that wouldn't solve him being a pve boss event monster.

WEBGAS

OJSP said:

WEBGAS said:
no, he's one of my 8  5* champed

8? I see 4 (unless you have a different ign).

Thank for checking my roster. I' ve considered also the 11/13 covered 5stars not champed but high levelled.
Now I  would like to know what is your point ....I don't get it

Bowgentle is right: Gambit is so good that he easily could count as Banner+Ock+SS+CVCap+SL .....so if math is not an opinion
3+5 = 8

WEBGAS

Thank you, I appreciate your insight, but is not only a question of what character is gonna be nerfed. 
I simply don't like nerfs. When they changed Gambit (the first time) they made him even better than when released. 
So you can tell they didn't know that created a monster? (in a good sense of terms).
Why crate a good character and then nerf it while players spent money and efforts to get it?
It's disrespectful in my point of view.
It was disrespectful with Thoress, XFW and OML and now will be (if/when done) for Gambit.
JMO of course 

GrimSkald

WEBGAS said:

Thank you, I appreciate your insight, but is not only a question of what character is gonna be nerfed. 
I simply don't like nerfs. When they changed Gambit (the first time) they made him even better than when released. 
So you can tell they didn't know that created a monster? (in a good sense of terms).
Why crate a good character and then nerf it while players spent money and efforts to get it?
It's disrespectful in my point of view.
It was disrespectful with Thoress, XFW and OML and now will be (if/when done) for Gambit.
JMO of course 

Eeh, I really don't think that's the case.  They have in the past released characters that are well out of line with the others in power.  Thoress and XFW are other great examples.  Sentry is another one.  Seriously, both Thoress and XFW were way better than any other 4* that have been released since - XFW's black was a game ender at 11ap.  Thoress created massive amounts of charged tiles.  All these characters were nerfed too hard, but that doesn't mean they didn't need a nerf.

Look, I did actually spend money on XFW.  Not a lot, just $20 on a Logan's Loonies to get enough HP to get that last cover -- I think it was black.   You could spent HP on 4* covers at the time.  Was I upset when they nerfed him?  To be honest, some - I thought it was too much of a nerf.  But still, I got two months of good use out of him and recognized that it was for the best in the long run.  Still thing they should have done something different with the green...

OML is a special case as, I think, it represents more of a shift in game design than anything else.  When they made OML I think they intended for the 5* tier to be a lot more useful undercovered and expected that fully covered 5*s would be more the exception than the rule.  When they moved away from this philosophy, OML really stood out as too useful with too little covers.  Unfortunately I think he was also nerfed too much (though his yellow got a buff, really, and a good one,) and hopefully they'll rebalance him some in the future.

Jaedenkaal

thedarkphoenix said:

Gambit was actually fine before the 1st "nerf" which actually buffed him. But people were so bent on his AP being Op when truly it was just a combination of everything in one. And once they nerfed the ap gen a bit but added Ap destruction it was a wrap.

Gambit main's problem has always been his red or his purple, never his black. Red hits to hard and purple hits hard and is on a short counter and overwrites everything.

Even if gambit didn't gain any AP from black he'd still be strong (Not as strong) but again its always been that he had the tools for every situation and good tools at that.


Nerf his red's damage and he's significantly worse
or
Increases purples cost by 3 and counter time by one and he falls in line as strong but not OP
or
remove the AP burn on his black and he's much more manageable.

Nope. It's always the resource generation that's the problem. It SEEMS like the things it's enabling is the problem, but it's always the enabler.

See: Magic The Gathering Dark Ritual vs Hypnotic Spector.

huktonfonix

Jaedenkaal said:

thedarkphoenix said:

Gambit was actually fine before the 1st "nerf" which actually buffed him. But people were so bent on his AP being Op when truly it was just a combination of everything in one. And once they nerfed the ap gen a bit but added Ap destruction it was a wrap.

Gambit main's problem has always been his red or his purple, never his black. Red hits to hard and purple hits hard and is on a short counter and overwrites everything.

Even if gambit didn't gain any AP from black he'd still be strong (Not as strong) but again its always been that he had the tools for every situation and good tools at that.


Nerf his red's damage and he's significantly worse
or
Increases purples cost by 3 and counter time by one and he falls in line as strong but not OP
or
remove the AP burn on his black and he's much more manageable.

Nope. It's always the resource generation that's the problem. It SEEMS like the things it's enabling is the problem, but it's always the enabler.

See: Magic The Gathering Dark Ritual vs Hypnotic Spector.

The only problem with Dark Ritual is that it, Hymn to Tourach, and The Rack aren't in standard right now.

Jaedenkaal

huktonfonix said:

Jaedenkaal said:

thedarkphoenix said:

Gambit was actually fine before the 1st "nerf" which actually buffed him. But people were so bent on his AP being Op when truly it was just a combination of everything in one. And once they nerfed the ap gen a bit but added Ap destruction it was a wrap.

Gambit main's problem has always been his red or his purple, never his black. Red hits to hard and purple hits hard and is on a short counter and overwrites everything.

Even if gambit didn't gain any AP from black he'd still be strong (Not as strong) but again its always been that he had the tools for every situation and good tools at that.


Nerf his red's damage and he's significantly worse
or
Increases purples cost by 3 and counter time by one and he falls in line as strong but not OP
or
remove the AP burn on his black and he's much more manageable.

Nope. It's always the resource generation that's the problem. It SEEMS like the things it's enabling is the problem, but it's always the enabler.

See: Magic The Gathering Dark Ritual vs Hypnotic Spector.

The only problem with Dark Ritual is that it, Hymn to Tourach, and The Rack aren't in standard right now.

If I never get Hymn cast on me again it'll be too soon.

fmftint

IF it happens we should know today. Character rebalances were included with season updates which are usually posted the Friday before season end,  today

Daredevil217

JHawkInc said:

Look man, when you've got a field of grass, and one blade is sticking out too far, and you want them to be even, you don't invest energy in trying to grow the entire rest of the field except for that one blade to make them even. You get out your little pair of scissors and do some trimming.

I like this analogy. Problem is you are assuming that the field is even. It isn’t. The grass is all over the place from Banner to Gambit. You take out your scissors and go to work.. and... look over there. That Thor blade is way taller than the others. And unlike Gambit he’s best for PVE AND PVP meaning he dominates the entire game and not just one game mode.  The field as it were, remains uneven and people who have the best character will use him, and people who don’t will be **** out of luck because they didn’t bust their hoard at the right time.  Gambit is not the problem, he’s a symptom of a bigger problem. People are constantly calling for a nerf of whatever is strongest. After the post-Gambit honeymoon is over, I imagine we will be right back to the status quo. 

ZeiramMR

fmftint said:

IF it happens we should know today. Character rebalances were included with season updates which are usually posted the Friday before season end,  today

No, they were not. Character rebalances have been announced in the Versus Season updates on Monday/Tuesday between seasons.

However... changes to game mechanics are often posted on Fridays.

sinnerjfl

Daredevil217 said:

JHawkInc said:

Look man, when you've got a field of grass, and one blade is sticking out too far, and you want them to be even, you don't invest energy in trying to grow the entire rest of the field except for that one blade to make them even. You get out your little pair of scissors and do some trimming.

I like this analogy. Problem is you are assuming that the field is even. It isn’t. The grass is all over the place from Banner to Gambit. You take out your scissors and go to work.. and... look over there. That Thor blade is way taller than the others. And unlike Gambit he’s best for PVE AND PVP meaning he dominates the entire game and not just one game mode.  The field as it were, remains uneven and people who have the best character will use him, and people who don’t will be tinykitty out of luck because they didn’t bust their hoard at the right time.  

One big difference with Gambit and your example, Thor.

Not easy to counter Gambit without your own. You can certainly counter Thor because as long as he's at +50% health, not too difficult to deal with, plan accordingly.

Basepuzzler

sinnerjfl said:

Daredevil217 said:

JHawkInc said:

Look man, when you've got a field of grass, and one blade is sticking out too far, and you want them to be even, you don't invest energy in trying to grow the entire rest of the field except for that one blade to make them even. You get out your little pair of scissors and do some trimming.

I like this analogy. Problem is you are assuming that the field is even. It isn’t. The grass is all over the place from Banner to Gambit. You take out your scissors and go to work.. and... look over there. That Thor blade is way taller than the others. And unlike Gambit he’s best for PVE AND PVP meaning he dominates the entire game and not just one game mode.  The field as it were, remains uneven and people who have the best character will use him, and people who don’t will be tinykitty out of luck because they didn’t bust their hoard at the right time.  

One big difference with Gambit and your example, Thor.

Not easy to counter Gambit without your own. You can certainly counter Thor because as long as he's at +50% health, not too difficult to deal with, plan accordingly.

Yup, this is why gambit is a problem and Thor isn’t.  Thor makes things better for people who use him and doesn’t bother people who don’t.  Besides being a touch slower.