How things will change after the gambit nerf goes live (discussion)

fight4thedream

***Mod Mode: ON***

Please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Thank you.

***Mod Mode: OFF**

HoundofShadow

The devs did something, but the solution was not effective. To say they took months to do something about Gambit is not true. The feedbacks from players couple years back mentioned that they don't want nerf to be the first option. That's why you had 5* characters like cap america to counter Gambit instead. The solution was not effective and they ackknowledged that. 

You had your fun and victories with Gambit. Time to be realistic about the compensation.

Daiches

HoundofShadow said:

The devs did something, but the solution was not effective. To say they took months to do something about Gambit is not true. The feedbacks from players couple years back mentioned that they don't want nerf to be the first option. That's why you had 5* characters like cap america to counter Gambit instead. The solution was not effective and they ackknowledged that. 

You had your fun and victories with Gambit. Time to be realistic about the compensation.

Both AA and Cap depends on CD to stop the generation of AP. Any one can see that this is an awful way to counter Gambit.
If that means they singled out the AP gen as the issue in their counter character, then maybe .. change the AP gen on Gambit? And leave the rest? Then see if it works? 
Or if you want them to work as a counter with CDs, then remove CD overwriting, and see if that opens up the meta?
Or do both and throw in an extra nerf on red, because it was too strong with AP generation that's no longer there?

Maybe .. buff both counters to not use CD, but a proprietary tile that's not included in Gambits overwrites (like Apocalypse Horsemen tiles for instance) and a few extra changes. And make 2 characters better.

There's lot of ways to fix a problem.

(Also can everyone please stop harping about the Gambit victories and gains. It reeks of jealousy and adds nothing to the discussion. Players also had Panthos, Bolt, OML, XBusters, CageFist, ... etc.. victories. Gambit is not an isolated incident, but one stop on a long road. Thor and Okoye are already complained about. There's always a best character. But you've got wins hybrid now. So at most you lose out on some 4star covers in a hard bracket. Those are barely relevant if you're a 5star tier player complaining about a hard match)

Daredevil217

Daiches said:

HoundofShadow said:

The devs did something, but the solution was not effective. To say they took months to do something about Gambit is not true. The feedbacks from players couple years back mentioned that they don't want nerf to be the first option. That's why you had 5* characters like cap america to counter Gambit instead. The solution was not effective and they ackknowledged that. 

You had your fun and victories with Gambit. Time to be realistic about the compensation.

Both AA and Cap depends on CD to stop the generation of AP. Any one can see that this is an awful way to counter Gambit.
If that means they singled out the AP gen as the issue in their counter character, then maybe .. change the AP gen on Gambit? And leave the rest? Then see if it works? 
Or if you want them to work as a counter with CDs, then remove CD overwriting, and see if that opens up the meta?
Or do both and throw in an extra nerf on red, because it was too strong with AP generation that's no longer there?

Maybe .. buff both counters to not use CD, but a proprietary tile that's not included in Gambits overwrites (like Apocalypse Horsemen tiles for instance) and a few extra changes. And make 2 characters better.

There's lot of ways to fix a problem.

(Also can everyone please stop harping about the Gambit victories and gains. It reeks of jealousy and adds nothing to the discussion. Players also had Panthos, Bolt, OML, XBusters, CageFist, ... etc.. victories. Gambit is not an isolated incident, but one stop on a long road. Thor and Okoye are already complained about. There's always a best character. But you've got wins hybrid now. So at most you lose out on some 4star covers in a hard bracket. Those are barely relevant if you're a 5star tier player complaining about a hard match)

It’s not irrelevant. When you have been riding an auto win character for months and then feel that you “deserve” to be compensated by getting 1:1 exchanges for the 5* of your choice or the ability to delevel the character to exactly where you want or any other type of compensation that let’s you remain atop the meta while keeping all the spoils you won over the past year, I’d say it’s relevant. People don’t complain about “Gambit victories” in a vacuum, they do so when compensation is brought up that reeks of entitlement. You say it’s just a few 4* covers but I’m curious if you would give up (however long Gambit had dominated) worth of the spoils you won using him (CP/iso/HP/covers) wrecking people who struggled to hit 500 without him. I’m guessing you probably wouldn’t trade in those paltry earnings that don’t matter much to a 5* player if you saw just how much it really was. Of course there’s no way to do this anyway so it’s somewhat moot, but all I’m saying is I’d be weary of calling out other posters out of context. 

Daiches

Daredevil217 said:

Daiches said:

HoundofShadow said:

The devs did something, but the solution was not effective. To say they took months to do something about Gambit is not true. The feedbacks from players couple years back mentioned that they don't want nerf to be the first option. That's why you had 5* characters like cap america to counter Gambit instead. The solution was not effective and they ackknowledged that. 

You had your fun and victories with Gambit. Time to be realistic about the compensation.

Both AA and Cap depends on CD to stop the generation of AP. Any one can see that this is an awful way to counter Gambit.
If that means they singled out the AP gen as the issue in their counter character, then maybe .. change the AP gen on Gambit? And leave the rest? Then see if it works? 
Or if you want them to work as a counter with CDs, then remove CD overwriting, and see if that opens up the meta?
Or do both and throw in an extra nerf on red, because it was too strong with AP generation that's no longer there?

Maybe .. buff both counters to not use CD, but a proprietary tile that's not included in Gambits overwrites (like Apocalypse Horsemen tiles for instance) and a few extra changes. And make 2 characters better.

There's lot of ways to fix a problem.

(Also can everyone please stop harping about the Gambit victories and gains. It reeks of jealousy and adds nothing to the discussion. Players also had Panthos, Bolt, OML, XBusters, CageFist, ... etc.. victories. Gambit is not an isolated incident, but one stop on a long road. Thor and Okoye are already complained about. There's always a best character. But you've got wins hybrid now. So at most you lose out on some 4star covers in a hard bracket. Those are barely relevant if you're a 5star tier player complaining about a hard match)

It’s not irrelevant. When you have been riding an auto win character for months and then feel that you “deserve” to be compensated by getting 1:1 exchanges for the 5* of your choice or the ability to delevel the character to exactly where you want or any other type of compensation that let’s you remain atop the meta while keeping all the spoils you won over the past year, I’d say it’s relevant. People don’t complain about “Gambit victories” in a vacuum, they do so when compensation is brought up that reeks of entitlement. You say it’s just a few 4* covers but I’m curious if you would give up (however long Gambit had dominated) worth of the spoils you won using him (CP/iso/HP/covers) wrecking people who struggled to hit 500 without him. I’m guessing you probably wouldn’t trade in those paltry earnings that don’t matter much to a 5* player if you saw just how much it really was. Of course there’s no way to do this anyway so it’s somewhat moot, but all I’m saying is I’d be weary of calling out other posters out of context. 

The part where you are wrong is where you assume I wouldn't get those rewards without Gambit.
There wouldn't have been a change in PVE for instance. Since Gambit was never the best or fastest option there.
And PVP placement rewards difference really don't add up to that much if one went from t5 to t10-20. 

And dude, hitting people that struggle to hit 500 happens for the first hour of an event when sealbashing. It's not relevant at all in a discussion about placement or rewards.

ZeroKarma

Daredevil217 said:

It’s not irrelevant. When you have been riding an auto win character for months and then feel that you “deserve” to be compensated by getting 1:1 exchanges for the 5* of your choice or the ability to delevel the character to exactly where you want or any other type of compensation that let’s you remain atop the meta while keeping all the spoils you won over the past year, I’d say it’s relevant. People don’t complain about “Gambit victories” in a vacuum, they do so when compensation is brought up that reeks of entitlement. You say it’s just a few 4* covers but I’m curious if you would give up (however long Gambit had dominated) worth of the spoils you won using him (CP/iso/HP/covers) wrecking people who struggled to hit 500 without him. I’m guessing you probably wouldn’t trade in those paltry earnings that don’t matter much to a 5* player if you saw just how much it really was. Of course there’s no way to do this anyway so it’s somewhat moot, but all I’m saying is I’d be weary of calling out other posters out of context. 

Sorry, I'm going to have to add to the Daiches chorus and state that most of the people complaining about this were not winning rewards that they wouldn't otherwise have. You're engaging in this discussion with two people, Rockett and Daiches that are regular T5 in cl9 pre-, during and post-Gambit. And as stated, hitting people that struggle to hit 500 does not require a Gambit, it requires any couple of 5* against overmatched opponents. (Thank you Win-Based PvP for making seal slaughter a path to roster development)

But we're losing sight of the issue for THIS thread, which is how things look post-Gambit and from that perspective, all other things concerned I think that it's more fun for me. I stopped using Gambit because I got really bored using the same character combo over and over again. The new hotness, of course is Thorkoye! It's everywhere and is a really overpowered team on offense. I can hit dual 550's with a 455 Okoye and a 470 Thor for reference, and I don't even need to use a health pack afterwards. 

At the same time, you don't want to sit out too long with Thorkoye because it is a super easy team to beat on defense. Okoye just fritters away TU AP, and Thor at full health takes forever to get going. So there is some parity as a result. 

This event, I did a lot of climbing with Thanos and 4* Jean Grey. Soooo much fun, and it works against every team out there. However, the high AP requirements for JG made this a really difficult team to run because of Gambit and his AP drain. No longer. 

ViralCore

Vhailorx said:

I never offered an opinion on Gambit's utility post-nerf.  I don't think it's directly relevant to discussion.  The same fair compensation should be offered for all character changes, then players can choose individually to take it or not based on post-nerf utility

 Post rebalance utility is an important consideration as the character is still very usable

Tony_Foot said:

1 for 1 would let me choose the covers as replacements, not let me choose 13 covers under another layer or RNG. Yes he needed a nerf but compensate me accordingly, I targeted him with a hoard against 3 characters not 15.

Also don’t give me this Nonsense about a nerf to keep the game healthy, it’s taken them months to do anything about gambit yet they managed to react fast enough when his nerf was considered too harsh to tweak it. He was a cash cow that was beaten to death, now it’s time to think about the health of the game?

Unless you were using the exploit, you didnt't get to select gambit covers either. I agree that it was a cash grab but it was obvious from the very beginning that he was going to be nerfed.

BigBZ32

From what I have seen so far from my alliance family members, which by no means reflects MPQ community as a whole, is that the removal of Gambit has motivated some of our members to PvP a little more than they used to. I been seeing our members scoring higher than they have the whole year. A few going for 1.2k when they were settling for 900 before. Some have been even using more shields to score higher. 

Personally, I have not found it any more difficult to reach my PvP goals. I have enjoyed messing around with different combinations which I wasn't able to before. I did like Gambit very much, but I'll adapt. I find myself not even considering using Gambit though, although if they boosted GG's health a bit I may consider it. That combo is sort of fun.

Warbringa

ViralCore said:

Tony_Foot said:

You paid a heavy price for their mistakes. The compensation is an absolute joke. I’m gutted over 13 covers let alone yours. 

it's a 1:1 cover compensation and we all have had over 6 months to play with him. How is that an absolute joke? Over-powered characters will eventually get nerfed to keep the game healthy - every games does this. I'm still super happy about his nerf and how much more fun the metagame is. Next up, is a Thor rebalance... Make it so D3, make it so...

Actually nerfing (in the highest tier of the game) will kill the game as more and more players realize why even try to go for good characters if this is what will happen.  It's why socialism doesn't work in economics and in this game, it destroys the incentive to strive for more.

Spudgutter

Warbringa said:

ViralCore said:

Tony_Foot said:

You paid a heavy price for their mistakes. The compensation is an absolute joke. I’m gutted over 13 covers let alone yours. 

it's a 1:1 cover compensation and we all have had over 6 months to play with him. How is that an absolute joke? Over-powered characters will eventually get nerfed to keep the game healthy - every games does this. I'm still super happy about his nerf and how much more fun the metagame is. Next up, is a Thor rebalance... Make it so D3, make it so...

Actually nerfing (in the highest tier of the game) will kill the game as more and more players realize why even try to go for good characters if this is what will happen.  It's why socialism doesn't work in economics and in this game, it destroys the incentive to strive for more.

Yuck, please don't bring politics into an already contentious debate.

Secondly, i can prove your point as inaccurate.  You know how?  By looking at the forums and threads posted after *every other nerf of high level character(s)* over the years.  You are not the first person to make this assertion, and unfortunately, you will not be the last.