What's New MPQ - Updated 1/24/22

DAZ0273

MegaBee said:

HoundofShadow said:

Yes, 0/0/5. I was still a 3* player back then and it was impossible to beat him, SpiderGwen and the Thing. I think he was ran this way because of a bug(?). If you rostered his red or purple power, your ally won't be able to fire that rostered colour.

Now, it creates charge tile and deal AoE to your own allies. I like his black power  because it creates charged tiles in purple or red, which is SC favourite's colours. 

Gambattery wasn't a bug. His black was working as intended.

Yes this, which is why I thought they had restricted the 3* version as well as the 5* version when they nerfed rebalanced him.

HoundofShadow

I thought 3* Gambit was a lazy copy of 5* Gambit? 

Edit: I saw this in 3* Gambit thread. His thread is an interesting read.

Yes. I believe the Marvel article had been previously quoted as evidence, but if Gambit does not have any covers in his Red or Purple ability, then allied characters are able to use their active Red and Purple abilities.

DAZ0273

HoundofShadow said:

I thought 3* Gambit was a lazy copy of 5* Gambit?

From memory 5* Gambit's purple and black was much better? I can't remember exactly now but someone will know. However nobody outside of the whaliest of whales could afford to build a 0/0/5 5* Gambit on purpose hence why the 3* version was abused used

HoundofShadow

Based on both of their old threads, both gave 3 red aps and 3 purple aps at 5 covers. 

I remember trying to jump onto the trend of 0/5/5 Gambit but he got nerfed before I could ride the wave.

DAZ0273

To be fair the 3* Gambit black use was never an intended purpose - the Devs were pretty clear that characters are not intended to be part built in this manner, let alone more effective in that way. Especially at the 3* tier where a large number of players could potentially put this together.

They did seem to really hammer 3* Gambit when the adjusted him though - perhaps it was revenge!

MoosePrime

MegaBee said:

HoundofShadow said:

Yes, 0/0/5. I was still a 3* player back then and it was impossible to beat him, SpiderGwen and the Thing. I think he was ran this way because of a bug(?). If you rostered his red or purple power, your ally won't be able to fire that rostered colour.

Now, it creates charge tile and deal AoE to your own allies. I like his black power  because it creates charged tiles in purple or red, which is SC favourite's colours. 

Gambattery wasn't a bug. His black was working as intended.

It was working as designed, not as intended.

MegaBee

MoosePrime said:

MegaBee said:

HoundofShadow said:

Yes, 0/0/5. I was still a 3* player back then and it was impossible to beat him, SpiderGwen and the Thing. I think he was ran this way because of a bug(?). If you rostered his red or purple power, your ally won't be able to fire that rostered colour.

Now, it creates charge tile and deal AoE to your own allies. I like his black power  because it creates charged tiles in purple or red, which is SC favourite's colours. 

Gambattery wasn't a bug. His black was working as intended.

It was working as designed, not as intended.

That's a very good point.

ThaRoadWarrior

"lazy copy" is a dismissive way to describe what was going on in that brief window of time. Hawkeye, Dr STrange, Thanos, and Gambit all came out with 3* copies of themselves, ostensibly to make sure that lower tier players could get access to characters they liked that were above their means in the * structure. Doc Ock seemed remidial since 3* Ock had been out for awhile by that time. But it seemed to be important to them in those days to dupe up so people could keep playing their favorite characters as they grow in the game. But the power designs were not super inspired, and I think it hurt characters like Star Lord who are jumped up 3*s, and helped gambit who was a dumbed down 5*.

HoundofShadow

I picked up that description from the forum. 

But I think that wasn't the exact adjectives used to describe this "lazy copy".

It's interesting to know the intention behind this. Angel was the last 3* released and they simply stopped 3* release. I suppose some 5* players weren't happy because it means more roster slots for unhelpful 3*. 

I don't remember them explaining the sudden stoppage of 3* releases.

ThaRoadWarrior

Well, all 3*s at that time were released with a 4* in their reward tree from the get-go, so everybody was happy to get feeders even back then. But of course there were more 4s than 3s already, so that made sense and was easy to do. We aren't there yet with 5*s outnumbering 4*s, so we have the mildly frustrating situation we have today where maybe somebody feeds somebody, maybe they don't, why not that character is so obvious, etc. When you look at "vets" and by that I mean people who have been playing a long time, not big spenders or what have you, you can see that there has been a years long precedent for new lower characters launching to feed upper tier, and retroactive 5 feeders giving "double dip" rewards. so changes to that plan are like "ugh, what the heck guys?" 

Godzillafan67

ThaRoadWarrior said:

"lazy copy" is a dismissive way to describe what was going on in that brief window of time. Hawkeye, Dr STrange, Thanos, and Gambit all came out with 3* copies of themselves, ostensibly to make sure that lower tier players could get access to characters they liked that were above their means in the * structure. Doc Ock seemed remidial since 3* Ock had been out for awhile by that time. But it seemed to be important to them in those days to dupe up so people could keep playing their favorite characters as they grow in the game. But the power designs were not super inspired, and I think it hurt characters like Star Lord who are jumped up 3*s, and helped gambit who was a dumbed down 5*.

I believe that the "lazy character" ascription started with 3* Thor whose powers were an exact copy of the 2*, whereas 3* Cap is only mostly lazy and the first three Black Widows aren't lazy at all. To achieve the "make sure that lower tier players could get access to characters they liked that were above their means in the * structure" goal, the characters should be duplicated but with unique powersets, which is certainly where the game quickly landed after those lazy copies.

I agree that "lazy" is a bit aggressive and a dig at the devs, but, as Hound noted, it has forum precedence and isn't currently a pointed complaint.

entrailbucket

Godzillafan67 said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

"lazy copy" is a dismissive way to describe what was going on in that brief window of time. Hawkeye, Dr STrange, Thanos, and Gambit all came out with 3* copies of themselves, ostensibly to make sure that lower tier players could get access to characters they liked that were above their means in the * structure. Doc Ock seemed remidial since 3* Ock had been out for awhile by that time. But it seemed to be important to them in those days to dupe up so people could keep playing their favorite characters as they grow in the game. But the power designs were not super inspired, and I think it hurt characters like Star Lord who are jumped up 3*s, and helped gambit who was a dumbed down 5*.

I believe that the "lazy character" ascription started with 3* Thor whose powers were an exact copy of the 2*, whereas 3* Cap is only mostly lazy and the first three Black Widows aren't lazy at all. To achieve the "make sure that lower tier players could get access to characters they liked that were above their means in the * structure" goal, the characters should be duplicated but with unique powersets, which is certainly where the game quickly landed after those lazy copies.

I agree that "lazy" is a bit aggressive and a dig at the devs, but, as Hound noted, it has forum precedence and isn't currently a pointed complaint.

I think Captain America was the first one?  We had relatively few 3* at that time.  Players felt that releasing the same character, with basically the same powers but just raised a tier, was lazy design.  Honestly it probably was -- they were trying to fill out the tier quickly, and it'd have been much slower to design a whole bunch of brand new guys.

The later copies were probably intended to fill the role you describe, and I don't think I'd call them lazy at all since their design goal was different, but nobody remembers why the first set were called lazy so the name sticks.