Of course I have Chasm, and I've used him (although not very much, I only play for fun and I don't find him very fun). I still have no idea where you're seeing booting and rants. You also didn't answer my question. Who was hurt by the developers' mistake?
Anyway, obviously they are not going to compensate players who didn't use Chasm, how would they even do that? And that's to say nothing of the riot it would cause among the entitled 550 players!
But why not? Why shouldn't they be compensating those who were hurt by their mistake, instead of providing further rewards for those who took advantage of it?
I get what EB is saying and it makes sense to me as an argument. But it’s also purely semantics of course.
I think there is some logic in the argument that when the developers nerf a character because it is overpowered, there are two affected parties:
1) Those who have the character and spent resources on it. They will see that investment devaluated after the nerf. But they also (could have) benefited from the character by playing it and getting a competitive advantage all the time until the nerf happens.
2) those who’s didn’t have the character. They will be positively impacted by the nerf because they won’t face the character anymore. But they also theoretically could have benefited if they didn’t have to face that character so long, or ever at all.
Both groups have pros and cons associated with the nerf, and it is a reasonable argument to me for not having massive compensation for one and not the other.
Ultimately, people will be upset if there are nerfs, and when there aren’t. And people will be upset if there is compensation and when there isn’t. I am of the opinion that money or other resources spent do not guarantee long term benefit. It’s always a risk to spend, because there might be a new meta emerging or a character might get nerfed. So I disagree with Jp1, but I also think their arguments has been made well and respectful, as DA pointed out.
The most “fair” thing would be to have people keep the character they covered.
I think this comes down to what I'm beginning to accept is the fundamental disconnect between me (and, I dunno, maybe a few others) and the larger group of players -- the concept of MPQ as a multiplayer game vs a single-player one.
If MPQ is a single-player game, then when the devs release overpowered characters that is an unequivocally good thing for players. We can defeat enemies faster and easier. We can spend less time playing the game and get better rewards. A nerf would mean compensation for players -- they are taking something away from us.
Meanwhile, if MPQ is a competitive multiplayer game, overpowered characters are a problem. It's zero-sum. A winner necessitates a loser. Anyone not using the overpowered character is instantly at a huge competitive disadvantage. Players who go all in on that character can dominate placement rewards, taking them away from others. They can float without shields longer, win more fights more easily in PvP, and spend less on shields and boosts. Anyone who misses out has to catch up or they'll quickly be left behind.
In this case, a nerf means correcting the initial mistake that the developers made. They've already taken something from us, and given it to other players. The problem is not the fix, the problem is that the character ever existed at all.
I don't understand the players who think this is a single-player game, and I never will. I also imagine they will never understand me.
Chasm users asking for compensation because of future nerfs are like bullies asking for compensation because someone intervened to prevent them from bullying...
I understand many leveled chasm because of devs reluctance to fix fast and, had they grown balls on chasm months ago, the issue would have been much smaller. Yet, as @eb points out it is not the chasm players that suffered the most from the situation...
Ofc, they could have realized from design stage that chasm was original design, but required "bagman level" power. Chasm has several design flaws that require to be fixed in the rework.
I had something to say about Magik but after reading the last page of Chasm delirium I forgot what I initially came here to say.
The prevalence of Chasm dominating so many threads about other characters/issues I think proves just how overbearing his presence is.
When he's nerfed (and I hope it's a change that leaves him good enough to use without being a necessity to be successful in the game) the most natural compensation I can imagine is no longer seeing him take over every thread in the forum as he's done in so many players PVP queues.
Many nerfed must haves have become dead weight, and some recent reworks have been broken (not in the figurative OP way, but the not working as it should way) so I appreciate the time being taken to get it (hopefully) right.
That said, it means more time with Chasm basically serving as God Emperor while Doom chills in his easy chair. So, I hope the time produces something worth the wait... Though a bit more communication would be nice.
In the mean time, I think Kate and Magik improved a bit while remaining who they are as characters. Wish I could remember my initial Magik thought but it probably wasn't that important. ...I have Jubilation champed but haven't really used her outside of when needed so I can't really speak on her changes.
@Zarqa said: I get what EB is saying and it makes sense to me as an argument. But it’s also purely semantics of course. I think there is some logic in the argument that when the developers nerf a character because it is overpowered, there are two affected parties: 1) Those who have the character and spent resources on it. They will see that investment devaluated after the nerf. But they also (could have) benefited from the character by playing it and getting a competitive advantage all the time until the nerf happens. 2) those who’s didn’t have the character. They will be positively impacted by the nerf because they won’t face the character anymore. But they also theoretically could have benefited if they didn’t have to face that character so long, or ever at all. Both groups have pros and cons associated with the nerf, and it is a reasonable argument to me for not having massive compensation for one and not the other. Ultimately, people will be upset if there are nerfs, and when there aren’t. And people will be upset if there is compensation and when there isn’t. I am of the opinion that money or other resources spent do not guarantee long term benefit. It’s always a risk to spend, because there might be a new meta emerging or a character might get nerfed. So I disagree with Jp1, but I also think their arguments has been made well and respectful, as DA pointed out.
@Zarqa said: I get what EB is saying and it makes sense to me as an argument. But it’s also purely semantics of course.
I would argue there are plenty of grieved parties. What about players that went in on characters that were counters to chasm. After chasm nerf they no longer hold the same value? And if so should they be compensated?
Rather than nerf chasm create a hard counter. Create a passive that blocks resurrected ability regardless of being stunned. How hard is this.
@Codex said: @Zarqa said: I get what EB is saying and it makes sense to me as an argument. But it’s also purely semantics of course. I think there is some logic in the argument that when the developers nerf a character because it is overpowered, there are two affected parties: 1) Those who have the character and spent resources on it. They will see that investment devaluated after the nerf. But they also (could have) benefited from the character by playing it and getting a competitive advantage all the time until the nerf happens. 2) those who’s didn’t have the character. They will be positively impacted by the nerf because they won’t face the character anymore. But they also theoretically could have benefited if they didn’t have to face that character so long, or ever at all. Both groups have pros and cons associated with the nerf, and it is a reasonable argument to me for not having massive compensation for one and not the other. Ultimately, people will be upset if there are nerfs, and when there aren’t. And people will be upset if there is compensation and when there isn’t. I am of the opinion that money or other resources spent do not guarantee long term benefit. It’s always a risk to spend, because there might be a new meta emerging or a character might get nerfed. So I disagree with Jp1, but I also think their arguments has been made well and respectful, as DA pointed out. I would argue there are plenty of grieved parties. What about players that went in on characters that were counters to chasm. After chasm nerf they no longer hold the same value? And if so should they be compensated? Rather than nerf chasm create a hard counter. Create a passive that blocks resurrected ability regardless of being stunned. How hard is this.
@Codex said:
I mean, none of those counters actually did anything against him, and they're all decent against everyone else...which Chasm counter will have been made useless by his nerf?
I don't know why they never created a hard counter like that (I'd have been fine with that as opposed to a nerf), but it sounds like the decision to nerf has already been made.
My most efficient counter was skipping him. It cost me nothing to do that.
Chasm is everywhere because that broken character matters to everyone playing pvp. People who have to suffer chasm won't care too much about Kate, jubilee, and much less magik. Chasm stole a part of the game for them. So I will go a bit further: not only compensate people maximizing chasm, or people not using him, but people who got totally bored and/or tired because of this single character. And personally I didn't cared anymore to get all the rewards that before chasm I was easily and steadily earning. How much compensation is that? Lol. Many, many pvps and 4* covers and cps. Only if they had reacted before. It won't be because personally I didn't denounced this pretty soon. So nerfing chasm in a way or in another, for 5* players doing pvp right now, it's this year most important thing, if they want to continue playing this game.
@entrailbucket said: Of course I have Chasm, and I've used him (although not very much, I only play for fun and I don't find him very fun). I still have no idea where you're seeing booting and rants. You also didn't answer my question. Who was hurt by the developers' mistake? Anyway, obviously they are not going to compensate players who didn't use Chasm, how would they even do that? And that's to say nothing of the riot it would cause among the entitled 550 players! But why not? Why shouldn't they be compensating those who were hurt by their mistake, instead of providing further rewards for those who took advantage of it?
@entrailbucket said: Of course I have Chasm, and I've used him (although not very much, I only play for fun and I don't find him very fun). I still have no idea where you're seeing booting and rants. You also didn't answer my question. Who was hurt by the developers' mistake?
See the purpose of compensation (at least from a legal perspective) is to return a party to a situation they would have been in (or as much as a monetary sum can try and make up for that) had whatever happened never happened. If players had access to Chasm they have not been "hurt" during this period. If we are talking about 550 rosters then they had other 550 solutions to solve this. From that perspective there has been no tangible loss we can prove because we can't say that placement etc would not have followed the same pattern. I assume at the top little actually changed? If I am wrong in that then fair enough. So my position is that nobody or very few was hurt in terms of an actual tangible concept because those players either had Chasm or could easily cope. The only parties who suffer an actual loss are those who spent money to accumulate. I guess though you could argue that investing in Chasm is like investing in the stock market and nobody can guarantee that one day your stock will not crash.
Took advantage is where you lose me - I ask again what are people supposed to do with Marvel Puzzle Quest? Softcap their rosters? I like to try and champ everyone which is why I have Abigail at 4/4/4 and am seriously considering buying out the Krakoa vault for the 400 shards I need to champion her. So you might rightly question my sanity and thus dismiss anything I say here but I am trying to bring this opinion from a position where I think we are otherwise alligned in terms of not being all in on one meta players. I just don't feel I deserve anything because other players play this game differently. If they have the money available why can they not spend it? I have also cautioned in the past on the forums about the dangers of chasing meta exclusively but you do seem to have a very large bee in your bonnet over this to the extent you feel people do deserve to suffer from nerfs. It is just a game, let's have fun playing but people are allowed to feel upset if their toys are taken away in my opinion. Shrug
@pepitedechocolat said: Chasm users asking for compensation because of future nerfs are like bullies asking for compensation because someone intervened to prevent them from bullying... I understand many leveled chasm because of devs reluctance to fix fast and, had they grown balls on chasm months ago, the issue would have been much smaller. Yet, as @eb points out it is not the chasm players that suffered the most from the situation... Ofc, they could have realized from design stage that chasm was original design, but required "bagman level" power. Chasm has several design flaws that require to be fixed in the rework.
@pepitedechocolat said: Chasm users asking for compensation because of future nerfs are like bullies asking for compensation because someone intervened to prevent them from bullying...
Why? Perhaps I am missing something here (I am also dangerously starting to sound like a Chasm defender so really MUST stop after this one!) but:
1.) Chasm was available in latest tokens like every other 5* 2.) Chasm is not a limited character only available by real money purchase 3.) Using Chasm did not break any MPQ rules 4.) Chasm on his own is not an insurmountable problem
With all that in mind why are players who chased him and used him "bullies"?
@entrailbucket said: I think this comes down to what I'm beginning to accept is the fundamental disconnect between me (and, I dunno, maybe a few others) and the larger group of players -- the concept of MPQ as a multiplayer game vs a single-player one. If MPQ is a single-player game, then when the devs release overpowered characters that is an unequivocally good thing for players. We can defeat enemies faster and easier. We can spend less time playing the game and get better rewards. A nerf would mean compensation for players -- they are taking something away from us. Meanwhile, if MPQ is a competitive multiplayer game, overpowered characters are a problem. It's zero-sum. A winner necessitates a loser. Anyone not using the overpowered character is instantly at a huge competitive disadvantage. Players who go all in on that character can dominate placement rewards, taking them away from others. They can float without shields longer, win more fights more easily in PvP, and spend less on shields and boosts. Anyone who misses out has to catch up or they'll quickly be left behind. In this case, a nerf means correcting the initial mistake that the developers made. They've already taken something from us, and given it to other players. The problem is not the fix, the problem is that the character ever existed at all. I don't understand the players who think this is a single-player game, and I never will. I also imagine they will never understand me.
@entrailbucket said: I think this comes down to what I'm beginning to accept is the fundamental disconnect between me (and, I dunno, maybe a few others) and the larger group of players -- the concept of MPQ as a multiplayer game vs a single-player one.
Did the top alliances stop being top alliances? Did Chasm stop anybody champing a new 4* because that SHIELD SIM cover was just out of reach? Are players no longer co-ordinating in PVP because Chasm stunned Line? Did that impossible Chasm Challenge Node rob players of their rightful PvE ranking?
But hey, I am cool with getting compensation for what other players did or didn't do that they would have done exactly the same with any other meta (at least the Devs didn't troll us with a PvE node called "Overpowered couple" with Chasm and iHulk this time like Demiurge did) so hit me up Devs! Gimme that good stuff!
Actually, yes. That SIM 4* cover has proved many times out of reach. Or alternatively so health pack and HP demanding, that simply it's not worth it. Or just play marvel puzzle chasm and mirror it until dying of sickness and boredom. Edit: I almost miss out here the shadow creature saying that I don't know how to play this game. Almost.
I can only use my own experience as a 5* player and I can tell you I rarely play SHIELD SIM to completion because it is the worst event in MPQ and it has never impacted my ability to fully cover and eventually champ a 4* since I became a 5* player and the Chasm wall appeared. If you are saying as a 5* player being unable to get that single cover stops you fully covering the 4* then I can only say our experience is miles apart and I have no idea why. The only 4* I have put any effort into obtaining is Cosmo because he is a space dog! With the cover I got today from the Alliance event Cosmo is now fully covered which is decent going considering he isn't even in SHIELD Sim, I still need a cover for Torch. My experience is that covering 4* has never been easier and Chasm has little effect on that.
There I go again sounding like I am on Chasm's side...I gotta quit this!
@DAZ0273 said:
If you are saying as a 5* player being unable to get that single cover stops you fully covering the 4* then I can only say our experience is miles apart and I have no idea why.
Yeah you should stop because you are beginning to put words in others mouths like the shadow criature. I don't need at all that tiny 4* cover for to champ characters. But since I started playing I had the habit of completing shield SIM. Now it's not. Yesterday with 1000 points I was t500, and having queues of 30 points. Others players will say they are genuneily mpq players and they don't care if having a worse pvp experience. Me? Although I used to enjoy 3 pick pvp, if I don't have fun then I play another game.
I haven’t read any of the topic of Chasm being nerfed because I could care less but there are actually people actually asking for compensation because of him being nerfed? That’s hilarious lol
@Bad said: @DAZ0273 said: If you are saying as a 5* player being unable to get that single cover stops you fully covering the 4* then I can only say our experience is miles apart and I have no idea why. There I go again sounding like I am on Chasm's side...I gotta quit this! Yeah you should stop because you are beginning to put words in others mouths like the shadow criature. I don't need at all that tiny 4* cover for to champ characters. But since I started playing I had the habit of completing shield SIM. Now it's not. Yesterday with 1000 points I was t500, and having queues of 30 points. Others players will say they are genuneily mpq players and they don't care if having a worse pvp experience. Me? Although I used to enjoy 3 pick pvp, if I don't have fun then I play another game.
@Bad said:
Let's be fair - I said "If you are saying" which is a qualification. I never said "You are saying". So no, I am not putting words in your mouth simply because I have given you the chance to correct me. Dog of Shadiness never did that and I am very much not him.
@bigjojo04 said: I haven’t read any of the topic of Chasm being nerfed because I could care less but there are actually people actually asking for compensation because of him being nerfed? That’s hilarious lol
There was compensation when both Gambit and Wolverine (Old Man Logan) were "rebalanced" so the concept isn't completely out of left field. We all just got a shed load of Heroic tokens that very few of us deserved for Lightning Round minor issues. So...who knows?
Were those the only two sell-back stores? I don’t recall them for any others offhand; poor Danver5 didn’t even get an announcement, just quietly murdered in the background…