I don't think anyone should get "compensation" for a nerf.
But if Chasm users argue that they're uniquely hurt by this and deserve special compensation, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. My argument that non-Chasm players deserve compensation is just as logical as theirs.
Chasm was a mistake by the developers that affected almost every player in this game, and nobody deserves "compensation" over anybody else.
Those of us who refused to use Chasm should be compensated for putting up with the Chasm walls the rest of you built
@ThaRoadWarrior said: poor Danver5 didn’t even get an announcement, just quietly murdered in the background…
I would hardly say she was murdered given no one was using her or cared about her nor was her adjustment even worthy of mention by the Dev's. Someone probably just cleaned up some code to match a text description someplace and this is what fell out of that - LOL.
Regarding Compensation: For Chasm's nerf it should entirely depend on the nerf. If's it's an adjustment to bring him in line with other 5s that's entirely different than getting a Gambit level nerf. On the other hand the new Dev team has tended to err on the side of history (eg giving out all rewards when ever they adjust feeders, being generous in compensation for bugs) so I expect them to give out Gambit like compensation where you can trade in Chasm for other 5 (ideally 500 shards per cover so you can distribute at will).
KGB
Mod mode off
At the risk of ruining the discussion - is it really "compensation"?
For Gambit and OML, we got the choice to sell the character for an equivalent number of random covers. That's a gamble, not compensation. I didn't sell either (and am pretty glad now), so I didn't get anything from the 5* roulette spins. Others that did, I assume got pretty mixed results. So even if you did view it as compensation, it wouldn't be fair or equal whether you used Chasm or not, just whether you collected however many covers for him and whether your covers were on the whole better than post-nerf Chasm. So your "compensation" is entirely down to RNG upon RNG.
@Scofie said:Mod mode off At the risk of ruining the discussion - is it really "compensation"? For Gambit and OML, we got the choice to sell the character for an equivalent number of random covers. That's a gamble, not compensation. I didn't sell either (and am pretty glad now), so I didn't get anything from the 5* roulette spins. Others that did, I assume got pretty mixed results. So even if you did view it as compensation, it wouldn't be fair or equal whether you used Chasm or not, just whether you collected however many covers for him and whether your covers were on the whole better than post-nerf Chasm. So your "compensation" is entirely down to RNG upon RNG.
@Scofie said:Mod mode off
If they do this again, then, no, that is not "compensation." If they do, though, expect your job as a moderator to get very interesting for a few months!
The forum threads about the Gambit and OML nerfs were full of players complaining that those sellback schemes were "disrespectful" and inadequate -- that anything short of "1:1 covers of my choice" was unacceptable.
@entrailbucket said: @Scofie said:Mod mode off At the risk of ruining the discussion - is it really "compensation"? For Gambit and OML, we got the choice to sell the character for an equivalent number of random covers. That's a gamble, not compensation. I didn't sell either (and am pretty glad now), so I didn't get anything from the 5* roulette spins. Others that did, I assume got pretty mixed results. So even if you did view it as compensation, it wouldn't be fair or equal whether you used Chasm or not, just whether you collected however many covers for him and whether your covers were on the whole better than post-nerf Chasm. So your "compensation" is entirely down to RNG upon RNG. If they do this again, then, no, that is not "compensation." If they do, though, expect your job as a moderator to get very interesting for a few months! The forum threads about the Gambit and OML nerfs were full of players complaining that those sellback schemes were "disrespectful" and inadequate -- that anything short of "1:1 covers of my choice" was unacceptable. Heck, this discussion started because a player suggested there should be monetary compensation provided to players, and anything less would be unfair.
@entrailbucket said:
The forum threads about the Gambit and OML nerfs were full of players complaining that those sellback schemes were "disrespectful" and inadequate -- that anything short of "1:1 covers of my choice" was unacceptable. Heck, this discussion started because a player suggested there should be monetary compensation provided to players, and anything less would be unfair.
That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I said I wouldn’t entertain any notion about their main objective being anything other than driving revenue unless they compensated the monetary gains from their “mistake”. That is a far cry from calling it unfair. If you had read my full initial post (not the one transferred to this thread), maybe you could see all the times I said that I was grateful they were competent in driving revenue. You know, because otherwise the game would not exist.
Respectfully, please refrain from quoting me unless you quote my post in full without paraphrases and/or adding your lens to it.
My discussion was taken out of context from the start, this thread starting from the middle of a conversation has done nothing to improve that. I’d appreciate it if we could just curb my part of the debate I wasn’t intending to be involved in.
@jp1 said: @entrailbucket said: @Scofie said:Mod mode off At the risk of ruining the discussion - is it really "compensation"? For Gambit and OML, we got the choice to sell the character for an equivalent number of random covers. That's a gamble, not compensation. I didn't sell either (and am pretty glad now), so I didn't get anything from the 5* roulette spins. Others that did, I assume got pretty mixed results. So even if you did view it as compensation, it wouldn't be fair or equal whether you used Chasm or not, just whether you collected however many covers for him and whether your covers were on the whole better than post-nerf Chasm. So your "compensation" is entirely down to RNG upon RNG. If they do this again, then, no, that is not "compensation." If they do, though, expect your job as a moderator to get very interesting for a few months! The forum threads about the Gambit and OML nerfs were full of players complaining that those sellback schemes were "disrespectful" and inadequate -- that anything short of "1:1 covers of my choice" was unacceptable. Heck, this discussion started because a player suggested there should be monetary compensation provided to players, and anything less would be unfair. That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I said I wouldn’t entertain any notion about their main objective being anything other than driving revenue unless they compensated the monetary gains from their “mistake”. That is a far cry from calling it unfair. If you had read my full initial post (not the one transferred to this thread), maybe you could see all the times I said that I was grateful they were competent in driving revenue. You know, because otherwise the game would not exist. Respectfully, please refrain from quoting me unless you quote my post in full without paraphrases and/or adding your lens to it. My discussion was taken out of context from the start, this thread starting from the middle of a conversation has done nothing to improve that. I’d appreciate it if we could just curb my part of the debate I wasn’t intending to be involved in.
@jp1 said:
Quoted in full, as per request.
I deleted my statement that a player requested monetary compensation. If you say you didn't say that, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.
I still have absolutely no idea what your argument is, but I'm happy to remove you from this debate.
@entrailbucket said: @jp1 said: @entrailbucket said: @Scofie said:Mod mode off At the risk of ruining the discussion - is it really "compensation"? For Gambit and OML, we got the choice to sell the character for an equivalent number of random covers. That's a gamble, not compensation. I didn't sell either (and am pretty glad now), so I didn't get anything from the 5* roulette spins. Others that did, I assume got pretty mixed results. So even if you did view it as compensation, it wouldn't be fair or equal whether you used Chasm or not, just whether you collected however many covers for him and whether your covers were on the whole better than post-nerf Chasm. So your "compensation" is entirely down to RNG upon RNG. If they do this again, then, no, that is not "compensation." If they do, though, expect your job as a moderator to get very interesting for a few months! The forum threads about the Gambit and OML nerfs were full of players complaining that those sellback schemes were "disrespectful" and inadequate -- that anything short of "1:1 covers of my choice" was unacceptable. Heck, this discussion started because a player suggested there should be monetary compensation provided to players, and anything less would be unfair. That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I said I wouldn’t entertain any notion about their main objective being anything other than driving revenue unless they compensated the monetary gains from their “mistake”. That is a far cry from calling it unfair. If you had read my full initial post (not the one transferred to this thread), maybe you could see all the times I said that I was grateful they were competent in driving revenue. You know, because otherwise the game would not exist. Respectfully, please refrain from quoting me unless you quote my post in full without paraphrases and/or adding your lens to it. My discussion was taken out of context from the start, this thread starting from the middle of a conversation has done nothing to improve that. I’d appreciate it if we could just curb my part of the debate I wasn’t intending to be involved in. Quoted in full, as per request. I deleted my statement that a player requested monetary compensation. If you say you didn't say that, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. I still have absolutely no idea what your argument is, but I'm happy to remove you from this debate.
I vaguely remember someone threatening to sue Demi over a nerf, but I'm not sure whether it was Xforce or OML. So probably someone will ask for their money back after Chasm.
@Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: @jp1 said: @entrailbucket said: @Scofie said:Mod mode off At the risk of ruining the discussion - is it really "compensation"? For Gambit and OML, we got the choice to sell the character for an equivalent number of random covers. That's a gamble, not compensation. I didn't sell either (and am pretty glad now), so I didn't get anything from the 5* roulette spins. Others that did, I assume got pretty mixed results. So even if you did view it as compensation, it wouldn't be fair or equal whether you used Chasm or not, just whether you collected however many covers for him and whether your covers were on the whole better than post-nerf Chasm. So your "compensation" is entirely down to RNG upon RNG. If they do this again, then, no, that is not "compensation." If they do, though, expect your job as a moderator to get very interesting for a few months! The forum threads about the Gambit and OML nerfs were full of players complaining that those sellback schemes were "disrespectful" and inadequate -- that anything short of "1:1 covers of my choice" was unacceptable. Heck, this discussion started because a player suggested there should be monetary compensation provided to players, and anything less would be unfair. That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I said I wouldn’t entertain any notion about their main objective being anything other than driving revenue unless they compensated the monetary gains from their “mistake”. That is a far cry from calling it unfair. If you had read my full initial post (not the one transferred to this thread), maybe you could see all the times I said that I was grateful they were competent in driving revenue. You know, because otherwise the game would not exist. Respectfully, please refrain from quoting me unless you quote my post in full without paraphrases and/or adding your lens to it. My discussion was taken out of context from the start, this thread starting from the middle of a conversation has done nothing to improve that. I’d appreciate it if we could just curb my part of the debate I wasn’t intending to be involved in. Quoted in full, as per request. I deleted my statement that a player requested monetary compensation. If you say you didn't say that, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. I still have absolutely no idea what your argument is, but I'm happy to remove you from this debate. I vaguely remember someone threatening to sue Demi over a nerf, but I'm not sure whether it was Xforce or OML. So probably someone will ask for their money back after Chasm.
@Bowgentle said:
It was all of the nerfs, and it wasn't just one person.
Players also threatened to sue them over the changes to the game board. Several players threatened to sue that time when they gave out a bunch of free 5* shards, and it was deemed to be too few.
I would really, really, really like someone to follow through with one of the threats, one of these days, just to see how fast the judge would throw it out and how much the player would have to pay in attorney's fees for BCS.
I’m keeping my champed Chasm regardless. So, to be clear, Im not requesting compensation. I just can imagine a situation where a player could f. How it comes should be of little to no concern if you are a F2P player.
I appreciate that.
There is no solution that will satisfy all players.
At this point some of the Pro-Nerf-Chasm players will not be satisfied unless Chasm is nerfed so hard that in a 1 vs 1 match, he will lose to Bag-Man.
Some of the Anti-Nerf-Chasm players will cry that even dropping his primary match damage by a single point is a cruelty worse than kicking puppies.
My hope (like the many reasonable people here) is that Chasm’s “nerf” is something reasonable while still being a useful character to slot in when the situation calls for it. I’d rather see multiple smaller nerfs (one every other season or two) tweaking things till they find that balance. My frustration is that it feels as if the devs are instead fixated on releasing the “perfect” rebalancing and are frozen in their inaction till that “perfect” rebalance has been discovered.
@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
I'm guessing you haven't played MPQ for a super long time. Historically, when a major nerf happened, the previous developer allowed compensation in the form of exchanging your champed character for tokens or something else to a vault to try to "compensate" for loss of character's powers that you built. It didn't happen often, but it did happen. It's not like the developer said "here's USD$100 back for our nerf" but it was a way to compensate for those who put resources into the character just to see it nerf.
I think a big issue is that its impossible to perfectly evaluate the loss in rewards from people who did worse in events because of Chasm's existence. And where does that stop? How should the loss be weighted after each release that changed the playing field (aka 'Chasm counter' effects)?
What you can somewhat evaluate more closely is the amount of resources spent on Chasm. Even if nerfs are justified its still resources losing their value. What would people do, just not use Chasm at all from release until the devs magically decide he was too strong (without data or feedback because nobody used him)?
Another point is that you can get, as per mobile stores policy, refunds solely based on lost value of something you spend money on (aka 'nerfs ruined my toy'). "B-but you spend money on reasouces, not on the character itself" is a simple falacy and the store (both apple's and google's) will refund you nonetheless. IIRC theres a time window limit for that, but the policy is there for these cases (nerfs/changes) anyway.
I have no horse in this race and Im just waiting to see what they gonna do.
@ShionSinX said: Another point is that you can get, as per mobile stores policy, refunds solely based on lost value of something you spend money on (aka 'nerfs ruined my toy'). "B-but you spend money on reasouces, not on the character itself" is a simple falacy and the store (both apple's and google's) will refund you nonetheless. IIRC theres a time window limit for that, but the policy is there for these cases (nerfs/changes) anyway. I have no horse in this race and Im just waiting to see what they gonna do.
@ShionSinX said:
In that case apple or Google can refund you, showing the tickets for purchase (many people won't have spent nothing because they were hoarders). And then developers have the ultimate right to cancel your account.
@KGB said: @ThaRoadWarrior said: poor Danver5 didn’t even get an announcement, just quietly murdered in the background… I would hardly say she was murdered given no one was using her or cared about her nor was her adjustment even worthy of mention by the Dev's. Someone probably just cleaned up some code to match a text description someplace and this is what fell out of that - LOL.
@KGB said:
She was the third in my BRB/Polaris team. I used her often enough to notice immediately that something was wrong.
Can someone enlighten me on what changes happened to 5carol? I think I was not around at the time
Her Green power originally destroyed an extra row if that row contained friendly specials. As part of the destruction of the row, it destroyed friendly special tiles. That was great for BRB/Polaris because it generated tons more protects.
Now it's changed so it still destroys all the extra rows but it DOES NOT destroy friendly specials so it doesn't trigger BRB/Polaris.
You can see the original description here and compare to the current in game description.https://marvelpuzzlequest.fandom.com/wiki/Captain_Marvel_(Galactic_Warrior)
Logically the change makes sense as Carol (a hero) would not destroy her own teams special tiles. But it broke the BRB/Polaris winfinite (of which there are countless other ways to do it with 5* She Hulk being the best) so it annoyed the few players who were using that specific combo. But every other SAP team benefited from this change since they would no longer lose their SAP tiles when using her green.
She desperately needs a re-work from the ground up as all 3 of her powers are awful and she was one of the biggest disappointments ever upon her release given her 4 star version is beloved and as Captain Marvel she was viewed as someone who should be meta or near meta.
@pepitedechocolat said: Can someone enlighten me on what changes happened to 5carol? I think I was not around at the time
Her green used to destroy the entire row. So her, polaris, and beta ray bill created a winfinite team where she would destroy a row of friendly shield tiles, gain green from brb passive, polaris would replace the lost protect tiles and then you'd do it again.
They changed her green to destroy a row excluding friendly special tiles. Which took away the one niche use she had.
The funny thing though is that 1 star juggernaut, 3 star storm, 4 star thanos, and a half dozen other characters can fill in for capt marvel role, so they didn't shut down the winfinite, they just took away the one use people found for capt marvel.
The way her green worked is that it would target a random row, and for every friendly special it destroyed it would destroy an additional row, up to a full board. So once Polaris came out it was pretty effective at populating a board with whatever almost immediately. Destroying friendly strikes triggered a passive yellow generation, and for some reason they nerfed the green without altering that passive. So it was (I guess) supposed to go red, make strikes, green, break strikes, then use yellow. I always wondered if it was in preparation for Mehneto, or perhaps Ronan, since a total board destruction in either of their cases could hit pretty hard, but we’ll never know. The fact that all those other options existed unchanged made me think the problem was in her yellow generation, or more specifically the green-to-yellow pipeline it creates.
And ironically after cutting Carol off at the knees, they gave practically the same ability to Kamala. To rub salt in the wounds, Kamala's Green is cheaper than Carol's, and her own passive Green AP generation is better than Carol's. Maybe someone really doesn't like Brie Larson. Now we just need a meta 5* Monica Rambeau when the movie comes out and Carol's downfall will be complete (unless they buff her!).
As for Chasm...well. I just hope the devs read through this thread and tweak him appropriately. If they do nothing else, at the very least something needs to be done about the passive unconditional destruction of enemy AP.