Compensation for Chasm nerf discussion

Scofie

It's not really about nerfing a character in a game.

Its whether about whether a product was missold due to a change in the description.

If the item no longer matches the product description than it is no longer the item you bought. The digital content is no longer as described.Its core functionality has changed.

The grey area is whether you bought a Chasm cover or access to the powers with your purchase. You can keep the cover and it is a described - a level in a character. The stats move, the powers move, but as long as there's a power matrix that balances the relative strength of the character, the impact is largely situational. This can be shown by different builds of the character for different circumstances. In normal play. Proving the character is nerfed in all circumstances rather than rebalanced to bee more moderate in some circumstances is very difficult. And at the end of the day, you got a Chasm cover as promised.

DAZ0273

Here is a trip down memory lane - who was here when the GDPR changes came in? Remember what happened? We all had to opt in or no longer be able to post on the site (or we could like that guy who went on a rampage deleting all his old posts). The reason for that is because D3Go as they were then CHANGED the terms & conditions of their website to comply with the law.

If 505 or BCS were in any danger of falling afoul of consumer law they would change their terms and conditions to adapt to this and the very next time we tried to play we would have to agree to them before we could access the game.

So if we have to sign up to new T&C before they do anything to Chasm then we will know the answer.

BlackBoltRocks

If anyone has ever wondered why real-life court cases take 3-4 years to settle (and even that is a conservative estimate), this thread is a great showcase why.

Wolverbat

Everybody knows that Chasm is annoying character for opponents and he is good in defense, but not good enough in attack. The fair compensation is to do better him and 5* Spiderman in atack in order everyone should want to use them in pvp and pve like shang chi and mthor.

Jimsta_rooney

@Wolverbat said:
Everybody knows that Chasm is annoying character for opponents and he is good in defense, but not good enough in attack. The fair compensation is to do better him and 5* Spiderman in atack in order everyone should want to use them in pvp and pve like shang chi and mthor.

I dunno dude,a character that tanks even colossus,stuns 99%of the roster before they even have time to retaliate,has a dmg passive that activates every turn,sucks ap to 0 most turns,heals and also comes back to life(with a cascade no less)
Sounds pretty good on attack to me...

ShionSinX

@entrailbucket said:
I can't speak to other countries' systems, but courts in the US, in general, these days, do not have time for this nonsense and will not tolerate it.

Decades ago you saw stories about frivolous lawsuits that people filed over all sorts of ridiculous stuff, but there've been a LOT of reforms enacted since then, and courts now have tons of ways to either ignore or actually censure folks who make frivolous claims.

Courts are extremely busy (and generally massively overbooked) with real things that affect the real lives of real people -- if you try to sue a company because you're mad that they nerfed a digital superhero in your toilet game, that is not going to be a case that's worthy of their time, and they will not hesitate to take action against you for wasting their time.

Tell that to Billy Mitchell and all his lawsuits against people like Karl Jobst

@Bad said:
This is in your App. Privacy - Terms and uses:

I'd say it's a bit hard to claim nothing having agreed, isn't it?

I just want to point out that they are free to put w/e they want in their contract and ask you to agree before you start playing, but that doesnt mean that you cant dispute any clause later and/or in closer inspection (if it ever went to court) a judge cant say that its an unfair clause and just write it off and make them compensate you for any loss or damage caused.

Thats standard practice, to put scarecrow terms to say they cant be held accoundable but if it goes against the consumer rights (and this only really matters if it goes to court or else nobody cares), they can be sued over it. Just like supermarkets or malls putting up posters saying they arent responsible for any damage/theft caused to vehicles parked in their parking lots, but they totally are (its a private space owned by them).

Bad

@ShionSinX said:

Thats standard practice, to put scarecrow terms to say they cant be held accoundable but if it goes against the consumer rights (and this only really matters if it goes to court or else nobody cares), they can be sued over it. Just like supermarkets or malls putting up posters saying they arent responsible for any damage/theft caused to vehicles parked in their parking lots, but they totally are (its a private space owned by them).

It didn't work in here, as I already posted: https://massivelyop.com/2020/04/13/player-who-claims-a-mobile-rpgs-gacha-mechanics-were-falsely-advertised-loses-court-case/
So it mustn't be so easy to invalidate.
Either way you have 2 troubles here: to invalidate contract terms and to prove your point.
The first one could bind all other games

ShionSinX

@Bad said:

@ShionSinX said:

Thats standard practice, to put scarecrow terms to say they cant be held accoundable but if it goes against the consumer rights (and this only really matters if it goes to court or else nobody cares), they can be sued over it. Just like supermarkets or malls putting up posters saying they arent responsible for any damage/theft caused to vehicles parked in their parking lots, but they totally are (its a private space owned by them).

It didn't work in here, as I already posted: https://massivelyop.com/2020/04/13/player-who-claims-a-mobile-rpgs-gacha-mechanics-were-falsely-advertised-loses-court-case/
So it mustn't be so easy to invalidate.
Either way you have 2 troubles here: to invalidate contract terms and to prove your point.
The first one could bind all other games

At the same time, unfair contract clauses have been decided against the defendant (who wrote said contract). Its all about being able to prove your case when the time comes, and the judge agreeing with you. Not saying its either easy or impossible.

entrailbucket

@ShionSinX said:

@Bad said:

@ShionSinX said:

Thats standard practice, to put scarecrow terms to say they cant be held accoundable but if it goes against the consumer rights (and this only really matters if it goes to court or else nobody cares), they can be sued over it. Just like supermarkets or malls putting up posters saying they arent responsible for any damage/theft caused to vehicles parked in their parking lots, but they totally are (its a private space owned by them).

It didn't work in here, as I already posted: https://massivelyop.com/2020/04/13/player-who-claims-a-mobile-rpgs-gacha-mechanics-were-falsely-advertised-loses-court-case/
So it mustn't be so easy to invalidate.
Either way you have 2 troubles here: to invalidate contract terms and to prove your point.
The first one could bind all other games

At the same time, unfair contract clauses have been decided against the defendant (who wrote said contract). Its all about being able to prove your case when the time comes, and the judge agreeing with you. Not saying its either easy or impossible.

You're arguing in very general terms, which is deceptive in this case.

Of course an unfair contract clause can be deemed void. If there was a clause in their T&Cs that said "by playing this game, you agree to pay 505 Games $1 million," then that would be unenforceable.

That does NOT mean that a lawsuit seeking compensation for a Chasm nerf would be successful, or would even be heard at all (hint: it wouldn't).

Bad

In the case I already posted, the claimer spent roughly 15k dollards, lose the job and loaned friends, and now he asked 30k dollards to the company arguing false advertising and that character never appearing when pulling: the judge never came to inspect the pulling system. They limited to see the contract terms and the claimer behavior and then they make their verdict, which was humiliating for the claimer.
Translated to chasm, the judge never will come to see if the new skill is better or worse on offense or defense, simply they will see contract terms and claimer or company behavior and make the verdict more according to law.
Because if the consumer is abide to a contract terms, they are free to quit the game or play it without spending nothing, but if they choose to spend a lot then the blame is on the consumer unless developers did something abusive (rarely it will be the case).
So the one with more probabilities to lose the case vs a gacha game always will be the consumer for having an irresponsible behavior.

Yepyep

The best way to think about this, I would suggest, is that the game is a service. Access to that service is all that we contract for with its provider; there is no grant of any right, license, or any other sort of ownership interest in the underlying software (or any of its expressive elements). For example, you don't even "own" your own account -- you can use it or not use it, but you cannot sell it or otherwise alienate it in a way that results in a different person having control over it. Rather, you only have the right to access the service so long as it is being provided and you faithfully observe the terms of use to which you agreed -- as periodically amended.

Continued use of the service implies consent to any changes in the service and/or its terms of use and any objections are deemed waived if not timely raised in accordance with the EULA. As an example, every week 20 or so characters have changes applied to their underlying numbers in the form of boosts that cause fundamental changes to gameplay dynamics. Players are, mostly, fine with that. It's the nerfs that occasion demands for compensation and complaints of bait-and-switch tactics.

You didn't "buy a Chasm." You "bought" access to whatever Chasm the developers provide as part of the service generally. All aspects of the services' intricacies and expressive elements are exclusively within the developers' dominion and control and thus subject to their sole discretion. Absent harm to a consumer sounding in tort law, objections to the provision of the service and the terms of its use can be resolved within the in-game economy -- or in any other manner they deem appropriate -- by its proprietors on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

SnowcaTT

@entrailbucket said:

Whether they're doing that or not, I have zero sympathy for players hurt by this, because they should have learned by now that they're not in control of the game -- the developers are.

Based on what I've seen over the last two years, the developers aren't in control of the game either.

The only control factor I've been able to see is the almighty dollar. Who is paying, and who isn't: those who either pay to get specific characters or those who pay to get overlooked for their 'playstyle'.

Chasm will be no different. The last few meta-shifts have been fixed by characters. Did you buy that fancy BRB? iHulk will fix that. Did you buy that fancy iHulk? SW will fix that. Did you buy that fancy SW? Chasm will fix that.

I disagree chasm really needs fix, anymore than any of those others needed fix. Environment has -always- been flooded with one 'better' team, and the money chase has been the next character that squishes the last one. Of course, that leads to power creep.

The money-chase problem is the "chasm fix" characters haven't done their job, so the spenders haven't needed to do the spending. Perhaps the power creep has finally come to an end!

More likely if the 'top' character gets changed, be it a nerf or a buff or a new release, we're going to see the next 'top' character as 80% of the matches in the game. Again. Like always. History has, and will, repeat. The money has to get chased.

BriMan2222

@SnowcaTT said:

@entrailbucket said:

Whether they're doing that or not, I have zero sympathy for players hurt by this, because they should have learned by now that they're not in control of the game -- the developers are.

Based on what I've seen over the last two years, the developers aren't in control of the game either.

The only control factor I've been able to see is the almighty dollar. Who is paying, and who isn't: those who either pay to get specific characters or those who pay to get overlooked for their 'playstyle'.

Chasm will be no different. The last few meta-shifts have been fixed by characters. Did you buy that fancy BRB? iHulk will fix that. Did you buy that fancy iHulk? SW will fix that. Did you buy that fancy SW? Chasm will fix that.

I disagree chasm really needs fix, anymore than any of those others needed fix. Environment has -always- been flooded with one 'better' team, and the money chase has been the next character that squishes the last one. Of course, that leads to power creep.

The money-chase problem is the "chasm fix" characters haven't done their job, so the spenders haven't needed to do the spending. Perhaps the power creep has finally come to an end!

More likely if the 'top' character gets changed, be it a nerf or a buff or a new release, we're going to see the next 'top' character as 80% of the matches in the game. Again. Like always. History has, and will, repeat. The money has to get chased.

Ihulk is supposed to counter BRB? I would have thought it's the other way around. Everytime I see brb team vs ihulk team, no matter which team is mine it's almost always the same result. Brb gets his cheap blue out, pretty soon ihulk aoe is doing -1 damage each turn with all the protect tiles out, soon after that there's not enough green tiles that aren't protect tiles for it to go off at all. I've always found ihulk to be more of a liability vs brb than helpful, especially if the other team also has kitty and she gets her red on the board.

DAZ0273

BRB + Kitty was my iHulk counter until Scarlet Witch did it for free.

entrailbucket

@SnowcaTT this just seems like a restatement of the "digital pump-and-dump scheme" theory -- developers release an overpowered character on purpose to get players to spend money, then nerf the character when sales die off, so that players will have to spend to chase after a new overpowered character.

First, you're saying that the developers are in fact in control, to the point where they're fiendishly psychologically manipulating players into spending money, so I'm not sure why you disagreed with that specific point.

Second, I don't agree that this is what they're doing, but let's posit that it's true. The developers purposely create overpowered characters to drive sales, then purposely nerf them to take that value from players. Assuming that is the plan...

How on earth is anyone still dumb enough to fall for this scheme?

The first time it happened (Ragnarok), I agree that players couldn't have known/couldn't even have anticipated that this might happen. We're now at, what, the 10th time? If you were dumb enough to spend a ton of money on Chasm, ignoring the entire history of this metagame, then regardless of the developers' evil, money-grubbing intentions, you absolutely deserve what you get.

It's Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football. The first few times, it's Lucy's fault. But the 5th time? The 10th time? That's on you.

Yepyep

I'm not really sure where to put it, so I'll put it here: I don't think Chasm is overpowered. This week in PvP is an example of that -- Hit Monkey and Kang laugh at Chasm if they notice him at all. That is also true for many other characters when they are boosted. In other weeks, Chasm and iHulk are a good general-use team, just like Switch and Colossus still are. For sure, Chasm isn't a threat without the right partner, and with that partner there are multiple specific counters.

At this point, Chasm doesn't need a nerf as his skillset had been embedded in a power matrix designed to accommodate them. Sure he's strong, but not any more so than others in the top tier of 5*s.

entrailbucket

Chasm isn't overpowered this week. In 3 weeks when the boosted 5* list is Wasp, Hela, Ultron, and Sersi, he'll be overpowered again.

BriMan2222

@Yepyep said:
I'm not really sure where to put it, so I'll put it here: I don't think Chasm is overpowered. This week in PvP is an example of that -- Hit Monkey and Kang laugh at Chasm if they notice him at all. That is also true for many other characters when they are boosted. In other weeks, Chasm and iHulk are a good general-use team, just like Switch and Colossus still are. For sure, Chasm isn't a threat without the right partner, and with that partner there are multiple specific counters.

At this point, Chasm doesn't need a nerf as his skillset had been embedded in a power matrix designed to accommodate them. Sure he's strong, but not any more so than others in the top tier of 5*s.

Chasm isn't overpowered... so long as two characters that were designed specifically to counter him are both god boosted in the same week... I think you're accidentally proving why he is overpowered.

Yepyep

I think my point is still good. He's meta, but requires a partner to be superstrong. Chasm is pretty much a cupcake without iHulk.

So, what we're actually discussing is Hulkasm. (And for that matter, why isn't it iHulk who is OP? It's truly not fun facing down a strong Hulkoye team...) You can always use Kang or HM's specialized powers to take out Chasm, boosted or not. Riri-mThor can put them away. And there's always the specialized art of the Hulkasm mirror (which I have not mastered but it's been used against me plenty).

Obviously, unless you're a 550 you won't be looking to take on Hulkasm during a PvP hop, but while climbing Hulkasm is doable if they're the only points out there. I'd prefer to skip them, obviously, but that's true for Switch-Colossus, too. Skilled players with deep rosters can handle the odd Hulkasm team.

As for this week, not only is a Hulkasm team not overpowered, it is a neon billboard screeching "HIT ME." That was part of my point: like almost all other (decent) 5s out there, some weeks are great, some are average, and some are awful due to that week's boosts. This week, Hulkasm is pathetically underpowered. In the week you mention with Wasp, Hela, Ultron, and Sersi boosted, three of whom are the dregs of the 5 tier, Hulkasm will be above average but not more so than mThor-SC -- either team can take out those boosted toons with little difficulty (though, obviously, Hulkasm brings good defense and instills fear that mThor-SC do not). But they're only really OP when Chasm is boosted.

Edited to say: I'm not sure how that random italicization got in there. Maybe some inadvertent markdown thing I typed. Since I don't know much markdown...

entrailbucket

I agree that they should (also) nerf Hulk. Unlimited resurrection is too good, and frankly it's surprising that it took till now for a character to exploit it.

As for the rest: I mean, yeah, all 5* have "good" and "bad" weeks, I guess, depending on the boost list. Chasm having only one "bad" week out of 52 (and I'm still seeing him everywhere this week anyway) is just more evidence that he's too good. How many bad weeks does everyone else have? Has Ultron ever had a good week?