marshall said: At the end of the day, you want to upset the status quo, introduce further variety. Don't think he's as bad as people think. He will definitely not be top tier anymore, which is the goal. And we'll not have characters powers being introduced in an attempt to disrupt him specifically.We'll be back to a world of strategy and counterstrategy, as opposed to "bring your Gambit to the Gambit party".
658_2 said: I have zero, ZERO, sympathy for those who who used the cp glitch to push their Gambits up. It makes me happy that their choice is to either sell or live with 500+ mmr. DESERVED
thedarkphoenix said: 658_2 said: I have zero, ZERO, sympathy for those who who used the cp glitch to push their Gambits up. It makes me happy that their choice is to either sell or live with 500+ mmr. DESERVED And those who didnt?
ramoramo86 said: Warbringa said: marshall said: At the end of the day, you want to upset the status quo, introduce further variety. Don't think he's as bad as people think. He will definitely not be top tier anymore, which is the goal. And we'll not have characters powers being introduced in an attempt to disrupt him specifically.We'll be back to a world of strategy and counterstrategy, as opposed to "bring your Gambit to the Gambit party". Actually their stated goal was that they wanted him to still be top tier but he now he will barely be mid tier. It shows how little the devs understand finesse when it comes to nerfs. It is always a better strategy to slowing fine tune a character downwards than cut them completely down like this nerf has done. //Removed Misinformation -Brigby
Warbringa said: marshall said: At the end of the day, you want to upset the status quo, introduce further variety. Don't think he's as bad as people think. He will definitely not be top tier anymore, which is the goal. And we'll not have characters powers being introduced in an attempt to disrupt him specifically.We'll be back to a world of strategy and counterstrategy, as opposed to "bring your Gambit to the Gambit party". Actually their stated goal was that they wanted him to still be top tier but he now he will barely be mid tier. It shows how little the devs understand finesse when it comes to nerfs. It is always a better strategy to slowing fine tune a character downwards than cut them completely down like this nerf has done.
bluewolf said: Why leave Ock out of the tokens? My possibilities:1. As stated, perhaps he is just that bad.2. A rework is planned and it would be better to have less of him “in the wild”. They won’t tell us that up front.Anything else is wild speculation, like vaulting/retiring a 5 to cap the tier and try to control dilution.
Dormammu said: While I don't have a horse in this race either way, I've always wondered why the developers do what they do when it comes to balancing characters. Instead of completely shredding a character into irrelevancy, which has been their tactic with almost all nerfs in the 5-year history of this wonderful game, why don't they do smaller tweaks more often?Other developers adjust things all the time, up and down. MMO's are excellent at this. Buffing here, reducing there. Sometimes they entirely reverse what they did from the previous adjustment. But the changes are usually small and frequent - occurring with every update - until a balance is found.Do they lack the resources to do this? Do they not have a reliable source of QA data?
entrailbucket said: For the people who are surprised by this...I'm sorry, but you just haven't been paying attention. In the entire history of this game, the only wrong roster-building strategy is to chase whoever's the best *right now*. Every single time there is a consensus "best character" or "the only one you need" that guy gets knocked down. Gambit had been that for months now, so everyone should have known this was coming and planned for it. Poor planning is not the devs' problem, it's yours.
entrailbucket said:Fix Thor next, please.
Tony_Foot said: They release an op character that I happened to get lucky busting a hoard to get and it’s my poor planning?Understood, I will plan better in future. Just so I know when to Plan for the next gambit, when is the next amazon digital day?
Jaedenkaal said: entrailbucket said: For the people who are surprised by this...I'm sorry, but you just haven't been paying attention. In the entire history of this game, the only wrong roster-building strategy is to chase whoever's the best *right now*. Every single time there is a consensus "best character" or "the only one you need" that guy gets knocked down. Gambit had been that for months now, so everyone should have known this was coming and planned for it. Poor planning is not the devs' problem, it's yours. Well that's not really fair. Leveling the character who's "best right now" is always the best short term strategy. Even if you knew that they were going to get nerfed into the ground 8 months from now, it would probably STILL be the best strategy to chase them as hard as possible. What's the alternative? Effectively stall your entire progression indefinitely? Only level "fair" characters? Now you're just losing ground to everyone who -is- chasing the top.Which is not to say I'm against this change, because I'm not. But I think its pointless to get angry just because you (not you specifically) invested a lot into Gambit, and now they're not the top character anymore. To keep the game moving, future releases would have to be at least competitive with Gambit, otherwise they wouldn't generate much interest at all. This -could- have been fixed by making all future releases just flat out better than gambit, but A) that also makes them flat out better than the entire rest of the game, and wouldn't even matter until there were 4 such characters that you had to choose between, and B ) at that point you'd still have invested X into Gambit, and he'd no longer be worth using. So you'd be in the same spot with Gambit, only now the entire rest of the game is totally irrelevant to you, and probably many others.That's clearly an even less sustainable game model than whatever we have now, so I agree with the devs, it would seem, that it's better for the health of the game to simply lower Gambit's power. That way, all the other characters that everyone may or may not have invested a lot into stay relevant for longer, instead of becoming even more pointless than they already are.
Daredevil217 said: You do know not everyone can just champ every character, right? It’s very very small percentage that play that much and spend that much. Saying “build up everyone” is great advice. Too bad things such as dilution, RNG, and strangleholds on resources are real things.
Jarvind said: While I am happy that Gambit's stranglehold on the game is finally being broken, it's profoundly disappointing to see him utterly crushed like this. This is Old Man Logan all over again; let him run rampant for ages, then nerf him so hard he becomes useless outside of his PVE essential nodes. Any two of the changes in this update would've been fine, but to hit ALL of his powers, including reducing his main power's damage AND increasing its cost by 40 percent?Good lord, you guys suck at game design. Brigby, please tell the relevant parties that they suck at game design. In those exact words, please.
entrailbucket said: Jaedenkaal said: entrailbucket said: For the people who are surprised by this...I'm sorry, but you just haven't been paying attention. In the entire history of this game, the only wrong roster-building strategy is to chase whoever's the best *right now*. Every single time there is a consensus "best character" or "the only one you need" that guy gets knocked down. Gambit had been that for months now, so everyone should have known this was coming and planned for it. Poor planning is not the devs' problem, it's yours. Well that's not really fair. Leveling the character who's "best right now" is always the best short term strategy. Even if you knew that they were going to get nerfed into the ground 8 months from now, it would probably STILL be the best strategy to chase them as hard as possible. What's the alternative? Effectively stall your entire progression indefinitely? Only level "fair" characters? Now you're just losing ground to everyone who -is- chasing the top.Which is not to say I'm against this change, because I'm not. But I think its pointless to get angry just because you (not you specifically) invested a lot into Gambit, and now they're not the top character anymore. To keep the game moving, future releases would have to be at least competitive with Gambit, otherwise they wouldn't generate much interest at all. This -could- have been fixed by making all future releases just flat out better than gambit, but A) that also makes them flat out better than the entire rest of the game, and wouldn't even matter until there were 4 such characters that you had to choose between, and B ) at that point you'd still have invested X into Gambit, and he'd no longer be worth using. So you'd be in the same spot with Gambit, only now the entire rest of the game is totally irrelevant to you, and probably many others.That's clearly an even less sustainable game model than whatever we have now, so I agree with the devs, it would seem, that it's better for the health of the game to simply lower Gambit's power. That way, all the other characters that everyone may or may not have invested a lot into stay relevant for longer, instead of becoming even more pointless than they already are. Sometimes I forget that not everyone has been playing this game for 4 and a half years.This is what MPQ is, and it's always been like this, since day 1. The players pick a guy that's the best, they only use that one guy, then that guy gets nerfed into oblivion and never used again. When they nerfed Ragnarok we didn't even get an announcement, we just logged in one day and he mysteriously sucked.The meta changes very quickly, and it changes completely. When one guy gets nerfed another one almost immediately shows up everywhere. The only sustainable roster strategy is to ignore the short term completely and focus on building up everyone in the very very long term. That way when whatever's next shows up, you're prepared. You need to have a backup plan in place if you want to stay at the very top of the meta.