GP was never stated to be able to pin people with heavies so I didn't care about the change. Drax was never stated to counter astral evade, didn't care. AA and MD were both stated to be working as intended and then changed anyway. No RDT. You just can't say that changing the MD interaction didn't change the efficacy of mystic champs on war defense. Blade was the initial push to stop the over saturation of mystic wars which is fine. This game has obstacles and counters. Then came the MD change to put the icing on the cake. That wasn't a naturally introduced counter, that was changing the way that champions worked on defense primarily. No RDT.
Well, I'm glad people are happy. I'm still against Tickets on principle, but I'm glad they decided to alleviate peoples' concerns. I just hope it doesn't start another kamikaze of Ticket requests. Lol.
When you actually start ranking max champs and taking on difficult content you’ll likely have a better understanding of why this is upsetting.
Smooth dig. However, my view doesn't change regardless of the Rank. I'm aware of why people are upset. I don't agree with Tickets in general. They're counterproductive. The point is to progress by Ranking everything and anything you can. It all goes into growth for me. Every Ticket we received I used for SA or Level-Up.
And you can still be ranking everything with the resources you get from ranking down SH
Still counterproductive IMO. You make choices, you move on. That's my motto.
And people made the choice to rank up SH because of the heavy chain but now it's gone they feel cheated
But she wasn't supposed to be able to do that so they fixed her.
How are we supposed to know that it wasn't intended like it's been out for 3 years without a problem
It wasn't a problem until she got buffed and that's blatantly obvious to anyone why.
And? It's still dumb how as soon as a champ gets good they begin to focus on these type of thInga like if this was never intended why do nothing to fix it until now when she is buffed I wouldnt be surprised if they do the same with OML
There's good and there's infinitely cornering a LoL fight with a 3* champ to take them out broken. Trying to justify how she was working is pretty ridiculous honestly.
She-hulk has some perfect storm matches that work out very well with her kit. If the opponent has an easy to avoid L1, class neutral or disadvantage to She-hulk, susceptible to taunting and slow (esp. if without unstoppable /evade they suck), and no node effects/champ abilities that can mess with the rhythm. There's a handful of big show fights that a highly skilled player can make look like a cakewalk with her.
Well, I'm glad people are happy. I'm still against Tickets on principle, but I'm glad they decided to alleviate peoples' concerns. I just hope it doesn't start another kamikaze of Ticket requests. Lol.
When you actually start ranking max champs and taking on difficult content you’ll likely have a better understanding of why this is upsetting.
Smooth dig. However, my view doesn't change regardless of the Rank. I'm aware of why people are upset. I don't agree with Tickets in general. They're counterproductive. The point is to progress by Ranking everything and anything you can. It all goes into growth for me. Every Ticket we received I used for SA or Level-Up.
But at a slow pace right? Wouldn’t want to drop below 10 mil gold. You’re opinion and beliefs seem to change depending on what you’re arguing about and who you’re arguing against. I’m also glad people got the right and deserved outcome, commend Kabam on making the logical decision.
Yes. I Rank at a pace. Meaning I don't go for broke and complain I have no Gold. I keep a minimum balance as a buffer and wait until I replenish above that before Ranking. I always keep at least 5 Mil and use what I make above that. It's not hard. You just don't go from R1 to R5 in one sitting. My beliefs haven't changed at all. You're just misquoting me.
Well, I'm glad people are happy. I'm still against Tickets on principle, but I'm glad they decided to alleviate peoples' concerns. I just hope it doesn't start another kamikaze of Ticket requests. Lol.
When you actually start ranking max champs and taking on difficult content you’ll likely have a better understanding of why this is upsetting.
Smooth dig. However, my view doesn't change regardless of the Rank. I'm aware of why people are upset. I don't agree with Tickets in general. They're counterproductive. The point is to progress by Ranking everything and anything you can. It all goes into growth for me. Every Ticket we received I used for SA or Level-Up.
But at a slow pace right? Wouldn’t want to drop below 10 mil gold. You’re opinion and beliefs seem to change depending on what you’re arguing about and who you’re arguing against. I’m also glad people got the right and deserved outcome, commend Kabam on making the logical decision.
Yes. I Rank at a pace. Meaning I don't go for broke and complain I have no Gold. I keep a minimum balance as a buffer and wait until I replenish above that before Ranking. I always keep at least 5 Mil and use what I make above that. It's not hard. You just don't go from R1 to R5 in one sitting. My beliefs haven't changed at all. You're just misquoting me.
I’ve been from R1 to R5 in one sitting as have plenty, this isn’t Pokémon. Rank to beat content but we can all play our own way I guess.
This was not a mechanic of this Champion, and was not mentioned as one. All Champions have the same speed and cadence to their Attacks, and no Champion should be able to combo into a Heavy attack with 100% reliability.
That's from kabam Mike
Why not just make her heavy combo a 80% chance to hit?
I think he even stated somewhere "unless it's in their ability description "
Well, just make it a 80% chance to land. Put it in her description
You honestly think this change warrants a reversal more than the changes like AA and MD/defenders after they were flat out stated to be working correctly?
If I keep asking you if you honestly believe this change doesn't warrant a reversal over and over again, approximately how many repetitions would it take to change your mind?
Also I'm not going to read through this entire thread to find everything you said here. I didn't care about she hulk before they announced the change and I don't care about her still.
I do care about the inconsistency that happens with these situations though so I came in here when the reversal was announced.
RDTs aren't going to be consistently applied because RDTs are a remedy of last resort: by definition they are going to be decided on a case by case basis. There's a thought process of considering what prompts the change, is the change indicative of an unfair player choice, and are there any reasonable reasons why the change should have been anticipated.
Which I went through in detail throughout the thread, but especially here, here, and very especially here.
You say that AA's unintended passive stun broke certain content designs but yet it was stated to be working as intended when it was brought up. Then it was changed later. How does that not warrant someone being able to reconsider a rank up while this interaction based solely on assumptions does is what confuses me?
I'm legitimately just curious about the thought process behind this at this point. If something is stated to be functioning as intended in black and white and then changed after the fact, how does that not if anything justify people being able to reconsider a rank up?
Well, if you read the posts I linked to, I implicitly addressed that, although I did so by talking about Gwenpool. Regardless of what the documentation says and regardless of what the devs say, there's still the question of exploitive behavior:
But maybe She Hulk was just too good in her current configuration, and we should have all known that. Gwenpool, for example, was simply way too good before she was changed. But Gwenpool actually seems to say the opposite. Gwenpool was too good because she could continuously heavy a defender trapped against the wall and perma-stack bleeds that kept enervate permanently locked onto the target. Because the target could never gain power the target was stuck: the only way for a defender to get out of the corner when they are heavy-chained is to use a special attack, and that can only happen if they can get power. Perma-enervate locks them out of the only escape path from the corner.
Yes a developer did state that the stun was working correctly with AA, and that does contribute to the question of whether RDTs would be justified in that case (and for the record, when those dev statements came to light I reversed my position and said that RDTs were now at least worth considering). But no matter what the game says and no matter what the developers say, players have to understand that exploits are going to be removed from the game, and players can't rely on exploitive behavior. This is certainly a grey area to be sure and different people will disagree about what constitutes obviously exploitive behavior, but this is an area where She Hulk and AA differ. She Hulk is far more distant from exploitable behavior than AA. And that's specifically because of the prior experience with Gwenpool. Unlike with AA, where a dev made a short off-hand comment about a mechanic they probably didn't carefully consider, Kabam made very clear what their thinking was with Gwenpool under conditions you couldn't possibly argue were not very carefully considered at the time. And those statements boiled down to cornering is ok, cornering while depriving the target of power indefinitely is not okay.
Furthermore, AA was in fact changed because Kabam said that the passive stun was basically exploitive, while the She Hulk change isn't being changed for that reason: it is being changed for a design rule reason.
If all you care about is the devs said its okay then they said it wasn't okay and then they changed it, there's no difference between She Hulk and AA. But the specifics are different and the specifics matter. If you want to know why I think the two are different, I can explain that. If you want to know why Kabam thinks they are different, you'll have to ask them. If you don't think they are different and you're wondering why I do, all I can tell you is the logic behind that judgment. If you don't agree with that judgment, you won't accept its conclusions. Short of conducting a game design symposium, I'm not sure how to change that situation.
Well, I'm glad people are happy. I'm still against Tickets on principle, but I'm glad they decided to alleviate peoples' concerns. I just hope it doesn't start another kamikaze of Ticket requests. Lol.
When you actually start ranking max champs and taking on difficult content you’ll likely have a better understanding of why this is upsetting.
Smooth dig. However, my view doesn't change regardless of the Rank. I'm aware of why people are upset. I don't agree with Tickets in general. They're counterproductive. The point is to progress by Ranking everything and anything you can. It all goes into growth for me. Every Ticket we received I used for SA or Level-Up.
But at a slow pace right? Wouldn’t want to drop below 10 mil gold. You’re opinion and beliefs seem to change depending on what you’re arguing about and who you’re arguing against. I’m also glad people got the right and deserved outcome, commend Kabam on making the logical decision.
Yes. I Rank at a pace. Meaning I don't go for broke and complain I have no Gold. I keep a minimum balance as a buffer and wait until I replenish above that before Ranking. I always keep at least 5 Mil and use what I make above that. It's not hard. You just don't go from R1 to R5 in one sitting. My beliefs haven't changed at all. You're just misquoting me.
I’ve been from R1 to R5 in one sitting as have plenty, this isn’t Pokémon. Rank to beat content but we can all play our own way I guess.
You don't if you're short on Gold was my point. It's just simple Economics. Same rules for money apply to Gold. If you spend more than you make, you'll go broke.
You honestly think this change warrants a reversal more than the changes like AA and MD/defenders after they were flat out stated to be working correctly?
If I keep asking you if you honestly believe this change doesn't warrant a reversal over and over again, approximately how many repetitions would it take to change your mind?
And again, I don't have a problem with them giving RDT for this. I just think it's pretty sad that people weren't given the same option for previous changes that on paper were far more deserving. They just didn't have the right people crying about them apparently
It is sad but nothing can be done about it now, like I’ve heard you say kabam has been terrible in communicating in the past so chalk this up as a step forward. They can’t change anything that’s been done but going forward if this means improved dialogue and improved relations then hopefully we can avoid it in the future.
That's not completely true. They could still do the same for those previous changes. I don't expect or even particularly want them to at this point though.
I'm just curious to see where this goes from here. After pretty much every time they've given out RDTs, the cries for them just got more prevalent and justifications more ridiculous. I'm looking forward to the 11ty billion threads asking for them again bc of emergency maintenance.
I'm glad Kabam finally made the right decision on this, although it really doesn't impact me, it was the right thing to do. I hope they will start putting more thought into how they handle champ changes in the future. I'm still not happy with how they handled Sym Supreme but at least we got their attention this time.
I don’t understand all the anger over this. People were knowingly taking advantage of a bug/ability that was never meant to be.
Not accurate.
People saw examples posted or streamed online of She-Hulk’s abilities. New abilities for all they could tell considering she was recently reworked. Not all of these people felt or knew that this was not intended as part of her kit.
She had a very powerful ability to apply her slow debuffs reliably without taking huge parry damage from endgame level champs. She displayed a powerful taunt mechanic through her ability to apply these debuffs in a way that other champs are able to do as well.... By chaining her heavy after a combo in the corner. Although, her abilities made this gameplay mechanic uniquely powerful for her in this regard.
Some may have wondered if this was intended, yet the videos of her kept coming. On and on, for months. I watched most of them and thought to myself...”Wow. Very nice. She-Hulk has a powerful mechanic that makes her an elite champ. Cool.”
Was there any response from the creators?
No.
Was there any hint at this being unintended?
No.
She is not as powerful as the elite of the game. Therefore, people began to rank up their Shulks. For months. There was no hint at it being unintended.
Until one small line buried in the most recent patch notes.
To think this was not known about for the last few months after her beta (or even during the beta), while she was doing solid work against 6.2 Champion is simply naive.
It was everywhere.
Not a word from the game team. So, what did people do? They ranked her up for some of the most difficult content to date. Then?
You honestly think this change warrants a reversal more than the changes like AA and MD/defenders after they were flat out stated to be working correctly?
If I keep asking you if you honestly believe this change doesn't warrant a reversal over and over again, approximately how many repetitions would it take to change your mind?
Also I'm not going to read through this entire thread to find everything you said here. I didn't care about she hulk before they announced the change and I don't care about her still.
I do care about the inconsistency that happens with these situations though so I came in here when the reversal was announced.
RDTs aren't going to be consistently applied because RDTs are a remedy of last resort: by definition they are going to be decided on a case by case basis. There's a thought process of considering what prompts the change, is the change indicative of an unfair player choice, and are there any reasonable reasons why the change should have been anticipated.
Which I went through in detail throughout the thread, but especially here, here, and very especially here.
You say that AA's unintended passive stun broke certain content designs but yet it was stated to be working as intended when it was brought up. Then it was changed later. How does that not warrant someone being able to reconsider a rank up while this interaction based solely on assumptions does is what confuses me?
I'm legitimately just curious about the thought process behind this at this point. If something is stated to be functioning as intended in black and white and then changed after the fact, how does that not if anything justify people being able to reconsider a rank up?
Well, if you read the posts I linked to, I implicitly addressed that, although I did so by talking about Gwenpool. Regardless of what the documentation says and regardless of what the devs say, there's still the question of exploitive behavior:
But maybe She Hulk was just too good in her current configuration, and we should have all known that. Gwenpool, for example, was simply way too good before she was changed. But Gwenpool actually seems to say the opposite. Gwenpool was too good because she could continuously heavy a defender trapped against the wall and perma-stack bleeds that kept enervate permanently locked onto the target. Because the target could never gain power the target was stuck: the only way for a defender to get out of the corner when they are heavy-chained is to use a special attack, and that can only happen if they can get power. Perma-enervate locks them out of the only escape path from the corner.
Yes a developer did state that the stun was working correctly with AA, and that does contribute to the question of whether RDTs would be justified in that case (and for the record, when those dev statements came to light I reversed my position and said that RDTs were now at least worth considering). But no matter what the game says and no matter what the developers say, players have to understand that exploits are going to be removed from the game, and players can't rely on exploitive behavior. This is certainly a grey area to be sure and different people will disagree about what constitutes obviously exploitive behavior, but this is an area where She Hulk and AA differ. She Hulk is far more distant from exploitable behavior than AA. And that's specifically because of the prior experience with Gwenpool. Unlike with AA, where a dev made a short off-hand comment about a mechanic they probably didn't carefully consider, Kabam made very clear what their thinking was with Gwenpool under conditions you couldn't possibly argue were not very carefully considered at the time. And those statements boiled down to cornering is ok, cornering while depriving the target of power indefinitely is not okay.
Furthermore, AA was in fact changed because Kabam said that the passive stun was basically exploitive, while the She Hulk change isn't being changed for that reason: it is being changed for a design rule reason.
If all you care about is the devs said its okay then they said it wasn't okay and then they changed it, there's no difference between She Hulk and AA. But the specifics are different and the specifics matter. If you want to know why I think the two are different, I can explain that. If you want to know why Kabam thinks they are different, you'll have to ask them. If you don't think they are different and you're wondering why I do, all I can tell you is the logic behind that judgment. If you don't agree with that judgment, you won't accept its conclusions. Short of conducting a game design symposium, I'm not sure how to change that situation.
I definitely don't agree with AA being exploitive but SH not. I understand where you're coming from though. I don't see a whole lot of difference between cornering and depriving power and cornering and having a massive taunt on the opponent basically guaranteeing an immediate special launch. Sure you can say that it only works if the sp1 is avoidable but GP's enervate doesnt work against passive power gain to champs like sym sup, hyperion, havok, and certain nodes. Some opponents would still gain power. So if you can say that SH doesn't work against all fights so it's not exploitive, I'm not sure how the same wouldn't go for GP.
I don't think either should be in the game personally but if anything I find the rationale that some people have in regards to this interesting. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong by any means we just have differing opinions.
I definitely don't agree with AA being exploitive but SH not. I understand where you're coming from though. I don't see a whole lot of difference between cornering and depriving power and cornering and having a massive taunt on the opponent basically guaranteeing an immediate special launch. Sure you can say that it only works if the sp1 is avoidable but GP's enervate doesnt work against passive power gain to champs like sym sup, hyperion, havok, and certain nodes. Some opponents would still gain power. So if you can say that SH doesn't work against all fights so it's not exploitive, I'm not sure how the same wouldn't go for GP.
The question really is why was the original cornering while enervated an exploit at all? That isn't a logical conclusion so much as it is a design judgment. In some games, a little bit of cheese like that is entirely acceptable because the game isn't designed around winning one single fight, so cheese one and struggle with the other is acceptable.
The reason it is exploitive really comes down to the fact that the devs say so: cornering while depriving power prevents the AI from ever escaping by any means, because specials are the only means of escape (acknowledging the special case of power gain effects). The devs made the call that corner minus power is an exploit, corner plus power is not an exploit. As long as the AI has a *chance* to counterattack, the situation isn't exploitive in that sense. They specifically addressed the case of Magik that can power lock (even more effectively than Gwenpool could) and then mash the target in the corner until the lock expired, then back out and refresh it. That was explicitly stated to not be an exploit.
Sure, this is somewhat a matter of degree, but cheating is defined by the game designer for all games. It has to be, because cheating is a value judgment specific to each game, not a universal thing.
Ultimately no game developer can write a complete guide to what is cheating. They have to place stakes in the ground that mark the outskirts of cheating and then we players have to connect the dots. There's a lot of tension between players trying to push the boundaries and developers trying to keep control of the game when this happens. But at some point, you have to accept the ruling of the referee when they call holding.
I don't think either should be in the game personally but if anything I find the rationale that some people have in regards to this interesting. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong by any means we just have differing opinions.
Fair enough. I'm not saying my position is right in any absolute sense either. It is my position, I believe it is both logical and internally consistent, and I made my case to the thread and to the devs. But after that, its up to the judgment of the readers.
Although I am wondering what the record is for most disagree flags for a single post.
Well, I'm glad people are happy. I'm still against Tickets on principle, but I'm glad they decided to alleviate peoples' concerns. I just hope it doesn't start another kamikaze of Ticket requests. Lol.
When you actually start ranking max champs and taking on difficult content you’ll likely have a better understanding of why this is upsetting.
Smooth dig. However, my view doesn't change regardless of the Rank. I'm aware of why people are upset. I don't agree with Tickets in general. They're counterproductive. The point is to progress by Ranking everything and anything you can. It all goes into growth for me. Every Ticket we received I used for SA or Level-Up.
And you can still be ranking everything with the resources you get from ranking down SH
Still counterproductive IMO. You make choices, you move on. That's my motto.
And people made the choice to rank up SH because of the heavy chain but now it's gone they feel cheated
But she wasn't supposed to be able to do that so they fixed her.
How are we supposed to know that it wasn't intended like it's been out for 3 years without a problem
Because her abilities weren't game breaking prior to her update. Allowing her to still work like that with her new abilities is bad for balance in the game.
Well, I'm glad people are happy. I'm still against Tickets on principle, but I'm glad they decided to alleviate peoples' concerns. I just hope it doesn't start another kamikaze of Ticket requests. Lol.
When you actually start ranking max champs and taking on difficult content you’ll likely have a better understanding of why this is upsetting.
Smooth dig. However, my view doesn't change regardless of the Rank. I'm aware of why people are upset. I don't agree with Tickets in general. They're counterproductive. The point is to progress by Ranking everything and anything you can. It all goes into growth for me. Every Ticket we received I used for SA or Level-Up.
But at a slow pace right? Wouldn’t want to drop below 10 mil gold. You’re opinion and beliefs seem to change depending on what you’re arguing about and who you’re arguing against. I’m also glad people got the right and deserved outcome, commend Kabam on making the logical decision.
Don’t argue with the troll. It just feeds his ego. KT1 called him out in his video today & said to ignore him & I would agree.
This comment adds nothing to the discussion, and neither does inciting hatred on YouTube. If people are using that platform to incite hatred on others specifically using that platform, that can and will be dealt with. You're not helping by encouraging it.
@Kabam Miike you need to address what is going to happen to all the other champs in the game that can do the same thing of chaining heavy after a combo. OML is one. He’s getting a buff. Is Kabam going to keep that? Is Kabam going remove his ability to chain combo six months after the buff using a one-line announcement buried in a list of updates? What about ultron? What about superior iron man? Oh ultron? Are we going to hear some time in the future that you are just discovering they have the same ability SH has/had? Should we assume if you are not changing that a lot them now it will never change? Enquiring minds want to know.....
Someone disagreeing with you is not an attack, nor is it "inviting hatred".
They can disagree if they like, but when you use a public platform like YouTube, you need to adhere to guidelines, and when you use it in a way that makes targets of others and leads to Followers hating on them, that's a violation. Trust me. I've already been down this road. I know what you can and can't use YouTube for. I'm more aware of their rules than Kabam's.
YouTube is not the same as a Forum with a few hundred people at any given time, at most. Things like that aren't allowed here, but when you put it on a platform where Billions of people have access to it at all times, it's an issue.
You said if many champs had the ability people would be using those... The point was that there was no reason to assume it was a bug as she and others have been able to do this for years. Even after the "fix" many champs will still be able to chain combos into heavies.
Comments
My beliefs haven't changed at all. You're just misquoting me.
That's from kabam Mike
Why not just make her heavy combo a 80% chance to hit?
I think he even stated somewhere "unless it's in their ability description "
Well, just make it a 80% chance to land. Put it in her description
Furthermore, AA was in fact changed because Kabam said that the passive stun was basically exploitive, while the She Hulk change isn't being changed for that reason: it is being changed for a design rule reason.
If all you care about is the devs said its okay then they said it wasn't okay and then they changed it, there's no difference between She Hulk and AA. But the specifics are different and the specifics matter. If you want to know why I think the two are different, I can explain that. If you want to know why Kabam thinks they are different, you'll have to ask them. If you don't think they are different and you're wondering why I do, all I can tell you is the logic behind that judgment. If you don't agree with that judgment, you won't accept its conclusions. Short of conducting a game design symposium, I'm not sure how to change that situation.
I don’t understand all the anger over this. People were knowingly taking advantage of a bug/ability that was never meant to be.
I'm just curious to see where this goes from here. After pretty much every time they've given out RDTs, the cries for them just got more prevalent and justifications more ridiculous. I'm looking forward to the 11ty billion threads asking for them again bc of emergency maintenance.
I'm pretty sure no one knew if it was intended or not probably not even Kabam lol
People saw examples posted or streamed online of She-Hulk’s abilities. New abilities for all they could tell considering she was recently reworked. Not all of these people felt or knew that this was not intended as part of her kit.
She had a very powerful ability to apply her slow debuffs reliably without taking huge parry damage from endgame level champs. She displayed a powerful taunt mechanic through her ability to apply these debuffs in a way that other champs are able to do as well.... By chaining her heavy after a combo in the corner. Although, her abilities made this gameplay mechanic uniquely powerful for her in this regard.
Some may have wondered if this was intended, yet the videos of her kept coming. On and on, for months. I watched most of them and thought to myself...”Wow. Very nice. She-Hulk has a powerful mechanic that makes her an elite champ. Cool.”
Was there any response from the creators?
No.
Was there any hint at this being unintended?
No.
She is not as powerful as the elite of the game. Therefore, people began to rank up their Shulks. For months. There was no hint at it being unintended.
Until one small line buried in the most recent patch notes.
To think this was not known about for the last few months after her beta (or even during the beta), while she was doing solid work against 6.2 Champion is simply naive.
It was everywhere.
Not a word from the game team. So, what did people do? They ranked her up for some of the most difficult content to date. Then?
Not a word.
Anyone who can’t see this....
Furthermore, AA was in fact changed because Kabam said that the passive stun was basically exploitive, while the She Hulk change isn't being changed for that reason: it is being changed for a design rule reason.
If all you care about is the devs said its okay then they said it wasn't okay and then they changed it, there's no difference between She Hulk and AA. But the specifics are different and the specifics matter. If you want to know why I think the two are different, I can explain that. If you want to know why Kabam thinks they are different, you'll have to ask them. If you don't think they are different and you're wondering why I do, all I can tell you is the logic behind that judgment. If you don't agree with that judgment, you won't accept its conclusions. Short of conducting a game design symposium, I'm not sure how to change that situation.
I definitely don't agree with AA being exploitive but SH not. I understand where you're coming from though. I don't see a whole lot of difference between cornering and depriving power and cornering and having a massive taunt on the opponent basically guaranteeing an immediate special launch. Sure you can say that it only works if the sp1 is avoidable but GP's enervate doesnt work against passive power gain to champs like sym sup, hyperion, havok, and certain nodes. Some opponents would still gain power. So if you can say that SH doesn't work against all fights so it's not exploitive, I'm not sure how the same wouldn't go for GP.
I don't think either should be in the game personally but if anything I find the rationale that some people have in regards to this interesting. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong by any means we just have differing opinions.
The reason it is exploitive really comes down to the fact that the devs say so: cornering while depriving power prevents the AI from ever escaping by any means, because specials are the only means of escape (acknowledging the special case of power gain effects). The devs made the call that corner minus power is an exploit, corner plus power is not an exploit. As long as the AI has a *chance* to counterattack, the situation isn't exploitive in that sense. They specifically addressed the case of Magik that can power lock (even more effectively than Gwenpool could) and then mash the target in the corner until the lock expired, then back out and refresh it. That was explicitly stated to not be an exploit.
Sure, this is somewhat a matter of degree, but cheating is defined by the game designer for all games. It has to be, because cheating is a value judgment specific to each game, not a universal thing.
Ultimately no game developer can write a complete guide to what is cheating. They have to place stakes in the ground that mark the outskirts of cheating and then we players have to connect the dots. There's a lot of tension between players trying to push the boundaries and developers trying to keep control of the game when this happens. But at some point, you have to accept the ruling of the referee when they call holding. Fair enough. I'm not saying my position is right in any absolute sense either. It is my position, I believe it is both logical and internally consistent, and I made my case to the thread and to the devs. But after that, its up to the judgment of the readers.
Although I am wondering what the record is for most disagree flags for a single post.
Someone disagreeing with you is not an attack, nor is it "inviting hatred".