@GroundedWisdom as they've pointed out many times already the values changed across all rarities not just one so yes it is highly unlikely that this is just a bug. Neither of you can think logically they're right lol
He be like
If anyone can imply I don't think, I'm afraid they're not reading my comments. I just don't jump to illogical conclusions based on mistrust. If I suspect something has changed, I ask for clarification. I don't cry nerf. That doesn't help any discussion get the information it needs.
For the third time, it isn't illogical to think this IS probably a nerf and not a bug because the values changed on all rarities not just one, you're so dense.
You think a bug affecting all Rarities of one Champ, or even multiple Champs, isn't logical? Are we talking about the same logic?
@GroundedWisdom as they've pointed out many times already the values changed across all rarities not just one so yes it is highly unlikely that this is just a bug. Neither of you can think logically they're right lol
He be like
If anyone can imply I don't think, I'm afraid they're not reading my comments. I just don't jump to illogical conclusions based on mistrust. If I suspect something has changed, I ask for clarification. I don't cry nerf. That doesn't help any discussion get the information it needs.
For the third time, it isn't illogical to think this IS probably a nerf and not a bug because the values changed on all rarities not just one, you're so dense.
You think a bug affecting all Rarities of one Champ, or even multiple Champs, isn't logical? Are we talking about the same logic?
If it was visual or gameplay I'd agree. These however are changes in values across all rarities, are you implying someone pressed the wrong buttons and all the values got changed to random even numbers by accident? If that sounds logical to you then you're not thinking.
The point I'm making is NONE of us have enough information to make assertions either way. I suspect it's a bug because history shows they don't just silently nerf things, and they've said so umpteen times. The implied point I made, which was overlooked, was it's always best to gather more information and ask then jump to the "nerf" conclusion.
History does say the opposite tho 💁♂️
Bishop is the only history you have for "shadow nerfs". There's never been another. Bugs on the other hand.....
The reason it seemed bugged to me was that the crit rating was the same across every rarity. That was weird.
But, I think communication here should have been improved and firstly, more clear communication that it was bugged in the first place, and secondly, an announcement that it was getting fixed before it was fixed.
Having said that, overall it’s still an incredibly powerful relic, and 5* and 6* versions are still going to be wildly impactful. I just think communication should have been improved here.
I read on Kam's Twitter that apparently Kabam did communicate this info to members of the CCP. If that's true, I can't understand why this info wasn't given out to the community as early as possibly, as opposed to just randomly nuking it down out of nowhere.
I read on Kam's Twitter that apparently Kabam did communicate this info to members of the CCP. If that's true, I can't understand why this info wasn't given out to the community as early as possibly, as opposed to just randomly nuking it down out of nowhere.
We found out when you guys did, when someone noticed it in game.
That’s what makes me think that it’s a fix that went live early, because it’s over the weekend. There hasn’t been any official word on it yet
I read on Kam's Twitter that apparently Kabam did communicate this info to members of the CCP. If that's true, I can't understand why this info wasn't given out to the community as early as possibly, as opposed to just randomly nuking it down out of nowhere.
We found out when you guys did, when someone noticed it in game.
That’s what makes me think that it’s a fix that went live early, because it’s over the weekend. There hasn’t been any official word on it yet
Yeah, that's likely the case. But they still should have said something MUCH sooner. I read about this a month or so back, from a comment in Vega's Youtube comment section by Kam but he never elaborated any further when asked about it.
I was tempted to make a thread here asking about it, but figured it probably wouldn't go over well.
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
Is it really that hard to think logically?
Well, now what
What do you mean now what? You and GW are still wrong about it being a bug, whereas we are at least half right, it's a bug fix which has resulted in the old relic being nerfed indirectly.
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
Is it really that hard to think logically?
Well, now what
What do you mean now what? You and GW are still wrong about it being a bug, whereas we are at least half right, it's a bug fix which has resulted in the old relic being nerfed indirectly.
Yeah, i said either the old one was a bug or the new one is. It's the former. It's not a nerf like y'all were screaming
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
Is it really that hard to think logically?
Well, now what
What do you mean now what? You and GW are still wrong about it being a bug, whereas we are at least half right, it's a bug fix which has resulted in the old relic being nerfed indirectly.
Yeah, i said either the old one was a bug or the new one is. It's the former. It's not a nerf like y'all were screaming
Nerf: verb (used with object) (lowercase)Slang. (in a video game) to reconfigure (an existing character or item), making it less powerful.
Yes, this is still an indirect nerf, it's not a shadow nerf but it's an indirect nerf regardless.
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
Is it really that hard to think logically?
Well, now what
What do you mean now what? You and GW are still wrong about it being a bug, whereas we are at least half right, it's a bug fix which has resulted in the old relic being nerfed indirectly.
Yeah, i said either the old one was a bug or the new one is. It's the former. It's not a nerf like y'all were screaming
Nerf: verb (used with object) (lowercase)Slang. (in a video game) to reconfigure (an existing character or item), making it less powerful.
Yes, this is still an indirect nerf, it's not a shadow nerf but it's an indirect nerf regardless.
A Nerf is used when something is changed because it is too powerful to make it more balanced. Fixing bugs isn't 'reconfiguring' . Namor was nerfed, Bishop was nerfed, SW, DS, Thor, Shang Chi were all nerfed.
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
Is it really that hard to think logically?
Well, now what
What do you mean now what? You and GW are still wrong about it being a bug, whereas we are at least half right, it's a bug fix which has resulted in the old relic being nerfed indirectly.
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
Is it really that hard to think logically?
Well, now what
What do you mean now what? You and GW are still wrong about it being a bug, whereas we are at least half right, it's a bug fix which has resulted in the old relic being nerfed indirectly.
Yeah, i said either the old one was a bug or the new one is. It's the former. It's not a nerf like y'all were screaming
Nerf: verb (used with object) (lowercase)Slang. (in a video game) to reconfigure (an existing character or item), making it less powerful.
Yes, this is still an indirect nerf, it's not a shadow nerf but it's an indirect nerf regardless.
There are at least a couple of other layers here that are relevant.
Something is different that’s significantly less advantageous to the player after existing in its previous state for a fair amount of time
+
No communication or notice was given that the “something” is being or has been changed
=
People make the not unreasonable presumption that the “something” being changed counts (more or less) as a nerf that they had to discover on their own.
As someone who has the 5* relic on one of my main attackers, it would be nice to know whether that presumption is correct or not.
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
Is it really that hard to think logically?
Well, now what
What do you mean now what? You and GW are still wrong about it being a bug, whereas we are at least half right, it's a bug fix which has resulted in the old relic being nerfed indirectly.
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
Is it really that hard to think logically?
Well, now what
What do you mean now what? You and GW are still wrong about it being a bug, whereas we are at least half right, it's a bug fix which has resulted in the old relic being nerfed indirectly.
Yeah, i said either the old one was a bug or the new one is. It's the former. It's not a nerf like y'all were screaming
Nerf: verb (used with object) (lowercase)Slang. (in a video game) to reconfigure (an existing character or item), making it less powerful.
Yes, this is still an indirect nerf, it's not a shadow nerf but it's an indirect nerf regardless.
You should look up what indirect means.
I have, the relic was nerfed as a result of the bug fix. Don't bother replying though cause I don't tend to argue with the forum knights. Already seen how that ends.
There are at least a couple of other layers here that are relevant.
Something is different that’s significantly less advantageous to the player after existing in its previous state for a fair amount of time
+
No communication or notice was given that the “something” is being or has been changed
=
People make the not unreasonable presumption that the “something” being changed counts (more or less) as a nerf that they had to discover on their own.
As someone who has the 5* relic on one of my main attackers, it would be nice to know whether that presumption is correct or not.
Dr. Zola
The 4* got nuked, but I thought the 5* stayed close to the same? What has your experience with that been?
There are at least a couple of other layers here that are relevant.
Something is different that’s significantly less advantageous to the player after existing in its previous state for a fair amount of time
+
No communication or notice was given that the “something” is being or has been changed
=
People make the not unreasonable presumption that the “something” being changed counts (more or less) as a nerf that they had to discover on their own.
As someone who has the 5* relic on one of my main attackers, it would be nice to know whether that presumption is correct or not.
Dr. Zola
We all wish kabam was more communicative about bugs and acknowledging them at least in one other thread. We've all been there trying to get kabam's attention for a bug.But that doesn't mean players should immediately jump on to 'silent nerf' 'kabam Bad' every chance they get no matter how nonsensical it ia
God do you ever stop defending Kabam over everything and claiming anything negative people say on these forums are conspiracies? It was 2.1k indeed and now it's 800, that's no bug that is a shadow nerf.
No what GW is saying is that it's likely that the new values are bugged or the old one was
So you're saying it's far more likely for this whole situation to be a bug than a shadow nerf? Doesn't seem logical to me, sure nobody here has insider information but if you take into account the fact that the values changed on the higher rarities too it's pretty obvious what actually happened here. Ps. I really don't think defending GW is a hill you wanna die on mate.
Is it really that hard to believe this game has bugs?
Is it really that hard to think logically?
Well, now what
What do you mean now what? You and GW are still wrong about it being a bug, whereas we are at least half right, it's a bug fix which has resulted in the old relic being nerfed indirectly.
Yeah, i said either the old one was a bug or the new one is. It's the former. It's not a nerf like y'all were screaming
Nerf: verb (used with object) (lowercase)Slang. (in a video game) to reconfigure (an existing character or item), making it less powerful.
Yes, this is still an indirect nerf, it's not a shadow nerf but it's an indirect nerf regardless.
You should look up what indirect means.
I have, the relic was nerfed as a result of the bug fix. Don't bother replying though cause I don't tend to argue with the forum knights. Already seen how that ends.
That's not how things work. It's funny you say that but that's all you've been doing by your standards.
Why aren't you complaining about this "indirect nerf"? What about some of the other examples here?
Was Crossbones indirectly buffed since they fixed an issue with his cool down for overrun?
Amazing that there's already 2 disagrees on my comment above when it's literally the same thing as gambits relic issue. Scared trolls who hide behind a action button.
The point I'm making is NONE of us have enough information to make assertions either way. I suspect it's a bug because history shows they don't just silently nerf things, and they've said so umpteen times. The implied point I made, which was overlooked, was it's always best to gather more information and ask then jump to the "nerf" conclusion.
History does say the opposite tho 💁♂️
Bishop is the only history you have for "shadow nerfs". There's never been another. Bugs on the other hand.....
There have been countless. AA is the obvious example. Just because you didn't pay attention, ignore, forgot, or haven't been playing long enough doesn't mean it didn't happen.
There are at least a couple of other layers here that are relevant.
Something is different that’s significantly less advantageous to the player after existing in its previous state for a fair amount of time
+
No communication or notice was given that the “something” is being or has been changed
=
People make the not unreasonable presumption that the “something” being changed counts (more or less) as a nerf that they had to discover on their own.
As someone who has the 5* relic on one of my main attackers, it would be nice to know whether that presumption is correct or not.
Dr. Zola
I'm going to have to disagree. There is nothing reasonable about assuming they covertly changed it without asking for clarification first.
The point I'm making is NONE of us have enough information to make assertions either way. I suspect it's a bug because history shows they don't just silently nerf things, and they've said so umpteen times. The implied point I made, which was overlooked, was it's always best to gather more information and ask then jump to the "nerf" conclusion.
History does say the opposite tho 💁♂️
Bishop is the only history you have for "shadow nerfs". There's never been another. Bugs on the other hand.....
There have been countless. AA is the obvious example. Just because you didn't pay attention, ignore, forgot, or haven't been playing long enough doesn't mean it didn't happen.
When was archangel "silently nerfed"? Now be mindful of what words mean. Bug fixes aren't nerfs.
The point I'm making is NONE of us have enough information to make assertions either way. I suspect it's a bug because history shows they don't just silently nerf things, and they've said so umpteen times. The implied point I made, which was overlooked, was it's always best to gather more information and ask then jump to the "nerf" conclusion.
History does say the opposite tho 💁♂️
Bishop is the only history you have for "shadow nerfs". There's never been another. Bugs on the other hand.....
There have been countless. AA is the obvious example. Just because you didn't pay attention, ignore, forgot, or haven't been playing long enough doesn't mean it didn't happen.
When was archangel "silently nerfed"? Now be mindful of what words mean. Bug fixes aren't nerfs.
Sometime between when Kabam said he was working as intended and the people noticed the stun was a debuff and not passive anymore. It's very easy to find on the forum.
The point I'm making is NONE of us have enough information to make assertions either way. I suspect it's a bug because history shows they don't just silently nerf things, and they've said so umpteen times. The implied point I made, which was overlooked, was it's always best to gather more information and ask then jump to the "nerf" conclusion.
History does say the opposite tho 💁♂️
Bishop is the only history you have for "shadow nerfs". There's never been another. Bugs on the other hand.....
There have been countless. AA is the obvious example. Just because you didn't pay attention, ignore, forgot, or haven't been playing long enough doesn't mean it didn't happen.
When was archangel "silently nerfed"? Now be mindful of what words mean. Bug fixes aren't nerfs.
Sometime between when Kabam said he was working as intended and the people noticed the stun was a debuff and not passive anymore. It's very easy to find on the forum.
Somehow you tell me it's "countless" but can't only bring up this old, incredibly debunked example. You can't stun a stun immune champion. That what was happening with AA's neurotoxins. It had nothing to do with it being a debuff or not. If you're going to use this, at least get the example right. You even posted a picture of the conversation and still got it wrong.
The point I'm making is NONE of us have enough information to make assertions either way. I suspect it's a bug because history shows they don't just silently nerf things, and they've said so umpteen times. The implied point I made, which was overlooked, was it's always best to gather more information and ask then jump to the "nerf" conclusion.
History does say the opposite tho 💁♂️
Bishop is the only history you have for "shadow nerfs". There's never been another. Bugs on the other hand.....
There have been countless. AA is the obvious example. Just because you didn't pay attention, ignore, forgot, or haven't been playing long enough doesn't mean it didn't happen.
When was archangel "silently nerfed"? Now be mindful of what words mean. Bug fixes aren't nerfs.
Sometime between when Kabam said he was working as intended and the people noticed the stun was a debuff and not passive anymore. It's very easy to find on the forum.
Whether it was a debuff or a passive, stun immune is stun immune. He was stunning stun immune champions. That is a very obvious bug that goes against game logic. The kabam staff who said it was correct was mistaken in the instance. He wasn't meant to stun stun immune champs at all
Had this been communicated, I certainly wouldn’t have ranked my 4* relic up to max. I would have waited for the 5 or 6*. And yes based 25 years of online game play I agree with others that an uncommunicated significant capability reduction is without a doubt a nerf.
Amazing that there's already 2 disagrees on my comment above when it's literally the same thing as gambits relic issue. Scared trolls who hide behind a action button.
Hmmm no I'm pretty sure it's the fact that you're comparing text and visual updates to a bug fix that actually impacts gameplay nobody's trolling. I just gave you the fifth one though
Comments
If that sounds logical to you then you're not thinking.
But, I think communication here should have been improved and firstly, more clear communication that it was bugged in the first place, and secondly, an announcement that it was getting fixed before it was fixed.
Having said that, overall it’s still an incredibly powerful relic, and 5* and 6* versions are still going to be wildly impactful. I just think communication should have been improved here.
That’s what makes me think that it’s a fix that went live early, because it’s over the weekend. There hasn’t been any official word on it yet
Here's what my 4* relic used to be:
And a screenshot of someone' 6* relic:
Couldn't find any images of the 5*, but I'd assume it would've been around 2300 or so Yeah, that's likely the case. But they still should have said something MUCH sooner. I read about this a month or so back, from a comment in Vega's Youtube comment section by Kam but he never elaborated any further when asked about it.
I was tempted to make a thread here asking about it, but figured it probably wouldn't go over well.
Yes, this is still an indirect nerf, it's not a shadow nerf but it's an indirect nerf regardless.
This relic was bugged and a bug was fixed.
Something is different that’s significantly less advantageous to the player after existing in its previous state for a fair amount of time
+
No communication or notice was given that the “something” is being or has been changed
=
People make the not unreasonable presumption that the “something” being changed counts (more or less) as a nerf that they had to discover on their own.
As someone who has the 5* relic on one of my main attackers, it would be nice to know whether that presumption is correct or not.
Dr. Zola
Why aren't you complaining about this "indirect nerf"?
What about some of the other examples here?
Was Crossbones indirectly buffed since they fixed an issue with his cool down for overrun?
Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.
Sometime between when Kabam said he was working as intended and the people noticed the stun was a debuff and not passive anymore. It's very easy to find on the forum.
So back to countless.... Give me 5 more.