What's the deal with the Gambit relic?

Something is different. = They nerfed him.

That seem logical?
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.

Perhaps you can show me where the team communicated the relic was changed and why?

Dr. Zola

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

Oh it's you. *Yawn*. And no, I'm not.

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.

Didn’t disagree above, but I think the reason this riles people is that it is just a flat number reduction with no explanation or warning.

Some of the things noted in the changelog above are more complex interactions (CB cooldown, HE Sp2, Nebula/Mags, etc.) or things that clearly varied from the champ description (Galan/SS synergy). There’s a lot of other stuff too, but unless I missed it, no flat number reductions like this one. Those things shouldn’t shock anyone because the process of clarifying interactions and fixing unintended ones has been the way this game has worked for years.

Dr. Zola

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.
Didn’t disagree above, but I think the reason this riles people is that it is just a flat number reduction with no explanation or warning.

Some of the things noted in the changelog above are more complex interactions (CB cooldown, HE Sp2, Nebula/Mags, etc.) or things that clearly varied from the champ description (Galan/SS synergy). There’s a lot of other stuff too, but unless I missed it, no flat number reductions like this one. Those things shouldn’t shock anyone because the process of clarifying interactions and fixing unintended ones has been the way this game has worked for years.

Dr. Zola

The examples are bug fixes and someone calling a big fix an indirect nerf. That's my comparison. Why do we call everything listed there a bug fix instead of indirect nerfs or buffs?

If this change is a bug fix and not a change that was made to lessen the relic itself then it's the same as what's on picture.

But none of know the answer for sure since it hasn't been listed anywhere. But in true fashion, the community sees a change and immediately jumps off into the deep end. I don't know what it is and I'm not arguing if it's a bug, a text adjustment or a nerf but I'm willing to bet it isn't a nerf.

It's fine to ask questions like "was this intentional" but speculation like "shadow nerfs or silent nerfs" are just ridiculous. We've had one silent nerfs with Bishop but thousands of bugs but everyone always immediately jumps to nerf.

Hey guys Kabam buffed almost 5 champs this month. Yaaay. Buff program back on

So are the green dots indirect buffs and red dots indirect nerfs? I just want to understand what an indirect nerf/buff is vs a bug fix. The Bishop one seems like a pretty big one.

Something is different. = They nerfed him.

That seem logical?
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?

Hard to tell. I use it on Apoc,

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.
Didn’t disagree above, but I think the reason this riles people is that it is just a flat number reduction with no explanation or warning.

Some of the things noted in the changelog above are more complex interactions (CB cooldown, HE Sp2, Nebula/Mags, etc.) or things that clearly varied from the champ description (Galan/SS synergy). There’s a lot of other stuff too, but unless I missed it, no flat number reductions like this one. Those things shouldn’t shock anyone because the process of clarifying interactions and fixing unintended ones has been the way this game has worked for years.

Dr. Zola
The examples are bug fixes and someone calling a big fix an indirect nerf. That's my comparison. Why do we call everything listed there a bug fix instead of indirect nerfs or buffs?

If this change is a bug fix and not a change that was made to lessen the relic itself then it's the same as what's on picture.

But none of know the answer for sure since it hasn't been listed anywhere. But in true fashion, the community sees a change and immediately jumps off into the deep end. I don't know what it is and I'm not arguing if it's a bug, a text adjustment or a nerf but I'm willing to bet it isn't a nerf.

It's fine to ask questions like "was this intentional" but speculation like "shadow nerfs or silent nerfs" are just ridiculous. We've had one silent nerfs with Bishop but thousands of bugs but everyone always immediately jumps to nerf.

People do claim silent nerf at the slightest, but it would occur less frequently if the team made communication with the community top priority. It goes beyond that, however—a change like this one seems to an outsider like there are groups on the game team that make changes independent of each other. That may not be the case in reality, but ultimately that undermines confidence in the team. It also doesn’t help that rankup bundles for relics are a recurring thing.

Dr. Zola

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.

One Moderator was mistaken, and that same Post never dies.
The Moderator is also no longer around to defend themselves.

Something is different. = They nerfed him.

That seem logical?
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.
Perhaps you can show me where the team communicated the relic was changed and why?

Dr. Zola

I'd like to know how I implied they did. I said asking for clarification is more reasonable than making assumptions on broken, circumstantial evidence.

[Deleted User]

So many arguments and literally none of it matters.
Whether it was a bug fix or a nerf is all up to semantics. All we know is that the Gambit relic was changed and is probably going to stay that way. I just hope Jax or Miike give some sort of clarification by Monday, because any sort of silent change like this just isn't okay, first time or otherwise.

Something is different. = They nerfed him.

That seem logical?
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?
Hard to tell. I use it on Apoc,
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.
Didn’t disagree above, but I think the reason this riles people is that it is just a flat number reduction with no explanation or warning.

Some of the things noted in the changelog above are more complex interactions (CB cooldown, HE Sp2, Nebula/Mags, etc.) or things that clearly varied from the champ description (Galan/SS synergy). There’s a lot of other stuff too, but unless I missed it, no flat number reductions like this one. Those things shouldn’t shock anyone because the process of clarifying interactions and fixing unintended ones has been the way this game has worked for years.

Dr. Zola
The examples are bug fixes and someone calling a big fix an indirect nerf. That's my comparison. Why do we call everything listed there a bug fix instead of indirect nerfs or buffs?

If this change is a bug fix and not a change that was made to lessen the relic itself then it's the same as what's on picture.

But none of know the answer for sure since it hasn't been listed anywhere. But in true fashion, the community sees a change and immediately jumps off into the deep end. I don't know what it is and I'm not arguing if it's a bug, a text adjustment or a nerf but I'm willing to bet it isn't a nerf.

It's fine to ask questions like "was this intentional" but speculation like "shadow nerfs or silent nerfs" are just ridiculous. We've had one silent nerfs with Bishop but thousands of bugs but everyone always immediately jumps to nerf.
People do claim silent nerf at the slightest, but it would occur less frequently if the team made communication with the community top priority. It goes beyond that, however—a change like this one seems to an outsider like there are groups on the game team that make changes independent of each other. That may not be the case in reality, but ultimately that undermines confidence in the team. It also doesn’t help that rankup bundles for relics are a recurring thing.

Dr. Zola

Communication isn't Kabams strong suit. No one should argue that. But we have a longer history of-
1. Bugs.
2. Changes happening earlier than they're supposed to.
3. Incorrect text.

With everything above that happens much more frequently, why is silent nerf the very first thought?

Something is different. = They nerfed him.

That seem logical?
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?
Hard to tell. I use it on Apoc,
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.
Didn’t disagree above, but I think the reason this riles people is that it is just a flat number reduction with no explanation or warning.

Some of the things noted in the changelog above are more complex interactions (CB cooldown, HE Sp2, Nebula/Mags, etc.) or things that clearly varied from the champ description (Galan/SS synergy). There’s a lot of other stuff too, but unless I missed it, no flat number reductions like this one. Those things shouldn’t shock anyone because the process of clarifying interactions and fixing unintended ones has been the way this game has worked for years.

Dr. Zola
The examples are bug fixes and someone calling a big fix an indirect nerf. That's my comparison. Why do we call everything listed there a bug fix instead of indirect nerfs or buffs?

If this change is a bug fix and not a change that was made to lessen the relic itself then it's the same as what's on picture.

But none of know the answer for sure since it hasn't been listed anywhere. But in true fashion, the community sees a change and immediately jumps off into the deep end. I don't know what it is and I'm not arguing if it's a bug, a text adjustment or a nerf but I'm willing to bet it isn't a nerf.

It's fine to ask questions like "was this intentional" but speculation like "shadow nerfs or silent nerfs" are just ridiculous. We've had one silent nerfs with Bishop but thousands of bugs but everyone always immediately jumps to nerf.
People do claim silent nerf at the slightest, but it would occur less frequently if the team made communication with the community top priority. It goes beyond that, however—a change like this one seems to an outsider like there are groups on the game team that make changes independent of each other. That may not be the case in reality, but ultimately that undermines confidence in the team. It also doesn’t help that rankup bundles for relics are a recurring thing.

Dr. Zola
Communication isn't Kabams strong suit. No one should argue that. But we have a longer history of-
1. Bugs.
2. Changes happening earlier than they're supposed to.
3. Incorrect text.

With everything above that happens much more frequently, why is silent nerf the very first thought?

Right. I think my issue is that the term “bug” is used expansively to include everything from unintended interactions to flat-out mistakes. Typing in the wrong value—if that’s what occurred—is an error, not a bug.

Dr. Zola

Something is different. = They nerfed him.

That seem logical?
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.
Perhaps you can show me where the team communicated the relic was changed and why?

Dr. Zola
I'd like to know how I implied they did. I said asking for clarification is more reasonable than making assumptions on broken, circumstantial evidence.

“ There is nothing reasonable about assuming they covertly changed it without asking for clarification first.”

(Emphasis mine)

Dr. Zola

Something is different. = They nerfed him.

That seem logical?
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?
Hard to tell. I use it on Apoc,
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.
Didn’t disagree above, but I think the reason this riles people is that it is just a flat number reduction with no explanation or warning.

Some of the things noted in the changelog above are more complex interactions (CB cooldown, HE Sp2, Nebula/Mags, etc.) or things that clearly varied from the champ description (Galan/SS synergy). There’s a lot of other stuff too, but unless I missed it, no flat number reductions like this one. Those things shouldn’t shock anyone because the process of clarifying interactions and fixing unintended ones has been the way this game has worked for years.

Dr. Zola
The examples are bug fixes and someone calling a big fix an indirect nerf. That's my comparison. Why do we call everything listed there a bug fix instead of indirect nerfs or buffs?

If this change is a bug fix and not a change that was made to lessen the relic itself then it's the same as what's on picture.

But none of know the answer for sure since it hasn't been listed anywhere. But in true fashion, the community sees a change and immediately jumps off into the deep end. I don't know what it is and I'm not arguing if it's a bug, a text adjustment or a nerf but I'm willing to bet it isn't a nerf.

It's fine to ask questions like "was this intentional" but speculation like "shadow nerfs or silent nerfs" are just ridiculous. We've had one silent nerfs with Bishop but thousands of bugs but everyone always immediately jumps to nerf.
People do claim silent nerf at the slightest, but it would occur less frequently if the team made communication with the community top priority. It goes beyond that, however—a change like this one seems to an outsider like there are groups on the game team that make changes independent of each other. That may not be the case in reality, but ultimately that undermines confidence in the team. It also doesn’t help that rankup bundles for relics are a recurring thing.

Dr. Zola
Communication isn't Kabams strong suit. No one should argue that. But we have a longer history of-
1. Bugs.
2. Changes happening earlier than they're supposed to.
3. Incorrect text.

With everything above that happens much more frequently, why is silent nerf the very first thought?
Right. I think my issue is that the term “bug” is used expansively to include everything from unintended interactions to flat-out mistakes. Typing in the wrong value—if that’s what occurred—is an error, not a bug.

Dr. Zola

But we don't know the cause of the change. I understand what you're saying. Bug can be a catch all for issues. In turn, it could be a bug with how the numbers are calculated. I don't have any knowledge of how that works, just that anythings possible right now.

Something is different. = They nerfed him.

That seem logical?
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?
Hard to tell. I use it on Apoc,
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.
Didn’t disagree above, but I think the reason this riles people is that it is just a flat number reduction with no explanation or warning.

Some of the things noted in the changelog above are more complex interactions (CB cooldown, HE Sp2, Nebula/Mags, etc.) or things that clearly varied from the champ description (Galan/SS synergy). There’s a lot of other stuff too, but unless I missed it, no flat number reductions like this one. Those things shouldn’t shock anyone because the process of clarifying interactions and fixing unintended ones has been the way this game has worked for years.

Dr. Zola
The examples are bug fixes and someone calling a big fix an indirect nerf. That's my comparison. Why do we call everything listed there a bug fix instead of indirect nerfs or buffs?

If this change is a bug fix and not a change that was made to lessen the relic itself then it's the same as what's on picture.

But none of know the answer for sure since it hasn't been listed anywhere. But in true fashion, the community sees a change and immediately jumps off into the deep end. I don't know what it is and I'm not arguing if it's a bug, a text adjustment or a nerf but I'm willing to bet it isn't a nerf.

It's fine to ask questions like "was this intentional" but speculation like "shadow nerfs or silent nerfs" are just ridiculous. We've had one silent nerfs with Bishop but thousands of bugs but everyone always immediately jumps to nerf.
People do claim silent nerf at the slightest, but it would occur less frequently if the team made communication with the community top priority. It goes beyond that, however—a change like this one seems to an outsider like there are groups on the game team that make changes independent of each other. That may not be the case in reality, but ultimately that undermines confidence in the team. It also doesn’t help that rankup bundles for relics are a recurring thing.

Dr. Zola
Communication isn't Kabams strong suit. No one should argue that. But we have a longer history of-
1. Bugs.
2. Changes happening earlier than they're supposed to.
3. Incorrect text.

With everything above that happens much more frequently, why is silent nerf the very first thought?
Right. I think my issue is that the term “bug” is used expansively to include everything from unintended interactions to flat-out mistakes. Typing in the wrong value—if that’s what occurred—is an error, not a bug.

Dr. Zola
But we don't know the cause of the change. I understand what you're saying. Bug can be a catch all for issues. In turn, it could be a bug with how the numbers are calculated. I don't have any knowledge of how that works, just that anythings possible right now.

Again, agreed.

But I think the folks who reflexively dismiss things like this as “bug” are cut from the same cloth as those who call it a silent nerf. And I think we have gotten way too accepting of “bugs.”

Dr. Zola

Something is different. = They nerfed him.

That seem logical?
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?
Hard to tell. I use it on Apoc,
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.
Didn’t disagree above, but I think the reason this riles people is that it is just a flat number reduction with no explanation or warning.

Some of the things noted in the changelog above are more complex interactions (CB cooldown, HE Sp2, Nebula/Mags, etc.) or things that clearly varied from the champ description (Galan/SS synergy). There’s a lot of other stuff too, but unless I missed it, no flat number reductions like this one. Those things shouldn’t shock anyone because the process of clarifying interactions and fixing unintended ones has been the way this game has worked for years.

Dr. Zola
The examples are bug fixes and someone calling a big fix an indirect nerf. That's my comparison. Why do we call everything listed there a bug fix instead of indirect nerfs or buffs?

If this change is a bug fix and not a change that was made to lessen the relic itself then it's the same as what's on picture.

But none of know the answer for sure since it hasn't been listed anywhere. But in true fashion, the community sees a change and immediately jumps off into the deep end. I don't know what it is and I'm not arguing if it's a bug, a text adjustment or a nerf but I'm willing to bet it isn't a nerf.

It's fine to ask questions like "was this intentional" but speculation like "shadow nerfs or silent nerfs" are just ridiculous. We've had one silent nerfs with Bishop but thousands of bugs but everyone always immediately jumps to nerf.
People do claim silent nerf at the slightest, but it would occur less frequently if the team made communication with the community top priority. It goes beyond that, however—a change like this one seems to an outsider like there are groups on the game team that make changes independent of each other. That may not be the case in reality, but ultimately that undermines confidence in the team. It also doesn’t help that rankup bundles for relics are a recurring thing.

Dr. Zola
Communication isn't Kabams strong suit. No one should argue that. But we have a longer history of-
1. Bugs.
2. Changes happening earlier than they're supposed to.
3. Incorrect text.

With everything above that happens much more frequently, why is silent nerf the very first thought?
Right. I think my issue is that the term “bug” is used expansively to include everything from unintended interactions to flat-out mistakes. Typing in the wrong value—if that’s what occurred—is an error, not a bug.

Dr. Zola
But we don't know the cause of the change. I understand what you're saying. Bug can be a catch all for issues. In turn, it could be a bug with how the numbers are calculated. I don't have any knowledge of how that works, just that anythings possible right now.
Again, agreed.

But I think the folks who reflexively dismiss things like this as “bug” are cut from the same cloth as those who call it a silent nerf. And I think we have gotten way too accepting of “bugs.”

Dr. Zola

Not really. There's always a logical explanation. This idea that Kabam is going to slip one under us is as old as my presence here. It's not logical, it's not productive, and it's not even founded.
People are free to trust them or not. When they make claims on the Forum, they're open to be challenged.
I simply pointed out that it's probably better to wait for more information than cry nerf. You're free to disagree, but what you support is the stance you take.

So many arguments and literally none of it matters.
Whether it was a bug fix or a nerf is all up to semantics. All we know is that the Gambit relic was changed and is probably going to stay that way. I just hope Jax or Miike give some sort of clarification by Monday, because any sort of silent change like this just isn't okay, first time or otherwise.

Yes—it’s how it’s done more than what we call it. And I would suggest this isn’t the way to do it.

Dr. Zola

winterthur

Someone in the game developing team obviously knew the values were incorrect and made a change which was then rolled out.

Question is why not say something about it or message lost in transmission?

You realize implying someone works for Kabam is against the rules, right?
I do not. There is no "Kabam" in front of my name. I've just been here long enough to hear them say over and over that they don't silently nerf Champs, and still see people keep saying it over and over.
It's really not that difficult to ask them to get someone to look into it instead of digressing into accusations and a delitany of every time we recall in the last 8 and a half years that the information has been different.
Incase it's been missed, I'm trying to help you get information. Not silence anyone.
There's a way of asking, and a way of accusing. One is productive. The other turns into a vent.

I'm sorry, but you don't decide who can and cannot speak on these Forums.

Wow is that the first (or another) shadow nerf ? I'm losing my words
There are no shadow nerfs. If anything, it's likely a bug.
The Kabam employee speaks. Once again. Now don't speak again.

It's easy to just insult someone and go when you don't have any arguments

Lovejoy72

Wow is that the first (or another) shadow nerf ? I'm losing my words
There are no shadow nerfs. If anything, it's likely a bug.
The Kabam employee speaks. Once again. Now don't speak again.

This approach is so played out it has its own paragraph. Find something new.

17. Don’t accuse fellow Summoners of being 'Kabam Employees' or shills. An opposing comment or observation isn’t a crime, and those types of accusations shut down any constructive discussion within the thread. We promise that Kabam Moderators and Developers will always let you know they are a member of staff. You will know this by their Forum title, Kabam_ModName. We have a ZERO sock puppet policy and will continue to do so.

007Bishop

Wow is that the first (or another) shadow nerf ? I'm losing my words
There are no shadow nerfs. If anything, it's likely a bug.
The Kabam employee speaks. Once again. Now don't speak again.
This approach is so played out it has its own paragraph. Find something new.

17. Don’t accuse fellow Summoners of being 'Kabam Employees' or shills. An opposing comment or observation isn’t a crime, and those types of accusations shut down any constructive discussion within the thread. We promise that Kabam Moderators and Developers will always let you know they are a member of staff. You will know this by their Forum title, Kabam_ModName. We have a ZERO sock puppet policy and will continue to do so.

thats crazy bro

BitterSteel

Wow is that the first (or another) shadow nerf ? I'm losing my words
There are no shadow nerfs. If anything, it's likely a bug.
The Kabam employee speaks. Once again. Now don't speak again.

It says far more about you than it does about anyone else when you use that weak insult.

Shows you can’t think of a single relevant point in the conversation, so would rather immaturely dismiss what they say because you can’t work out a way to argue against the point. Do better.

Wow is that the first (or another) shadow nerf ? I'm losing my words
There are no shadow nerfs. If anything, it's likely a bug.
The Kabam employee speaks. Once again. Now don't speak again.
It's easy to just insult someone and go when you don't have any arguments
cope desi boy

Hmm they should make a Desi boy version of the Desi girl song 🩰

007Bishop

Wow is that the first (or another) shadow nerf ? I'm losing my words
There are no shadow nerfs. If anything, it's likely a bug.
The Kabam employee speaks. Once again. Now don't speak again.
It says far more about you than it does about anyone else when you use that weak insult.

Shows you can’t think of a single relevant point in the conversation, so would rather immaturely dismiss what they say because you can’t work out a way to argue against the point. Do better.

Immaturity is a temporary condition, but your personality seems to be a permanent one. Cope bittersteel. Username checks out too