So why did the Gambit Relic get the ASAP rush job? It wasn't game breaking or making content clearing trivial. It's scope was very limited compared to other unforced errors current and in the past that the team has left alone for several weeks.
So why did the Gambit Relic get the ASAP rush job? It wasn't game breaking or making content clearing trivial. It's scope was very limited compared to other unforced errors current and in the past that the team has left alone for several weeks.
As per Jax's comment, it wasn't meant to go live before they discussed it. In terms of why it was "ASAP", I highly doubt it was a matter of making it more of a priority. It's more a matter of being in their control. Some other issues aren't as easily dealt with.
This situation is like a case study in generating player frustration. So many questions that constantly get asked on the forums apply here.
How was this missed in development? It seems like it should have been very easy to check crit rating with the relic bound to confirm it was working as intended. Is there any peer review or supervisor sign-off process for these kinds of things? 3 new relics every 2 months seems like enough time to test the baseline effects.
How was this missed in testing? Again, the in game result before the fix was very different from the stated intentions here. That should have been easy to test and confirm in a test environment before release.
How was this missed in post release testing? Is there any testing once an update goes live? This would have been an easy thing to check then also.
Why do so many player-negative or player-neutral things take sooo long to fix but something like this gets fixed within a week before the communication team even gets notified? We had to wait a week and a half for the VFX to be addressed but this was fast tracked. This relic was better than intended but not gamebreaking by any means so why the urgency here? Surely this could have waited until the July update.
Hopefully Kabam take the chance to do a review and implement some lessons learned from this one. It looks like there were breakdowns at every stage that could be addressed to help avoid this kind of thing in the future.
is there any chance for us to request to refund the materials we spent to rank up the relic? these items are still not common and i would have preferred using them on something else if this is the case
So why did the Gambit Relic get the ASAP rush job? It wasn't game breaking or making content clearing trivial. It's scope was very limited compared to other unforced errors current and in the past that the team has left alone for several weeks.
My man, half the comments on this thread are about why Kabam didn't notice it for a long time and that players need compensation since it was left for too long. And you're saying it was done fast?
The Gambit relic's Ability 2 Socket is granting more Crit Rating than intended. This ability should only bump the Crit Rating up to the listed amount, currently it is granting that amount on top of the player's current Crit Rating (on Physical Mutant Special Attack Hits)
So that's even worse yet lol.
Especially on the 4* relic where most of the relevant champions for that relic have anywhere from 600-800+ crit rating on even the 4* version of the champions.
It also says on the relic that it adds +800 crit rating:
Shouldn't that read something like "replaces current crit rating if it's not already higher"?
I already changed the 4* over to the burst damage. Huge bummer.
So why did the Gambit Relic get the ASAP rush job? It wasn't game breaking or making content clearing trivial. It's scope was very limited compared to other unforced errors current and in the past that the team has left alone for several weeks.
My man, half the comments on this thread are about why Kabam didn't notice it for a long time and that players need compensation since it was left for too long. And you're saying it was done fast?
Kabam just said they became aware and fixed it within a week. For this game that is an exceptionally fast resolution.
The complaint is that many, many bugs that negatively impact players take months or years to address but this fairly minor player-positive bug was fixed almost immediately.
So why did the Gambit Relic get the ASAP rush job? It wasn't game breaking or making content clearing trivial. It's scope was very limited compared to other unforced errors current and in the past that the team has left alone for several weeks.
My man, half the comments on this thread are about why Kabam didn't notice it for a long time and that players need compensation since it was left for too long. And you're saying it was done fast?
Kabam just said they became aware and fixed it within a week. For this game that is an exceptionally fast resolution.
The complaint is that many, many bugs that negatively impact players take months or years to address but this fairly minor player-positive bug was fixed almost immediately.
Moleman took years to fix. Stealth Spidey still remains bugged, and there's tons of others that have been player friendly and left around for years
This situation is like a case study in generating player frustration. So many questions that constantly get asked on the forums apply here.
How was this missed in development? It seems like it should have been very easy to check crit rating with the relic bound to confirm it was working as intended. Is there any peer review or supervisor sign-off process for these kinds of things? 3 new relics every 2 months seems like enough time to test the baseline effects.
How was this missed in testing? Again, the in game result before the fix was very different from the stated intentions here. That should have been easy to test and confirm in a test environment before release.
How was this missed in post release testing? Is there any testing once an update goes live? This would have been an easy thing to check then also.
Why do so many player-negative or player-neutral things take sooo long to fix but something like this gets fixed within a week before the communication team even gets notified? We had to wait a week and a half for the VFX to be addressed but this was fast tracked. This relic was better than intended but not gamebreaking by any means so why the urgency here? Surely this could have waited until the July update.
Hopefully Kabam take the chance to do a review and implement some lessons learned from this one. It looks like there were breakdowns at every stage that could be addressed to help avoid this kind of thing in the future.
What you are suggesting, I think, is that (a) things should be tested and (b) there should be accountability for mistakes.
So why did the Gambit Relic get the ASAP rush job? It wasn't game breaking or making content clearing trivial. It's scope was very limited compared to other unforced errors current and in the past that the team has left alone for several weeks.
My man, half the comments on this thread are about why Kabam didn't notice it for a long time and that players need compensation since it was left for too long. And you're saying it was done fast?
Addressing the issue was rushed. They didn't take the time for the proper communication regarding their plans.
The Gambit relic's Ability 2 Socket is granting more Crit Rating than intended. This ability should only bump the Crit Rating up to the listed amount, currently it is granting that amount on top of the player's current Crit Rating (on Physical Mutant Special Attack Hits)
So that's even worse yet lol.
Especially on the 4* relic where most of the relevant champions for that relic have anywhere from 600-800+ crit rating on even the 4* version of the champions.
It also says on the relic that it adds +800 crit rating:
Shouldn't that read something like "replaces current crit rating if it's not already higher"?
I already changed the 4* over to the burst damage. Huge bummer.
Right? Went from having +2200, then down to +800 (or so I thought), and now the reality of maybe +150 to nothing (in Domino's case).
So why did the Gambit Relic get the ASAP rush job? It wasn't game breaking or making content clearing trivial. It's scope was very limited compared to other unforced errors current and in the past that the team has left alone for several weeks.
My man, half the comments on this thread are about why Kabam didn't notice it for a long time and that players need compensation since it was left for too long. And you're saying it was done fast?
Kabam just said they became aware and fixed it within a week. For this game that is an exceptionally fast resolution.
The complaint is that many, many bugs that negatively impact players take months or years to address but this fairly minor player-positive bug was fixed almost immediately.
Moleman took years to fix. Stealth Spidey still remains bugged, and there's tons of others that have been player friendly and left around for years
Correction : Moleman took a few years to acknowledge that he wasn’t working as intended …. and then they stealthily put the frenzy change in an update and listed it as a bug fix. Any previous questions or threads about how he was intended to work were ignored for over a year and a half. It was never confirmed or listed as a bug anywhere .
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
You call it “keeping tally mentality”, many of us consider it accountability. I would argue it is productive. If you treat every situation as a fluke or one-off, you never go looking for the root cause so you can find ways to mitigate it and prevent future occurrences.
Their processes failed here in many stages. It isn’t the first time. They can learn from that if they look at all the occurrences as a whole. If they just write this off as a one-time mistake it is bound to happen again.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
You call it “keeping tally mentality”, many of us consider it accountability. I would argue it is productive. If you treat every situation as a fluke or one-off, you never go looking for the root cause so you can find ways to mitigate it and prevent future occurrences.
Their processes failed here in many stages. It isn’t the first time. They can learn from that if they look at all the occurrences as a whole. If they just write this off as a one-time mistake it is bound to happen again.
If someone is keeping a list of instances spacing years in between in order to rifle out a delitany whenever something goes wrong, that's not accountability. That's airing resentments. People are free to do that if they like, but it's anything but productive.
I am constantly impressed at how quickly Kabam CAN actually make changes to stuff they urgently want to, and then other seemingly simple changes seem to sit dormant for weeks/months
I am constantly impressed at how quickly Kabam CAN actually make changes to stuff they urgently want to, and then other seemingly simple changes seem to sit dormant for weeks/months
Well...stats are easy to change. It's a simple numbers change. Just like fixing text in the game.
Lag or input issues or fight interactions aren't simple. You can't just go in and type a few numbers and be done.
I'm sure all the armchair developers are going to disagree though.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
The first is obvious. It's their intention that determines that. If you would like to change that, you're free to put in an offer to purchase the game. There is no such thing as a beneficial bug. As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
The first is obvious. It's their intention that determines that. If you would like to change that, you're free to put in an offer to purchase the game. There is no such thing as a beneficial bug. As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
1. “Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss.” 2. Incorrect numerical entries aren’t bugs. 3. I would wager my threshold for “taking responsibility” may be a little higher than yours.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
The first is obvious. It's their intention that determines that. If you would like to change that, you're free to put in an offer to purchase the game. There is no such thing as a beneficial bug. As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
1. “Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss.” 2. Incorrect numerical entries aren’t bugs. 3. I would wager my threshold for “taking responsibility” may be a little higher than yours.
Dr. Zola
I was talking about Mole Man. Not the Relic. Context matters.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
The first is obvious. It's their intention that determines that. If you would like to change that, you're free to put in an offer to purchase the game. There is no such thing as a beneficial bug. As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
How will you see a pattern when you don’t keep a tally? If you keep pushing everything under the rug saying it’s a one of thing, every new occurrence will be a one of thing. If you keep a tally you can see a pattern. It’s process improvement 101. You need to keep track of data to improve.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
The first is obvious. It's their intention that determines that. If you would like to change that, you're free to put in an offer to purchase the game. There is no such thing as a beneficial bug. As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
How will you see a pattern when you don’t keep a tally? If you keep pushing everything under the rug saying it’s a one of thing, every new occurrence will be a one of thing. If you keep a tally you can see a pattern. It’s process improvement 101. You need to keep track of data to improve.
If your tally involves going back years to comb through examples, then clearly there's more of a resentment than a pattern.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
The first is obvious. It's their intention that determines that. If you would like to change that, you're free to put in an offer to purchase the game. There is no such thing as a beneficial bug. As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
How will you see a pattern when you don’t keep a tally? If you keep pushing everything under the rug saying it’s a one of thing, every new occurrence will be a one of thing. If you keep a tally you can see a pattern. It’s process improvement 101. You need to keep track of data to improve.
If your tally involves going back years to comb through examples, then clearly there's more of a resentment than a pattern.
By the same token, people shouldn’t ask everyone to come up with examples every time someone posts about something. It’s honestly up to the company to see where things failed and to have a process to prevent it from happening. Whether it happens once a day or once in 3 years.
The inherent problem here is trust, or a lack of trust, depending on your stance.
Some of you are arguing that the higher value was a bug. That's fine.
Others are arguing it was a nerf. That's fine too.
Kabam has come over the top and called it a bug now as well. That's also fine.
The dilemma lies in the reality that they are in fact, the same thing, when no one knows what something should have been at the onset.
To my knowledge, there are two places to view stats for a relic. In game, and on the MCoC site.
The image above is from the MCoC site. Stats listed are for a 6*R2 relic. No other stats are listed. One can presume they would be lower, but shouldn't be expected to know exactly what they should be.
So when Kabam comes off the top rope saying its a bug, you have two choices. Trust them, or don't.
If you choose to trust them, that's fine, but it's completely unreasonable to be dismissive to those who choose not to trust them, as there's no way to prove one way or another if something was intended by Kabam (then later deemed to be unreasonable by them), or if something was unintended, and later corrected to their intended version.
For those of you who watched one of my favorite TV shows, Brooklyn 99, there's an episode where Boyle gives Terry $10,000 dollars when he intended to give him $100, but didn't account for the fact that the bank automatically added the two decimal values. So did Boyle intend to give him $10,000 or $100? Only Boyle knows for sure. Everyone else has to take his word for it.
Regardless, relic rankup mats are still relatively rare to the casual player. If someone ranked up a 5* relic because of the previous values, then has those values decreased, whether because of a legitimate bug, or a nerf, they should definitely be given those materials back (and I'm not one who did that, so I'm not even advocating for myself...I've got no dog in this fight).
Bottom line, when an individual acts on the information at their disposal, then that information is changed by the business in charge, those individuals should be compensated.
Comments
In terms of why it was "ASAP", I highly doubt it was a matter of making it more of a priority. It's more a matter of being in their control. Some other issues aren't as easily dealt with.
How was this missed in development? It seems like it should have been very easy to check crit rating with the relic bound to confirm it was working as intended. Is there any peer review or supervisor sign-off process for these kinds of things? 3 new relics every 2 months seems like enough time to test the baseline effects.
How was this missed in testing? Again, the in game result before the fix was very different from the stated intentions here. That should have been easy to test and confirm in a test environment before release.
How was this missed in post release testing? Is there any testing once an update goes live? This would have been an easy thing to check then also.
Why do so many player-negative or player-neutral things take sooo long to fix but something like this gets fixed within a week before the communication team even gets notified? We had to wait a week and a half for the VFX to be addressed but this was fast tracked. This relic was better than intended but not gamebreaking by any means so why the urgency here? Surely this could have waited until the July update.
Hopefully Kabam take the chance to do a review and implement some lessons learned from this one. It looks like there were breakdowns at every stage that could be addressed to help avoid this kind of thing in the future.
The complaint is that many, many bugs that negatively impact players take months or years to address but this fairly minor player-positive bug was fixed almost immediately.
That would be nice.
Dr. Zola
At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Their processes failed here in many stages. It isn’t the first time. They can learn from that if they look at all the occurrences as a whole. If they just write this off as a one-time mistake it is bound to happen again.
People are free to do that if they like, but it's anything but productive.
Lag or input issues or fight interactions aren't simple. You can't just go in and type a few numbers and be done.
I'm sure all the armchair developers are going to disagree though.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
There is no such thing as a beneficial bug.
As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
2. Incorrect numerical entries aren’t bugs.
3. I would wager my threshold for “taking responsibility” may be a little higher than yours.
Dr. Zola
Context matters.
Some of you are arguing that the higher value was a bug. That's fine.
Others are arguing it was a nerf. That's fine too.
Kabam has come over the top and called it a bug now as well. That's also fine.
The dilemma lies in the reality that they are in fact, the same thing, when no one knows what something should have been at the onset.
To my knowledge, there are two places to view stats for a relic. In game, and on the MCoC site.
The image above is from the MCoC site. Stats listed are for a 6*R2 relic. No other stats are listed. One can presume they would be lower, but shouldn't be expected to know exactly what they should be.
So when Kabam comes off the top rope saying its a bug, you have two choices. Trust them, or don't.
If you choose to trust them, that's fine, but it's completely unreasonable to be dismissive to those who choose not to trust them, as there's no way to prove one way or another if something was intended by Kabam (then later deemed to be unreasonable by them), or if something was unintended, and later corrected to their intended version.
For those of you who watched one of my favorite TV shows, Brooklyn 99, there's an episode where Boyle gives Terry $10,000 dollars when he intended to give him $100, but didn't account for the fact that the bank automatically added the two decimal values. So did Boyle intend to give him $10,000 or $100? Only Boyle knows for sure. Everyone else has to take his word for it.
Regardless, relic rankup mats are still relatively rare to the casual player. If someone ranked up a 5* relic because of the previous values, then has those values decreased, whether because of a legitimate bug, or a nerf, they should definitely be given those materials back (and I'm not one who did that, so I'm not even advocating for myself...I've got no dog in this fight).
Bottom line, when an individual acts on the information at their disposal, then that information is changed by the business in charge, those individuals should be compensated.