Here to clarify on this issue. From the game team:
"Kingpin and Daredevil were using the old regen-rate lock tech that we used for the Conduit tactic, which famously caused a lot of bugs. As such, I updated it to our new tech, but after a delay to get other tech in so it would match behavior exactly. Unfortunately, in that process, I put 0.4 in both KP and DDHK's code, instead of 0.5 in one and 0.4 in the other. ... Short version - I typed 0.4 instead of 0.5"
We are working to resolve this issue - it should be shifted soon.
I'll say it again: we do not make silent nerfs. We do, however, make mistakes - silly typo! Happy to clarify this!
For those who scream silent nerf, y'all ever come back and apologize for causing a ruckus?
To be fair, it was a silent nerf. It was just an unintended silent nerf.
That's called a bug, not a silent nerf.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kingpin is worse than he was before the update. The change was not announced. He was silently nerfed.
The fact that he is worse now was unintentional, which makes it a bug.
Both things can be true.
That makes no sense. A bug is an unintended change. A nerf is not. People like to use that word colloquially, but it's really semantics. A nerf is different from what the common use that nerfed is used for. When you're talking about a silent nerf, there's the implication that something is intentionally changed with the intentions of not telling people. That's not the case.
A nerf is a change that makes something weaker. I don't agree that it has to be intentional to earn that name.
Then your wrong in every case of being wrong. It MUST be intentional to be a nerf, of any kind silent or not. This was a bug. Plain and simple and there's no way it could have been anything else.
For those who scream silent nerf, y'all ever come back and apologize for causing a ruckus?
To be fair, it was a silent nerf. It was just an unintended silent nerf.
That's called a bug, not a silent nerf.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kingpin is worse than he was before the update. The change was not announced. He was silently nerfed.
The fact that he is worse now was unintentional, which makes it a bug.
Both things can be true.
That makes no sense. A bug is an unintended change. A nerf is not. People like to use that word colloquially, but it's really semantics. A nerf is different from what the common use that nerfed is used for. When you're talking about a silent nerf, there's the implication that something is intentionally changed with the intentions of not telling people. That's not the case.
A nerf is a change that makes something weaker. I don't agree that it has to be intentional to earn that name.
Then your wrong in every case of being wrong. It MUST be intentional to be a nerf, of any kind silent or not. This was a bug. Plain and simple and there's no way it could have been anything else.
It was already determined that it was human error, so not a silent nerf OR a bug
A mistake was made, they owned up to it and apologized. They were fully transparent in what occurred the moment someone asked - they may not have even realized it until we did.
The rest of the discussion is just semantics over what we should classify it as if, hypothetically, this wasn't a mistake that's being corrected? C'mon...
For those who scream silent nerf, y'all ever come back and apologize for causing a ruckus?
To be fair, it was a silent nerf. It was just an unintended silent nerf.
That's called a bug, not a silent nerf.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kingpin is worse than he was before the update. The change was not announced. He was silently nerfed.
The fact that he is worse now was unintentional, which makes it a bug.
Both things can be true.
That makes no sense. A bug is an unintended change. A nerf is not. People like to use that word colloquially, but it's really semantics. A nerf is different from what the common use that nerfed is used for. When you're talking about a silent nerf, there's the implication that something is intentionally changed with the intentions of not telling people. That's not the case.
A nerf is a change that makes something weaker. I don't agree that it has to be intentional to earn that name.
That's the problem. Using the term too loosely evokes reactions.
As it should.
People woke up today to discover one of their favorite champs isn't as good as he was a few days ago. Had this post not been created, it would probably be not only a "silent nerf", but also an "undiscovered bug."
A mistake was made, they owned up to it and apologized. They were fully transparent in what occurred the moment someone asked - they may not have even realized it until we did.
The rest of the discussion is just semantics over what we should classify it as if, hypothetically, this wasn't a mistake that's being corrected? C'mon...
It's not a criticism of Kabam, but had someone not gone out of their way to criticize those asking if it was a silent nerf, this discussion wouldn't need to have happened at all.
I actually commend Jax and the Kabam community team for promptly addressing and communicating that this was unintended and on the slate of things to be fixed.
For those who scream silent nerf, y'all ever come back and apologize for causing a ruckus?
To be fair, it was a silent nerf. It was just an unintended silent nerf.
That's called a bug, not a silent nerf.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kingpin is worse than he was before the update. The change was not announced. He was silently nerfed.
The fact that he is worse now was unintentional, which makes it a bug.
Both things can be true.
That makes no sense. A bug is an unintended change. A nerf is not. People like to use that word colloquially, but it's really semantics. A nerf is different from what the common use that nerfed is used for. When you're talking about a silent nerf, there's the implication that something is intentionally changed with the intentions of not telling people. That's not the case.
A nerf is a change that makes something weaker. I don't agree that it has to be intentional to earn that name.
That's the problem. Using the term too loosely evokes reactions.
As it should.
People woke up today to discover one of their favorite champs isn't as good as he was a few days ago. Had this post not been created, it would probably be not only a "silent nerf", but also an "undiscovered bug."
A mistake was made, they owned up to it and apologized. They were fully transparent in what occurred the moment someone asked - they may not have even realized it until we did.
The rest of the discussion is just semantics over what we should classify it as if, hypothetically, this wasn't a mistake that's being corrected? C'mon...
It's not a criticism of Kabam, but had someone not gone out of their way to criticize those asking if it was a silent nerf, this discussion wouldn't need to have happened at all.
I actually commend Jax and the Kabam community team for promptly addressing and communicating that this was unintended and on the slate of things to be fixed.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my statement. I agree with the original post and massively commend Jax for the response; it's beneficial to question when something like this happens and the transparency Jax provided was so amazing. But the thread should have closed after that. That's what my post was commenting on... the semantic conversation that followed about whether it's a bug or a nerf or a silent nerf... like, what??? What is even being discussed at this point. It was a mistake, someone owned up to it, it's being corrected, there's nothing further.
A mistake was made, they owned up to it and apologized. They were fully transparent in what occurred the moment someone asked - they may not have even realized it until we did.
The rest of the discussion is just semantics over what we should classify it as if, hypothetically, this wasn't a mistake that's being corrected? C'mon...
It's not a criticism of Kabam, but had someone not gone out of their way to criticize those asking if it was a silent nerf, this discussion wouldn't need to have happened at all.
I actually commend Jax and the Kabam community team for promptly addressing and communicating that this was unintended and on the slate of things to be fixed.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my statement. I agree with the original post and massively commend Jax for the response; it's beneficial to question when something like this happens and the transparency Jax provided was so amazing. But the thread should have closed after that. That's what my post was commenting on... the semantic conversation that followed about whether it's a bug or a nerf or a silent nerf... like, what??? What is even being discussed at this point. It was a mistake, someone owned up to it, it's being corrected, there's nothing further.
The appropriate response would be to post asking for clarification, or whether there's a bug. Not to imply there's a silent nerf. As for the conjecture that nothing would be seen if people didn't say nerf, that's not the case.
For those who scream silent nerf, y'all ever come back and apologize for causing a ruckus?
To be fair, it was a silent nerf. It was just an unintended silent nerf.
That's called a bug, not a silent nerf.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kingpin is worse than he was before the update. The change was not announced. He was silently nerfed.
The fact that he is worse now was unintentional, which makes it a bug.
Both things can be true.
That makes no sense. A bug is an unintended change. A nerf is not. People like to use that word colloquially, but it's really semantics. A nerf is different from what the common use that nerfed is used for. When you're talking about a silent nerf, there's the implication that something is intentionally changed with the intentions of not telling people. That's not the case.
To provide further clarity, a nerf is basically what happened to Namor.
For those who scream silent nerf, y'all ever come back and apologize for causing a ruckus?
To be fair, it was a silent nerf. It was just an unintended silent nerf.
That's called a bug, not a silent nerf.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kingpin is worse than he was before the update. The change was not announced. He was silently nerfed.
The fact that he is worse now was unintentional, which makes it a bug.
Both things can be true.
That makes no sense. A bug is an unintended change. A nerf is not. People like to use that word colloquially, but it's really semantics. A nerf is different from what the common use that nerfed is used for. When you're talking about a silent nerf, there's the implication that something is intentionally changed with the intentions of not telling people. That's not the case.
A nerf is a change that makes something weaker. I don't agree that it has to be intentional to earn that name.
This is especially true in a world where a "bug" is such a relative term. Change the description to match the performance and it's not a bug (e.g. Domino). Change the champ to match the description and it's a bug (e.g. Moleman). In both cases, the champ was functioning exactly how they were designed. There was no glitch. In this case Moleman is the one who was actually nerfed even though it was declared to be a bug. They changed him and made him worse. Domino never functioned as originally described, so she wasn't nerfed. But she doesn't function as originally intended. Is she permanently bugged? To me, a nerf is a nerf and whether or not it's a bug is semantics.
For those who scream silent nerf, y'all ever come back and apologize for causing a ruckus?
To be fair, it was a silent nerf. It was just an unintended silent nerf.
That's called a bug, not a silent nerf.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kingpin is worse than he was before the update. The change was not announced. He was silently nerfed.
The fact that he is worse now was unintentional, which makes it a bug.
Both things can be true.
You can't just make up what words mean. Nerf is indicative of an intentional change to a character for being too strong. That's not what happened here
nerfed
simple past and past participle of nerf
Adjective
nerfed (comparative more nerfed, superlative most nerfed)
(slang, video games) Crippled; made weak or worse.
Keyword being "made". Pointing to something done purposely.
To say otherwise is nonsensical. Then 2-3 champs get buffed every month in MCOC.
Kingpin was made worse. Unintentionally so in this case, but made worse through a change nonetheless.
Why is that nonsensical? There is nothing in that definition that says or even implies that it needs to be intentional. Often times there are changes made to the game that have side effects that "buff" champions unintentionally.
When you refer to a scheduled character "buff" or "rework", then yes you're referring to an intentional buff of said character (e.g. Iron Man this month). That doesn't mean that the word cannot apply to other unintentional changes that make a character stronger. Same goes with "nerf" and making a character weaker.
For those who scream silent nerf, y'all ever come back and apologize for causing a ruckus?
To be fair, it was a silent nerf. It was just an unintended silent nerf.
That's called a bug, not a silent nerf.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kingpin is worse than he was before the update. The change was not announced. He was silently nerfed.
The fact that he is worse now was unintentional, which makes it a bug.
Both things can be true.
You can't just make up what words mean. Nerf is indicative of an intentional change to a character for being too strong. That's not what happened here
nerfed
simple past and past participle of nerf
Adjective
nerfed (comparative more nerfed, superlative most nerfed)
(slang, video games) Crippled; made weak or worse.
Keyword being "made". Pointing to something done purposely.
To say otherwise is nonsensical. Then 2-3 champs get buffed every month in MCOC.
Kingpin was made worse. Unintentionally so in this case, but made worse through a change nonetheless.
Why is that nonsensical? There is nothing in that definition that says or even implies that it needs to be intentional. Often times there are changes made to the game that have side effects that "buff" champions unintentionally..
Simply look at where the word came from and you'll know whether it need to be intentional or not
For those who scream silent nerf, y'all ever come back and apologize for causing a ruckus?
To be fair, it was a silent nerf. It was just an unintended silent nerf.
That's called a bug, not a silent nerf.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kingpin is worse than he was before the update. The change was not announced. He was silently nerfed.
The fact that he is worse now was unintentional, which makes it a bug.
Both things can be true.
You can't just make up what words mean. Nerf is indicative of an intentional change to a character for being too strong. That's not what happened here
nerfed
simple past and past participle of nerf
Adjective
nerfed (comparative more nerfed, superlative most nerfed)
(slang, video games) Crippled; made weak or worse.
Keyword being "made". Pointing to something done purposely.
To say otherwise is nonsensical. Then 2-3 champs get buffed every month in MCOC.
Kingpin was made worse. Unintentionally so in this case, but made worse through a change nonetheless.
Why is that nonsensical? There is nothing in that definition that says or even implies that it needs to be intentional. Often times there are changes made to the game that have side effects that "buff" champions unintentionally..
Simply look at where the word came from and you'll know whether it need to be intentional or not
I know exactly where it came from. I actually played UO when it happened.
Do I need to post a list of words that grew beyond their original meaning?
Same with Mole Man. Everyone knew he wasn't meant to keep the Evade counter that long, and people had years of use out of it. All of a sudden when the bug was fixed, the arguments of bug vs. nerf came out because people wanted Tickets.
A bug is any unintended interaction. Now, I know there's mirky water because it's their intention that determines that, but it's also their product. They've also been consistent with being upfront, and when they made mistakes they owned them. Some cases they made arrangements for people to Rank Down. Others they didn't. It depends on the case. However, the idea that they just silently nerf things and expect people not to realize is as old as my presence here. It also isn't a thing.
Comments
Bishop remains to be the only silent nerf to this day but everyone acts like it happens every day. We always learn that it's just a bug.
A mistake was made, they owned up to it and apologized. They were fully transparent in what occurred the moment someone asked - they may not have even realized it until we did.
The rest of the discussion is just semantics over what we should classify it as if, hypothetically, this wasn't a mistake that's being corrected? C'mon...
People woke up today to discover one of their favorite champs isn't as good as he was a few days ago. Had this post not been created, it would probably be not only a "silent nerf", but also an "undiscovered bug."
I actually commend Jax and the Kabam community team for promptly addressing and communicating that this was unintended and on the slate of things to be fixed.
As for the conjecture that nothing would be seen if people didn't say nerf, that's not the case.
simple past and past participle of nerf
Adjective
nerfed (comparative more nerfed, superlative most nerfed)
(slang, video games) Crippled; made weak or worse.
To say otherwise is nonsensical. Then 2-3 champs get buffed every month in MCOC.
Why is that nonsensical? There is nothing in that definition that says or even implies that it needs to be intentional.
Often times there are changes made to the game that have side effects that "buff" champions unintentionally.
When you refer to a scheduled character "buff" or "rework", then yes you're referring to an intentional buff of said character (e.g. Iron Man this month). That doesn't mean that the word cannot apply to other unintentional changes that make a character stronger. Same goes with "nerf" and making a character weaker.
Do I need to post a list of words that grew beyond their original meaning?