Nick Fury vs Masochism/Buffet

WARNING: THIS IS A LONG POST. SUMMARY AT BOTTOM (LAST PARAGRAPH).

Remember that Nick Fury bug? You know, the one where he’d remove two debuffs at the start of the fight instead of just one?



As you can see in the description of the synergy, the words “a” and “the Debuff” are used, indicating that this is intended to work only for one singular debuff. Yes, this fix screwed over a lot of people who weren’t diving deep into the character’s abilities to understand why this was a bug rather than an intended function of the character, but the change was justified because it was not working as described.

That said, let’s take a look at Masochism and Buffet. For those who don’t know exactly what those are just based on the names, here’s a screenshot of their descriptions:




Keep that description in mind as you read Hyperion’s Special Attack 2 description:




In this fight, Masochism is the node applied to Dr. Strange. The node uses “the next Debuff” and “a” in its description, implying that it is intended to remove just one debuff. Let’s take a look:




Ignoring the fact that my Hyperion is very shiny and powerful and you’re all totally jealous, we can clearly see that Stun triggers here. It says so on the right side of the screen. Armor Break also must trigger, since there is a 100% chance of that occurring, and there is not an ability accuracy reduction node or debuff immunity or anything for this fight. This means that Masochism is, in fact, removing two debuffs instead of one. Though I haven’t gotten a clip of this for Buffet, the same idea applies there as well. If multiple buffs trigger at the same time, they will all be removed.

This Masochism behavior is true for Blade’s well-timed block ability as well. In a thread by @mAleksandar asking about this issue, we got a moderator response (the mod response is the first comment after the OP):

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/75101/blade-question

So what does all of this mean? With Nick Fury, the ability was better than described and helped users more than intended, resulting in a change in ability to match the description. But with Masochism and Buffet, the ability is better than described, hurting users more than it should, resulting in a change in description to match the ability.

To summarize, Masochism/Buffet were described the same way and functioned the same way as Nick Fury’s Restoration Kit synergy. The only difference is that Nick Fury’s Restoration Kit helped users while Masochism/Buffet hurts users. The one that helped users more than described was changed to fit the description. The one that hurts users more than described was changed to match the ability. That inconsistent treatment is simply unfair to the players. These descriptions were identical, and should therefore be treated identically. They should both either match the description or the in-game effect. The lack of consistency with issues that help or hurt the player base is frustrating and unfair. Thank you for your time.
«1

Comments

  • VoltolosVoltolos Posts: 555 ★★
    The difference is the intention behing the whole thing. Buffet and Masochism are intendet to remove all buffs or debuffs, Nicks synergie isnt
  • Intended IS what actually matters.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    edited April 20
    It has very little to do with what helps people vs. what doesn't.
    Fury was never intended to Purify all. Furthermore, he was never intended to allow people to run penalty-free Suicides. That is something that is detrimental to the game. It's not an issue because it helps people. It's game-altering issue.
    Masochism/Buffet are working as intended because of how the Buffs/Debuffs are applied. They count as one instance, and the Nodes perform how they're intended. For example, Blade/Corvus. Those Debuffs are applied in one instance. Therefore, the Node consumes both. They've also commented for quite some time that they're meant to perform that way.
    This whole idea that they only fix issues that help people really needs to exhaust itself. These issues are game-altering, and in some cases game-breaking. It has to do with the effect on the overall system, not who is helped by what.
  • UmbertoDelRioUmbertoDelRio Posts: 2,470 ★★★★
    OP is the type of guy that gets a welfare check over 100000 instead of 1000 and thinks he should be allowed to keep all the money.

    Seriously, let it go. Practically no one is agreeing with you. Practically anyone but you already got the concept. Let it go.
  • winterthurwinterthur Posts: 3,601 ★★★★
    edited May 21
    I was still thinking only 1 debuff removed and planning strategy for 5.2.4.

    So, I throw those out. :o
  • Haji_SaabHaji_Saab Posts: 3,067 ★★★★★

    Intended IS what actually matters.

    Do you not see how this could be an issue? Two things are described the same way, and then Kabam determines that they function differently. I am one of the people who refused to call the Nick Fury fix a “nerf” because it was technically a bug. But if Kabam is just going to redefine identical functions to be completely different, how can we trust that any given ability won’t be nerfed by a “fix” in description or functionality? I’m all for bug fixes, but if identical descriptions are treated differently, we as a player base have no way of knowing what else could be changed.

    Do you want Kabam to put an "s" in the description?
  • ZuroZuro Posts: 1,574 ★★★★
    Haji_Saab said:

    Intended IS what actually matters.

    Do you not see how this could be an issue? Two things are described the same way, and then Kabam determines that they function differently. I am one of the people who refused to call the Nick Fury fix a “nerf” because it was technically a bug. But if Kabam is just going to redefine identical functions to be completely different, how can we trust that any given ability won’t be nerfed by a “fix” in description or functionality? I’m all for bug fixes, but if identical descriptions are treated differently, we as a player base have no way of knowing what else could be changed.

    Do you want Kabam to put an "s" in the description?
    Well it makes things better lol
  • UmbertoDelRioUmbertoDelRio Posts: 2,470 ★★★★

    OP is the type of guy that gets a welfare check over 100000 instead of 1000 and thinks he should be allowed to keep all the money.

    Seriously, let it go. Practically no one is agreeing with you. Practically anyone but you already got the concept. Let it go.

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if I get a welfare check for $100,000 instead of $1,000 and they take most of it back, there shouldn’t be some guy down the street who got to keep the whole $100,000.
    Thing is, the 100000$ for that dude were intentional, while yours weren't.
    Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.
    In context, those sums weren't even given out by the same institution.

    Also, to stay on topic, "the next debuff" is not nessecarily singular in terms of how the game functions. If you apply 10 spirit poisons with voodoo, since they're all applied simultaneously, every single one of them is "the next debuff".
    Quite different from the wording of furys synergy, again, whether you like that or not is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

    Although you already ignored that point by simply quoting the description as "the debuff" instead of "the next debuff", which is simply disingenuous.
  • UmbertoDelRioUmbertoDelRio Posts: 2,470 ★★★★

    OP is the type of guy that gets a welfare check over 100000 instead of 1000 and thinks he should be allowed to keep all the money.

    Seriously, let it go. Practically no one is agreeing with you. Practically anyone but you already got the concept. Let it go.

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if I get a welfare check for $100,000 instead of $1,000 and they take most of it back, there shouldn’t be some guy down the street who got to keep the whole $100,000.
    Thing is, the 100000$ for that dude were intentional, while yours weren't.
    Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.
    In context, those sums weren't even given out by the same institution.

    Also, to stay on topic, "the next debuff" is not nessecarily singular in terms of how the game functions. If you apply 10 spirit poisons with voodoo, since they're all applied simultaneously, every single one of them is "the next debuff".
    Quite different from the wording of furys synergy, again, whether you like that or not is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

    Although you already ignored that point by simply quoting the description as "the debuff" instead of "the next debuff", which is simply disingenuous.
    Except we were both told we’d be getting the same amount.

    Also, “next” doesn’t change the fact that “debuff” is singular. And it is singular. Behavior in game doesn’t change English. It’s not plural. It’s singular.
    You really aren't. You just see two similar situations and claim they should work the exact same way, since they're somewhat similar.
    It's quite literally comparing apples to oranges.

    And it doesn't need to be plural... It's not about all of them being the next (de)buffs (plural), it's about every single one of them being the next (de)buff (singular).
    Works fine in the english language. And even if it wouldn't, it would still be about how the mechanic works and how it is intended to work first and foremost.

    Even a tiny bit of intellectual honesty really helps here.
  • UmbertoDelRioUmbertoDelRio Posts: 2,470 ★★★★

    OP is the type of guy that gets a welfare check over 100000 instead of 1000 and thinks he should be allowed to keep all the money.

    Seriously, let it go. Practically no one is agreeing with you. Practically anyone but you already got the concept. Let it go.

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if I get a welfare check for $100,000 instead of $1,000 and they take most of it back, there shouldn’t be some guy down the street who got to keep the whole $100,000.
    Thing is, the 100000$ for that dude were intentional, while yours weren't.
    Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.
    In context, those sums weren't even given out by the same institution.

    Also, to stay on topic, "the next debuff" is not nessecarily singular in terms of how the game functions. If you apply 10 spirit poisons with voodoo, since they're all applied simultaneously, every single one of them is "the next debuff".
    Quite different from the wording of furys synergy, again, whether you like that or not is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

    Although you already ignored that point by simply quoting the description as "the debuff" instead of "the next debuff", which is simply disingenuous.
    Except we were both told we’d be getting the same amount.

    Also, “next” doesn’t change the fact that “debuff” is singular. And it is singular. Behavior in game doesn’t change English. It’s not plural. It’s singular.
    You really aren't. You just see two similar situations and claim they should work the exact same way, since they're somewhat similar.
    It's quite literally comparing apples to oranges.

    And it doesn't need to be plural... It's not about all of them being the next (de)buffs (plural), it's about every single one of them being the next (de)buff (singular).
    Works fine in the english language. And even if it wouldn't, it would still be about how the mechanic works and how it is intended to work first and foremost.

    Even a tiny bit of intellectual honesty really helps here.
    These two were defined in the same way. Nick Fury had singular terms in his description. For this reason, it was considered a bug that multiple debuffs were applied. In the same situation (a description with singular terms but acting on multiple debuffs), it’s being treated differently. It’s not “somewhat similar”, it’s the exact same description. I’m using Kabam’s standard for how English should work here.

    And as to being intellectually dishonest, I don’t see how my argument is in anyway disingenuous or intentionally misleading. You can disagree with me, but I’m being far from dishonest. I’m applying Kabam’s standard to Kabam’s action and finding a discrepancy that I’m simply pointing out.
    Defined the same way...? The same situation...? The exact same description...?

    You're the epiphany of ingenuity, mate.
  • UmbertoDelRioUmbertoDelRio Posts: 2,470 ★★★★

    OP is the type of guy that gets a welfare check over 100000 instead of 1000 and thinks he should be allowed to keep all the money.

    Seriously, let it go. Practically no one is agreeing with you. Practically anyone but you already got the concept. Let it go.

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if I get a welfare check for $100,000 instead of $1,000 and they take most of it back, there shouldn’t be some guy down the street who got to keep the whole $100,000.
    Thing is, the 100000$ for that dude were intentional, while yours weren't.
    Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.
    In context, those sums weren't even given out by the same institution.

    Also, to stay on topic, "the next debuff" is not nessecarily singular in terms of how the game functions. If you apply 10 spirit poisons with voodoo, since they're all applied simultaneously, every single one of them is "the next debuff".
    Quite different from the wording of furys synergy, again, whether you like that or not is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

    Although you already ignored that point by simply quoting the description as "the debuff" instead of "the next debuff", which is simply disingenuous.
    Except we were both told we’d be getting the same amount.

    Also, “next” doesn’t change the fact that “debuff” is singular. And it is singular. Behavior in game doesn’t change English. It’s not plural. It’s singular.
    You really aren't. You just see two similar situations and claim they should work the exact same way, since they're somewhat similar.
    It's quite literally comparing apples to oranges.

    And it doesn't need to be plural... It's not about all of them being the next (de)buffs (plural), it's about every single one of them being the next (de)buff (singular).
    Works fine in the english language. And even if it wouldn't, it would still be about how the mechanic works and how it is intended to work first and foremost.

    Even a tiny bit of intellectual honesty really helps here.
    These two were defined in the same way. Nick Fury had singular terms in his description. For this reason, it was considered a bug that multiple debuffs were applied. In the same situation (a description with singular terms but acting on multiple debuffs), it’s being treated differently. It’s not “somewhat similar”, it’s the exact same description. I’m using Kabam’s standard for how English should work here.

    And as to being intellectually dishonest, I don’t see how my argument is in anyway disingenuous or intentionally misleading. You can disagree with me, but I’m being far from dishonest. I’m applying Kabam’s standard to Kabam’s action and finding a discrepancy that I’m simply pointing out.
    Defined the same way...? The same situation...? The exact same description...?

    You're the epiphany of ingenuity, mate.
    They were both defined to remove “a”/“the” ”(next) debuff”. Then they were treated differently. I don’t see how I’m not communicating this to you effectively.

    You have obviously already decided I’m talking for no reason other than liking to read my own writing and think “I am so smart that I’m not even going to listen to anyone else”, so why are we still having this discussion?
    No. One was defined as removing "a debuff" and one as removing "the next (de)buff".
    Since some abilities can apply several (de)buffs at the exact same time, every single one of them is "the next (de)buff".
    You simply can not interpret furys synergy the same way, since the wording is different.

    You're literally mashing the texts together and say "don't you see how they're exactly the same???"

    Yes, that is disingenuous.
  • UmbertoDelRioUmbertoDelRio Posts: 2,470 ★★★★

    OP is the type of guy that gets a welfare check over 100000 instead of 1000 and thinks he should be allowed to keep all the money.

    Seriously, let it go. Practically no one is agreeing with you. Practically anyone but you already got the concept. Let it go.

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if I get a welfare check for $100,000 instead of $1,000 and they take most of it back, there shouldn’t be some guy down the street who got to keep the whole $100,000.
    Thing is, the 100000$ for that dude were intentional, while yours weren't.
    Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.
    In context, those sums weren't even given out by the same institution.

    Also, to stay on topic, "the next debuff" is not nessecarily singular in terms of how the game functions. If you apply 10 spirit poisons with voodoo, since they're all applied simultaneously, every single one of them is "the next debuff".
    Quite different from the wording of furys synergy, again, whether you like that or not is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

    Although you already ignored that point by simply quoting the description as "the debuff" instead of "the next debuff", which is simply disingenuous.
    Except we were both told we’d be getting the same amount.

    Also, “next” doesn’t change the fact that “debuff” is singular. And it is singular. Behavior in game doesn’t change English. It’s not plural. It’s singular.
    You really aren't. You just see two similar situations and claim they should work the exact same way, since they're somewhat similar.
    It's quite literally comparing apples to oranges.

    And it doesn't need to be plural... It's not about all of them being the next (de)buffs (plural), it's about every single one of them being the next (de)buff (singular).
    Works fine in the english language. And even if it wouldn't, it would still be about how the mechanic works and how it is intended to work first and foremost.

    Even a tiny bit of intellectual honesty really helps here.
    These two were defined in the same way. Nick Fury had singular terms in his description. For this reason, it was considered a bug that multiple debuffs were applied. In the same situation (a description with singular terms but acting on multiple debuffs), it’s being treated differently. It’s not “somewhat similar”, it’s the exact same description. I’m using Kabam’s standard for how English should work here.

    And as to being intellectually dishonest, I don’t see how my argument is in anyway disingenuous or intentionally misleading. You can disagree with me, but I’m being far from dishonest. I’m applying Kabam’s standard to Kabam’s action and finding a discrepancy that I’m simply pointing out.
    Defined the same way...? The same situation...? The exact same description...?

    You're the epiphany of ingenuity, mate.
    They were both defined to remove “a”/“the” ”(next) debuff”. Then they were treated differently. I don’t see how I’m not communicating this to you effectively.

    You have obviously already decided I’m talking for no reason other than liking to read my own writing and think “I am so smart that I’m not even going to listen to anyone else”, so why are we still having this discussion?
    No. One was defined as removing "a debuff" and one as removing "the next (de)buff".
    Since some abilities can apply several (de)buffs at the exact same time, every single one of them is "the next (de)buff".
    You simply can not interpret furys synergy the same way, since the wording is different.

    You're literally mashing the texts together and say "don't you see how they're exactly the same???"

    Yes, that is disingenuous.
    I see what you’re saying now but still respectfully disagree. If it was intended to remove all debuffs applied at once, it should say something along the lines of “the next instance of debuffs being applied will remove all debuffs applied in that instance”. Otherwise, it seems to indicate that only one removal is intended. That may not be how it was intended to function, but that’s how it is described.

    It’s really hard to have a civil debate with someone who consistently attributes negative motives to me. It’s make for a better discussion if you didn’t do that.
    I apologize, but this is the first time you actually directly referred to that point and referred to it in a constructive manner, which up to this point felt really weird to me in terms of having a discussion.

    I also can't see any positive motives in creating a chimera out of the two descriptions to show how they're "the exact same description".

    I think we can agree on the following:
    Fleshing out the description of buffet/masochism in a similar way to what they did with the descriptions of "enhanced special 1/2" wouldn't be a bad thing.

    I absolutely politely disagree on basically anything else you said, though lol.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    If I'm not mistaken, Buffet was added before we even had Champs that applied multiple in one instance.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    It's relevant because it's a) working as intended, and b) just a piece of text that hasn't been updated to reflect Champs with newer Abilities.
Sign In or Register to comment.