Majormoscow ★
Reactions
Comments
-
Well You are saying “change” like it could be a positive or a negative which is not the scenario we are discussing. The “change” is a negative for the user who has invested resources whether they “own” anything or not. In this “case” it’s clear to me and many users that our resources have been devalued and we’d like to…
-
What arguments do you have to support your opinion that people shouldn’t be compensated for purchasing something with a perceived value only for the company that is in charge of attributing that value to then devalue the product they purchased? Just curious...
-
Eh not quite, the users investment remains the same in both cases. They are left with a devalued product. They deserve to be compensated.
-
As far as the user is concerned the point is moot. If they designed a game they couldn’t expand on or if they designed a character’s abilities they couldn’t make money on what difference is that to the user? They are both still glitches to which people invested resources arguably more so into shehulk than to max a 4star…
-
“Intended ability change” is a made up term that you are using to describe Kabam “fixing” a way that a certain champ operates based on what they “intend”. Otherwise known as a “glitch”. there is literally no difference to what the current situation is even considering the extremes; both the extreme resources required to…
-
You know, the thing they think we forget is that even tho they gave rank down tickets in the past based on nerfs, those nerfs were explained as game balancing. Just because they say it’s balancing doesn’t mean it’s not a nerf. People invested in sw and Thor for the same reasons yet today kabam acknowledges those as nerfs…