Gambit sell back price: Looking at the true value

Marvel Puzzle Quest MPQ General Discussion
1

I have seen some ally mates, friends and some I don’t get along with sell their Gambits. Mine is 494 and I can get 57 tokens for him. This is a 1:1 deal. Some like this because you can get other 5*. Some still compare this to the OML nerf sell back at 2:1. Have seen many sell and pull good or bad for this. I am in the Camp, even though I did write up and share my experience with Gambit on the node of all nodes in PVE he was built for, Royal Family/InHumans, that I do not want to sell him. I spent a lot of money, time and energy to get mine as high as I could within my monetary budget and with what in game resource I had.

57 tokens over 24 5*. This would equal 2.3 covers for my current 5*. This to me does not seem like a fair trade. Let’s look at the numbers more.

I think it would be safe to say that at minimum 95% of all Gambit covers that were pulled were when he was in the Latest. While he was in the latest, there was only 2 other 5* in this group. They would have been in order.

Peter Parker
Daredevil
Gambit
Thor
Archangel

So explain to me why is it that with this sell back it is with 24-5*. If a safe number of 95% were pulled while he was in Latest with only 2 other 5*, why do we have to see an increase of 700% dilution? You go from pulling from a pool of 3-5* to a pool of 24-5*.

So they can make a character that is so OP during a time of year that has a massive sale, people spend their hard earned money on him, then they nerf him and give us a 700% increase on dilution. How is that a fair trade value? Why don’t these tokens only have 3-5* in them since that is how almost all player built him?

So he gets nerfed after the money train runs dry and then give us a massive dilution pool to pull from on how nobody would have built him.

2

Welcome to every F2P game, ever.

You never get back what you invested - characters get either nerfed or left behind by power creep.

It’s the business model - you pay to have a temporary advantage, then you need to spend again, to keep that advantage.

The only bad thing is that Gambit was allowed to run rampage for 9 months.

3

As someone who had to fight tooth and nail just to hit 900 all through the Year of Gambit, if you had him champed your ability to win was much easier. Way fewer skips, fewer retals, etc. That has to be worth something in terms of cost/benefit. I know if I’d had a fully-functioning Gambolt, I probably would have spent several thousand fewer HP on shield hops.

4

Gambit was the number 1 draft pick that panned out and won you a bunch of titles. Now, past his prime but still good, you expect to trade him for another number 1 draft pick?

How big of a hoard would be needed to guarantee 57 5*s? He’s in classics now, so lets just say his trade in value matches his current pull value.

5

I got my champ Gambit 2 weeks before Parker left LL. I was in 4* land. He was my first champ. I am currently on day 1543. Until then, I played SCL 9 in PVE up to the 10 CP and I was happy with that. After getting Gambit, I’ve reached max progression in PVE in every event. I now have 4 5* Champs (PP, AA, DD, BB). I have several more 5s at 10-12 covers. I am firmly situated in the 5 game. And I owe all that to having Gambit while he existed in all his glory. Upon his nerf, he was lvl 464. I sold him day 1, no hesitation, no regrets. I am thankful for all he accomplished for my roster, as he made so much of my progress over the last 9 months possible. That definitely has some added value. Maybe I’m not overly deflated by his nerf because I didn’t spend extra money on him, just hoarded at a lucky time. Don’t get me wrong, I loved me some Gambit, but I’m glad he’s been nerfed. There’s a lot more variety in PVP, and that, IMO, has a lot of extra value as well.

6

The point he is making is no one cashes in a hoard on Classics. There’s a reason people hoard for Latest, dilution. 57 5s is 3 455-ish or 23 2-3 covered ones.

7

The point he’s making is he had his cake for 9 months and now he wants to trade it for the next cake.
Doesn’t work that way.

8

That is what they are making us do. The point is simple. You got this character covered and champ levels in Latest with only 3-5* in that group. The buy back is in 24-5*. Why? Why shouldn’t it be who is in the latests now? Why can’t this be a 3-5* vault because that’s how you got him?

9

First, you’re making an assumption that everyone who acquired him got him via Latest.

Second, why should the buy-back be the same as the original acquisition? You’re questioning the fact that they’re different, as if it’s obvious they should be the same, but you haven’t backed that up. You say the point is simple, but being able to buy something and sell it back for the same value nine months later just… isn’t a thing that happens. Why should this be different when that’s literally not how buybacks work anywhere else in society?

10

I agree that it seems unfair from a certain point of view. They only have done a limited number of these buybacks, obviously, and OML’s had the 2:1 exchange rate with a lot less 5’s in there. So one could argue that the buyback now is somewhat equivalent in terms of offering a similar actual gain in any specific character, with dilution spreading your covers out more now than when OML was nerfed. But man, it hurts to consider tossing a well developed characters for the cover spread you’ll likely end up with.

It seems very unlikely that anything will change, a week later, for the offer, store, buyback rate, or anything else. But it would have been nice if they had made it different, or offered Bonus Heroes, or something. Dilution is the biggest problem the game has remaining, and solutions seem few and far between.

Devil’s advocate: When you pulled Gambit, you absolutely could not have exchanged him for any other character (unless you 550’d him). The same goes for Wasp, who is far worse and less desireable than post-nerf Gambit, and who most players would gladly exchange for another Okoye cover, or even Beardcap. So to suggest that the devs should offer a limited store? I dunno.

And, while the dilution is awful, some players will be excited to have the chance to pull a character in there, small as it may be. Creating a limited store with 3-5 (or whatever) 5’s would make some people upset at not being able to try to pull the character(s) they really want.

PS: Note that they did at least leave out Doc Ock, who no one seems upset about (that I’ve seen) at being unable to try to convert their Gambit covers into.

Lastly, my personal RNG luck was such that I never finished Gambit (4/5/3) but pulled enough Thors to get him to 458, my highest 5. So in a sense, I got Thors over Gambits (and a few other people) which actually left me in a pretty good spot, post Nerfbit. Just to point out that every player’s experience can vary quite a bit.

11

Let me get this straight: You’re saying you WANT more chances at 5* Wasp? :smiley:

12

Lol. I am not saying that, I am just laying out the numbers. I don’t think I would sell unless I could select the 3 I could put these levels towards.

13

@spidyjedi84 can you explain why you marked this as spam? It is numbers and laying this out.

14

I said 95% of these Gambits were Lastest pulls. I cannot see how somebody got a 450+ Gambit by only pulling classics.

Lemon laws protect consumers. There are other consumer laws that do protect you for this. Yes I know what this sounds like, but I just wanted to lay this out by the numbers. I still think this is a terrible ratio for a buy back program.

15

If he comes in as essential before his sell-back window is closed, then I will likely sell mine right after. A chance for Okoye covers and very little in the pool can hurt my roster makes it a strong consideration. And then Gambit not being essential again for who knows how long means I likely won’t notice the lack.

If the window closes first, then I’ll just keep 'im. He’s certainly not a drag on my game, he’s just not the go-to he was.

16

The people who went all in on digital day and anyone else who has a 550 of any non latest character and sells Gambit and gets a bunch of those unusable fives just has to sell them for iso. CS won’t do non latest swaps even in this instance. Makes selling him even less palatable even though he is a fairly useless character now.

17

If you don’t like it, don’t sell him.

That’s not true. The numbers are very low of people who do that but I guarantee people do.

After years of generally disagreeing with you, I find myself agreeing with you more and more. Not sure I’ve gone crazy or you have, but it’s freaking me out a little lol.

18

It’s actually a great buy-back ratio because they’re not making you return all the rewards you won using Gambit in the months that he was OP.

If you want to choose the characters you apply levels to, then fine, return the iso/HP/covers/tokens/CP you won with him.

19

Does that mean all the tappers have to give their rewards back too?

20

If they’re trying to trade in tapping for the new method for easily achieving top placement rewards, then yes.

Which just brings us full circle, in that dominating with Gambit for months on-end is part of the value, and unless you plan on giving that up (any placement rewards gained due to easier/faster clears), then you shouldn’t be expecting such high returns for selling the character.