**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Upcoming Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw Balance Changes
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
People make poor decisions all the time, sure, but if this was the case they would be making constant and repeated poor decisions, to the point where it should run them out of business. But this change makes perfect sense according to what they claim, and no one has been able to come up with a reason why they would do this outside of self defeating conspiracies.
If the data model they are utilizing in their quest for balance has led them to Cull as first priority, then this model is flawed. I can’t imagine an credible evaluation process that singled him out.
They either nerf all the so called “beyond god tier” or “god tier” champs as well, or simply put this endeavor has zero integrity. At the very least, it is flawed from the jump, and ultimately (in my opinion) doomed.
It’s getting ridiculous the unpredictability in how to rank champs because of the constant “nerfs”. Yes some are justified but this one is not.
This rebalancing process just confirms to never spend on any champ.
Now that they went back further to rebalance Maw and Cull, people are complaining about their priority list.
Um....hello!
A lot of people have argued that the data must be wrong. But you can't argue that without access to the data. No would would believe an outside commentator over their own direct measurements, unless someone found a flaw in those measurements. And if their data is proprietary, we won't be allowed to see all of the data and how it was collected. Even seeing the data alone doesn't tell us anything, because all we'll see is one number bigger than all the others. *How* that number is generated is everything, and even if they lose their minds and show us the report, there's no *way* they are showing us the actual data collection methodology and systems. Telling us this is indirectly leaking information to the players on how to manipulate data collection to skew their balancing data in ways advantageous to the players, however unlikely.
You can argue my house should have certain dimensions from my description, but if I take out a tape measure and actually measure it, that's the number I'm going to believe. I'm not saying I'm guaranteed to be right: I could have made a mistake. But I'm always going to believe my measurement over someone else's deduction, and so will just about everyone else.
Cull's revisit is needed because there's a number on a report that says it is needed. The number might be wrong, but the developers are going to believe that number over any attempt to deduce the number "must" be wrong. As would almost everyone else here. Heck, people believe their own single anecdotes about performance over everything else. Everyone else's anecdotes are wrong, or skewed, or flawed, or hampered by the lack of skill of the tester.
I do have a 4/55 Cull sig 150, so I’m not just blowing smoke.