**BANQUET EVENT PSA**
To fully participate in the upcoming Banquet's Alliance Event you will need to be in your alliance for 14 days prior to the event's start date on December 20th. That means, stay in your alliance from December 6th onwards to enjoy all there is to offer in the Banquet event.
**Not Another Anime Reference Solo Event Returning**
This solo event has been fixed and will appear in game again on December 10th and will run through the 17th.
Reminder: This event is available to Paragon+ Summoners

Upcoming Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw Balance Changes

1…4748505253…67

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 35,531 ★★★★★
    zeezee57 said:

    As

    GroundedWisdom said:

    _ASDF_ said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Zuro said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Zuro said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Define properly. If you mean bug-free, that's impossible to guarantee. The bugs that come up are obviously not planned. If you mean releasing them in a form that will never be changed, that's just not possible with a game like this.

    Yes it is so you are saying every champion has changed in some sort of way. That's just flat out wrong they never touched psylocke since her release they never touched gambit, they never touched beast they're so many champs they haven't touched because they were tested properly which should be the case with every champ
    Technically just about every Champ has been changed in one form or another, for example 12.0. However, what I was saying was there is no such thing as "finished" in a way that guarantees they'll never change. It's always a possibility.
    It's only a possibility if they have a reason to be changed
    You mean if they release a perfect product nothing will ever have to be changed? That's not how it works. No amount of testing will prevent all problems from occurring. I guarantee there will always be issues that come up. It's just a reality of the game. Aside from fixing problems, any game of this nature will always grow and evolve. With that comes the need to periodically reevaluate how things are balanced within the current state, so there's the possibility of revisions as the game continues. This isn't a homeostatic system that stays the same forever. It grows over time, and with that growth, things change.
    They could’ve done much... much better with the champs the last few months, as they have in the past. HT, Annih, Cull and Maw all need work done. That’s a pretty rough roll out of their champs recently. It seems like something had changed internally as previously it wasn’t like this. 🤷‍♂️ So yes, it could be different and better.
    I suspect they are aware of that. Which is why they chose to start revisiting Champs on a regular basis. I can't really argue with it being better. There's always room for improvement. It's probably also worth pointing out that the two worst ones out of those are Cull and Maw. Cull had a number of issues, Maw was very much on the lower end. Annihilus isn't bad perse, just not overly-distinguishable. HT is pretty good. I believe their comment was to focus on giving him some use in Incinerate Immune scenarios.
    I'm curious still since you never replied to my prior post with your opinion on some of the newer champs. What makes Ronin distinguishable enough to need no changes but Annihilus and HT not overly distinguishable that they do? I'm genuinely curious to hear your take. I personally don't see Ronin standing out any more than either of them. He's a middling offensive champ with some decent potential who falls short on delivering, leaving him as a fun champ but ineffective in harder content, exactly where Annihilus lands.
    I've played with them both. I find Annihilus coming up shorter than Ronin. Both interesting designs, I just find Annihulus takes longer to end a Fight. Which is a good earmark. Ronin is fun and he gets the job done faster. Is he a target for End-Game? Perhaps not at the moment. Not all Champs are.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    WarHawk_Taz_1 said:

    TheTalents said:

    I brought this up earlier. I foresee a huge drop in crystals sales with the new Vision. We will receive a prompt response from Kabam addressing this thread and the issues we have.

    It is not about Cull it is about the trust in kabam that is being lost here when it comes to spending money. I don't know why they would mess with their pockets like that. My suggestion is just take down his attack by 10% or less and add block proficiency and that would actually make Cull almost a top 10 champion and everyone will be satisfied.

    That's what 99.99% of the community is asking for. But we did ask to remove the gates too. I think it just happens when they take a hit. Because currently the community is looked upon as people who will just complaint weather we have reason or not. Which is not true.

    I spent enough money on game to be having 9 R5s in an year and have reached end game level already (people say it's pretty fast). Now I'm not even getting the 5$ deals. I still love the game but this situation has shook me so far.

    Now that I recall there was a player named Idelist, he retired. But he put up a video on Class based masteries of 30 mins. With current values and proposed changes. It must have taken him a week or easily more to collect that data. Nothing happened. We requested Kabam not to ban 4 stars, no use. We requested removal of gates ( approved as no one was attempting content, hence buying no unit based deals to clear the content). Ronin is ok ? really ?

    If there was even one test on Cull :
    1. Abilities ( ramp up, too easy to understand) He would have been released more balanced. But we face back to back 3 or 4 changes. If there is anyone testing champs before release at all, he's not doing his job right. Because to ramp him up and hit is fairly easy. Unless his Block proficiency didn't even allow the test person to make it through a match.

    Conclusion remains the same. I regain confidence on spending or not based on the outcome of this whole situation.
    Having a hit on crystals and not taking on content is two totally different ball parks. They're aware that most of us can finish act 6.2.6 exploration and we're just waiting. They can one create a champion that is made specifically to beat the champion like one that has perfect block proficiency. Or two they can make the rewards for act 6 exploration so enticing that we will finish it anyways. They already removed the gates moving forward indicating that they're aware of the issues.

    People holding off on a new champions crystals that doesn't suck will have a huge impact on profits and their tune will change.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    WarHawk_Taz_1 said:

    Not judging anyone. But if Kabam actually pulls a + in Block proficiency and - in Attack post "balancing", that will be impressive. That would display real study and is pretty much going to make me/community happy. Might regain confidence in getting champs again understanding the fact, that balancing actually means balancing not a nerf.

    Personally I hope Kabam can Ace this situation (I still have a lot of love for this game and play it like I installed it yesterday).

    It would actually make Cull much stronger than he currently is with slightly less attack and improved block proficiency. That is why I have my doubts lol.
  • FallencircusFallencircus Posts: 339 ★★★
    I am taking my 6* Cull up to R2. If the “tweak” is too much, I am done with the game. It isn’t fun anymore as a majority if the time you get a character you don’t want. As an example I am 0/5 on the featured crystal with the Sigi, I have gotten OG Cap Marvel, Gambit 2x, venom pool and HB. I finally got a champ I was excited about when I was about to call it quits when I bought 10 cull crystals. The fact that you will tweak characters like Cull before fixing the dozens of champs that severely underwhelm is disturbing. There should be champs that are well ahead of others as there are champs in the gutter as well. I am just tired of the disregard for the community (with the exception of a few trolls). Please do not take damage away without adding at least some utility or defense. His damage was the only thing he had.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 17,623 Guardian
    Pr0t0t7p3 said:

    If Cull out damages all other high damage champs and you "tune" him so he no longer out damages them, doesn't that mean that the second highest damage champ now out damages all the others and by definition becomes over powered and requires a tuning???

    The problem Kabam is describing is almost certainly not that Cull outdamages (however that is defined) all other champions, but rather that he does so outside some internal metric. The way these metrics are defined are often relative not absolute. In other words, there might be a rule that says champions are allowed to be as much as 80% higher than the average for some damage metric. If that's the case, in this hypothetical example Domino could be 79% higher than the average champ and Cull 81%, and Cull would need to be rebalanced and Domino perfectly fine, even though the difference between the two was difficult to see.

    I'm not saying that's the case here, only that rebalancing doesn't generally involve one thing being highest: something has to be highest. It is that they exceed some maximum allowable number, and that number is usually computed relative to the average performance of all other things. Cull can be adjusted to honor that requirement and still end up being the highest damage champ in the game in theory.

    Technically speaking, although every game developer in the world calls this "rebalancing" it is not technically a balancing operation: it is a conformance operation. But game developers do not distinguish between balancing (which involves adjusting one or more things to honor a required relationship) and conformance (which involves adjusting one thing to conform to a set of boundary conditions). It's a shame game developers do not both think about and discuss these changes more accurately, because the semantics have a real side effect: when a dev says Cull needs to be rebalanced, they imply that Cull does more damage than something else, and that's wrong. But then players start wondering who Cull is being compared to. If they explained Cull was being changed to conform to the design rules players might still be just as upset, but they wouldn't be led down the false path of thinking that he's being incorrectly compared to some other champ. He's not, and all arguments attempting to show how that comparison is wrong are literally falling on deaf ears, because he isn't being compared to any other particular champ at all.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 35,531 ★★★★★
    I suppose generally speaking, people aren't comfortable with reducing anything. People tend to want to add Abilities rather than alter existing ones. The problem is, sometimes it's necessary when realigning Champs.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 17,623 Guardian
    TheTalents said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Pr0t0t7p3 said:

    If Cull out damages all other high damage champs and you "tune" him so he no longer out damages them, doesn't that mean that the second highest damage champ now out damages all the others and by definition becomes over powered and requires a tuning???

    The problem Kabam is describing is almost certainly not that Cull outdamages (however that is defined) all other champions, but rather that he does so outside some internal metric. The way these metrics are defined are often relative not absolute. In other words, there might be a rule that says champions are allowed to be as much as 80% higher than the average for some damage metric. If that's the case, in this hypothetical example Domino could be 79% higher than the average champ and Cull 81%, and Cull would need to be rebalanced and Domino perfectly fine, even though the difference between the two was difficult to see.

    I'm not saying that's the case here, only that rebalancing doesn't generally involve one thing being highest: something has to be highest. It is that they exceed some maximum allowable number, and that number is usually computed relative to the average performance of all other things. Cull can be adjusted to honor that requirement and still end up being the highest damage champ in the game in theory.

    Technically speaking, although every game developer in the world calls this "rebalancing" it is not technically a balancing operation: it is a conformance operation. But game developers do not distinguish between balancing (which involves adjusting one or more things to honor a required relationship) and conformance (which involves adjusting one thing to conform to a set of boundary conditions). It's a shame game developers do not both think about and discuss these changes more accurately, because the semantics have a real side effect: when a dev says Cull needs to be rebalanced, they imply that Cull does more damage than something else, and that's wrong. But then players start wondering who Cull is being compared to. If they explained Cull was being changed to conform to the design rules players might still be just as upset, but they wouldn't be led down the false path of thinking that he's being incorrectly compared to some other champ. He's not, and all arguments attempting to show how that comparison is wrong are literally falling on deaf ears, because he isn't being compared to any other particular champ at all.
    Until Kabam presents the data that they used to come to this conclusion I'm inclined not to worry about where they're getting their data from. All I know is that he will hit less hard which has 0 benefit to the player base and makes them angry if anything.

    Even the ones that are on Kabam's side of the argument aren't saying they're happy about Cull receiving less damage.
    I was responding to a poster that wondered if Cull is being "rebalanced" because he's the highest, won't that simply mean that the second highest becomes the highest. That's not true, because Cull isn't being changed to deliberately not be the highest any more. This has nothing to do with where they get their data from, or whether their data methodology is reasonable.

    And this attitude about Kabam being required to show some sort of proof their data is correct is laudable, but the playerbase is fighting up a hill almost no playerbase of any MMO has ever succeeded at winning in. The absolute best example of players getting access to data and methodology I'm aware of comes from Eve Online, and that is both an enormous special case situation (Eve Online is both run by quants and has a playerbase that is dominated by quants) and still didn't get what the players here seem to be asking for. If Eve's players can't get it, I feel safe in saying MCOC's players are not even going to get close.

  • MjolinarMjolinar Posts: 157 ★★
    Ace_03 said:



    Their stance is pretty definitive. Sometimes I am baffled that they leave this up for discussion, more often than not they will implement whatever announced changed and that's it.

    If people want change, everybody knows what needs to be done, just a quick view of the past will give you the answer, on what has worked in previous occasions.

    Honestly agree completely. People complain of toxic atmosphere on the forums. It’s posts like these, with no input from the mods but rather two factions going after each other’s throats for 1500+ posts, that is one of the major causes of strife between the community or at certain members. If the mods have nothing o add to the conversation, just shut this one down.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    TheTalents said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Pr0t0t7p3 said:

    If Cull out damages all other high damage champs and you "tune" him so he no longer out damages them, doesn't that mean that the second highest damage champ now out damages all the others and by definition becomes over powered and requires a tuning???

    The problem Kabam is describing is almost certainly not that Cull outdamages (however that is defined) all other champions, but rather that he does so outside some internal metric. The way these metrics are defined are often relative not absolute. In other words, there might be a rule that says champions are allowed to be as much as 80% higher than the average for some damage metric. If that's the case, in this hypothetical example Domino could be 79% higher than the average champ and Cull 81%, and Cull would need to be rebalanced and Domino perfectly fine, even though the difference between the two was difficult to see.

    I'm not saying that's the case here, only that rebalancing doesn't generally involve one thing being highest: something has to be highest. It is that they exceed some maximum allowable number, and that number is usually computed relative to the average performance of all other things. Cull can be adjusted to honor that requirement and still end up being the highest damage champ in the game in theory.

    Technically speaking, although every game developer in the world calls this "rebalancing" it is not technically a balancing operation: it is a conformance operation. But game developers do not distinguish between balancing (which involves adjusting one or more things to honor a required relationship) and conformance (which involves adjusting one thing to conform to a set of boundary conditions). It's a shame game developers do not both think about and discuss these changes more accurately, because the semantics have a real side effect: when a dev says Cull needs to be rebalanced, they imply that Cull does more damage than something else, and that's wrong. But then players start wondering who Cull is being compared to. If they explained Cull was being changed to conform to the design rules players might still be just as upset, but they wouldn't be led down the false path of thinking that he's being incorrectly compared to some other champ. He's not, and all arguments attempting to show how that comparison is wrong are literally falling on deaf ears, because he isn't being compared to any other particular champ at all.
    Until Kabam presents the data that they used to come to this conclusion I'm inclined not to worry about where they're getting their data from. All I know is that he will hit less hard which has 0 benefit to the player base and makes them angry if anything.

    Even the ones that are on Kabam's side of the argument aren't saying they're happy about Cull receiving less damage.
    I was responding to a poster that wondered if Cull is being "rebalanced" because he's the highest, won't that simply mean that the second highest becomes the highest. That's not true, because Cull isn't being changed to deliberately not be the highest any more. This has nothing to do with where they get their data from, or whether their data methodology is reasonable.

    And this attitude about Kabam being required to show some sort of proof their data is correct is laudable, but the playerbase is fighting up a hill almost no playerbase of any MMO has ever succeeded at winning in. The absolute best example of players getting access to data and methodology I'm aware of comes from Eve Online, and that is both an enormous special case situation (Eve Online is both run by quants and has a playerbase that is dominated by quants) and still didn't get what the players here seem to be asking for. If Eve's players can't get it, I feel safe in saying MCOC's players are not even going to get close.

    I will definitely take a screen shot of this post and see if kabam changes their tune on this one. I predict around round 2 of the Vision (Arkas) crystals their tune will change. One of two things will happen, they will either improve Cull defensively so they will be meeting the communities needs or they'll back track the 6 month re-visit character buff/nerf all together.

    You think that it won't happen I will. Friendly bet will do since we no longer can give items.
  • MjolinarMjolinar Posts: 157 ★★
    WarHawk_Taz_1 said:

    Let's just wait for results (positive vibes this time hopefully).

    All we can do bud
This discussion has been closed.