Upcoming Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw Balance Changes

1555658606167

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,848 ★★★★★
    Plantesan said:

    Plantesan said:

    cdubby_22 said:

    cdubby_22 said:

    There's a difference, and it's not just whenever they please.

    ah to quote facts matter, and the fact is by your own posts just now on quake you clearly illustrate why we are so upset, I love that you can change your mind and finally see it our way. It takes a big person to change, I sincerely am proud you have come around to our side.
    Not sure what you read, but they don't just change things whenever they want. There's always a reason behind those changes and it's not personal bias. If you mean the mixup, yeah. I was mistaken about Heavy and Block. I'm replying in between leather dye coats at work. Lol.
    Well you clearly dont know the difference between block and heavy, so I am not going to explain why the quake illustration sheds light on how they could say she isnt acting as intended because of a description error like they have used countless times. If you dont understand that, and you think its ethically ok to change something after we have paid for it because they own it, while not giving us the data behind the decision so we can make educated decisions for future purchases and rank ups, or to continue to push a champ after they are investigating an issue that could lead to it being changed I cannot help you. the effort and time it would take to explain it to you again is time I dont have. Enjoy your day at work we can agree to disagree.
    Literally just explained I mixed them up and apologized. If you want to press that, by all means. I don't mind being wrong. I'm right more times than wrong, I'm sure.
    People talk about ethics when it comes to purchases, but pointing out that it's their product is the only response to that. They're not selling something for ownership. In fact, they're explicit in the conditions on spending in the TOS. It can be modified in the future. You're not buying a product as-is. You're renting permission to use certain aspects of their product. That's a conditional rental. The condition is, you have no proprietary ownership to it, and they can change it for the well-being of their product.
    As for the data, they're not going to divulge the raw data. They may, if they choose, provide a list of aspects they examined. They may not. If you're asking if there are any choices for purchase or Ranking that you can make which are guaranteed will never change, that guarantee doesn't exist. See TOS.

    (Not particularly sure why this was deleted originally, a little unfortunate, but oh well)

    It was a “agree or you can’t play” wording, so please just stop falling back to that. You’ve beaten, ignited and buried that topic, sir.

    Moving that aside, I believe someone said it recently that if kabam comes out and says along the lines of “we are considering bumping up his block proficiency to balance out the damage output.” Then people should (hopefully be content)

    If they don’t...then people could fall back on ‘keep your champs at r3/1if you aren’t going for prestige/alliance purpose...let kabam figure the r4+ data points out with new champs moving forward’ approach

    I don't remember saying the words "agree or you can't play". I addressed the idea that they can't make changes because people spent money on the Champs and/or Resources. We're already agreeing to those conditions by playing and making purchases. They have the right to modify their own product. This isn't something that's new. If someone implies that they can change it, that's a given. It isn't something any of us have a choice on. What they have been trying to do, which falls on deaf ears, is be upfront about their plans. Well in advance, to be precise. If they aren't offering anything else, there's a good chance that hasn't been locked into place yet. First people ask for transparency, then they argue there aren't enough details. If they wait until the details are closer to finalized, then they argue they haven't been transparent. See the dichotomy?
    I’m aware you didn’t refer to the wording as that, that was aimed at how Kabam worded it. Apologies on the confusion there.

    I hear ya, someone among the crowd will find something to argue about regardless of what is said. I can understand why people are upset; the spending multiple digits worth of $ into this mobile game (still have a hard time wrapping my head around that. 😵)

    The mods will probably strike me down for this but lately even when they do attempt to be transparent, their delivery falls flat. I could be reading too much into it, but some of the mods not that long ago were good at communicating with the fan base without spoiling a lot of details.
    Communication is always an ongoing process. No matter what you say, things can always be taken differently. Am I saying they're perfect? No. None of us are. I think in this case, the intention was just to let us know ahead of time that they're looking at it.
  • DrZolaDrZola Posts: 3,697 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    ChuckFN said:

    People are upset because they spend alot of money on this game especially for new champions.
    I cant buy Crystal's or spend units grinding for a new champion without fear of them getting changed for the worse.

    Years ago I had a conversation with an employee who was not contributing to the company 401k because they were afraid of market conditions: basically they were afraid the market would go down and they would lose money. I explained to them that there was a risk they were not considering: the risk that by sitting permanently on the sidelines they would be falling behind their retirement goals and forced to work until they died.

    There's a risk associated with pursuing or ranking up champions that will never go away, because at some point downstream things will change. The champ may get nerfed. Or, even if it is never touched the devs may simply decide to make content that champ is not good at. They don't have to touch Starlord to safeguard his damage, for example.

    But there's also a risk associated with not doing anything, and that risk is you don't get to use those champs or use ranked up versions of those champs. The players who aren't afraid will get those benefits ahead of you. There's no safe choice: you have to decide which risk you want to take.

    No matter what they do to Cull, this will be true. No matter whether they keep their review policy or change it, this will be true. They aren't ever going to promise you that they will never change anything. And you shouldn't believe any dev that makes that promise: they are lying. They won't likely even be there forever to keep that promise.
    I think there’s a needed distinction here between more organic shifts (for example, the shift away from bleed dominant champs, the shift away from mystic wars) and more artificial, programmed shifts (for example, building in a fudge factor for screwing up a champ’s introduction).

    And I wish people would stop beating up the “nothing can ever change” straw man. Give him a break—I’ve yet to see anyone argue that the game should stay 100% static.

    I don’t expect us to agree on this one. But it’s qualitatively different from my perspective.

    Dr. Zola
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,848 ★★★★★
    You don't have to agree with my points. You don't get to say if I stay or not. Sorry.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,848 ★★★★★
    I'm here to talk about what we're here to discuss. That's it. Aside from being sidetracked on a discussion about Quake, that's what I've been doing. We don't always have to agree in these discussions. In fact, it's a guarantee people won't always agree. However, I'm not going to be ousted from the conversation based on a disagreement. It's the equivalent of saying, "We don't like you. Go away.". Not happening. If I choose to leave a discussion, so be it. If Moderation asks me to walk away, great. What I'm not going to do is allow people to push me out. It's not personal for me. I'm fully capable of agreeing or disagreeing without attacking someone's character. So I'm sorry, but telling me to leave is not going to result in anything. This isn't Survivor.
  • SDPSDP Posts: 1,607 ★★★★

    I'm here to talk about what we're here to discuss. That's it. Aside from being sidetracked on a discussion about Quake, that's what I've been doing. We don't always have to agree in these discussions. In fact, it's a guarantee people won't always agree. However, I'm not going to be ousted from the conversation based on a disagreement. It's the equivalent of saying, "We don't like you. Go away.". Not happening. If I choose to leave a discussion, so be it. If Moderation asks me to walk away, great. What I'm not going to do is allow people to push me out. It's not personal for me. I'm fully capable of agreeing or disagreeing without attacking someone's character. So I'm sorry, but telling me to leave is not going to result in anything. This isn't Survivor.

    You’ve already made your point clear. Everyone knows how you feel about it. Why persist in saying it over and over again?
  • DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    ChuckFN said:

    People are upset because they spend alot of money on this game especially for new champions.
    I cant buy Crystal's or spend units grinding for a new champion without fear of them getting changed for the worse.

    Years ago I had a conversation with an employee who was not contributing to the company 401k because they were afraid of market conditions: basically they were afraid the market would go down and they would lose money. I explained to them that there was a risk they were not considering: the risk that by sitting permanently on the sidelines they would be falling behind their retirement goals and forced to work until they died.

    There's a risk associated with pursuing or ranking up champions that will never go away, because at some point downstream things will change. The champ may get nerfed. Or, even if it is never touched the devs may simply decide to make content that champ is not good at. They don't have to touch Starlord to safeguard his damage, for example.

    But there's also a risk associated with not doing anything, and that risk is you don't get to use those champs or use ranked up versions of those champs. The players who aren't afraid will get those benefits ahead of you. There's no safe choice: you have to decide which risk you want to take.

    No matter what they do to Cull, this will be true. No matter whether they keep their review policy or change it, this will be true. They aren't ever going to promise you that they will never change anything. And you shouldn't believe any dev that makes that promise: they are lying. They won't likely even be there forever to keep that promise.
    I think there’s a needed distinction here between more organic shifts (for example, the shift away from bleed dominant champs, the shift away from mystic wars) and more artificial, programmed shifts (for example, building in a fudge factor for screwing up a champ’s introduction).

    And I wish people would stop beating up the “nothing can ever change” straw man. Give him a break—I’ve yet to see anyone argue that the game should stay 100% static.

    I don’t expect us to agree on this one. But it’s qualitatively different from my perspective.

    Dr. Zola
    To quote the post I replied to: "I cant buy Crystal's or spend units grinding for a new champion without fear of them getting changed for the worse." I reply to what people say, not what other people claim they said. I allow for reasonable interpretation, but there is no such reasonable alternate interpretation here.

    Because in fact, lots of people have directly stated multiple times that in their opinion, if players spend money for a champion then Kabam should not make any deleterious changes to that champion without refunding them. You can't call the position a straw man when it is the actual stated position of many people commenting.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,573 ★★★★★
    Can we please get back to Cull? To sit here and have whole conversations about people's feelings is highly annoying. GW position has not changed. He doesn't care how much you spend or how arbitrary a champion decision is, Kabam is justified no matter the change. If you don't like it tough but lets get out of the feelings rabbit hole.

    Back to the topic, Cull can be made better actually with these changes if block proficiency is improved. It would really help if Kabam would announce that though.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,848 ★★★★★

    You don't have to agree with my points. You don't get to say if I stay or not. Sorry.

    I'm here to talk about what we're here to discuss. That's it. Aside from being sidetracked on a discussion about Quake, that's what I've been doing. We don't always have to agree in these discussions. In fact, it's a guarantee people won't always agree. However, I'm not going to be ousted from the conversation based on a disagreement. It's the equivalent of saying, "We don't like you. Go away.". Not happening. If I choose to leave a discussion, so be it. If Moderation asks me to walk away, great. What I'm not going to do is allow people to push me out. It's not personal for me. I'm fully capable of agreeing or disagreeing without attacking someone's character. So I'm sorry, but telling me to leave is not going to result in anything. This isn't Survivor.

    Who the hell are you talking to now?
    Well I'd say, but the comments were removed, and I'm quite content getting back to the subject. Although I don't think there's much else to say for now.
  • Ace_03Ace_03 Posts: 943 ★★★★
    The best move is to extend the introduction of new champions to the basic pull by 2 months, that way the champion is released, 3 months go by, maybe even 4 or 5, they can announce whatever changes (up or down) and then the champ goes in on the 6th month.

    This way there is no rage or anger when f2p players or mild spenders unwillingly get these champions, cause they would have already been re-balanced. Anyone who goes in arena for them, or spends crystals, does so at their own peril.

    Clearly this is the direction they are going, it's their game and they adjust it as they see fit. But I rather not be stuck with a champion on a rebalancing period, I rather get the champion already fixed, not get a champion and then wonder for 2-3 months if they are going to nerf them in any way, shape or form.

    It's not a good feeling, you can't control what champions you pull, what items, what rank up materials... the 20% featured 5* crystal was taken away, now even if you get the champ by some RNG miracle, use awakening gems, signature stones, gold, rank up materials, everything; you aren't guaranteed most of that back.

    It used to be that, you could strategize using your roster to its fullest potential, get that 1 champ that could change it all for you, that 1 ability, now most of our rosters are not allowed in the most lucrative (in the long run) content in the game (act 6) but you also have gates that limit your roster even more.

    Now you can also take that "1 champ that could change it all for you, with that 1 ability" and change them whenever you deem necessary? This game is already built on enough RNG.

    Stop and think what you are doing, you are making the community miserable for an extended period of time, literally sucking the joy out of this game, I can't believe it's gotten to this point.

    I wish I could travel to 2016 post the willpower and BP nerfs and just keep the structure we had at the time, back when this game brought a smile to my face, not a constant frown of indignity and distrust.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,573 ★★★★★
    Ace_03 said:

    The best move is to extend the introduction of new champions to the basic pull by 2 months, that way the champion is released, 3 months go by, maybe even 4 or 5, they can announce whatever changes (up or down) and then the champ goes in on the 6th month.

    This way there is no rage or anger when f2p players or mild spenders unwillingly get these champions, cause they would have already been re-balanced. Anyone who goes in arena for them, or spends crystals, does so at their own peril.

    Clearly this is the direction they are going, it's their game and they adjust it as they see fit. But I rather not be stuck with a champion on a rebalancing period, I rather get the champion already fixed, not get a champion and then wonder for 2-3 months if they are going to nerf them in any way, shape or form.

    It's not a good feeling, you can't control what champions you pull, what items, what rank up materials... the 20% featured 5* crystal was taken away, now even if you get the champ by some RNG miracle, use awakening gems, signature stones, gold, rank up materials, everything; you aren't guaranteed most of that back.

    It used to be that, you could strategize using your roster to its fullest potential, get that 1 champ that could change it all for you, that 1 ability, now most of our rosters are not allowed in the most lucrative (in the long run) content in the game (act 6) but you also have gates that limit your roster even more.

    Now you can also take that "1 champ that could change it all for you, with that 1 ability" and change them whenever you deem necessary? This game is already built on enough RNG.

    Stop and think what you are doing, you are making the community miserable for an extended period of time, literally sucking the joy out of this game, I can't believe it's gotten to this point.

    I wish I could travel to 2016 post the willpower and BP nerfs and just keep the structure we had at the time, back when this game brought a smile to my face, not a constant frown of indignity and distrust.

    Everything you said makes sense but people waiting to buy crystals outside of whales that will buy them anyway is simply bad for business. This is why I think their strategy will be readjusted and we're waiting on an announcement to address this issue. If nothing was going to change this thread would've been closed a week ago because it has been derailed multiple times.
  • Ace_03Ace_03 Posts: 943 ★★★★

    Ace_03 said:

    The best move is to extend the introduction of new champions to the basic pull by 2 months, that way the champion is released, 3 months go by, maybe even 4 or 5, they can announce whatever changes (up or down) and then the champ goes in on the 6th month.

    This way there is no rage or anger when f2p players or mild spenders unwillingly get these champions, cause they would have already been re-balanced. Anyone who goes in arena for them, or spends crystals, does so at their own peril.

    Clearly this is the direction they are going, it's their game and they adjust it as they see fit. But I rather not be stuck with a champion on a rebalancing period, I rather get the champion already fixed, not get a champion and then wonder for 2-3 months if they are going to nerf them in any way, shape or form.

    It's not a good feeling, you can't control what champions you pull, what items, what rank up materials... the 20% featured 5* crystal was taken away, now even if you get the champ by some RNG miracle, use awakening gems, signature stones, gold, rank up materials, everything; you aren't guaranteed most of that back.

    It used to be that, you could strategize using your roster to its fullest potential, get that 1 champ that could change it all for you, that 1 ability, now most of our rosters are not allowed in the most lucrative (in the long run) content in the game (act 6) but you also have gates that limit your roster even more.

    Now you can also take that "1 champ that could change it all for you, with that 1 ability" and change them whenever you deem necessary? This game is already built on enough RNG.

    Stop and think what you are doing, you are making the community miserable for an extended period of time, literally sucking the joy out of this game, I can't believe it's gotten to this point.

    I wish I could travel to 2016 post the willpower and BP nerfs and just keep the structure we had at the time, back when this game brought a smile to my face, not a constant frown of indignity and distrust.

    Everything you said makes sense but people waiting to buy crystals outside of whales that will buy them anyway is simply bad for business. This is why I think their strategy will be readjusted and we're waiting on an announcement to address this issue. If nothing was going to change this thread would've been closed a week ago because it has been derailed multiple times.
    It won't change.

    Sorry dude, I've been here for a while now and this happens constantly. Remember the compensation thread last year? for the whole summoner week thing? that thread ran for a long, long, time, same situation, people writing their displeasure for the compensation because of the heating, the bugs, lag that went with it, yet still, they did what they did and it was closed eventually.

    I'm being a realist, 6 months the champs go in the basic pool already changed, that's the best middle ground for all of us.

    Make no mistake...

    This is happening.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,848 ★★★★★
    According to what their intentions are in the Announcement, it's also not that drastic. They're minor adjustments. Not major changes. I mean, if people want to wait until they know what's changing, it's up to them. As DNA suggested, the downside is you miss out on months of use.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,573 ★★★★★
    The bugs and over heating is stuff that we all know Kabam is not doing purposefully. They're just slow to fix those type of issues at times it seems. This is more of a She Hulk rank down ticket situation where they're deciding to take this action all on their own and have complete control of the situation. We're not asking to get compensation, we're saying change your strategy on new champs. Two totally different instances and why would you hurt your bottom line on purpose?

    Unless they feel like this is good for the game in the future that we can't possibly see yet similar to 12.0 but in no scenario in this game is Cull is a more than an above average champ. Not terrible but not great either is where he lands so if he can get adjusted Namor who's actually an excellent champ has no shot of staying the same is the worry among others.
  • dot_dittodot_ditto Posts: 1,122 ★★★
    Ryanhun said:

    Just ignore them, if no reaction they will leave on them here own.


  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 1,845 ★★★★★
    Ryanhun said:

    Just ignore them, if no reaction they will leave on them here own.

    The problem with that is that there is ALWAYS someone who engages, and often they are quoted which bypasses the ignore feature.
  • Everything you said makes sense but people waiting to buy crystals outside of whales that will buy them anyway is simply bad for business. This is why I think their strategy will be readjusted and we're waiting on an announcement to address this issue.

    If they don't change their strategy and all evidence says the game continues to maintain the same amount or more players and the same amount or more revenue, would that convince you the strategy was actually good for business and the complaints about it were not actually representative of the playerbase as a whole?

    This is an interesting analog to the Cull situation. Players are saying Cull doesn't need to be changed, while Kabam says they have data that says he should be. Many players believe that means the data must be wrong. If the players are also saying these kinds of changes are bad for business but Kabam gets data that says it has no negative impact on player engagement or player spending, should they act on the vocal feedback or trust their monetization and engagement data instead?
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,573 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Everything you said makes sense but people waiting to buy crystals outside of whales that will buy them anyway is simply bad for business. This is why I think their strategy will be readjusted and we're waiting on an announcement to address this issue.

    If they don't change their strategy and all evidence says the game continues to maintain the same amount or more players and the same amount or more revenue, would that convince you the strategy was actually good for business and the complaints about it were not actually representative of the playerbase as a whole?

    This is an interesting analog to the Cull situation. Players are saying Cull doesn't need to be changed, while Kabam says they have data that says he should be. Many players believe that means the data must be wrong. If the players are also saying these kinds of changes are bad for business but Kabam gets data that says it has no negative impact on player engagement or player spending, should they act on the vocal feedback or trust their monetization and engagement data instead?
    If this doesn't effect Kabam monetarily than there is no incentive to change at all. Seeing as though I have quit spending and some other I know have done the same along with the forum outcries I doubt it but I could be wrong.

    Regardless I don't think people having trust issues with Kabam is still good for business. Outside of a few forum guys I don't know anyone that is okay with the Cull changes, at best I've heard lets wait and see but Kabam hasn't presented any information that anything other than damage will be changed.

    People are very committed to this game but the reason for the forum outcry isn't about Cull it is precedent. They tough Namor or any fan favorite champion that is actually good, it would just be forum outcry.
This discussion has been closed.