No one said public feedback doesn't matter from what I recall. I believe the argument was that we don't control their decisions. Big difference. They're taking feedback into account, but things are still being changed.
This announcement changes nothing. You still can’t rank up new champs till you see how badly they will be nerfed after the “re-balance”. This just means they are going to be more transparent about the nerf. High end materials are still too hard to get for most. Wasting them on a god tier champ and then “trusting Kabam” (lol) that the nerf will leave the champ worth your resources is a stretch.
Do your jobs and do a better job balancing the champions before releasing them so this is not necessary.
Read the Mike post, doesn't change Jack for me, no ranking up till they get past the Nerf stage, not safe enough, like someone pointed out, there is usually a thin line of difference between picking rank ups and those materials don't come easy, so yeah, no cavs and no r5s for now, till they are safe to rank up.
Read the Mike post, doesn't change Jack for me, no ranking up till they get past the Nerf stage, not safe enough, like someone pointed out, there is usually a thin line of difference between picking rank ups and those materials don't come easy, so yeah, no cavs and no r5s for now, till they are safe to rank up.
They will never get past the nerf stage until humans become perfect. If they make an overpowered champ they will change it. They can even make it past that period, and if it is bad enough they can still do it.
Honestly, tweaking a champion in light of player feedback or through looking at 'the data' isn't necessarily a bad thing, assuming the champion isn't a million miles off the mark in the first place. The crux of this is that if it is a re-balance (e.g. Cull's Damage reduction in favour of perfect block) then the status of the champion is not being reduced, it is at the very worst changing slightly from A1 to A2, rather than A1 to B. This would in theory bring all new releases to a roughly even playing field so that going forward there are no 'useless champions' being added to the pool.
She-Hulk aside, I think that in most cases where Kabam have released a champion that had what could be considered to be a broken mechanic - Mr Sinister Suicide abuse/NF/Cull's basically 1 hitting MEQ bosses - upon discovery they have hot fixed it, and I would think that very few people ranked up champions on the basis of an interaction that's clearly bugged.
I think that we should also consider the timeframes involved here. If there is a champion that's OP, and you know with a degree of certainty that it's going to be nerfed, you've probably got the better part of 6 months gameplay with an overpowered champion. In that time you can power through enough content to pretty much get the resources for another rank up.
Honestly, tweaking a champion in light of player feedback or through looking at 'the data' isn't necessarily a bad thing, assuming the champion isn't a million miles off the mark in the first place. The crux of this is that if it is a re-balance (e.g. Cull's Damage reduction in favour of perfect block) then the status of the champion is not being reduced, it is at the very worst changing slightly from A1 to A2, rather than A1 to B. This would in theory bring all new releases to a roughly even playing field so that going forward there are no 'useless champions' being added to the pool.
She-Hulk aside, I think that in most cases where Kabam have released a champion that had what could be considered to be a broken mechanic - Mr Sinister Suicide abuse/NF/Cull's basically 1 hitting MEQ bosses - upon discovery they have hot fixed it, and I would think that very few people ranked up champions on the basis of an interaction that's clearly bugged.
I think that we should also consider the timeframes involved here. If there is a champion that's OP, and you know with a degree of certainty that it's going to be nerfed, you've probably got the better part of 6 months gameplay with an overpowered champion. In that time you can power through enough content to pretty much get the resources for another rank up.
It's not a bad thing. Its mostly communication, and details. They understand the issue based on the message, hopefully our results are favorable and understandable next time around. No one likes arbitrary uncertainty which is what is boiled down to.
Honestly, tweaking a champion in light of player feedback or through looking at 'the data' isn't necessarily a bad thing, assuming the champion isn't a million miles off the mark in the first place. The crux of this is that if it is a re-balance (e.g. Cull's Damage reduction in favour of perfect block) then the status of the champion is not being reduced, it is at the very worst changing slightly from A1 to A2, rather than A1 to B. This would in theory bring all new releases to a roughly even playing field so that going forward there are no 'useless champions' being added to the pool.
She-Hulk aside, I think that in most cases where Kabam have released a champion that had what could be considered to be a broken mechanic - Mr Sinister Suicide abuse/NF/Cull's basically 1 hitting MEQ bosses - upon discovery they have hot fixed it, and I would think that very few people ranked up champions on the basis of an interaction that's clearly bugged.
I think that we should also consider the timeframes involved here. If there is a champion that's OP, and you know with a degree of certainty that it's going to be nerfed, you've probably got the better part of 6 months gameplay with an overpowered champion. In that time you can power through enough content to pretty much get the resources for another rank up.
It's not a bad thing. Its mostly communication, and details. They understand the issue based on the message, hopefully our results are favorable and understandable next time around. No one likes arbitrary uncertainty which is what is boiled down to.
I agree, step in the right direction, especially with these little survey notifications popping up in game recently too.
Read my post earlier a week ago I called it with the balance changes. All the people who said public feedback doesn't matter please take the time to admit you were wrong even though I know you won't.
Read my post earlier a week ago I called it with the balance changes. All the people who said public feedback doesn't matter please take the time to admit you were wrong even though I know you won't.
Who said public feedback doesn't matter?
A few actually some people would just be like "Kabam can do what they want we can't do anything about it"
Context would help. No one said feedback doesn't matter. The argument, among many, was that they can't make changes because people spent money. 12.0 was referenced, and the implication was made that the Players control the game. So it was pointed out that they have the right to make changes. Nowhere was it said that feedback doesn't matter, or that it's not received.
Not sure why this is so widely overlooked, but rank down tickets aren’t the biggest issue. Those who used awakening gems and stones got screwed worse. Kabam won’t be giving those back.
Not sure why this is so widely overlooked, but rank down tickets aren’t the biggest issue. Those who used awakening gems and stones got screwed worse. Kabam won’t be giving those back.
Even if units were returned back to the account, which they'd never do, the money lost is the worst part.
Read my post earlier a week ago I called it with the balance changes. All the people who said public feedback doesn't matter please take the time to admit you were wrong even though I know you won't.
Who said public feedback doesn't matter?
A few actually some people would just be like "Kabam can do what they want we can't do anything about it"
Well, they can do what they want, but that doesn't mean public feedback doesn't matter. The only discussion I recall related to this was the issue of whether the players have the final say in how the game is developed, which they don't. But player feedback always has a significant impact on the direction of the game, just not always in the way players want.
I don't think there was very much disagreement that the way Kabam communicated these changes was poor. The question is what to do about it moving forward. Kabam seems to acknowledge in the interview that downstream balancing changes are a necessary part of the game, but the question was how to better communicate both the scope and direction of those changes, and how to better explain what prompts them in ways that can be understood with, and I quote "player-facing data." In other words, can they describe what their data mining tells them in ways the players can better understand without the benefit of the internal data mining.
It doesn't sound like they are abandoning champion post-live reviews or downstream balancing in general, nor does it sound like they are prepared to release their internal data to the players. Which means they can't address one of the core complaints regarding "long term" future uncertainty about if champions will be rebalanced or tuned post-launch. They seem to be primarily tackling the problem of "short term" uncertainty about what kinds of changes the players should expect, when they announce changes will happen, and the I guess you could call it "medium term" uncertainty about what prompts changes to happen so players can better predict when they are more or less likely to occur.
It's nice to have it officially acknowledged that they messed up on this announcement. Everything he said was correct though - being clearer in their descriptions, what's going to change, providing evidence of the issue they're wanting to change, explaining why, etc.
Yep, that's all we've been asking, and only reason we're 60 pages in is some others have been arguing against that .. "they have the data" - "they don't need to share it" - "they can't share it, it's private" .. etc, nonsensical arguments ..., glad to see an actual Kabam dev set these people straight and admit that they should have shared more info with us including their findings, and WHY they felt he was "over the top". That's all we've been asking for
but people were asking to see the code here and verify their findings. Lol.
WRONG .. again ... just to make it clear (as I have on several previous occassions with you), YOU are the only one that keeps mentioning the term "CODE" .. everyone else is requesting the "DATA" (in direct regards to the dmg he deals, nothing more, nothing less). *sigh*
Read my post earlier a week ago I called it with the balance changes. All the people who said public feedback doesn't matter please take the time to admit you were wrong even though I know you won't.
Who said public feedback doesn't matter?
A few actually some people would just be like "Kabam can do what they want we can't do anything about it"
Well, they can do what they want, but that doesn't mean public feedback doesn't matter. The only discussion I recall related to this was the issue of whether the players have the final say in how the game is developed, which they don't. But player feedback always has a significant impact on the direction of the game, just not always in the way players want.
I don't think there was very much disagreement that the way Kabam communicated these changes was poor. The question is what to do about it moving forward. Kabam seems to acknowledge in the interview that downstream balancing changes are a necessary part of the game, but the question was how to better communicate both the scope and direction of those changes, and how to better explain what prompts them in ways that can be understood with, and I quote "player-facing data." In other words, can they describe what their data mining tells them in ways the players can better understand without the benefit of the internal data mining.
It doesn't sound like they are abandoning champion post-live reviews or downstream balancing in general, nor does it sound like they are prepared to release their internal data to the players. Which means they can't address one of the core complaints regarding "long term" future uncertainty about if champions will be rebalanced or tuned post-launch. They seem to be primarily tackling the problem of "short term" uncertainty about what kinds of changes the players should expect, when they announce changes will happen, and the I guess you could call it "medium term" uncertainty about what prompts changes to happen so players can better predict when they are more or less likely to occur.
You all are changing the argument once again because you got it wrong. You have 0 conviction in your arguments because you fought for weeks and Kabam made their changes due to player feedback. Of course now it's no big deal because you saw this coming right? Lol
It's nice to have it officially acknowledged that they messed up on this announcement. Everything he said was correct though - being clearer in their descriptions, what's going to change, providing evidence of the issue they're wanting to change, explaining why, etc.
Yep, that's all we've been asking, and only reason we're 60 pages in is some others have been arguing against that .. "they have the data" - "they don't need to share it" - "they can't share it, it's private" .. etc, nonsensical arguments ..., glad to see an actual Kabam dev set these people straight and admit that they should have shared more info with us including their findings, and WHY they felt he was "over the top". That's all we've been asking for
but people were asking to see the code here and verify their findings. Lol.
WRONG .. again ... just to make it clear (as I have on several previous occassions with you), YOU are the only one that keeps mentioning the term "CODE" .. everyone else is requesting the "DATA" (in direct regards to the dmg he deals, nothing more, nothing less). *sigh*
The bottom line is I think it's completely inappropriate to demand to see their data and verify changes they're making. They are obliging. That doesn't mean I think it should be happening. An explanation is one thing. Showing data and "homework" is a ridiculous idea for Devs to have to do with a Player Base when it comes to their product. Kabam wants to be transparent and they want people to trust their decisions. I get it. People demanding it because they have changes planned is just ludicrous IMO. It's like holding decisions hostage.
It's nice to have it officially acknowledged that they messed up on this announcement. Everything he said was correct though - being clearer in their descriptions, what's going to change, providing evidence of the issue they're wanting to change, explaining why, etc.
Yep, that's all we've been asking, and only reason we're 60 pages in is some others have been arguing against that .. "they have the data" - "they don't need to share it" - "they can't share it, it's private" .. etc, nonsensical arguments ..., glad to see an actual Kabam dev set these people straight and admit that they should have shared more info with us including their findings, and WHY they felt he was "over the top". That's all we've been asking for
but people were asking to see the code here and verify their findings. Lol.
WRONG .. again ... just to make it clear (as I have on several previous occassions with you), YOU are the only one that keeps mentioning the term "CODE" .. everyone else is requesting the "DATA" (in direct regards to the dmg he deals, nothing more, nothing less). *sigh*
The bottom line is I think it's completely inappropriate to demand to see their data and verify changes they're making. They are obliging. That doesn't mean I think it should be happening. An explanation is one thing. Showing data and "homework" is a ridiculous idea for Devs to have to do with a Player Base when it comes to their product. Kabam wants to be transparent and they want people to trust their decisions. I get it. People demanding it because they have changes planned is just ludicrous IMO. It's like holding decisions hostage.
They should show their data because we don't understand the changes their bringing about based on our knowledge. Context is the key here. If they can continue to not present data and make changes, see how much that works out for their pocket books. You're not understanding business like I explained before this even happened. Kabam can do whatever they want, yes but it hurts their pockets books if players don't understand the reasoning.
It's nice to have it officially acknowledged that they messed up on this announcement. Everything he said was correct though - being clearer in their descriptions, what's going to change, providing evidence of the issue they're wanting to change, explaining why, etc.
Yep, that's all we've been asking, and only reason we're 60 pages in is some others have been arguing against that .. "they have the data" - "they don't need to share it" - "they can't share it, it's private" .. etc, nonsensical arguments ..., glad to see an actual Kabam dev set these people straight and admit that they should have shared more info with us including their findings, and WHY they felt he was "over the top". That's all we've been asking for
but people were asking to see the code here and verify their findings. Lol.
WRONG .. again ... just to make it clear (as I have on several previous occassions with you), YOU are the only one that keeps mentioning the term "CODE" .. everyone else is requesting the "DATA" (in direct regards to the dmg he deals, nothing more, nothing less). *sigh*
The bottom line is I think it's completely inappropriate to demand to see their data and verify changes they're making. They are obliging. That doesn't mean I think it should be happening. An explanation is one thing. Showing data and "homework" is a ridiculous idea for Devs to have to do with a Player Base when it comes to their product. Kabam wants to be transparent and they want people to trust their decisions. I get it. People demanding it because they have changes planned is just ludicrous IMO. It's like holding decisions hostage.
They should show their data because we don't understand the changes their bringing about based on our knowledge. Context is the key here. If they can continue to not present data and make changes, see how much that works out for their pocket books. You're not understanding business like I explained before this even happened. Kabam can do whatever they want, yes but it hurts their pockets books if players don't understand the reasoning.
This argument is exactly why we had the debate about the TOS and whether people control what they do or not. The idea that because people spend, they can decide what happens, is just counterintuitive to any efforts or progress made towards compromise. They are making a choice to show it because they care about the Players and their trust. Not out of fear of financial loss. Big difference. They could just as easily be like a plethora of companies I could name that take feedback in, say nothing, and make their decisions. Those companies continue to thrive and make money just fine. I don't think people fully realize how fortunate this situation is. It is extremely rare to have a company take feedback into account as much as this game does. Very few do. As much as people feel they're not transparent or considerate, that's absolutely not the case. I'd say they go over and above. Therein lies the misconception with this attitude. People actually believe that with enough withholding and complaining, they can control anything that comes. Not all Players, of course. Many actually think they're in control of what happens to the game because they pay. If you're asking me if it's a good thing they're sharing more, I agree. I'm not vindictive or malicious. I don't like to see people confused or scared. However, if you're asking me if it's mandatory, or that they MUST, that's a big no. There's a line between asking for more information and demanding it as if it's owed.
Read my post earlier a week ago I called it with the balance changes. All the people who said public feedback doesn't matter please take the time to admit you were wrong even though I know you won't.
Who said public feedback doesn't matter?
A few actually some people would just be like "Kabam can do what they want we can't do anything about it"
Well, they can do what they want, but that doesn't mean public feedback doesn't matter. The only discussion I recall related to this was the issue of whether the players have the final say in how the game is developed, which they don't. But player feedback always has a significant impact on the direction of the game, just not always in the way players want.
I don't think there was very much disagreement that the way Kabam communicated these changes was poor. The question is what to do about it moving forward. Kabam seems to acknowledge in the interview that downstream balancing changes are a necessary part of the game, but the question was how to better communicate both the scope and direction of those changes, and how to better explain what prompts them in ways that can be understood with, and I quote "player-facing data." In other words, can they describe what their data mining tells them in ways the players can better understand without the benefit of the internal data mining.
It doesn't sound like they are abandoning champion post-live reviews or downstream balancing in general, nor does it sound like they are prepared to release their internal data to the players. Which means they can't address one of the core complaints regarding "long term" future uncertainty about if champions will be rebalanced or tuned post-launch. They seem to be primarily tackling the problem of "short term" uncertainty about what kinds of changes the players should expect, when they announce changes will happen, and the I guess you could call it "medium term" uncertainty about what prompts changes to happen so players can better predict when they are more or less likely to occur.
You all are changing the argument once again because you got it wrong. You have 0 conviction in your arguments because you fought for weeks and Kabam made their changes due to player feedback. Of course now it's no big deal because you saw this coming right? Lol
I've been an advocate for better developer communication and documentation since long before you showed up. Also, all my posts are still here in the thread so anyone with eyes can see whatever you are hallucinating I "fought for weeks" for was only in your mind.
The bottom line is I think it's completely inappropriate to demand to see their data and verify changes they're making. They are obliging. That doesn't mean I think it should be happening. An explanation is one thing. Showing data and "homework" is a ridiculous idea for Devs to have to do with a Player Base when it comes to their product. Kabam wants to be transparent and they want people to trust their decisions. I get it. People demanding it because they have changes planned is just ludicrous IMO. It's like holding decisions hostage.
And I'm glad they don't agree with you and realize that it's better to be open and transparent with us, rather than just force things at us - like you seem to want.
Read my post earlier a week ago I called it with the balance changes. All the people who said public feedback doesn't matter please take the time to admit you were wrong even though I know you won't.
Who said public feedback doesn't matter?
A few actually some people would just be like "Kabam can do what they want we can't do anything about it"
Well, they can do what they want, but that doesn't mean public feedback doesn't matter. The only discussion I recall related to this was the issue of whether the players have the final say in how the game is developed, which they don't. But player feedback always has a significant impact on the direction of the game, just not always in the way players want.
I don't think there was very much disagreement that the way Kabam communicated these changes was poor. The question is what to do about it moving forward. Kabam seems to acknowledge in the interview that downstream balancing changes are a necessary part of the game, but the question was how to better communicate both the scope and direction of those changes, and how to better explain what prompts them in ways that can be understood with, and I quote "player-facing data." In other words, can they describe what their data mining tells them in ways the players can better understand without the benefit of the internal data mining.
It doesn't sound like they are abandoning champion post-live reviews or downstream balancing in general, nor does it sound like they are prepared to release their internal data to the players. Which means they can't address one of the core complaints regarding "long term" future uncertainty about if champions will be rebalanced or tuned post-launch. They seem to be primarily tackling the problem of "short term" uncertainty about what kinds of changes the players should expect, when they announce changes will happen, and the I guess you could call it "medium term" uncertainty about what prompts changes to happen so players can better predict when they are more or less likely to occur.
You all are changing the argument once again because you got it wrong. You have 0 conviction in your arguments because you fought for weeks and Kabam made their changes due to player feedback. Of course now it's no big deal because you saw this coming right? Lol
I've been an advocate for better developer communication and documentation since long before you showed up. Also, all my posts are still here in the thread so anyone with eyes can see whatever you are hallucinating I "fought for weeks" for was only in your mind.
Everyrhing I say is not specific to just you @DNA3000 or to you specifically. There are 4 to 5 guys that have this attitude that I'm referring to where Kabam is always right. You're a little more nuanced but not enough to think that I was calling you out. Regardless we don't disagree on more communication is better. So you arguing on that front is pointless.
Everyrhing I say is not specific to just you @DNA3000 or to you specifically. There are 4 to 5 guys that have this attitude that I'm referring to where Kabam is always right.
This does not make sense since both times you’ve attempted to put words in people’s mouth you have directly responded to his posts addressing him specifically.
Read my post earlier a week ago I called it with the balance changes. All the people who said public feedback doesn't matter please take the time to admit you were wrong even though I know you won't.
Who said public feedback doesn't matter?
A few actually some people would just be like "Kabam can do what they want we can't do anything about it"
Well, they can do what they want, but that doesn't mean public feedback doesn't matter. The only discussion I recall related to this was the issue of whether the players have the final say in how the game is developed, which they don't. But player feedback always has a significant impact on the direction of the game, just not always in the way players want.
I don't think there was very much disagreement that the way Kabam communicated these changes was poor. The question is what to do about it moving forward. Kabam seems to acknowledge in the interview that downstream balancing changes are a necessary part of the game, but the question was how to better communicate both the scope and direction of those changes, and how to better explain what prompts them in ways that can be understood with, and I quote "player-facing data." In other words, can they describe what their data mining tells them in ways the players can better understand without the benefit of the internal data mining.
It doesn't sound like they are abandoning champion post-live reviews or downstream balancing in general, nor does it sound like they are prepared to release their internal data to the players. Which means they can't address one of the core complaints regarding "long term" future uncertainty about if champions will be rebalanced or tuned post-launch. They seem to be primarily tackling the problem of "short term" uncertainty about what kinds of changes the players should expect, when they announce changes will happen, and the I guess you could call it "medium term" uncertainty about what prompts changes to happen so players can better predict when they are more or less likely to occur.
You all are changing the argument once again because you got it wrong. You have 0 conviction in your arguments because you fought for weeks and Kabam made their changes due to player feedback. Of course now it's no big deal because you saw this coming right? Lol
I've been an advocate for better developer communication and documentation since long before you showed up. Also, all my posts are still here in the thread so anyone with eyes can see whatever you are hallucinating I "fought for weeks" for was only in your mind.
Everyrhing I say is not specific to just you @DNA3000 or to you specifically. There are 4 to 5 guys that have this attitude that I'm referring to where Kabam is always right. You're a little more nuanced but not enough to think that I was calling you out. Regardless we don't disagree on more communication is better. So you arguing on that front is pointless.
If you were not referring to me fair enough, but as you quoted me and said "you all" that was the inference I made.
The bottom line is I think it's completely inappropriate to demand to see their data and verify changes they're making. They are obliging. That doesn't mean I think it should be happening. An explanation is one thing. Showing data and "homework" is a ridiculous idea for Devs to have to do with a Player Base when it comes to their product. Kabam wants to be transparent and they want people to trust their decisions. I get it. People demanding it because they have changes planned is just ludicrous IMO. It's like holding decisions hostage.
And I'm glad they don't agree with you and realize that it's better to be open and transparent with us, rather than just force things at us - like you seem to want.
I never said I wanted anything. I said I find the idea of having to verify their choices based on data by mandate is ludicrous. It's been a very long Thread, and some of the reactions that I responded to have been buried, but people were basically saying they don't know what they're talking about, demanding they show their work, claiming Bait and Switch, and a great deal other things that were emotionally charged. I said, quite specifically, they may choose to show it, but it's not a requirement. As I said in my last comment, having more information is great, and I think it's a good thing they want to alleviate concerns. That's not the same as the reactions I'm referring to. "We paid for him. You owe us the data. Bait and Switch. If you change him, we won't spend. You are committing Fraud."..... I get that people were upset, and that's where it came from. I'm talking about the idea that they must verify their decisions and data with Players. No, I don't think that's a must. Then again, I trust their intentions because I've had a fair understanding since it was announced.
They should show their data because we don't understand the changes their bringing about based on our knowledge. Context is the key here. If they can continue to not present data and make changes, see how much that works out for their pocket books. You're not understanding business like I explained before this even happened. Kabam can do whatever they want, yes but it hurts their pockets books if players don't understand the reasoning.
From the interview with Dave, it sounds like what Kabam is contemplating is taking the results of their datamining and "translating" those results into explanations that can be understood within the context of information the players collectively have.
One way to do that is to analyze the problem to try to determine what the cause of the problem is, and then to project forward to see how that root cause would impact players directly. For example, let's take a less controversial example. Suppose players thought Sparky was OP, but the devs' data said he wasn't. Instead of sharing the data, the devs could analyze the data to try to determine why the data didn't match players expectations. They could conclude that the reason why some players see way more damage output is because their data suggests players are not building poise as much as you'd think. And that might suggest that the problem is that building poise takes skill, and failure causes potentially huge damage or even death. So while 1% of the players are smashing things with high health and stacked poise, the other 99% are either below 50% health because they are getting smacked in the face or not trying to stack too much poise. The conclusion would be that Sparky has high damage *potential* but that potential costs a lot of skill, and that's what balances his performance.
If you then tell the players that Sparky isn't OP because while players can demonstrate huge damage output, in practice the game data seems to show that Sparky's damage is counter-balanced by a high skill threshold, and in practice some players are getting a lot of damage while most are not, that's something the players can at least reconcile with their own experiences and the data they can observe themselves. There's no "skill metric" datamining report per se that they are revealing to the players, that's an extrapolation of the data that Kabam could share without divulging proprietary data.
Everyrhing I say is not specific to just you @DNA3000 or to you specifically. There are 4 to 5 guys that have this attitude that I'm referring to where Kabam is always right.
This does not make sense since both times you’ve attempted to put words in people’s mouth you have directly responded to his posts addressing him specifically.
Look at my orginal post. When I addressed the changes I didn't tag anyone yet GW and DNA responded to my post so that tells you thats how they feel that I'm addressing them. My post isn't all about DNA. If thats how it came across I'm telling you I'm talking about the 4 or 5 guys in every post that always agree with Kabam. DNA does occasionally but not everytime. Is that more clear?
What stood out to me in Dave's video is that Kabam clearly don't know how good some of players are or how people can use the champs they create. That's why they need the people who play the game at the highest level to help them create/balance their champs.
And before you start whining about needing to hear from the mid their players just stop. It's not the mid tier players who figured out how to beat anything with Quake w/o being touched or solo the Champion with She-Hulk.
Comments
Do your jobs and do a better job balancing the champions before releasing them so this is not necessary.
She-Hulk aside, I think that in most cases where Kabam have released a champion that had what could be considered to be a broken mechanic - Mr Sinister Suicide abuse/NF/Cull's basically 1 hitting MEQ bosses - upon discovery they have hot fixed it, and I would think that very few people ranked up champions on the basis of an interaction that's clearly bugged.
I think that we should also consider the timeframes involved here. If there is a champion that's OP, and you know with a degree of certainty that it's going to be nerfed, you've probably got the better part of 6 months gameplay with an overpowered champion. In that time you can power through enough content to pretty much get the resources for another rank up.
I don't think there was very much disagreement that the way Kabam communicated these changes was poor. The question is what to do about it moving forward. Kabam seems to acknowledge in the interview that downstream balancing changes are a necessary part of the game, but the question was how to better communicate both the scope and direction of those changes, and how to better explain what prompts them in ways that can be understood with, and I quote "player-facing data." In other words, can they describe what their data mining tells them in ways the players can better understand without the benefit of the internal data mining.
It doesn't sound like they are abandoning champion post-live reviews or downstream balancing in general, nor does it sound like they are prepared to release their internal data to the players. Which means they can't address one of the core complaints regarding "long term" future uncertainty about if champions will be rebalanced or tuned post-launch. They seem to be primarily tackling the problem of "short term" uncertainty about what kinds of changes the players should expect, when they announce changes will happen, and the I guess you could call it "medium term" uncertainty about what prompts changes to happen so players can better predict when they are more or less likely to occur.
etc, nonsensical arguments ..., glad to see an actual Kabam dev set these people straight
That's all we've been asking for
*sigh*
An explanation is one thing. Showing data and "homework" is a ridiculous idea for Devs to have to do with a Player Base when it comes to their product. Kabam wants to be transparent and they want people to trust their decisions. I get it. People demanding it because they have changes planned is just ludicrous IMO. It's like holding decisions hostage.
They are making a choice to show it because they care about the Players and their trust. Not out of fear of financial loss. Big difference. They could just as easily be like a plethora of companies I could name that take feedback in, say nothing, and make their decisions. Those companies continue to thrive and make money just fine. I don't think people fully realize how fortunate this situation is. It is extremely rare to have a company take feedback into account as much as this game does. Very few do. As much as people feel they're not transparent or considerate, that's absolutely not the case. I'd say they go over and above. Therein lies the misconception with this attitude. People actually believe that with enough withholding and complaining, they can control anything that comes. Not all Players, of course. Many actually think they're in control of what happens to the game because they pay.
If you're asking me if it's a good thing they're sharing more, I agree. I'm not vindictive or malicious. I don't like to see people confused or scared. However, if you're asking me if it's mandatory, or that they MUST, that's a big no. There's a line between asking for more information and demanding it as if it's owed.
I get that people were upset, and that's where it came from. I'm talking about the idea that they must verify their decisions and data with Players. No, I don't think that's a must. Then again, I trust their intentions because I've had a fair understanding since it was announced.
One way to do that is to analyze the problem to try to determine what the cause of the problem is, and then to project forward to see how that root cause would impact players directly. For example, let's take a less controversial example. Suppose players thought Sparky was OP, but the devs' data said he wasn't. Instead of sharing the data, the devs could analyze the data to try to determine why the data didn't match players expectations. They could conclude that the reason why some players see way more damage output is because their data suggests players are not building poise as much as you'd think. And that might suggest that the problem is that building poise takes skill, and failure causes potentially huge damage or even death. So while 1% of the players are smashing things with high health and stacked poise, the other 99% are either below 50% health because they are getting smacked in the face or not trying to stack too much poise. The conclusion would be that Sparky has high damage *potential* but that potential costs a lot of skill, and that's what balances his performance.
If you then tell the players that Sparky isn't OP because while players can demonstrate huge damage output, in practice the game data seems to show that Sparky's damage is counter-balanced by a high skill threshold, and in practice some players are getting a lot of damage while most are not, that's something the players can at least reconcile with their own experiences and the data they can observe themselves. There's no "skill metric" datamining report per se that they are revealing to the players, that's an extrapolation of the data that Kabam could share without divulging proprietary data.
And before you start whining about needing to hear from the mid their players just stop. It's not the mid tier players who figured out how to beat anything with Quake w/o being touched or solo the Champion with She-Hulk.