Should I take Namor to rank 5 considering he is next on the chopping board or wait ?

Whatsthedillyo

Stingerbk

No

Best wait until his proposed REWORK happens, because it's probably gonna be a Nerf.

RoOOts

No

With the new "nerfing" policy of kabam. I don't want to rank up any champ anymore. ...and it sucks the fun out of the game.

phillgreen

No

I wouldn't spend rare resources on anyone now. The precedent has been set.

Get better at using the R4, they can't take your skill away from you.

DrZola

No

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

Lormif

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

So a date after which balance of the game no longer matters, no matter what data shows there is an imbalance?

Dshu

Yes

Absolutely but wait 4 years before you do since they could find an interaction in game allowing him to cheese content even if they don't balance him in the next few months

DrZola

No

Lormif said:

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

So a date after which balance of the game no longer matters, no matter what data shows there is an imbalance?

That’s not what I said. Misstating someone's position by adding the most restrictive (“no longer”) and most extreme (“no matter”) terms is resorting to straw men once again. Bad form for a self-professed “logician.”

No, provide a list re: these “adjustments”—who’s safe for now, who’s on the table, which older champs are getting a review.

I’m not talking about meta-shifting, 12.0 level changes here—those are their own entity and should be dealt with separately. I’m talking about the “adjustment” program.

If the team needs the community to test the most basic attributes of its products (and according to Miike below, it does), then just announcing an “adjustment” program exists and that some champs might get changed isn’t enough.



Dr. Zola

Lormif

DrZola said:

Lormif said:

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

So a date after which balance of the game no longer matters, no matter what data shows there is an imbalance?

That’s not what I said. Misstating someone's position by adding the most restrictive (“no longer”) and most extreme (“no matter”) terms is resorting to straw men once again. Bad form for a self-professed “logician.”

No, provide a list re: these “adjustments”—who’s safe for now, who’s on the table, which older champs are getting a review.

I’m not talking about meta-shifting, 12.0 level changes here—those are their own entity and should be dealt with separately. I’m talking about the “adjustment” program.

If the team needs the community to test the most basic attributes of its products (and according to Miike below, it does), then just announcing an “adjustment” program exists and that some champs might get changed isn’t enough.



Dr. Zola

If you note my comment was a question. I did not create a strawman because I did not state your made the claim, I asked for clarification. Asking if this is what you mean is not creating a strawman..


Even still what you say you want them to do is what they have already stated they are doing. It does not mean other nerfs, such as cull, so I am not sure what you are asking for in addition to what they are already providing, if you think it is ok to still nerf for balance after that period.

Bear3

It’s funny that they think testing a champion for “an entire week” is a long test period. So glad car companies don’t use the kabam testing policies.

🐻

DrZola

No

UmbertoDelRio said:

Let's be real, though, as far as we know the adjustments they'll do, be it upwards or downwards, could be really miniscule.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure as heck hoping they don't go overboard with this, but I think someone hitting like a concrete dump truck going sonic speed will still hit extremely hard after any adjustments.

Sometimes the dev team seems to be kinda detached from their own game, but they did design cull to be a massive damage dealer. And since they're adjusting him, not reworking him, he'll still be a damage dealer afterwards.

I think we'll have to wait for more information on the ht/annihilus changes to get a better picture of what they're actually trying to achieve here.

I would r5 namor tbh. I don't see them completely reworking him, so even if he overall does like 5-10% less damage after any adjustments, he'll still be an immensely useful champ.

This is what I hope—and I’m somewhat optimistic that someone on the team realizes how destabilizing this “adjustment” policy could be if it isn’t managed very, very carefully.

But I’d still hold on Namor.

Dr. Zola

DrZola

No

Lormif said:

DrZola said:

Lormif said:

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

So a date after which balance of the game no longer matters, no matter what data shows there is an imbalance?

That’s not what I said. Misstating someone's position by adding the most restrictive (“no longer”) and most extreme (“no matter”) terms is resorting to straw men once again. Bad form for a self-professed “logician.”

No, provide a list re: these “adjustments”—who’s safe for now, who’s on the table, which older champs are getting a review.

I’m not talking about meta-shifting, 12.0 level changes here—those are their own entity and should be dealt with separately. I’m talking about the “adjustment” program.

If the team needs the community to test the most basic attributes of its products (and according to Miike below, it does), then just announcing an “adjustment” program exists and that some champs might get changed isn’t enough.



Dr. Zola

If you note my comment was a question. I did not create a strawman because I did not state your made the claim, I asked for clarification. Asking if this is what you mean is not creating a strawman..


Even still what you say you want them to do is what they have already stated they are doing. It does not mean other nerfs, such as cull, so I am not sure what you are asking for in addition to what they are already providing, if you think it is ok to still nerf for balance after that period.

Not exactly. We were told a set of newer champs will basically be re-tested in the live game by us, the players, and that the team will evaluate “adjustments” to those champs and announce any adjustments before they enter the basic crystal.

So who is next? Who looks like a probable “adjustment” candidate and why? Ronin wasn’t—what makes him special?

Is it literally a month-by-month analysis by new release champ schedule only, or could it include others? If damage is a concern, are older big-damage dealers up for a re-evaluation or not? Why draw the line at new vs. old?

I don’t have any issue with champs having “trade-offs”—that seems like an important principle of any game design. Sometimes, those trade-offs may need adjustment because of things that have changed in-game.

What concerns me most is what appears to be a brief cycle of champ hype/promo-to- champ adjustment that lacks any real protection for the consumer or oversight of the game team.

The simplest and fairest fix would be to just stop selling featured crystals entirely. That way, the only way to acquire a new champ would be arena, and the impact of an OP champ would be very limited. Once the champ entered the basic, the team would have had months of data to evaluate and every chance to adjust.

Of course, that’s not realistic at all—champ sales are surely a massive money maker. And that’s at the core of this whole issue.

But if the team needs the community to test new champs, there has to be a fairer way than what they are doing.

Dr. Zola

Lormif

DrZola said:

Lormif said:

DrZola said:

Lormif said:

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

So a date after which balance of the game no longer matters, no matter what data shows there is an imbalance?

That’s not what I said. Misstating someone's position by adding the most restrictive (“no longer”) and most extreme (“no matter”) terms is resorting to straw men once again. Bad form for a self-professed “logician.”

No, provide a list re: these “adjustments”—who’s safe for now, who’s on the table, which older champs are getting a review.

I’m not talking about meta-shifting, 12.0 level changes here—those are their own entity and should be dealt with separately. I’m talking about the “adjustment” program.

If the team needs the community to test the most basic attributes of its products (and according to Miike below, it does), then just announcing an “adjustment” program exists and that some champs might get changed isn’t enough.



Dr. Zola

If you note my comment was a question. I did not create a strawman because I did not state your made the claim, I asked for clarification. Asking if this is what you mean is not creating a strawman..


Even still what you say you want them to do is what they have already stated they are doing. It does not mean other nerfs, such as cull, so I am not sure what you are asking for in addition to what they are already providing, if you think it is ok to still nerf for balance after that period.

Not exactly. We were told a set of newer champs will basically be re-tested in the live game by us, the players, and that the team will evaluate “adjustments” to those champs and announce any adjustments before they enter the basic crystal.

So who is next? Who looks like a probable “adjustment” candidate and why? Ronin wasn’t—what makes him special?

Is it literally a month-by-month analysis by new release champ schedule only, or could it include others? If damage is a concern, are older big-damage dealers up for a re-evaluation or not? Why draw the line at new vs. old?

I don’t have any issue with champs having “trade-offs”—that seems like an important principle of any game design. Sometimes, those trade-offs may need adjustment because of things that have changed in-game.

What concerns me most is what appears to be a brief cycle of champ hype/promo-to- champ adjustment that lacks any real protection for the consumer or oversight of the game team.

The simplest and fairest fix would be to just stop selling featured crystals entirely. That way, the only way to acquire a new champ would be arena, and the impact of an OP champ would be very limited. Once the champ entered the basic, the team would have had months of data to evaluate and every chance to adjust.

Of course, that’s not realistic at all—champ sales are surely a massive money maker. And that’s at the core of this whole issue.

But if the team needs the community to test new champs, there has to be a fairer way than what they are doing.

Dr. Zola

Here is the thing, it is not a matter of them wanting the community to "test", its a matter of the champions int he community see things that no amount of realistic internal testing can possibly see. you have stated you have experiance in MMOs, can you name one that foresees on balance that does not balance aspects of the game after it has been in the community? Its a common place, because I as a test lead with a 20 person play test team cannot put a champion through the same paces as 10k players can.

The problem in this game is the payment model, people pay for those champions, so they feel entitled to the champion broken or not, they generally do not care about the balance of the game. This is an issue in the other MMOs, but ones where you pay a subscription the company generally have an easier way out.

DrZola

No

@Lormif I think that’s a fair point, and in my opinion it really is the central issue here. If the newest champs were realistically earnable with in-game currency only, it’s different.

I don’t expect every product to be 100% error-free for eternity. Anyone who does is crazy—they can’t be.

But...when products get sold with their core, advertised attributes wrong, that suggests to me a deeper problem. This is a model that wouldn’t fly in any other industry I can think of.

Dr. Zola

Lormif

@DrZola And that is understandable, ever since i got fed up with how 12.0 was handled I have been giving it a great amount of thought. the RTD work well in a lot of situations, but it is not really fair to those who paid a lot of money to get the champ, or even dupe them. it works well for she-hulk because he has been out for a while, but cull is new.

What I would like to see if ideas on how to make it fair for those who paid. What my thought would be is something along the lines of what we know they can do now thanks to the double master rewards. After a rework like this give the players who got the crystals an option. That option is you can either get rank down tickets or they pull back all the rewards for all the crystal openings and give you those units back. this allows people to decide

DrZola

No

While I’m at it, I’m going to engage in a crazy thought experiment here: what would the game look like if featured crystals didn’t exist?

Put aside the financial impact for now—I’m going to assume it’s financially doable.

The rate of new champ acquisition would slow down. Maybe the rate of new champ introduction would decrease as well, hopefully with a focus on getting it right as opposed to getting it out. CCP players would have one less thing to focus on.

Arena scores—maybe they go up, or maybe they go down. If you know the champ you get is immediately on the table, perhaps you don’t grind so hard. Or maybe you do, since you know you will be one of only a few who get an OP champ for 3 months.

There’s less need to buff the snot out of new EQ bosses in an effort to make them look awesome and goose sales.

So what takes the featured’s place? I’m not sure—maybe a 300 unit crystal that offers a subset of champs at a lesser drop rate. Or nothing at all.

Again...crazy thought experiment.

Dr. Zola

Stagedear85

No

I would say wait because we are not sure what rebalance will be taken place with him, I have 4 new champs at rank 3 and I'm actually scared to rank them up because tier 2 alpha and tier 5 basic are hard to come by and you only get but so much without spending on deals so to waste these on a champ you love just to hear kabam want to rebalance them is a concern we all should have. what's also annoying is we wont know until 3 months after these champs are released if they're going to be rebalance aka nerf. if the champ is good I say wait but if the champ is average you can rank up because their rebalance will be a buff while the good champ will be a nerf. They're taking the fun out of the Game and sooner than later they will see that a lot of the top players and spenders will look for something else to play because their passion and drive to play MCOC is no longer there.

KoperBoy

No

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

There was a date implemented already, and Cull was way past that date - but they decided to "balance" him anyway.

Lormif

KoperBoy said:

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

There was a date implemented already, and Cull was way past that date - but they decided to "balance" him anyway.

That date is a soft date and will never stop them from balancing the champs after if needed. It also was created after he was already out.

Rasilover

No

still worth rank 5 even if he gets nerfed hard for that prestige

tonyj007

No

Just a opinion , tweak old champions, then tweak new champions. Feels this game will never be stable. Maybe too many champions added to a game that has been unstable for months. bugs add more bugs. just try and stabilize game before tweaking champions

ps no SA rewards , please tweak or fix

KoperBoy

No

Lormif said:

KoperBoy said:

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

There was a date implemented already, and Cull was way past that date - but they decided to "balance" him anyway.

That date is a soft date and will never stop them from balancing the champs after if needed. It also was created after he was already out.

You can try to play word-lawyer anyway you want. By the rules they set themselves, he was safe.

By setting this precedent, why should we believe anything they say anymore?

GroundedWisdom

Yes

Rank who you want. I'd suggest not getting caught up in the mass hysteria.

Lormif

KoperBoy said:

Lormif said:

KoperBoy said:

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

There was a date implemented already, and Cull was way past that date - but they decided to "balance" him anyway.

That date is a soft date and will never stop them from balancing the champs after if needed. It also was created after he was already out.

You can try to play word-lawyer anyway you want. By the rules they set themselves, he was safe.

By setting this precedent, why should we believe anything they say anymore?

They never once said they would not change champs outside of the 3 month window. That is something that you implied from their comment.

Lormif

cdubby_22 said:

Lormif said:

KoperBoy said:

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

There was a date implemented already, and Cull was way past that date - but they decided to "balance" him anyway.

That date is a soft date and will never stop them from balancing the champs after if needed. It also was created after he was already out.

A soft date LOL, because you know right, because you got some secret memo saying it was, or you are just smarter than everyone because when they give a date we all think they would stand by it. BTW how did you vote? Would you R5 Namor.

BTW guys not saying that this is happening but just want to throw it out there to be careful about replying to to anyone that you feel is just trolling a discussion, saying the opposite of how everyone feels on every discussion they participate in. I have seen a lot of great discussions get closed that way. Just saying, definitely not because anyone here is doing it. A good indicator is those people usually have a massive amount of dislikes compared to likes. I just say this because I hope to keep good conversations going that can help the community.

It is common sense. They never said they would never change champions outside of that review process, as even Dr Zola said above that would be absurd to think that.

Also you just derailed the conversion by attacking me, and not my post nor adding anything to the topic. What you just did is what gets them shut down. We were having a respectful conversation until that.

KoperBoy

No

IDoge said:

Don't listen to the emotional community. Namor is unlikely to recieve and nerf because he requires long ramp up each fight to get his damage output. His utility is still amazing and debatably outshines everyone in the mutant class with the exception of omega red.

I'm all for slapping more utility and regen on Cull in exchange for less damage. Comparing Namor and Cull is like apples and oranges. Yes he needs ramp up in every matchup that ISN'T long (or he wouldn't be useful in AW) and in exchange he has regen, utility and possibility of handlnig many more tough matchups than Cull.

What Kabam and his forum worshippers are missing about Cull is CONTEXT. Looking at numbers without context is dumb.

GroundedWisdom

Yes

Context is all we know is that they said he was overreaching other Champs in one aspect. Then the whole community started yelling fire in a Theater.

KoperBoy

No

If they looked at context, they would nerf at least 5-6 champs before Cull. Just because Cull is extremely useful in about 25% of content, doesn't mean he has to be nerfed. Ghost is useful in about 80% of content and has crazy utility and survivability compared to Cull with insane damage that doesn't need to be ramped up...but no, let's nerf Cull.

TheTalents

Yes

DrZola said:

Lormif said:

DrZola said:

No way. You’ve worked too hard for those resources to see them wrecked by irresponsible policies.

What would be a responsible step here is a “hands off” date on these champs—some kind of statute of limitations that says when the team is done with the initial “adjustment” so players can make a meaningful determination about whether the champ is one they want to invest in.

Dr. Zola

So a date after which balance of the game no longer matters, no matter what data shows there is an imbalance?

That’s not what I said. Misstating someone's position by adding the most restrictive (“no longer”) and most extreme (“no matter”) terms is resorting to straw men once again. Bad form for a self-professed “logician.”

No, provide a list re: these “adjustments”—who’s safe for now, who’s on the table, which older champs are getting a review.

I’m not talking about meta-shifting, 12.0 level changes here—those are their own entity and should be dealt with separately. I’m talking about the “adjustment” program.

If the team needs the community to test the most basic attributes of its products (and according to Miike below, it does), then just announcing an “adjustment” program exists and that some champs might get changed isn’t enough.



Dr. Zola

sounds like excuses to me. I don't think they play at a high level at all. You think the break downs Seatin and Legacy amongst others do have to deal with the overall amount of hours when they break down champions? No, they just understand the game.

Tehsigzorz

No

If prestige is very important to you then go ahead otherwise wait until hes in the basic pool

Neotwism

No

@Lormif Diablo was also released before the program was implemented and Kabam stated that he missed the cutoff. This gave alot of players the idea that champs are safe once they enter the basic pool such as Cull. I know changes need to be made. The main problem i see is the same thing that keeps continuing to happen and that is how kabam communicates with the community. Recently mods have made statements that are entirely false such as all champs are the same speed. They said changes before champs enter the basic pool which didnt happen correctly with Cull. Communication about the goals and what players can expect needs to be front and center here. Trust is at an all time low at least since i started playing the game. Its a sad time when a large portion of the playerbase is nervous to rank up champs that they have worked hard for. IF kabam isnt careful about how they handle this and any other changes in the near future I am afraid this could be a major turning point in the game. With the new avengers game coming out soon and the problems kabam has created recently with all these changes it could chase a bunch of ppl away very easily. Thats also a fear i have in spending money in the game right now cuz i dont know if it will be around at this time next year.