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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.