**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
There is currently an issue where some Alliances are are unable to find a match in Alliance Wars, or are receiving Byes without getting the benefits of the Win. We will be adjusting the Season Points of the Alliances that are affected within the coming weeks, and will be working to compensate them for their missed Per War rewards as well.

Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.

So...now the AI is expert on Dexterity

245

Comments

  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    SS are being asked for. Ok. I shall post them. Give me some time and i will post my findings.

    no one asked for Ss, they asked for proof, as you stated earlier screen shoots cannot prove the issue, you would need full videos so you can account for all the damage, including nodes and total health.
  • rcm2017rcm2017 Posts: 558 ★★★
    It has happened to me once during quests, sometime back. It was during the uncollected EQ of Namor if Am not wrong. I saw the Dexterity words pop up on the right side instead on the left which I am accustomed to so I was surprised but since it was uncollected level and in the heat of the moment couldnt think of it more. But after the fight I thought about it for some time. Haven't seen it happen since at least to me. 1% health thing happens more frequently, am I worried? No, but it is out there in the wild. :smile:
  • Judge_PainJudge_Pain Posts: 93
    Mephisto had an issue where a champ that is hit with his SP1 would recover midway and block the rest of the attack (the part that places soul imprisonment). I recorded 4 fights. The first 2 I was unable to reproduce. The last 2 fights the bug occurred. I uploaded the fights with the bug to youtube, and then shared in a bug post on here. Was after the vid that it was flagged and fixed. Sure it's annoying to record every fight until that type of bug is reproduced, but that is really the only way for it to be validated and solved. Otherwise, "champs are dexing me" won't provide enough information for it to be investigated.
  • Belfigor2 said:

    1-3% i dont know, but the 1% last stand is 100% confirmed to exist, but with rng it activates sometimes, not always.

    For something that is confirmed to exist, it is really hard to find video evidence of it happening.

    I tried to track this one down a while ago, and I couldn't find conclusive proof of it happening. The only thing I did find was that the game doesn't display 0% unless you're dead, which means having 1 point of health is 1%. That means there range of health that you will show 1% is larger than any other percentage value.

    What I find interesting about this particular issue is that a lot of people believe there's a "safeguard" but no one questions the accuracy of the display bar. I think it is just as likely if not more likely that "1%" problems are due to display errors than invisible safeguard mechanics.

    (Of course, it doesn't help there's currently no complete description of damage mechanics either)
  • JollyHawkJollyHawk Posts: 506 ★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Belfigor2 said:

    1-3% i dont know, but the 1% last stand is 100% confirmed to exist, but with rng it activates sometimes, not always.

    For something that is confirmed to exist, it is really hard to find video evidence of it happening.

    I tried to track this one down a while ago, and I couldn't find conclusive proof of it happening. The only thing I did find was that the game doesn't display 0% unless you're dead, which means having 1 point of health is 1%. That means there range of health that you will show 1% is larger than any other percentage value.

    What I find interesting about this particular issue is that a lot of people believe there's a "safeguard" but no one questions the accuracy of the display bar. I think it is just as likely if not more likely that "1%" problems are due to display errors than invisible safeguard mechanics.

    (Of course, it doesn't help there's currently no complete description of damage mechanics either)
    THIS!!
  • Judge_PainJudge_Pain Posts: 93
    edited November 2019

    Seems like a lot of people here don't understand the meaning of "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory." It is an issue that is worthy of discussion to see if/how often it happens, and why. Calling it conspiracy theory is dismissive. One, just because an individual may not be able to produce evidence of it on the spot doesn't mean that there isn't evidence. Two, the term "conspiracy" implies that it is intentional, this is an issue that could have been caused unintentionally. Whether or not it is a thing that happens, or even why it would happen, would not determine if it is a conspiracy or not. Y'all could use a course in formal logic, and maybe the English language while you're at it.

    There were comments that the "last stand" claim was intentionally employed by kabam so conspiracy theory term would be valid. The OP also indicated that the dexing "could be" intentional. Conspiracy theories though can be supported by evidence. Some of the responses here were to the problem being unsubstantiated.
  • Seems like a lot of people here don't understand the meaning of "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory." It is an issue that is worthy of discussion to see if/how often it happens, and why. Calling it conspiracy theory is dismissive. One, just because an individual may not be able to produce evidence of it on the spot doesn't mean that there isn't evidence. Two, the term "conspiracy" implies that it is intentional, this is an issue that could have been caused unintentionally. Whether or not it is a thing that happens, or even why it would happen, would not determine if it is a conspiracy or not. Y'all could use a course in formal logic, and maybe the English language while you're at it.

    was this intentional or just another coincidental/accidental bug that will not be fixed or looked in to? My money is on the latter. Prove me wrong.

    This issue exists. No validation is needed. If you play, you know. Or you deny. It's that simple.

    These are classic conspiracy theory position statements.
  • DorianGrayDorianGray Posts: 23
    DNA3000 said:

    These are classic conspiracy theory position statements.

    Let's take "conspiracy thoery" at its base definition, and not the new meaning it has acquired in recent decades, shall we?

    Conspiracy - a secret agreement to do something harmful or unlawful.

    Theory - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

    (Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    That is not my position.

    In my experience, I have had multiple cases where the ai "sidesteps" my medium dash attack, or intercepts me from a blocking position and hits me with a combo. This never happened to me in my 2 or so years playing this game prior to about a month ago.

    I have also noticed many times where I thought my Hyperion's sp3 would k.o. the opponent, based on number of furies and percentage of health taken by the first hit (the second hit of his sp3 does double the damage of the first hit), but instead leaves them at 1 or 2%. That said, you can't tell the exact number of HP the opponent has by the percentage.

    Are these coincidences? Are they unintentional bugs? Is it a conspiracy? I don't have enough information to say for sure, only anecdotal evidence that myself and others have experienced. In any case, it is definitely something that is worthy of discussion and not simply being dismissed as "conspiracy theory," which itself isn't even a valid reason to dismiss someone's concern.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    These are classic conspiracy theory position statements.

    Let's take "conspiracy thoery" at its base definition, and not the new meaning it has acquired in recent decades, shall we?

    Conspiracy - a secret agreement to do something harmful or unlawful.

    Theory - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

    (Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    That is not my position.

    In my experience, I have had multiple cases where the ai "sidesteps" my medium dash attack, or intercepts me from a blocking position and hits me with a combo. This never happened to me in my 2 or so years playing this game prior to about a month ago.

    I have also noticed many times where I thought my Hyperion's sp3 would k.o. the opponent, based on number of furies and percentage of health taken by the first hit (the second hit of his sp3 does double the damage of the first hit), but instead leaves them at 1 or 2%. That said, you can't tell the exact number of HP the opponent has by the percentage.

    Are these coincidences? Are they unintentional bugs? Is it a conspiracy? I don't have enough information to say for sure, only anecdotal evidence that myself and others have experienced. In any case, it is definitely something that is worthy of discussion and not simply being dismissed as "conspiracy theory," which itself isn't even a valid reason to dismiss someone's concern.
    For someone who accused others of needing a course of formal logic, you seem to need it yourself. No one accused that of being YOUR position, but that of others, including the OP. In fact yours was not even one of the one DNA quoted to support that this is a conspiracy theory. They quoted actual examples in this thread of them accusing kabam of doing this on purpose and calling them out for it, which fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. It seems you came into this thread just to call us out for supposedly not understanding something, and instead stuck your foot in your mouth. It happens, but instead of taking it on the chin and moving on you are doubling down with this strawman. Understand I have training in formal logic, a lot of it, and understanding truth tables, as well as other fundamental functions of both formal and mathematical logic is part of my job.
  • DorianGrayDorianGray Posts: 23
    Lormif said:

    For someone who accused others of needing a course of formal logic, you seem to need it yourself. No one accused that of being YOUR position, but that of others, including the OP. In fact yours was not even one of the one DNA quoted to support that this is a conspiracy theory. They quoted actual examples in this thread of them accusing kabam of doing this on purpose and calling them out for it, which fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. It seems you came into this thread just to call us out for supposedly not understanding something, and instead stuck your foot in your mouth. It happens, but instead of taking it on the chin and moving on you are doubling down with this strawman. Understand I have training in formal logic, a lot of it, and understanding truth tables, as well as other fundamental functions of both formal and mathematical logic is part of my job.

    Hahaha I guess you were in such a hurry to respond that you didn't notice the fact that @DNA3000 DID quote my comment as an example of conspiracy theory statements in his last comment. In fact, it was the first one he quoted in his last comment. Also, the other user that he quoted in his last comment did not cite a kabam conspiracy as the basis of their argument, only as a possibility.
  • DorianGrayDorianGray Posts: 23
    Lormif said:

    For someone who accused others of needing a course of formal logic, you seem to need it yourself. No one accused that of being YOUR position, but that of others, including the OP. In fact yours was not even one of the one DNA quoted to support that this is a conspiracy theory. They quoted actual examples in this thread of them accusing kabam of doing this on purpose and calling them out for it, which fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. It seems you came into this thread just to call us out for supposedly not understanding something, and instead stuck your foot in your mouth. It happens, but instead of taking it on the chin and moving on you are doubling down with this strawman. Understand I have training in formal logic, a lot of it, and understanding truth tables, as well as other fundamental functions of both formal and mathematical logic is part of my job.

    Nope, read @DNA3000 's last comment again. He quoted my comment as his first example of conspiracy theory statement, and the other user he quoted only suggested the possibility of a conspiracy by kabam, that wasn't the basis of his argument. Idk why you felt the need to appeal to your own authority to try and validate your incorrect statement.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    For someone who accused others of needing a course of formal logic, you seem to need it yourself. No one accused that of being YOUR position, but that of others, including the OP. In fact yours was not even one of the one DNA quoted to support that this is a conspiracy theory. They quoted actual examples in this thread of them accusing kabam of doing this on purpose and calling them out for it, which fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. It seems you came into this thread just to call us out for supposedly not understanding something, and instead stuck your foot in your mouth. It happens, but instead of taking it on the chin and moving on you are doubling down with this strawman. Understand I have training in formal logic, a lot of it, and understanding truth tables, as well as other fundamental functions of both formal and mathematical logic is part of my job.

    Nope, read @DNA3000 's last comment again. He quoted my comment as his first example of conspiracy theory statement, and the other user he quoted only suggested the possibility of a conspiracy by kabam, that wasn't the basis of his argument. Idk why you felt the need to appeal to your own authority to try and validate your incorrect statement.
    And you stick it in your mouth again, no they did not quote you as the first example of a conspiracy theory, they quoted you to make sure that you know they were talking to you, just as I am quoting you here to let you know I am talking to you, because posts get disjoined and people dont know who you are talking about. The NEXT TWO entries they quoted were to let you know what he was talking about. After all that was your first post in this thread and had nothing in it to talk about what was going on, just to accuse others of doing something..

    Also you are proving your logic is not very well. An appeal to authority is one in when you reference someone or some thing as an authority of something so therefore they have to be correct about it. Such as claiming a lawyer has to be correct about the law because he is a lawyer, ignoring that they are fallible. In this cause I used my education to counter your comment about some of us needing classes in logic. You do not get to set up something, then when they list that they have what you claim they may need you accuse them of using an appeal to authority.
  • Judge_PainJudge_Pain Posts: 93
    "Seduction" legit made me snort at work. :D
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    "Seduction" legit made me snort at work. :D

    yea stupid autocorrect lol.
  • DorianGrayDorianGray Posts: 23
    Lormif said:

    And you stick it in your mouth again, no they did not quote you as the first example of a conspiracy theory, they quoted you to make sure that you know they were talking to you, just as I am quoting you here to let you know I am talking to you, because posts get disjoined and people dont know who you are talking about. The NEXT TWO entries they quoted were to let you know what he was talking about. After all that was your first post in this thread and had nothing in it to talk about what was going on, just to accuse others of doing something..

    Also you are proving your logic is not very well. An appeal to authority is one in when you reference someone or some thing as an authority of something so therefore they have to be correct about it. Such as claiming a lawyer has to be correct about the law because he is a lawyer, ignoring that they are fallible. In this cause I used my seduction to counter your comment about some of us needing classes in logic. You do not get to set up something, then when they list that they have what you claim they may need you accuse them of using an appeal to authority.

    You don't know that, and tagging me would have served the same purpose without causing any confusion. The quote implies that my comment was being used an example in addition to the others, while your comment is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Notice how I said "a lot of people here." I wasn't referring to you specifically or at all, which is why I was curious why you felt the need to even bring up your resume in addition to your incorrect statement. Again, even IF my comment wasn't quoted as an example of "conspiracy theory" statements, the other users that DNA quoted did not state that these issues are a conspiracy by kabam as the basis of their argument, only a possibility. The other possibily they suggested are that these are unintentional bugs/changes in behavior, in which case it would not be a conspiracy. Therefore bringing "conspiracy theory" into the conversation as a reason to dismiss the possibilty of bugs is totally irrational.
  • DNA3000 said:

    These are classic conspiracy theory position statements.

    Let's take "conspiracy thoery" at its base definition, and not the new meaning it has acquired in recent decades, shall we?
    No, I shall not. When most people on the forums refer to something as a "conspiracy theory" they are referring to the current, colloquial definition. Moreover, "conspiracy theories" are disallowed on the forums and have been removed by moderators: the moderators appear to be using the same basic colloquial definition as most everyone else uses today.

    So while you can choose which definition you want to honor, that would only be meaningful in an academic argument. In an argument over what passes for acceptable discourse on the forums, the current colloquial definition is the operative one.

    Also, @Lormif is correct: I quoted your post because I was replying to you, and specifically to your statement that the potential problem being asserted in the thread was not a conspiracy theory. However, the OP's own framing of the issue uses the same language as most conspiracy theories that float around the forums: there's the element of infalsifiability (if you don't see it you're wrong or lying), there's the implication that what's happening is deliberately by design in a way intended to mislead or confuse players while doing harm, there's the position that the burden of proof is on everyone else to disprove the assertion, and there's the backpedaling from asserting the problem is blatantly obvious to being extremely elusive to demonstrate in practice.

    Post that tend to follow this pattern tend to get called out these days, and posts that push the agenda beyond a certain point tend to disappear into moderation. There are people who think the "safeguard thing" might be an actual thing, and they aren't necessarily promoting conspiracy theories. I investigated the issue myself and reported on the forums. It is the position that the reported issue exists and is obvious, and everyone else must therefore either be in on an exercise to discredit that report that makes it a conspiracy theory. That is, in fact, the conspiracy element in most conspiracy theories including this one: the notion that both the developer and all players who disagree must be deliberately working against them out of either malice or ignorance.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    And you stick it in your mouth again, no they did not quote you as the first example of a conspiracy theory, they quoted you to make sure that you know they were talking to you, just as I am quoting you here to let you know I am talking to you, because posts get disjoined and people dont know who you are talking about. The NEXT TWO entries they quoted were to let you know what he was talking about. After all that was your first post in this thread and had nothing in it to talk about what was going on, just to accuse others of doing something..

    Also you are proving your logic is not very well. An appeal to authority is one in when you reference someone or some thing as an authority of something so therefore they have to be correct about it. Such as claiming a lawyer has to be correct about the law because he is a lawyer, ignoring that they are fallible. In this cause I used my seduction to counter your comment about some of us needing classes in logic. You do not get to set up something, then when they list that they have what you claim they may need you accuse them of using an appeal to authority.

    You don't know that, and tagging me would have served the same purpose without causing any confusion. The quote implies that my comment was being used an example in addition to the others, while your comment is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Notice how I said "a lot of people here." I wasn't referring to you specifically or at all, which is why I was curious why you felt the need to even bring up your resume in addition to your incorrect statement. Again, even IF my comment wasn't quoted as an example of "conspiracy theory" statements, the other users that DNA quoted did not state that these issues are a conspiracy by kabam as the basis of their argument, only a possibility. The other possibily they suggested are that these are unintentional bugs/changes in behavior, in which case it would not be a conspiracy. Therefore bringing "conspiracy theory" into the conversation as a reason to dismiss the possibilty of bugs is totally irrational.
    Tagging people creates the unintended consenquences of sending you an alert everytime someone sends a reply of a reply of a reply, and it is common to do what DNA did. Also I do know that...

    Also I never said you referred to me specifically, why the additional strawman, even still it did not exclude me.

    Again your post was not quoted as an example, you seem to just not know how message boards work.

    Stating something as a possibility is a conspiracy theory, all that needs to satisfy it being a conspiracy theory is one is a theory that explains an event, it does not have to be a direct accusation, even though it really was one here. You chose to list the definitions for 2 words desperately, I am not sure why since Merriam Webster has a direct definition for the phrase:

    Conspiracy theory noun
    Save Word
    To save this word, you'll need to log in.

    Log In
    Definition of conspiracy theory
    : a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy theory

    Note all it requires is a theory that explains, not a direct accusation, so please give it a rest, you are just making yourself look foolish
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Alright. Let's do this to keep it simple. I'm not going to claim that kabam is intentionally aware of it or is intentionally making it happen. That can't be proven unless through confession. And i doubt any programmer would ever confess to something like that happening. So instead i will simply say that it is happening. There are a number of people experiencing it and coming forward but being ignored. So I'm only going to address those who experience it. I implore you to try and post screen shots or post videos of this happening. If you can it would be greatly appreciated. If you can't... thank you for trying. Not really going to address those that call it conspiracy since that neither adds or takes away from the issue. I instead will ask that they ignore this post since their minds are already made up. I figure that's fair.

    prove it is happening, SSs will not prove it , you need videos with health totals and an addition of all the damage taken and all the heals done.
  • DorianGrayDorianGray Posts: 23
    DNA3000 said:

    No, I shall not. When most people on the forums refer to something as a "conspiracy theory" they are referring to the current, colloquial definition. Moreover, "conspiracy theories" are disallowed on the forums and have been removed by moderators: the moderators appear to be using the same basic colloquial definition as most everyone else uses today.

    So while you can choose which definition you want to honor, that would only be meaningful in an academic argument. In an argument over what passes for acceptable discourse on the forums, the current colloquial definition is the operative one.

    Also, @Lormif is correct: I quoted your post because I was replying to you, and specifically to your statement that the potential problem being asserted in the thread was not a conspiracy theory. However, the OP's own framing of the issue uses the same language as most conspiracy theories that float around the forums: there's the element of infalsifiability (if you don't see it you're wrong or lying), there's the implication that what's happening is deliberately by design in a way intended to mislead or confuse players while doing harm, there's the position that the burden of proof is on everyone else to disprove the assertion, and there's the backpedaling from asserting the problem is blatantly obvious to being extremely elusive to demonstrate in practice.

    Post that tend to follow this pattern tend to get called out these days, and posts that push the agenda beyond a certain point tend to disappear into moderation. There are people who think the "safeguard thing" might be an actual thing, and they aren't necessarily promoting conspiracy theories. I investigated the issue myself and reported on the forums. It is the position that the reported issue exists and is obvious, and everyone else must therefore either be in on an exercise to discredit that report that makes it a conspiracy theory. That is, in fact, the conspiracy element in most conspiracy theories including this one: the notion that both the developer and all players who disagree must be deliberately working against them out of either malice or ignorance.

    The colloquial use of "conspiracy theory" is a tool use to dismiss accusations without any sort of investigation into them, so I guess it makes sense that that would be official Kabam policy. The definition has not changed.

    Also, while many conspiracy theories do have the characteristic of being unfalsifiable, there are many more that are falsifiable. In fact, many conspiracy theories have been proven to be true conspiracies. However, that usually must involve knowledge of the cause of the issue, which we do not have. We don't have specific information about ai programming and damage mechanics to determine if these instances are programmed in or just coincidences. And that still wouldn't tell us whether or not there is an actual conspiracy, if they are not coincidences they can still just be bugs. So it is definitely falsifiable, we just don't have access to the means of doing so.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    No, I shall not. When most people on the forums refer to something as a "conspiracy theory" they are referring to the current, colloquial definition. Moreover, "conspiracy theories" are disallowed on the forums and have been removed by moderators: the moderators appear to be using the same basic colloquial definition as most everyone else uses today.

    So while you can choose which definition you want to honor, that would only be meaningful in an academic argument. In an argument over what passes for acceptable discourse on the forums, the current colloquial definition is the operative one.

    Also, @Lormif is correct: I quoted your post because I was replying to you, and specifically to your statement that the potential problem being asserted in the thread was not a conspiracy theory. However, the OP's own framing of the issue uses the same language as most conspiracy theories that float around the forums: there's the element of infalsifiability (if you don't see it you're wrong or lying), there's the implication that what's happening is deliberately by design in a way intended to mislead or confuse players while doing harm, there's the position that the burden of proof is on everyone else to disprove the assertion, and there's the backpedaling from asserting the problem is blatantly obvious to being extremely elusive to demonstrate in practice.

    Post that tend to follow this pattern tend to get called out these days, and posts that push the agenda beyond a certain point tend to disappear into moderation. There are people who think the "safeguard thing" might be an actual thing, and they aren't necessarily promoting conspiracy theories. I investigated the issue myself and reported on the forums. It is the position that the reported issue exists and is obvious, and everyone else must therefore either be in on an exercise to discredit that report that makes it a conspiracy theory. That is, in fact, the conspiracy element in most conspiracy theories including this one: the notion that both the developer and all players who disagree must be deliberately working against them out of either malice or ignorance.

    The colloquial use of "conspiracy theory" is a tool use to dismiss accusations without any sort of investigation into them, so I guess it makes sense that that would be official Kabam policy. The definition has not changed.

    Also, while many conspiracy theories do have the characteristic of being unfalsifiable, there are many more that are falsifiable. In fact, many conspiracy theories have been proven to be true conspiracies. However, that usually must involve knowledge of the cause of the issue, which we do not have. We don't have specific information about ai programming and damage mechanics to determine if these instances are programmed in or just coincidences. And that still wouldn't tell us whether or not there is an actual conspiracy, if they are not coincidences they can still just be bugs. So it is definitely falsifiable, we just don't have access to the means of doing so.
    And see because you replied to a comment t hat tagged me I got alerted. Now you are spouting an actual conspiracy yourself.

    Also you can confirm this one as true or not, take a fight recorded where it stops at 1%, add up all the damage and subtract all the healing and see if it is greater than the health, if it is then there is a problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.