To be fair to the other beta testers for 6.3, the beta was ran over 2-3 days (on a weekend too) and it was impossible to test every single boost and every single buff.
I only had time to properly test 6.3.1 over that weekend and didn’t even know about this boost being so OP.
The bosses, however, were extensively tested by the other testers I believe, and were nerfed accordingly, like adding bleed vulnerability to medusa to make her much much easier.
I watched the stream. Lags had no idea until about three hours in. Even so, it was in the beta.
You really don't think that was all staged.. to make it seem like it wasn't known beforehand?
Iirc he "coincidentally" found out about the boost when he just completed 6.3.3, which unlocks the boost.
From a logical point of view, it doesn't make alot of sense to go for the Legends run prior to the Cyber Monday offers. Idk. He's young, could simply be that he's more eager and impulsive than I am for the run.
@Kabam Zibiit Atlease some kind of acknowledgement would be appreciated. We have faith in the legit and competitive way of the game and when a significant percentage of player base can enjoy the cheesy way and others grind..its not fair!
I watched the stream. Lags had no idea until about three hours in. Even so, it was in the beta.
You really don't think that was all staged.. to make it seem like it wasn't known beforehand?
Iirc he "coincidentally" found out about the boost when he just completed 6.3.3, which unlocks the boost.
From a logical point of view, it doesn't make alot of sense to go for the Legends run prior to the Cyber Monday offers. Idk. He's young, could simply be that he's more eager and impulsive than I am for the run.
I just think it’s BS that you let the whales, with the most diverse roster anyway, take advantage of a boost they already knew about from the beta and then change it for everybody else. And on top of that you already know that they will have the fastest times because of taking advantage of this boost and just consider them “bonus legends”. So they get the rewards for taking advantage of your mistakes and the rest of us just need to deal with the other ****?
You already let them take advantage of your mistakes with the R3-R4 2015 gems from variant 1 which they could use on any champ they wanted without the restriction of it needing to be a 2015 champ.
And now you just say to them: good job on taking advantage of this boost, we hope you enjoy your rewards and don’t forget your free 6* champ from your bonus legend run of act 6.3.
I know I’m not supposed to tag you guys but how is this in any way fair?
I just think it’s BS that you let the whales, with the most diverse roster anyway, take advantage of a boost they already knew about from the beta and then change it for everybody else. And on top of that you already know that they will have the fastest times because of taking advantage of this boost and just consider them “bonus legends”. So they get the rewards for taking advantage of your mistakes and the rest of us just need to deal with the other ****?
It is not fair, in the same sense that when players attempt legends runs early and the content is bugged against them, they don't generally get compensation for the content being harder than it was intended to be.
It is a bad look, but absent any actual proof of deliberate wrong doing this appears to be just one of those bugs whose bell you cannot unring. That's the thing about bugs: not all of them can be entirely remedied.
What surprises me more than anything is that after all the shady shenanigans that have been ignored or forgiven by Kabam over the years; piloting, collusion, credit card fraud, taking advantage of bugs, selling items, Infiltrating and trying to disadvantage other alliances.. People are still shocked that certain high profile players get away with things like this 😅 I mean how many times has the game been affected by the selfish acts of a few individuals who seem to be untouchable?
I watched the stream. Lags had no idea until about three hours in. Even so, it was in the beta.
You really don't think that was all staged.. to make it seem like it wasn't known beforehand?
Iirc he "coincidentally" found out about the boost when he just completed 6.3.3, which unlocks the boost.
From a logical point of view, it doesn't make alot of sense to go for the Legends run prior to the Cyber Monday offers. Idk. He's young, could simply be that he's more eager and impulsive than I am for the run.
I guess I don’t really know, guys. It is a bit suspect that some will have an easier time than others. I will fully admit that I had no idea It wasn’t intended, and used him for like 5 paths. I was told it was in the beta. Perhaps I am being naive.
It could easily be remedied by acknowledging the issue of fairness and leaving it as it was for everyone else.
When I say it can't be remedied, I mean that in the context of all the other requirements for actually running the game. If the problem is as dramatic as people are claiming, it can't be allowed to remain in the game. You can't fix a fairness problem by introducing a completely broken game item and say that's the easy remedy. Or rather, you can if you're crazy, but you're just trading one bad problem for an even worse problem just so you can say you are "fair." That's software development theater.
It could easily be remedied by acknowledging the issue of fairness and leaving it as it was for everyone else.
When I say it can't be remedied, I mean that in the context of all the other requirements for actually running the game. If the problem is as dramatic as people are claiming, it can't be allowed to remain in the game. You can't fix a fairness problem by introducing a completely broken game item and say that's the easy remedy. Or rather, you can if you're crazy, but you're just trading one bad problem for an even worse problem just so you can say you are "fair." That's software development theater.
You could only get 5 of them, which isn't even half of his 11.5 hour run. How is that so dramatic that they had to nerf it into the ground?
It could easily be remedied by acknowledging the issue of fairness and leaving it as it was for everyone else.
When I say it can't be remedied, I mean that in the context of all the other requirements for actually running the game. If the problem is as dramatic as people are claiming, it can't be allowed to remain in the game. You can't fix a fairness problem by introducing a completely broken game item and say that's the easy remedy. Or rather, you can if you're crazy, but you're just trading one bad problem for an even worse problem just so you can say you are "fair." That's software development theater.
You could only get 5 of them, which isn't even half of his 11.5 hour run. How is that so dramatic that they had to nerf it into the ground?
By definition if the impact of them was not significant, the nerf is also not significant. The nerf can only be significant if it takes significant power away from the players. I can't address how dramatic the effect is, because drama is not a game mechanics metric.
Also, to whoever said he was young and restless so he did it early, C'mon man. Didnt the guy wait for legends run in 6.2 or 6.1 if I'm not mistaken. And the "I didn't know they were so OP" was such an act. It's disgusting behaviour, shows the kinda person he'd grow up to be sadly. Anyhow, it's just a game right?
It could easily be remedied by acknowledging the issue of fairness and leaving it as it was for everyone else.
When I say it can't be remedied, I mean that in the context of all the other requirements for actually running the game. If the problem is as dramatic as people are claiming, it can't be allowed to remain in the game. You can't fix a fairness problem by introducing a completely broken game item and say that's the easy remedy. Or rather, you can if you're crazy, but you're just trading one bad problem for an even worse problem just so you can say you are "fair." That's software development theater.
The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written. It's misleading to call it broken. I for one could care less about legends run, but I do care that many people bought this boost with the intention of being able to clear those paths a lot easier which is what the boost are for. Now this boost is awful and not worth the 2000 units people spent on it.
In typical Kabam fashion, they nerf a boost THEY wrote and THEY didn't test because it helped the players too much. But yet STILL Mysterio with Acid Wash is still in Act 6.3. Unless you have Man-thing or (sort of) King Groot, you will spend hundreds of units to pass this fight. Remove Mysterio or change the node as well if you want to be a fair company!
The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.
Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.
In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.
The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.
Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.
In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.
The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
You can spin it all you want but the fact is, it was written as 90%. Not a typo of 22 or some other random prime number you give. It worked exactly like it was designed and intended. They intended it to provide "X" amount of armor reduction and damage, based on "X" amount of percentage. The problem was it was more damage than they wanted. So still not broken, no matter how you try to spin it.
The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.
Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.
In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.
The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
You can spin it all you want but the fact is, it was written as 90%. Not a typo of 22 or some other random prime number you give. It worked exactly like it was designed and intended. They intended it to provide "X" amount of armor reduction and damage, based on "X" amount of percentage. The problem was it was more damage than they wanted. So still not broken, no matter how you try to spin it.
The fact is, you're the one trying to spin something. You're trying to claim that because the thing wasn't "broken" it didn't need to be "fixed" but your definition of broken is so completely worthless, almost all things in existence that need fixing aren't broken by your definition. Destroying the meaningfulness of your own argument to make a worthless point is the very definition of a self-annihilating position.
The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.
Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.
In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.
The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
You can spin it all you want but the fact is, it was written as 90%. Not a typo of 22 or some other random prime number you give. It worked exactly like it was designed and intended. They intended it to provide "X" amount of armor reduction and damage, based on "X" amount of percentage. The problem was it was more damage than they wanted. So still not broken, no matter how you try to spin it.
The fact is, you're the one trying to spin something. You're trying to claim that because the thing wasn't "broken" it didn't need to be "fixed" but your definition of broken is so completely worthless, almost all things in existence that need fixing aren't broken by your definition. Destroying the meaningfulness of your own argument to make a worthless point is the very definition of a self-annihilating position.
I never said it didn't need fixed, I simply said it was "fitting" and that you shouldn't call it "broken" because it was misleading. But you seem to prefer long winded statements to try and prove a point. Please carry on as the only thing really broken here is my hope that you may see anyone's point but your own!
The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.
Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.
In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.
The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
You can spin it all you want but the fact is, it was written as 90%. Not a typo of 22 or some other random prime number you give. It worked exactly like it was designed and intended. They intended it to provide "X" amount of armor reduction and damage, based on "X" amount of percentage. The problem was it was more damage than they wanted. So still not broken, no matter how you try to spin it.
The fact is, you're the one trying to spin something. You're trying to claim that because the thing wasn't "broken" it didn't need to be "fixed" but your definition of broken is so completely worthless, almost all things in existence that need fixing aren't broken by your definition. Destroying the meaningfulness of your own argument to make a worthless point is the very definition of a self-annihilating position.
I never said it didn't need fixed, I simply said it was "fitting" and that you shouldn't call it "broken" because it was misleading. But you seem to prefer long winded statements to try and prove a point. Please carry on as the only thing really broken here is my hope that you may see anyone's point but your own!
I see lots of people's point but my own. In fact many people have changed my mind about different topics. But as this requires having an actual consistent viewpoint and making a logical argument backed up by facts and reasoning, you probably never noticed because it was too much words for you.
The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.
Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.
In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.
The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
You can spin it all you want but the fact is, it was written as 90%. Not a typo of 22 or some other random prime number you give. It worked exactly like it was designed and intended. They intended it to provide "X" amount of armor reduction and damage, based on "X" amount of percentage. The problem was it was more damage than they wanted. So still not broken, no matter how you try to spin it.
The fact is, you're the one trying to spin something. You're trying to claim that because the thing wasn't "broken" it didn't need to be "fixed" but your definition of broken is so completely worthless, almost all things in existence that need fixing aren't broken by your definition. Destroying the meaningfulness of your own argument to make a worthless point is the very definition of a self-annihilating position.
I never said it didn't need fixed, I simply said it was "fitting" and that you shouldn't call it "broken" because it was misleading. But you seem to prefer long winded statements to try and prove a point. Please carry on as the only thing really broken here is my hope that you may see anyone's point but your own!
I see lots of people's point but my own. In fact many people have changed my mind about different topics. But as this requires having an actual consistent viewpoint and making a logical argument backed up by facts and reasoning, you probably never noticed because it was too much words for you.
Not single post from you on this thread has any facts. But you probably didn’t notice as you were to busy typing an thesis!
Comments
I only had time to properly test 6.3.1 over that weekend and didn’t even know about this boost being so OP.
The bosses, however, were extensively tested by the other testers I believe, and were nerfed accordingly, like adding bleed vulnerability to medusa to make her much much easier.
From a logical point of view, it doesn't make alot of sense to go for the Legends run prior to the Cyber Monday offers. Idk. He's young, could simply be that he's more eager and impulsive than I am for the run.
How is this fair? @Kabam Miike @Kabam Zibiit @Kabam Vydious @Kabam Lyra @Kabam Porthos
You already let them take advantage of your mistakes with the R3-R4 2015 gems from variant 1 which they could use on any champ they wanted without the restriction of it needing to be a 2015 champ.
And now you just say to them: good job on taking advantage of this boost, we hope you enjoy your rewards and don’t forget your free 6* champ from your bonus legend run of act 6.3.
I know I’m not supposed to tag you guys but how is this in any way fair?
It is a bad look, but absent any actual proof of deliberate wrong doing this appears to be just one of those bugs whose bell you cannot unring. That's the thing about bugs: not all of them can be entirely remedied.
Maybe kabam will offer us a new boost that will synergize with this one and make it not be complete trash?
In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.
The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.