Question regarding the direction of future champs

Hey Kabam,

First off, great job on the champions you've been releasing these past few months. The animations and specials are top tier and really fun to play with so thank you for your efforts.

With that being said, I am curious what the plan is regarding the attack values of some of these champs. I'm aware that you guys are trying to create diversity in terms of what each character can do but doesn't it seem a little counterproductive to have a great utility champ but with really poor damage output (making them less desirable in anything past Act 5)?

I know people can have unrealistic expectations, like when they expect every champ to be the next beyond god tier but on the other hand, characters like Ebony Maw or Air Walker make it difficult for us to bring them into act 6 due to their poor damage output.

So could you guys give us some insight on what you guys had in mind when creating these champs? This is not a facetious remark, I'm genuinely asking because perhaps there's something I'm missing here.

@Kabam Miike

Comments

Hammerbro_64

I would imagine they realized if they keep making champs like pre-nerf Cull Obsidian with an ever growing upwards spiral of damage, older champs become irrelevant much faster. Leaning into utility still leaves room for older but useful champs within the meta. TLDR game balance.

Mr.0-8-4

I agree that not every champ deserves to be a high damage output champ but I do believe, they should be better equipped to handle act 5 and above.

Take Psychoman for example. Under the right circumstances, he's a great defender but as a attacker, his damage output is pretty low. This makes an enjoyable champ become a bench warmer because by the time he starts using his abilities, the block damage is quickly killing him.

DNA3000

So could you guys give us some insight on what you guys had in mind when creating these champs? This is not a facetious remark, I'm genuinely asking because perhaps there's something I'm missing here.

Probably not the answer you're looking for, but no, they probably can't.

Which is to say, they've given tons of insight into how they design and balance champions over time. The problem stems not from what they say, but how people interpret what they say. The devs have their opinions, the players have theirs. Or rather, each player has theirs. Their reasoning makes sense to them, and it will make sense to you if you assume they don't think like you. Most people assume everyone else must think like them, so when the devs say something like "we intended this champ to have more utility" if *they* don't think the champ has good utility that means the devs must be lying or insane. Instead, they just disagree.

Just looking around at the wide range of opinions represented in the player community, from the forums to the Reddit to Youtube, it is easy to see how the devs could think differently than any particular player. But on top of that, the developer's opinions are informed by something none of us has access to: datamining. People can say a champ is useful or useless, popular or unpopular, but that's just guessing. The devs actually know, because they have the data. The devs know exactly how often every champ is played, how often every champ wins a fight or loses a fight, every time a champ is brought into AQ or AW, every time a champ is ranked up, every time a champ is sold. They know exactly how many crystals people bought that contained that champion as a featured champ, how many points people scored to earn them in the arena, how many units were spent trying to pull them. They don't have to guess.

And often, the data probably disagrees with the most popular player opinions. But the devs aren't going to come on the forums and post when people have things wrong. Look at what happened when one mod mentioned in passing what their data said about a champ that disagreed with vocal opinion: it became the biggest meme of the game.

So they could tell you in general how they design champs and what their priorities are, but to be candid I could tell you that as well, because they've either stated or signaled that clearly if you accept what they say at face value. But to understand why they think what they think you would also need access to the data they have, and rarely do they share that data, and even when they do the players dispute its accuracy.

Last thing. Sometimes the devs miss their target. They aim for this, but they hit that instead. The devs do not in general tweak something until it is perfect. If the champ lands within some large radius of the original intent, that's where it stays. That's just how it goes. Close enough is close enough, and close enough is not actually very close.

Mr.0-8-4

Thank you for that detailed response. I agree with you in regards to the argument about data vs player's opinion. With that being said, I wish they also took the time to take each character for a spin to see how well they last in end game content (although I'm pretty sure that's what beta testers are for).

Raichu626

It's also possible that some of these champions have the same problem that Carnage supposedly had. Afair, shortly before his release, Kabam realized that a 5/50 4* Carnage could beat ROL WS in about 50 hits, which was way too quickly for them. They didn't have the time to give him a proper tune-down before the new uptade would come out, so they just nerfed him into the ground and tuned him back up a year later.

It's possible that a similar thing happened with Air-Walker and co. For whatever reason, they were dealing too much damage before their release, so Kabam, instead of nerfing them slightly after release, took most of their damage away with the intention of giving it back later. They're on a tight release schedule, if a champ takes too much longer than expected, they may not be fully balanced at the time of release

007md92

Imo their should be a base level damage for every champ.
Using a particular quest as the base.
Act 5 cpater 4.

So they are usable. Act 5 is not outdated but not extremely fresh either yet gives you enough challange to enjoy the game.

DNA3000

Thank you for that detailed response. I agree with you in regards to the argument about data vs player's opinion. With that being said, I wish they also took the time to take each character for a spin to see how well they last in end game content (although I'm pretty sure that's what beta testers are for).

They do. Not all champs are equally valuable in end game content, but many of them could be more valuable than the average player gives them credit for. Usually, players assume that if the current popular opinion is that a champion is not good, the devs either don't care or don't understand. But it is also possible that the players are wrong, and the devs know something popular opinion doesn't. The players were very wrong when it came to Magik's original buff for example. And then there's this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mPzTZVk4nY

I don't think that the maximum potential of every champion is actually common knowledge. If we buffed champs just because there's no common knowledge way of getting good performance out of them, that could mean buffing champs that don't need buffs, overbuffing champs too much and then requiring nerfs when their potential is unlocked, or homogenizing the champs too much by forcing all of them to be the kinds of champs the current player meta appreciates at the moment. If we did that in the past, we would have lost Magik, back when power control was considered borderline useless.

Not all champs are Doc Ocs, of course. Some are certainly underperforming, as Kabam's own buff schedule demonstrates. But I think that the players in general are way too confident in their assessments. There's been enough huge whiffs over the years to mandate some humility there.