Kabam, I’m really excited that you’re involving an experienced member of the community for this initiative. What I would advise though, is to listen to other experienced members of the community. Both Seatin and Brian Grant have released videos about this update, and Seatin’s is extremely well thought out and gives excellent constructive feedback. Building a ranking system sells your game short. MCOC is an incredibly complex game with over 200 champs and a crazy amount of node combinations. Blanket statements on damage or utility will not help out. For example, while you say that Magik is easy to use, she takes a skilled player plus her awakened ability to be able to use well and survive long with. Most of the time you need a specific piece of utility to get past a challenge. Such as bleed immunity to negate a caltrops node. Updating your “tags” system to allow players to search for a bleed immune champ would help players. This way they don’t have to rely on their own knowledge or force them to manually research information. Even as an experienced player, I was trying to do this to find a poison immune champ to upgrade and was disappointed in a lack of way to filter them out for easy viewing. As an added point, your champion buffs were already helping to balance out the game. Use this experienced community member that you have hired, to give better feedback on characters that need buffs, and how best to do it. Kabam, please listen to your community and focus your efforts where they best benefit all new, progressing, and experienced players.
Not to be that guy, but.... Isn't Seatin the one who came up with Tier Lists? Don't you see the irony in that statement?
Don’t you see how this comment is irrelevant to the point of the commenter?
And to your point who better to weigh in on the flaws and inefficiency of rating systems in a game this complex. Maybe someone who used to build and maintain a system like this and then discontinued that practice?
Kabam, I’m really excited that you’re involving an experienced member of the community for this initiative. What I would advise though, is to listen to other experienced members of the community. Both Seatin and Brian Grant have released videos about this update, and Seatin’s is extremely well thought out and gives excellent constructive feedback. Building a ranking system sells your game short. MCOC is an incredibly complex game with over 200 champs and a crazy amount of node combinations. Blanket statements on damage or utility will not help out. For example, while you say that Magik is easy to use, she takes a skilled player plus her awakened ability to be able to use well and survive long with. Most of the time you need a specific piece of utility to get past a challenge. Such as bleed immunity to negate a caltrops node. Updating your “tags” system to allow players to search for a bleed immune champ would help players. This way they don’t have to rely on their own knowledge or force them to manually research information. Even as an experienced player, I was trying to do this to find a poison immune champ to upgrade and was disappointed in a lack of way to filter them out for easy viewing. As an added point, your champion buffs were already helping to balance out the game. Use this experienced community member that you have hired, to give better feedback on characters that need buffs, and how best to do it. Kabam, please listen to your community and focus your efforts where they best benefit all new, progressing, and experienced players.
Not to be that guy, but.... Isn't Seatin the one who came up with Tier Lists? Don't you see the irony in that statement?
Don’t you see how this comment is irrelevant to the point of the commenter?
And to your point who better to weigh in on the flaws and inefficiency of rating systems in a game this complex. Maybe someone who used to build and maintain a system like this and then discontinued that practice?
Actually, my comment relates directly to it. I could even go so far as to explain how relying solely on the opinions of a select few content creators leads to a great deal of blindness when it comes to usefulness. However, that somewhat takes away from the awareness that Players have through their own experience. People have had questions about the process of what they're looking at, and what the goals are for these changes. What they're instituting is a system that will further explain that. It's not going to take the form of "This Champ sucks. That one is OP." I have no issues with specific YouTubers themselves. I respect what they do and what people enjoy. What I do take note of is the side-effects of adhering to a sliding scale in popularity. If you have a best, you have a worst by default. As long as people hold on to that mentality, they're seldom going to align with the perspective Kabam holds. It's not that binary.
The P2W and money offers are destroying the balance in the game.
We need something to be made in regards of it. This is a much bigger issue than the champions abilities
What balance are you referring to? If the goal was to balance everything F2P Players have with P2P, there wouldn't be a point in selling anything. Take away the money they make, and you end up with something that is riddled with Ads and the quality of Farmville. I understand that you have feelings on spending, but there is no competition between spending and non-spending. One makes the game possible for the other, in even the most indirect sense.
The P2W and money offers are destroying the balance in the game.
We need something to be made in regards of it. This is a much bigger issue than the champions abilities
Completely agree, this is the balancing we need. Spenders are most definitely needed and there’s nothing wrong with it but the playable content that offers up comparable rewards is sorely lacking. It’s at a point where my daily card nets me more valuable rewards than all EQ and side quest content combined in January. That’s way outta wack
That's how games like this work though. You don't incentivize spending by offering up what you'd normally earn in a couple of weeks for $50. I'm not really sure what type of game some players think they're playing. It's not supposed to be an even playing field or no one would spend, or at least certainly not as many would.
Without much detour, this would be nonsense! instead of solving more important things, they want to be playing good and new champions. better keep improving the old characters every month!
I think that's actually a good addition, especially for Players who have questions about the strengths of Champions.
I understand what you mean but i feel like i would stop players from coming to discord or youtube or even the forums etc.. because they would already have those things in game there would be no point
I think that's actually a good addition, especially for Players who have questions about the strengths of Champions.
I understand what you mean but i feel like i would stop players from coming to discord or youtube or even the forums etc.. because they would already have those things in game there would be no point
If there's one thing I've learned in 6+ years of playing, it's that people will agree or disagree as they see fit. Nothing about this is going to change that. People will still communicate their own ideas and findings and Kabam has always praised them for doing so, so it's not likely they want to discourage that. It's a visual representation of their goals. That's about it. I'm sure there will be a plethora of conversations on how people don't agree with their Ratings (specifically and not in the general sense), and that's great. We're always free to give our feedback. I realize that people are disappointed in the overhaul program being altered, and I'm not taking away from their views on that. I'm simply pointing out that a Rating System is not a change to anything. In Layman's Terms, it's Kabam reviewing their own product and putting it on display.
Oh nice you are actively watching the posts, so I'll re-post my question that I don't think anyone from the game team replied to. I think this question is valid, hasn't been answered yet and is completely on topic (see below):
"@Kabam Miike will you comment on why the focus isn’t more towards buffing the old champs already in the game that people have and want to be able to use more? Why is it more important for you guys to focus mainly on the newly released rarer champs? If your goal is game balance and community enjoyment then wouldn’t you agree you’re going at this backwards?"
Kabam, I’m really excited that you’re involving an experienced member of the community for this initiative. What I would advise though, is to listen to other experienced members of the community. Both Seatin and Brian Grant have released videos about this update, and Seatin’s is extremely well thought out and gives excellent constructive feedback. Building a ranking system sells your game short. MCOC is an incredibly complex game with over 200 champs and a crazy amount of node combinations. Blanket statements on damage or utility will not help out. For example, while you say that Magik is easy to use, she takes a skilled player plus her awakened ability to be able to use well and survive long with. Most of the time you need a specific piece of utility to get past a challenge. Such as bleed immunity to negate a caltrops node. Updating your “tags” system to allow players to search for a bleed immune champ would help players. This way they don’t have to rely on their own knowledge or force them to manually research information. Even as an experienced player, I was trying to do this to find a poison immune champ to upgrade and was disappointed in a lack of way to filter them out for easy viewing. As an added point, your champion buffs were already helping to balance out the game. Use this experienced community member that you have hired, to give better feedback on characters that need buffs, and how best to do it. Kabam, please listen to your community and focus your efforts where they best benefit all new, progressing, and experienced players.
Not to be that guy, but.... Isn't Seatin the one who came up with Tier Lists? Don't you see the irony in that statement?
Since when does seatin decide which champs should be buffed based on his tier list? And it's not a tier list either way but a scoring system
Oh nice you are actively watching the posts, so I'll re-post my question that I don't think anyone from the game team replied to. I think this question is valid, hasn't been answered yet and is completely on topic (see below):
"@Kabam Miike will you comment on why the focus isn’t more towards buffing the old champs already in the game that people have and want to be able to use more? Why is it more important for you guys to focus mainly on the newly released rarer champs? If your goal is game balance and community enjoyment then wouldn’t you agree you’re going at this backwards?"
Kabam, I’m really excited that you’re involving an experienced member of the community for this initiative. What I would advise though, is to listen to other experienced members of the community. Both Seatin and Brian Grant have released videos about this update, and Seatin’s is extremely well thought out and gives excellent constructive feedback. Building a ranking system sells your game short. MCOC is an incredibly complex game with over 200 champs and a crazy amount of node combinations. Blanket statements on damage or utility will not help out. For example, while you say that Magik is easy to use, she takes a skilled player plus her awakened ability to be able to use well and survive long with. Most of the time you need a specific piece of utility to get past a challenge. Such as bleed immunity to negate a caltrops node. Updating your “tags” system to allow players to search for a bleed immune champ would help players. This way they don’t have to rely on their own knowledge or force them to manually research information. Even as an experienced player, I was trying to do this to find a poison immune champ to upgrade and was disappointed in a lack of way to filter them out for easy viewing. As an added point, your champion buffs were already helping to balance out the game. Use this experienced community member that you have hired, to give better feedback on characters that need buffs, and how best to do it. Kabam, please listen to your community and focus your efforts where they best benefit all new, progressing, and experienced players.
Not to be that guy, but.... Isn't Seatin the one who came up with Tier Lists? Don't you see the irony in that statement?
Since when does seatin decide which champs should be buffed based on his tier list? And it's not a tier list either way but a scoring system
That's not really what I said. I said when people subscribe to a binary point of view, they have a hard time seeing anything outside of that. Really has nothing to do with Seatin. The OP suggested that building a Ranking System sells the game short and cited Seatin and BG. I pointed out the irony because Seatin devised the OG Ranking System. Lol. Nothing against him really.
Oh nice you are actively watching the posts, so I'll re-post my question that I don't think anyone from the game team replied to. I think this question is valid, hasn't been answered yet and is completely on topic (see below):
"@Kabam Miike will you comment on why the focus isn’t more towards buffing the old champs already in the game that people have and want to be able to use more? Why is it more important for you guys to focus mainly on the newly released rarer champs? If your goal is game balance and community enjoyment then wouldn’t you agree you’re going at this backwards?"
Kabam, I’m really excited that you’re involving an experienced member of the community for this initiative. What I would advise though, is to listen to other experienced members of the community. Both Seatin and Brian Grant have released videos about this update, and Seatin’s is extremely well thought out and gives excellent constructive feedback. Building a ranking system sells your game short. MCOC is an incredibly complex game with over 200 champs and a crazy amount of node combinations. Blanket statements on damage or utility will not help out. For example, while you say that Magik is easy to use, she takes a skilled player plus her awakened ability to be able to use well and survive long with. Most of the time you need a specific piece of utility to get past a challenge. Such as bleed immunity to negate a caltrops node. Updating your “tags” system to allow players to search for a bleed immune champ would help players. This way they don’t have to rely on their own knowledge or force them to manually research information. Even as an experienced player, I was trying to do this to find a poison immune champ to upgrade and was disappointed in a lack of way to filter them out for easy viewing. As an added point, your champion buffs were already helping to balance out the game. Use this experienced community member that you have hired, to give better feedback on characters that need buffs, and how best to do it. Kabam, please listen to your community and focus your efforts where they best benefit all new, progressing, and experienced players.
Not to be that guy, but.... Isn't Seatin the one who came up with Tier Lists? Don't you see the irony in that statement?
Since when does seatin decide which champs should be buffed based on his tier list? And it's not a tier list either way but a scoring system
That's not really what I said. I said when people subscribe to a binary point of view, they have a hard time seeing anything outside of that. Really has nothing to do with Seatin. The OP suggested that building a Ranking System sells the game short and cited Seatin and BG. I pointed out the irony because Seatin devised the OG Ranking System. Lol. Nothing against him really.
A player doing it to guide other players and kabam doing it to balance champions are two very very different things. No irony there
Oh nice you are actively watching the posts, so I'll re-post my question that I don't think anyone from the game team replied to. I think this question is valid, hasn't been answered yet and is completely on topic (see below):
"@Kabam Miike will you comment on why the focus isn’t more towards buffing the old champs already in the game that people have and want to be able to use more? Why is it more important for you guys to focus mainly on the newly released rarer champs? If your goal is game balance and community enjoyment then wouldn’t you agree you’re going at this backwards?"
Kabam, I’m really excited that you’re involving an experienced member of the community for this initiative. What I would advise though, is to listen to other experienced members of the community. Both Seatin and Brian Grant have released videos about this update, and Seatin’s is extremely well thought out and gives excellent constructive feedback. Building a ranking system sells your game short. MCOC is an incredibly complex game with over 200 champs and a crazy amount of node combinations. Blanket statements on damage or utility will not help out. For example, while you say that Magik is easy to use, she takes a skilled player plus her awakened ability to be able to use well and survive long with. Most of the time you need a specific piece of utility to get past a challenge. Such as bleed immunity to negate a caltrops node. Updating your “tags” system to allow players to search for a bleed immune champ would help players. This way they don’t have to rely on their own knowledge or force them to manually research information. Even as an experienced player, I was trying to do this to find a poison immune champ to upgrade and was disappointed in a lack of way to filter them out for easy viewing. As an added point, your champion buffs were already helping to balance out the game. Use this experienced community member that you have hired, to give better feedback on characters that need buffs, and how best to do it. Kabam, please listen to your community and focus your efforts where they best benefit all new, progressing, and experienced players.
Not to be that guy, but.... Isn't Seatin the one who came up with Tier Lists? Don't you see the irony in that statement?
Since when does seatin decide which champs should be buffed based on his tier list? And it's not a tier list either way but a scoring system
That's not really what I said. I said when people subscribe to a binary point of view, they have a hard time seeing anything outside of that. Really has nothing to do with Seatin. The OP suggested that building a Ranking System sells the game short and cited Seatin and BG. I pointed out the irony because Seatin devised the OG Ranking System. Lol. Nothing against him really.
A player doing it to guide other players and kabam doing it to balance champions are two very very different things. No irony there
Once again, I said it has nothing to do with him personally. I've maintained the same stance for years. It's great to get a gauge and have some entertainment. However, sticking to it as gospel is detrimental. We can't really deny that's been the case for many people. Looking at ANY ONE perspective is limiting. As for Kabam, they have every right to use whatever measure they choose to improve their product.
There are too many other things in the game that require polish. The game needs stability.
Introducing new features could compound existing issues and overload operational staff even further.
This is something that should be implemented down the track.
It won’t make a difference if I get Iron Patriot. I will either play him and learn quickly that he is not very useful, or I will look at an unnecessary rating system that will tell me the same thing. Neither of those are better than the developers actually buffing the poor bloke.
IMO, a rating system will not entice new players to keep playing, let alone existing and long standing members.
A good example of this is that almost all the overhaul champs or the half reworked champs are all worth rank up investment and have become relevant in the game,..even if they are not always someone’s “first choice”,.they can always be a option…I may just R3 my 6* vulture,..still not the best or my first choice ,.,but a very useful champ in the game now and more fun to use….good example right there.
"We want players to be excited about the possibilities every new Champion presents, and a new Balance system gives us the opportunity to be more ambitious with new designs, or tune-up Champions that maybe were not ambitious enough! "
Furthermore, the older champions which we know aren't balance and fan favourites we've deliberately kept them out of the 6* program for the last 4 years so they could be obtained through intentionally targetted transaction campaigns instead of being released with the others.
How can kabam claim to be on side of the players like this then try to get $50 for a chance at a 2017 champion who now has an extra star.
"We want players to be excited about the possibilities every new Champion presents, and a new Balance system gives us the opportunity to be more ambitious with new designs, or tune-up Champions that maybe were not ambitious enough! "
Furthermore, the older champions which we know aren't balance and fan favourites we've deliberately kept them out of the 6* program for the last 4 years so they could be obtained through intentionally targetted transaction campaigns instead of being released with the others.
How can kabam claim to be on side of the players like this then try to get $50 for a chance at a 2017 champion who now has an extra star.
Selling a chance at new Champions is not new. Old, yes. New as a 6*, and one of the most requested. The game isn't going to stop running because the buff program has changed.
I usually spend between 500-1500 a month on the game. Characters that may get reworked totally AFTER I get them BECAUSE they weren't properly tested isn't something that makes me feel comfortable spending on anymore. That feels like bait and switch to me. As part of the spending community. We don't want this change.
I'm baffled why Punisher is not a top priority list when it comes to animation update. At least DPX and SIM have the excuse of being the reskin of the character they completely ripped off in this regard.
I mean, how does this superpowered punch knocking opponent into a wall that WS uses during S3 even work with him?
It's literally the same as the game has always been. I find it somewhat confusing that people are on board with a buff program for older Champs, and not on board with this. As long as the game has existed, they've reviewed their product and made changes when the data showed a need. As for spending, it's never been a purchase, much less a guarantee that the product is as-is. We don't purchase to own anything. We rent access to aspects of their product. That product is a part of a live matrix that's constantly changing and evolving. That doesn't mean every Champ that comes out is at risk for being altered, and history has shown that. It simply means things CAN be changed when necessary.
I find it somewhat confusing that people are on board with a buff program for older Champs, and not on board with this.
If this clears up your confusion, people tend to like for a buff program that gives their old “low value” champs a chance to be useful again. Not a rework program in replacement of that does not give the same guarantee of the buffing champs that need full reworks.
If a new champion is becomes more useful then initially rated in the program (eg. Corvus, Quake). Will they be more subject to a nerf then before the program?
I find it somewhat confusing that people are on board with a buff program for older Champs, and not on board with this.
If this clears up your confusion, people tend to like for a buff program that gives their old “low value” champs a chance to be useful again. Not a rework program in replacement of that does not give the same guarantee of the buffing champs that need full reworks.
If there's a system that allows them to monitor and make adjustments more preemptively than the current setup, that's more useful in my opinion than a constant cycle of catch-up.
I find that hard believe , with 12.0 players didn't know it would be a large scale game balance update. The Balancing program let you know in advance that the champs will be balanced within a six month period .
I think it would go a long way for them to answer my valid loaded question(s) in a way that shows they've considered the main concern of the question (which is a very real concern/opinion) and gives and honest transparent position they have on the subject. Dodging that question and ignoring it repeatedly shows they're hiding any real intentions, but that's just my opinion.
No it doesn't: loaded questions are called that because they are posed in a way that guarantees there's no valid answer that cannot be picked apart by anyone with the mind to pose such a question in the first place. It puts them in a position of potentially arguing rather than explaining by shifting the discussion to unreasonable assumptions which they are not supposed to be doing.
I don't have that limitation, so I'm free to tackle those questions.
1. "Why the focus isn’t more towards buffing the old champs already in the game that people have and want to be able to use more? Why is it more important for you guys to focus mainly on the newly released rarer champs?"
This question is unfair because there's only two reasonable ways to interpret this question. The first is to respond to the assertion that Kabam thinks balancing new champs is more important than updating old champs in general. But there's no reason to assume this to be true. Kabam doesn't state this anywhere, and there's no reasonable reason to extrapolate this from the announcement. The announcement states that their plan is to eventually return to doing both balancing new champs and updating old champs, with some balance between the two.
The second is to assume that the question refers to the near term changes: that the initial focus will be on the new champion balancing program, with old champ updates as time permits. But that's also an unfair question, because that one has a trivial answer: because new champion updates have been neglected for so long, Kabam believes there's a need to reinstate such a program, and while it is starting up the focus will be on restarting that program and refining how it works. In the short term the focus will be on the new program, because that's the most reasonable thing to prioritize when you're starting up a new program.
2. "If your goal is game balance and community enjoyment then wouldn’t you agree you’re going at this backwards?"
That's not even an intellectually honest question much less a fair question. It is fishing for a "no" so that that answer can be attacked. But the correct answer is that this is a judgment call, so no. The fact that they are doing it tells you they don't think this is backwards: no one does things entirely contrary to their goals, and both game balance and playerbase enjoyment of the game are obvious goals of the dev team. So anyone asking this question knows the answer to the question. They just want to belittle it.
Game developers rarely implement balancing processes for no reason. They do so because the balancing criteria they use represent what they believe is important to the health and long term success of the game. They might be wrong, but they still have to do what they believe to be right. I would, in their place.
If the goal (one of them) is game balance, then not implementing a new champ balancing program would be completely wrong. It allows champs to enter the game and propagate that can be far from the game's balancing goals, and then by the time they are reexamined so many players have them that it makes the decision on whether to rebalance them far more painful to far more players. A suspicious mind would say that players advocating for updating old champs over rebalancing new champs is counting on the fact that the more players who have the champ, the less likely they'll be nerfed, even if that is perceived as necessary. This tends to run contrary to the community enjoyment of the buff program, so those two priorities need to exist in a reasonable compromise. Devoting no effort to new champion balance and all of that effort to old champion updates is not "forwards."
At least in theory. I'll have to see the execution.
With some days to process I can see the potential of this program. So I almost agree with you.
However, when you say that you are confused about why summoners are concerned. I’d think anyone would be concerned that this system would allow kabam a way to nerf more champs. I wouldn’t of wanted this system when Herc was released. But would of loved it when super Skrull and psycho man were released. This system will be awesome until they go trigger happy on the nerfs (which is improbable)
@DNA3000 Fair points, so maybe I'll just rephrase all my questions this way that hopefully doesn't seem loaded.
With the goal of improving game balance, what would have the greater impact?: Bringing 56 underperforming champs up to match the current game meta or ensure 2 new champs per month aren't overpowered or underpowered?
I don't think properly balancing new champs is a bad deal at all, in fact I think that it's what should happen, I just think they have such a backlog of champs to deal with that their main focus should be on that. They almost should have bumped up the old champ buff system now that they have this new team to deal with all the champs they know are underperforming, then tackle the new champ balance.
With the poor state of the game, I think they should have at least waited to roll this out until after their new engine is rolled out and working.
At least in theory. I'll have to see the execution.
With some days to process I can see the potential of this program. So I almost agree with you.
However, when you say that you are confused about why summoners are concerned. I’d think anyone would be concerned that this system would allow kabam a way to nerf more champs. I wouldn’t of wanted this system when Herc was released. But would of loved it when super Skrull and psycho man were released. This system will be awesome until they go trigger happy on the nerfs (which is improbable)
It's less about open-season and more about aligning with goals in my opinion.
Also, as an addendum, they weren't intentionally left out to make money. They were cautiously added because a number of them are already powerful.
I appreciate and like the creative brainstorming on possible reasons for Kabam choosing Champions. However, we also don't have any certainty with regards to knowing the specific choices, motives, or plans behind Kabam's actions.
It is also very likely that even the individual current persons and groups behind MCOC development (including all past and current staff at Kabam, Netmarble, Unity Technologies, Disney, etc.) do not know (or understand) the full picture of choices, motives, or plans behind many actions taken. Such are the realities of game development. Giant collaborations in chaos.
The food gets to the table (the game content gets launched)... sometimes. But there is never really a diligent accounting audit of the chaotic marathon from farm to table (a planned, tracked, and accounted full development process). And I've worked in accounting and game development (and project management).
Also, as an addendum, they weren't intentionally left out to make money. They were cautiously added because a number of them are already powerful.
I appreciate and like the creative brainstorming on possible reasons for Kabam choosing Champions. However, we also don't have any certainty with regards to knowing the specific choices, motives, or plans behind Kabam's actions.
It is also very likely that even the individual current persons and groups behind MCOC development (including all past and current staff at Kabam, Netmarble, Unity Technologies, Disney, etc.) do not know (or understand) the full picture of choices, motives, or plans behind many actions taken. Such are the realities of game development. Giant collaborations in chaos.
The food gets to the table (the game content gets launched)... sometimes. But there is never really a diligent accounting audit of the chaotic marathon from farm to table (a planned, tracked, and accounted full development process). And I've worked in accounting and game development (and project management).
All possible options remain viable.
They've been commented on. At least in a general sense.
Comments
And to your point who better to weigh in on the flaws and inefficiency of rating systems in a game this complex. Maybe someone who used to build and maintain a system like this and then discontinued that practice?
People have had questions about the process of what they're looking at, and what the goals are for these changes. What they're instituting is a system that will further explain that. It's not going to take the form of "This Champ sucks. That one is OP."
I have no issues with specific YouTubers themselves. I respect what they do and what people enjoy. What I do take note of is the side-effects of adhering to a sliding scale in popularity. If you have a best, you have a worst by default. As long as people hold on to that mentality, they're seldom going to align with the perspective Kabam holds. It's not that binary.
It's a visual representation of their goals. That's about it. I'm sure there will be a plethora of conversations on how people don't agree with their Ratings (specifically and not in the general sense), and that's great. We're always free to give our feedback.
I realize that people are disappointed in the overhaul program being altered, and I'm not taking away from their views on that. I'm simply pointing out that a Rating System is not a change to anything. In Layman's Terms, it's Kabam reviewing their own product and putting it on display.
As for Kabam, they have every right to use whatever measure they choose to improve their product.
There are too many other things in the game that require polish. The game needs stability.
Introducing new features could compound existing issues and overload operational staff even further.
This is something that should be implemented down the track.
It won’t make a difference if I get Iron Patriot. I will either play him and learn quickly that he is not very useful, or I will look at an unnecessary rating system that will tell me the same thing. Neither of those are better than the developers actually buffing the poor bloke.
IMO, a rating system will not entice new players to keep playing, let alone existing and long standing members.
Furthermore, the older champions which we know aren't balance and fan favourites we've deliberately kept them out of the 6* program for the last 4 years so they could be obtained through intentionally targetted transaction campaigns instead of being released with the others.
How can kabam claim to be on side of the players like this then try to get $50 for a chance at a 2017 champion who now has an extra star.
I usually spend between 500-1500 a month on the game. Characters that may get reworked totally AFTER I get them BECAUSE they weren't properly tested isn't something that makes me feel comfortable spending on anymore. That feels like bait and switch to me. As part of the spending community. We don't want this change.
I mean, how does this superpowered punch knocking opponent into a wall that WS uses during S3 even work with him?
As for spending, it's never been a purchase, much less a guarantee that the product is as-is. We don't purchase to own anything. We rent access to aspects of their product. That product is a part of a live matrix that's constantly changing and evolving. That doesn't mean every Champ that comes out is at risk for being altered, and history has shown that. It simply means things CAN be changed when necessary.
If a new champion is becomes more useful then initially rated in the program (eg. Corvus, Quake). Will they be more subject to a nerf then before the program?
I don't have that limitation, so I'm free to tackle those questions.
1. "Why the focus isn’t more towards buffing the old champs already in the game that people have and want to be able to use more? Why is it more important for you guys to focus mainly on the newly released rarer champs?"
This question is unfair because there's only two reasonable ways to interpret this question. The first is to respond to the assertion that Kabam thinks balancing new champs is more important than updating old champs in general. But there's no reason to assume this to be true. Kabam doesn't state this anywhere, and there's no reasonable reason to extrapolate this from the announcement. The announcement states that their plan is to eventually return to doing both balancing new champs and updating old champs, with some balance between the two.
The second is to assume that the question refers to the near term changes: that the initial focus will be on the new champion balancing program, with old champ updates as time permits. But that's also an unfair question, because that one has a trivial answer: because new champion updates have been neglected for so long, Kabam believes there's a need to reinstate such a program, and while it is starting up the focus will be on restarting that program and refining how it works. In the short term the focus will be on the new program, because that's the most reasonable thing to prioritize when you're starting up a new program.
2. "If your goal is game balance and community enjoyment then wouldn’t you agree you’re going at this backwards?"
That's not even an intellectually honest question much less a fair question. It is fishing for a "no" so that that answer can be attacked. But the correct answer is that this is a judgment call, so no. The fact that they are doing it tells you they don't think this is backwards: no one does things entirely contrary to their goals, and both game balance and playerbase enjoyment of the game are obvious goals of the dev team. So anyone asking this question knows the answer to the question. They just want to belittle it.
Game developers rarely implement balancing processes for no reason. They do so because the balancing criteria they use represent what they believe is important to the health and long term success of the game. They might be wrong, but they still have to do what they believe to be right. I would, in their place.
If the goal (one of them) is game balance, then not implementing a new champ balancing program would be completely wrong. It allows champs to enter the game and propagate that can be far from the game's balancing goals, and then by the time they are reexamined so many players have them that it makes the decision on whether to rebalance them far more painful to far more players. A suspicious mind would say that players advocating for updating old champs over rebalancing new champs is counting on the fact that the more players who have the champ, the less likely they'll be nerfed, even if that is perceived as necessary. This tends to run contrary to the community enjoyment of the buff program, so those two priorities need to exist in a reasonable compromise. Devoting no effort to new champion balance and all of that effort to old champion updates is not "forwards."
However, when you say that you are confused about why summoners are concerned. I’d think anyone would be concerned that this system would allow kabam a way to nerf more champs. I wouldn’t of wanted this system when Herc was released. But would of loved it when super Skrull and psycho man were released. This system will be awesome until they go trigger happy on the nerfs (which is improbable)
Fair points, so maybe I'll just rephrase all my questions this way that hopefully doesn't seem loaded.
With the goal of improving game balance, what would have the greater impact?: Bringing 56 underperforming champs up to match the current game meta or ensure 2 new champs per month aren't overpowered or underpowered?
I don't think properly balancing new champs is a bad deal at all, in fact I think that it's what should happen, I just think they have such a backlog of champs to deal with that their main focus should be on that. They almost should have bumped up the old champ buff system now that they have this new team to deal with all the champs they know are underperforming, then tackle the new champ balance.
With the poor state of the game, I think they should have at least waited to roll this out until after their new engine is rolled out and working.
It is also very likely that even the individual current persons and groups behind MCOC development (including all past and current staff at Kabam, Netmarble, Unity Technologies, Disney, etc.) do not know (or understand) the full picture of choices, motives, or plans behind many actions taken. Such are the realities of game development. Giant collaborations in chaos.
The food gets to the table (the game content gets launched)... sometimes. But there is never really a diligent accounting audit of the chaotic marathon from farm to table (a planned, tracked, and accounted full development process). And I've worked in accounting and game development (and project management).
All possible options remain viable.