I’d really like a better response as to how a simple rating system will help players understand things like damage output or utility.
Both characteristics are greatly influenced by the complexity that currently exists in this game. A utility god like Sorcerer Supreme can be useless against plenty of complicated nodes and champion kits. A damage god like Aegon or Morningstar takes multiple fights to reach that status. Or even more complicated in fight ramp up champs like Peni, MoleGod or Guardian, how does that compare to a Corvus or Falcon?
I get that it might help as a communication system but what good will these communications be?
@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.
Fairer, but you're comparing years of buff program to one month of balance program. After the initial ramp up period of settling into the new balancing program, they said in the announcement that they hope to return to old champ updates at a two a month cadence. That's lower than the original three to four month cadence, but there's been some evidence that that original rate was unsustainable anyway: it was slipping at times, and players were also complaining that the quality of the new champions was also slipping. That implies to me the pipeline was overloaded. And the one thing we know is never going to happen is slowing down new champions. They are the engine that powers the game in multiple ways.
Only Kabam can directly answer your question, but from my perspective the balancing program appears to be an attempt to tackle both problems: devote more time to new champions so they don't release buggy or broken as often, and separately reduce the pressure on cranking out more buffs and updates than is currently sustainable by the dev team. Whether they succeed or not is a matter of execution, but that seems to be a reasonable approach to me.
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.
This is true to a certain extent, in the sense that the people today may not know the full reasons for why some decision was made in the past. Even the question "why did this happen" can have no real answer, because in a collaboration the reason why something happens is that collectively that's what the group decided to do, but since every member of the group may have had different reasons for advocating different positions, there's no one ultimate reason. It depends on the narrative you want to tell.
However, the champions in or not in the current basic pools are now the ultimate responsibility of the people actually there. It is possible a champion was excluded in the past by a developer no longer there, for reasons no one else knows, but that's the sort of decision that gets revisited, and even if it is a standing decision, the devs know what it is (because they have to, to manage the situation correctly). For example, I know why Deadpool is only available in cash offers, because I was told why. I'm not the only player that knows by a wide margin, but I'm not sure if I can say as I don't know if this is public knowledge. But I do know this with reasonable certainty, because this is not something that can be chalked up to collective chaos.
I believe there are unlikely to be many champions excluded from the basic pools just to monetize them directly. The reason being, with very few exceptions (such as the aforementioned Deadpool) this would be inconsistent with how Kabam monetizes the game as i understand it. However, that's a judgment based on my previous experience with game development and my interactions with the MCOC developers. It is not a possibility that I can say I can rule out with reasonable certainty. But I would be very, very surprised if this was the case.
If you've been involved directly with game development, then you know that organized chaos is half the explanation for everything. Inertia is the other. There are never enough hours in the day to do everything the devs want to do, much less what the players want them to do. So a lot of things that look like active decisions are really deferred decisions. A champ might not be in the basic pool because someone decided it shouldn't be, but it is also possible a champ might not be in the basic pool because no one has revisited that decision recently because no one can spare the time to do so. Sometimes the reason why inertia is so important is because while players think about things in terms of the work that has to be done, developers think in terms of the approvals that have to be gotten. Adding a champ to the basic pool that got passed on earlier might require a balance designer, reward designer, economy designer, and a couple producers to all sign off. How many developers would want to advocate for that, instead of working on a new Relic?
Then there's the obvious logical evidence that it's a damn long time to have ulterior motives on monetization when they could have done it when people were begging for them to be added. Lol.
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.
There are never enough hours in the day to do everything the devs want to do, much less what the players want them to do. So a lot of things that look like active decisions are really deferred decisions. A champ might not be in the basic pool because someone decided it shouldn't be, but it is also possible a champ might not be in the basic pool because no one has revisited that decision recently because no one can spare the time to do so. Sometimes the reason why inertia is so important is because while players think about things in terms of the work that has to be done, developers think in terms of the approvals that have to be gotten. Adding a champ to the basic pool that got passed on earlier might require a balance designer, reward designer, economy designer, and a couple producers to all sign off. How many developers would want to advocate for that, instead of working on a new Relic?
I am trying to get a document signed-off since Nov last year and it is moving from one person to another and getting delayed as each has their own priorities. So, this point I can understand.
In the coming months, we are going to be introducing a new Champion Rating system to help better visualize the strengths and weaknesses of any given Champion, giving you all a better understanding of the Champion at a glance.
Will the champs have a champion rating for each of its unawakened and awakened state respectively?
Ultrons permanent cauterise via synergy was a bug.. he only needed to have extended duration of his cauterize function lol with the synergy and we all knew it
So here’s my list of champions that are pretty useless in the game. There’s more that would ideally need a buff as well, but I have no idea why the focus is not on buffing these as quickly as possible. Then we’d start to see some balance to the game.
Abomination, Captain America, Captain America WW2, Ant Man, Hulk, Rhino, Sentry, Spider-Man, Agent Venom, Black Widow, Daredevil, Elektra, Korg, Moon Knight, Punisher, Winter Soldier, Beast, Cyclops Blue, Cyclops Red, Deadpool X Force, Nightcrawler, Storm, Iron Patriot (still trash for me), Green Goblin, Iron Man, Iron Patriot, Psycho Man (confirmed value buff), Red Skull, Rocket, Yondu, Black Bolt, Captain Marvel, Drax, Gamora (still trash for me), Groot, Heimdall, Ms Marvell, Nova (still trash for me), Phoenix, Ronan, Spider-Man Symbiote, Superior Iron Man, Thor, Dr Strange, Iron Fist, Immortal Iron Fist, Juggernaut, Loki, Mordo, Jane Foster, Unstoppable Colossus
I felt this ENTIRE LIST!!! This is definitely where the focus needs to be....I mean,how many of u got a roster of champions they wouldn't play with unless maybe doing arena? And I'm not a huge arena fan....the goals to obtain champions requires so much skill and TIME,that is rather not. I think there's plenty of room for improvement on content that should be better. Why is it STILL to hard to obtain consistently USEFUL 4 and 5 tier potions? Revives? It dampens the game I love,like having to hold on to champs I'll likely never use
@Kabam Miike I just need to add my voice hoping it's heard in the name of your new found will to collaborate more with the players and listen to their feedback. This announcement has a lot of nice words, but the overall feeling is not positive at all.
While in the last few months the overall perception of the game was very positive, from the majority of the players, now you're putting all your efforts into:
1. something that nobody cares (rate system)
2. something that hurts players: You should beta test the new champions BEFORE releasing them, or people would not be keen to invest into them (buy crystals, use resources) if there's no way to tell if and how it will be changed in the future. It would feel like a 12.0 ...each month.
3. and you're basically shutting off one of the most positively acclaimed initiative Kabam ever had: the monthly buff of old useless, forgotten champs.
Booooo! Fix the classic characters that everyone loves and plays with, before adding crappy D-list characters. I’m sick of this BS. You have A-list fan favorites sitting in Meme tier and are instead focusing on some junk characters no one cares about. How many Spider Man, Cap, and Iron Man costumes can we have? You are killing your own game.
Soooo, I need no longer read the champion information, special attack info, list of synergies, visit the forums, play with the champ in question, play against the champ in question, or have any working understanding of the way a champion works? I can just look at a few numbers allocated by Kabam to their own products? One glance and a champion is categorised? My understanding of champs in this game is that many of them are complex and require repeated and diverse interactions to gain a real understanding of said champs usefulness. Also, champ A may be good in situation A, but not so good in situation B. This rating system sounds like a foolish idea to me; shallow and lacking forethought. It appear that this is reducing a champ to a set of largely, potentially, arbitrary numbers. (See Hercules numerical utility designation...) I have zero interest in this seemingly watered down numerical champion designation. I can read words; don't need simplistic number values. Please make this an option we can turn on or turn off. I prefer to develop my own understanding of a champions value and usefulness through use of the champ and, if I need more, then maybe some basic research online; YouTube or forums, etc. In this way I engage with the champs and have a real interaction with them, which I believe is in contrast to the way this rating system will work.
Also, please keep buffing older champs, it has real value for those of use with larger rosters. Old champs take on a new role in my roster when buffed, I revisit them, it's fun and engaging and kind of exciting. 6 star Maw ain't so bad, now.
I've thought about this further. I politely suggest canning this new rating system, reducing new EQ champs to 1 per month, and increasing the number of old champ updates/revisions. This obsession with new + more = better is unnecessary and unbecoming. Once old champs are brought up to spec, then revise the next step forward.
Also they're probably never going to change the amount of Champions released per month because those are called tie-in characters and when you're working with Marvel and they have a new character that they want to bring out for a movie, none of us got to say if a champion is to be released or not.
Also they're probably never going to change the amount of Champions released per month because those are called tie-in characters and when you're working with Marvel and they have a new character that they want to bring out for a movie, none of us got to say if a champion is to be released or not.
With the amount of money this company makes you’d think they could hire another couple people to do more character buffs.
It’s been almost a month with no communication from Kabam. Have there been any discussions internally based on the 20 pages of feedback/discussion? The majority opinion seems to be negative so I’m hoping that’s being considered.
Also they're probably never going to change the amount of Champions released per month because those are called tie-in characters and when you're working with Marvel and they have a new character that they want to bring out for a movie, none of us got to say if a champion is to be released or not.
With the amount of money this company makes you’d think they could hire another couple people to do more character buffs.
But that's in the assumption that they get 100% of all revenue generated. They're a subsidiary to Netmarble and parent companies usually get all the money and divide it as they see fit.
I know there community likes to see Kabam as the big evil empire but at most they're Grand Moff Tarkin.. We haven't dealt with Vader or especially the Emperor yet.
Also they're probably never going to change the amount of Champions released per month because those are called tie-in characters and when you're working with Marvel and they have a new character that they want to bring out for a movie, none of us got to say if a champion is to be released or not.
With the amount of money this company makes you’d think they could hire another couple people to do more character buffs.
But that's in the assumption that they get 100% of all revenue generated. They're a subsidiary to Netmarble and parent companies usually get all the money and divide it as they see fit.
The reality of it is complex, but the bottom line is that first Apple and Google take their cut and send the rest to Kabam. Then Kabam sends Disney the Marvel licensing cut, which is not insubstantial. What's left they hold for Netmarble until Netmarble tells them what to do with it.
There was a recent interview on the McMole2 MSF channel with David Brevik, who was a developer on Marvel Heroes for Gazillion. The entire interview is worth watching, but the part where he specifically talks about working on Marvel Heroes in the context of being a Marvel licensee starts at about 13:30.
A lot of it is stuff that would be no surprise to anyone with any contact with the games industry, but perhaps most game players would not be fully aware of. I think people who think MCOC makes massive amounts of money should note the question asked at 19:34:
McMole: What was the biggest lesson you learned from your time at Gazillion, running Marvel Heroes; what was your biggest takeaway from your time there?
David Brevik: Well, uh, working with a license is expensive.
He goes on to mention that these licenses typically have minimum guarantees, which he "hypothetically" said could be seven figures, which I'm assuming is probably what it was back then for a game like Marvel Heroes. I would not be surprised if the minimum guarantee on MCOC was in the high tens of millions of dollars, at least. The noteworthy thing is that this was the first thing to come to his mind. The implication is this is not a trivial thing for a game to manage or even survive.
He also mentions something else that matches what I've heard in related areas, that when Marvel was bought by Disney, the attitude towards licensed products shifted from "make money" to "we need to be the biggest most successful games in the world, or don't bother."
MCOC doesn't survive just because it doesn't lose money. It survives because Marvel sees it as a very successful game. But the idea that the game makes way more money than it needs to make is missing several pieces of reality. They don't get all the money they make, they have tons of gigantic expenses most people don't account for (in particular licensing) and they have a licensing partner that can shut them down at any time if they feel they just aren't quite successful enough, even if they are making millions of dollars.
Also they're probably never going to change the amount of Champions released per month because those are called tie-in characters and when you're working with Marvel and they have a new character that they want to bring out for a movie, none of us got to say if a champion is to be released or not.
With the amount of money this company makes you’d think they could hire another couple people to do more character buffs.
But that's in the assumption that they get 100% of all revenue generated. They're a subsidiary to Netmarble and parent companies usually get all the money and divide it as they see fit.
The reality of it is complex, but the bottom line is that first Apple and Google take their cut and send the rest to Kabam. Then Kabam sends Disney the Marvel licensing cut, which is not insubstantial. What's left they hold for Netmarble until Netmarble tells them what to do with it.
There was a recent interview on the McMole2 MSF channel with David Brevik, who was a developer on Marvel Heroes for Gazillion. The entire interview is worth watching, but the part where he specifically talks about working on Marvel Heroes in the context of being a Marvel licensee starts at about 13:30.
A lot of it is stuff that would be no surprise to anyone with any contact with the games industry, but perhaps most game players would not be fully aware of. I think people who think MCOC makes massive amounts of money should note the question asked at 19:34:
McMole: What was the biggest lesson you learned from your time at Gazillion, running Marvel Heroes; what was your biggest takeaway from your time there?
David Brevik: Well, uh, working with a license is expensive.
He goes on to mention that these licenses typically have minimum guarantees, which he "hypothetically" said could be seven figures, which I'm assuming is probably what it was back then for a game like Marvel Heroes. I would not be surprised if the minimum guarantee on MCOC was in the high tens of millions of dollars, at least. The noteworthy thing is that this was the first thing to come to his mind. The implication is this is not a trivial thing for a game to manage or even survive.
He also mentions something else that matches what I've heard in related areas, that when Marvel was bought by Disney, the attitude towards licensed products shifted from "make money" to "we need to be the biggest most successful games in the world, or don't bother."
MCOC doesn't survive just because it doesn't lose money. It survives because Marvel sees it as a very successful game. But the idea that the game makes way more money than it needs to make is missing several pieces of reality. They don't get all the money they make, they have tons of gigantic expenses most people don't account for (in particular licensing) and they have a licensing partner that can shut them down at any time if they feel they just aren't quite successful enough, even if they are making millions of dollars.
You're right. I haven't even considered the licensing fees and what kind of demand that Marvel themselves would put on the developers and the company as a whole. But again this revolves around the fact that so many community that have these preconceived notions as to how the game is made and how come decisions are made as they are, when in reality we are only seeing a small part of the puzzle.
We think we have all the answers but the truth is were still scratching the surface on something we don't know about and I think if we really ever got a full breakdown of how it all works, I think so many heads are going to just explode from the lack of comprehension as to what it is that this game demands of its own creators.
for me it is time to stop buyng newer heroes crystals. This is what I can do in practice. The idea of rating characters is absurd. The community of players is already thinking about doing it and on a much more solid basis than your work teams can ever do. This is clearly a maneuver to be able to weaken or distort a characters and not to keep faith with the promise done to give rannk-down tickets
Yeah starting this month I won't be grinding for new champs, or buying any crystals (featureds/cavs) to get them. If the champs are still good after their 6 month testing period, or whatever this is going to turn out to be then I'll actively try to get them. If I luck out and get them anyways over that time period then it's a bonus. I think between this, and not spending money at all until the game input issues are fixed I could see a big decline in how much I play the game.
Comments
Both characteristics are greatly influenced by the complexity that currently exists in this game. A utility god like Sorcerer Supreme can be useless against plenty of complicated nodes and champion kits. A damage god like Aegon or Morningstar takes multiple fights to reach that status. Or even more complicated in fight ramp up champs like Peni, MoleGod or Guardian, how does that compare to a Corvus or Falcon?
I get that it might help as a communication system but what good will these communications be?
Only Kabam can directly answer your question, but from my perspective the balancing program appears to be an attempt to tackle both problems: devote more time to new champions so they don't release buggy or broken as often, and separately reduce the pressure on cranking out more buffs and updates than is currently sustainable by the dev team. Whether they succeed or not is a matter of execution, but that seems to be a reasonable approach to me.
However, the champions in or not in the current basic pools are now the ultimate responsibility of the people actually there. It is possible a champion was excluded in the past by a developer no longer there, for reasons no one else knows, but that's the sort of decision that gets revisited, and even if it is a standing decision, the devs know what it is (because they have to, to manage the situation correctly). For example, I know why Deadpool is only available in cash offers, because I was told why. I'm not the only player that knows by a wide margin, but I'm not sure if I can say as I don't know if this is public knowledge. But I do know this with reasonable certainty, because this is not something that can be chalked up to collective chaos.
I believe there are unlikely to be many champions excluded from the basic pools just to monetize them directly. The reason being, with very few exceptions (such as the aforementioned Deadpool) this would be inconsistent with how Kabam monetizes the game as i understand it. However, that's a judgment based on my previous experience with game development and my interactions with the MCOC developers. It is not a possibility that I can say I can rule out with reasonable certainty. But I would be very, very surprised if this was the case.
If you've been involved directly with game development, then you know that organized chaos is half the explanation for everything. Inertia is the other. There are never enough hours in the day to do everything the devs want to do, much less what the players want them to do. So a lot of things that look like active decisions are really deferred decisions. A champ might not be in the basic pool because someone decided it shouldn't be, but it is also possible a champ might not be in the basic pool because no one has revisited that decision recently because no one can spare the time to do so. Sometimes the reason why inertia is so important is because while players think about things in terms of the work that has to be done, developers think in terms of the approvals that have to be gotten. Adding a champ to the basic pool that got passed on earlier might require a balance designer, reward designer, economy designer, and a couple producers to all sign off. How many developers would want to advocate for that, instead of working on a new Relic?
While in the last few months the overall perception of the game was very positive, from the majority of the players, now you're putting all your efforts into:
1. something that nobody cares (rate system)
2. something that hurts players:
You should beta test the new champions BEFORE releasing them, or people would not be keen to invest into them (buy crystals, use resources) if there's no way to tell if and how it will be changed in the future. It would feel like a 12.0 ...each month.
3. and you're basically shutting off one of the most positively acclaimed initiative Kabam ever had:
the monthly buff of old useless, forgotten champs.
I really don't get it!
I need no longer read the champion information, special attack info, list of synergies, visit the forums, play with the champ in question, play against the champ in question, or have any working understanding of the way a champion works?
I can just look at a few numbers allocated by Kabam to their own products?
One glance and a champion is categorised?
My understanding of champs in this game is that many of them are complex and require repeated and diverse interactions to gain a real understanding of said champs usefulness.
Also, champ A may be good in situation A, but not so good in situation B.
This rating system sounds like a foolish idea to me; shallow and lacking forethought.
It appear that this is reducing a champ to a set of largely, potentially, arbitrary numbers. (See Hercules numerical utility designation...)
I have zero interest in this seemingly watered down numerical champion designation. I can read words; don't need simplistic number values.
Please make this an option we can turn on or turn off.
I prefer to develop my own understanding of a champions value and usefulness through use of the champ and, if I need more, then maybe some basic research online; YouTube or forums, etc.
In this way I engage with the champs and have a real interaction with them, which I believe is in contrast to the way this rating system will work.
Also, please keep buffing older champs, it has real value for those of use with larger rosters. Old champs take on a new role in my roster when buffed, I revisit them, it's fun and engaging and kind of exciting. 6 star Maw ain't so bad, now.
-TrapKill
I politely suggest canning this new rating system, reducing new EQ champs to 1 per month, and increasing the number of old champ updates/revisions.
This obsession with new + more = better is unnecessary and unbecoming.
Once old champs are brought up to spec, then revise the next step forward.
Also they're probably never going to change the amount of Champions released per month because those are called tie-in characters and when you're working with Marvel and they have a new character that they want to bring out for a movie, none of us got to say if a champion is to be released or not.
Have there been any discussions internally based on the 20 pages of feedback/discussion? The majority opinion seems to be negative so I’m hoping that’s being considered.
I know there community likes to see Kabam as the big evil empire but at most they're Grand Moff Tarkin.. We haven't dealt with Vader or especially the Emperor yet.
There was a recent interview on the McMole2 MSF channel with David Brevik, who was a developer on Marvel Heroes for Gazillion. The entire interview is worth watching, but the part where he specifically talks about working on Marvel Heroes in the context of being a Marvel licensee starts at about 13:30.
A lot of it is stuff that would be no surprise to anyone with any contact with the games industry, but perhaps most game players would not be fully aware of. I think people who think MCOC makes massive amounts of money should note the question asked at 19:34:
McMole: What was the biggest lesson you learned from your time at Gazillion, running Marvel Heroes; what was your biggest takeaway from your time there?
David Brevik: Well, uh, working with a license is expensive.
He goes on to mention that these licenses typically have minimum guarantees, which he "hypothetically" said could be seven figures, which I'm assuming is probably what it was back then for a game like Marvel Heroes. I would not be surprised if the minimum guarantee on MCOC was in the high tens of millions of dollars, at least. The noteworthy thing is that this was the first thing to come to his mind. The implication is this is not a trivial thing for a game to manage or even survive.
He also mentions something else that matches what I've heard in related areas, that when Marvel was bought by Disney, the attitude towards licensed products shifted from "make money" to "we need to be the biggest most successful games in the world, or don't bother."
MCOC doesn't survive just because it doesn't lose money. It survives because Marvel sees it as a very successful game. But the idea that the game makes way more money than it needs to make is missing several pieces of reality. They don't get all the money they make, they have tons of gigantic expenses most people don't account for (in particular licensing) and they have a licensing partner that can shut them down at any time if they feel they just aren't quite successful enough, even if they are making millions of dollars.
We think we have all the answers but the truth is were still scratching the surface on something we don't know about and I think if we really ever got a full breakdown of how it all works, I think so many heads are going to just explode from the lack of comprehension as to what it is that this game demands of its own creators.
The idea of rating characters is absurd.
The community of players is already thinking about doing it and on a much more solid basis than your work teams can ever do.
This is clearly a maneuver to be able to weaken or distort a characters and not to keep faith with the promise done to give rannk-down tickets
I think between this, and not spending money at all until the game input issues are fixed I could see a big decline in how much I play the game.