Get a Free 3-6 Star Baron Zemo this Week!
Log in to the Summoner's Market at https://store.playcontestofchampions.com/ and claim the Baron Zemo Selector between 10am PT November 24 and 10am PT on December 1st.
Proven and Below: 3-Star
Conqueror/Uncollected: 4-Star
Cavalier/Thronebreaker: 5-Star
Paragon/Valiant: 6-Star
You can only claim this Baron Zemo one time. The Baron Zemo is delivered as a selector, claiming it will require you to choose your rarity immediately. If you plan to change your Progression level during the Cyber Week event, we suggest you wait until you have made that change before claiming this selector.
Log in to the Summoner's Market at https://store.playcontestofchampions.com/ and claim the Baron Zemo Selector between 10am PT November 24 and 10am PT on December 1st.
Proven and Below: 3-Star
Conqueror/Uncollected: 4-Star
Cavalier/Thronebreaker: 5-Star
Paragon/Valiant: 6-Star
You can only claim this Baron Zemo one time. The Baron Zemo is delivered as a selector, claiming it will require you to choose your rarity immediately. If you plan to change your Progression level during the Cyber Week event, we suggest you wait until you have made that change before claiming this selector.
An Update to Balancing in MCOC!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
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