This just seems like a big waste of time. The rating are going to be so subjective. Maybe the Damage rating can be based on player data, but there are still so many different situations that impact it: synergies, awakened abilities, ramp-ups, skill-level required, and probably a dozen other things. Putting one number to all of that doesn’t even make sense. Let alone trying to rate utility or ease of use.
This seems to be a common misconception, or maybe I'm the one that's wrong here, but to clarify my position here my understanding is the devs aren't going to analyze every single champ and try to figure out what rating to give to them, like a player making a tier list. They are going to publish what the design intent was for that champ, or in the case of older champs for which that is no longer available they are going to try to retroactively publish what they believe the design intent was supposed to be. They aren't *measuring* champ damage to determine the rating. They are saying "this champ was intended to have high damage, this one was intended to have average damage, this one was intended to have below average damage." They are just doing that with numbers and not adjectives.
*Separately* they will be using the game metrics to try to get an idea whether the champ *meets* that design rating. But they have always done that, this isn't something they are starting to do now. They are just formalizing the structure for how they do that so they can better communicate this to the players.
The devs are *not* making a tier list, or a four point ratings list. It is probably a misnomer to even call it a rating. It is more of a target. The reason why I say this is because of this:
When we conducted tuning changes in the past, the majority of negative feedback from the community was due to the fact that these tuning changes were conducted in a vacuum. Players had a hard time understanding what was overpowered and underpowered and had no input into what was changing.
Now, with the rating system, players will be able to better judge if a Champion is in the right place, and be able to give feedback along the way while updates are being made.
In other words, this sounds like the devs will be tuning champs to match the ratings, not set the ratings to match the champs. So the rating has to be more of what the devs want, not what they know the champ is. The ratings are subjective in a sense, because I believe they express intent. But that's unavoidable with intent. The point is not for the rating to be an absolute measure of a champ's performance. I believe it is to communicate to the players what the devs are aiming for, so devs and players are on the same page.
That's what I gathered. I also suspect it will assist in our own understanding, though I believe people will still compile their own judgments either way.
I wonder if the ratings will be rough. Say iHulk, Hyperion, and Archangel all have 5/5 for damage. They make new champ Blue Marvel and they want him to be in rank 5 but his output at Hyperion class is too hard to achieve and too shart to be of value so they tweak him.
That reminds me of the old Image comics rating system where god-tier Strength-Speed-Durability superhumans were called Majestic class after Mr Majestic (Superman pastiche for those those that don't know). That categorization could be easier for people to wrap their heads around. Saying "We want her to be Hyperion class ballpark for damage" and she's Grooting it up, you know they missed the mark and can convey that simply by saying, "Lol. No. She's Grooting like mad. Go back to the lab."
First off, I am stoked we got this, it was a great read and very informative. The buff program is looking promising. The only comment I have is this: "While Cull Obsidian or Namor’s changes were initially seen as majorly negative, Summoners soon found that the changes were not major, and continue to use those Champions to this day." Namor's nerf neutered him. He went from being one the top choices for many, many fights but after his nerf, he's been benched to fights that specifically require his max sig. Additionally, the nerf to his regen was unneeded and made it pretty much useless.
I wanted to echo your thoughts. I really want to be optimistic but I can’t.
The biggest issue with this is the blind reliance on (sometimes clearly faulty) data. Kabam is correct that the impact for these 2 wasn’t that big of a deal but the issue is a failure to understand why. Very few people liked using Cull because he has top end damage but nearly no end game viability due to trash block. Now he still has top end damage, but less so, and not much will change. Some people might still choose to use him but the nerf was just clearly 100% unnecessary. Namor was and is solid, but only when you’re max sig (a big ask). His ramp up was rather slow and now it’s worse so he’s less desirable for anything except super long unavoidable damage fights. Even setting all that aside, I don’t care how many times it’s repeated, Namor’s regen was nowhere, not even close, to some of the best in the game. It was barely passable. Anyone that played him knew that but instead a clearly faulty formula was relied upon so that his regen now may as well be non-existent. I still suspect that the data included not taking damage at max sig as healing from it thus grossly inflating the “heal”.
In other words, both were completely unnecessary nerfs. These are not a shining light of balance changes done right and proven over time. They were just tone deaf changes done in vacuum that still left the champions capable of performing their core functions but mainly just served to annoy players.
I appreciate that more flexibility is wanted in design and I completely agree with the concepts. But I haven’t seen a “balance” done right yet and that makes what could be exciting, instead quite terrifying. I’d feel a lot better if the previous tries were straight up owned as mistakes that won’t be repeated.
I fail to see why the player base is as you say it, “stupid”.
Essentially what is being told in this post is the beloved buff program is being replaced. This replacement will buff less champions and add a rating system that no one asked for or really wants.
It is refreshing to occasionally see just how stupid most of the playerbase is
Worknprogress
I fail to see why the player base is as you say it, “stupid”.
Essentially what is being told in this post is the beloved buff program is being replaced. This replacement will buff less champions and add a rating system that no one asked for or really wants.
I wouldn't say it's "beloved". It's only that way when people like a buff and there's been many times where people haven't. I'd say it was an accepted program but like everything else Kabam does, y'all hate unless it goes your way.
As a 6+ year player, I very rarely post on forums, but I do believe that either the intention here (either from the post or the system itself) missed the mark. That being said, I will keep my criticism constructive as to what I am comprehending from this post.
1. I do believe a rating system will be beneficial for newer players to the game, especially when knowing what champions are good for what - I think this is a plus. However, from an experienced player’s standpoint, it seems that this is more or less a waste of time; an experienced player knows what counters to bring, and when to bring them.
2. This program will reduce the buff cadence, which is helpful for all players. As a more experienced player, I rely on these monthly buffs to stay interested in the game. Buffed champs with new interactions, new mechanics, and new experiences alleviate the need for more content in an otherwise slow month (especially January and February). This is part of the reason that there’s been a forum post at the top of general for the past week asking for who the February buff champs are. I cannot stress this enough, but this is exactly why I am not in favor of this system. Buffed champs = more enjoyment = more likely to spend = alleviating boredom.
3. I agree with the idea of making the team’s intention clear to players for each champ. That, in itself, will help players understand what to expect for the champ’s purpose before even receiving it. It will be a (pardon the pun) Herculean task to classify all types of utility in the game as intended utility level by the team, but I wish them luck.
4. In contrast to the above, I disagree with the idea of balancing the champ after release - I believe the team is making this harder on themselves. By selling a champion upon release that can be potentially tuned-down or tuned-up, the consumer base will be more reluctant to buy this said champion, and it will create more hostility and discontent towards the team. A solution I would suggest is to extend the content creators’ beta for a champion to fix issues before release.
Final notes: I believe this is a case of good idea, horrible timing. Yes, this system should be implemented, but only after buffing the rest of the champs that need to be looked at - not take this system of prioritizing new champs’ edits over older ones. This is especially bad timing due to January and February being slow months. In addition, I do not think that a champion should be tuned down with this program; champions should be tuned down before release and then tuned up later if necessary.
Many of the issues are questionable at best. They're doing what they can to be open and clear on their goals with these reworks. Something that was definitely highlighted by the confusion people have had with the outcomes. They're also being realistic with the work load involved. As much as people tend to assume that all they have to do is change some values in one fell swoop to bring the bottom to the top, there's more work involved than that. It's never going to look like a list of God Tiers vs. Trash Tiers and how to make the Trash into God Tiers. I respect that people have their own analytics, but that's just not how they see their own product. We can't ask for communication and clarification and then turn our nose up at efforts to offer that.
I've said this for years. Players pick favorites. They choose "bests". However, as long as that exists, there will always be a "worst". It's ingrained in the very nature of comparison, and that's not something that's a reasonable goal to set for game balancing.
Disappointed 100%. What's the point now in putting sig stones into my 6* Herc? You guys are going to nurf like there's no tomorrow. Complete BS. Screw trying to get new champs, I hope this blows up in your faces.
Disappointed 100%. What's the point now in putting sig stones into my 6* Herc? You guys are going to nurf like there's no tomorrow. Complete BS. Screw trying to get new champs, I hope this blows up in your faces.
I might not have understood the post to its fullest, but it is safe to purchase i.e. Kitty crystals? Or was this why they changed the crystal update rotation for 6*?
It is refreshing to occasionally see just how stupid most of the playerbase is
Worknprogress
I fail to see why the player base is as you say it, “stupid”.
Essentially what is being told in this post is the beloved buff program is being replaced. This replacement will buff less champions and add a rating system that no one asked for or really wants.
I wouldn't say it's "beloved". It's only that way when people like a buff and there's been many times where people haven't. I'd say it was an accepted program but like everything else Kabam does, y'all hate unless it goes your way.
Despite some flaws. A majority of summoners enjoy the idea that many of the outdated champs in the game would be looked at and brought back to life. “Beloved” is a strong word but people have always enjoyed the program even in the months it “failed”.
Will this ability rating consider synergies as well? Because for example Cable is a complete dud himself with virtually no use anywhere, but with the apocalypse synergy he becomes a DOT god. Also there are lots of champs who gets completely new uses and utilities with synergies.
How about instead of this ability rebalancing initiative you rebalance the outdated rewards like Summoner advancement Alliance event rank rewards War win/loss rewards and crystals Quest crystals Alliance crystals
Disappointed 100%. What's the point now in putting sig stones into my 6* Herc? You guys are going to nurf like there's no tomorrow. Complete BS. Screw trying to get new champs, I hope this blows up in your faces.
Where did they say that?
Read it. They're talking about re-balancing of champs not just "new" champs. That's why they stated Namor and Cull nurfs as that we just didn't understand the balancing and still use them. I don't use either, they are both trash imo.
Once again this was a communication disaster, you first let the community get pretty impatient because no info on next month buff (that you promised) is given then out of the blue you tell us, nope no buff next month and that you will slow down the buffing program that the entire community love to introduce something that on paper sounds terrible and no one ever asked for. After the last several months of continuous issues you need to build up your trust in the community again not try to jeopardize the little you still have left.
Comments
I wonder if the ratings will be rough. Say iHulk, Hyperion, and Archangel all have 5/5 for damage. They make new champ Blue Marvel and they want him to be in rank 5 but his output at Hyperion class is too hard to achieve and too shart to be of value so they tweak him.
That reminds me of the old Image comics rating system where god-tier Strength-Speed-Durability superhumans were called Majestic class after Mr Majestic (Superman pastiche for those those that don't know). That categorization could be easier for people to wrap their heads around. Saying "We want her to be Hyperion class ballpark for damage" and she's Grooting it up, you know they missed the mark and can convey that simply by saying, "Lol. No. She's Grooting like mad. Go back to the lab."
The biggest issue with this is the blind reliance on (sometimes clearly faulty) data. Kabam is correct that the impact for these 2 wasn’t that big of a deal but the issue is a failure to understand why. Very few people liked using Cull because he has top end damage but nearly no end game viability due to trash block. Now he still has top end damage, but less so, and not much will change. Some people might still choose to use him but the nerf was just clearly 100% unnecessary.
Namor was and is solid, but only when you’re max sig (a big ask). His ramp up was rather slow and now it’s worse so he’s less desirable for anything except super long unavoidable damage fights. Even setting all that aside, I don’t care how many times it’s repeated, Namor’s regen was nowhere, not even close, to some of the best in the game. It was barely passable. Anyone that played him knew that but instead a clearly faulty formula was relied upon so that his regen now may as well be non-existent. I still suspect that the data included not taking damage at max sig as healing from it thus grossly inflating the “heal”.
In other words, both were completely unnecessary nerfs. These are not a shining light of balance changes done right and proven over time. They were just tone deaf changes done in vacuum that still left the champions capable of performing their core functions but mainly just served to annoy players.
I appreciate that more flexibility is wanted in design and I completely agree with the concepts. But I haven’t seen a “balance” done right yet and that makes what could be exciting, instead quite terrifying. I’d feel a lot better if the previous tries were straight up owned as mistakes that won’t be repeated.
I digress
I fail to see why the player base is as you say it, “stupid”.
Essentially what is being told in this post is the beloved buff program is being replaced. This replacement will buff less champions and add a rating system that no one asked for or really wants.
1. I do believe a rating system will be beneficial for newer players to the game, especially when knowing what champions are good for what - I think this is a plus. However, from an experienced player’s standpoint, it seems that this is more or less a waste of time; an experienced player knows what counters to bring, and when to bring them.
2. This program will reduce the buff cadence, which is helpful for all players. As a more experienced player, I rely on these monthly buffs to stay interested in the game. Buffed champs with new interactions, new mechanics, and new experiences alleviate the need for more content in an otherwise slow month (especially January and February). This is part of the reason that there’s been a forum post at the top of general for the past week asking for who the February buff champs are. I cannot stress this enough, but this is exactly why I am not in favor of this system. Buffed champs = more enjoyment = more likely to spend = alleviating boredom.
3. I agree with the idea of making the team’s intention clear to players for each champ. That, in itself, will help players understand what to expect for the champ’s purpose before even receiving it. It will be a (pardon the pun) Herculean task to classify all types of utility in the game as intended utility level by the team, but I wish them luck.
4. In contrast to the above, I disagree with the idea of balancing the champ after release - I believe the team is making this harder on themselves. By selling a champion upon release that can be potentially tuned-down or tuned-up, the consumer base will be more reluctant to buy this said champion, and it will create more hostility and discontent towards the team. A solution I would suggest is to extend the content creators’ beta for a champion to fix issues before release.
Final notes:
I believe this is a case of good idea, horrible timing. Yes, this system should be implemented, but only after buffing the rest of the champs that need to be looked at - not take this system of prioritizing new champs’ edits over older ones. This is especially bad timing due to January and February being slow months.
In addition, I do not think that a champion should be tuned down with this program; champions should be tuned down before release and then tuned up later if necessary.
We can't ask for communication and clarification and then turn our nose up at efforts to offer that.
Also there are lots of champs who gets completely new uses and utilities with synergies.
How about instead of this ability rebalancing initiative you rebalance the outdated rewards like
Summoner advancement
Alliance event rank rewards
War win/loss rewards and crystals
Quest crystals
Alliance crystals