I know that it was always a bug and was never meant to be, but it has been in-game for way too long to just gloss over and say that this is a correction. In any case...
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
I don't see a need for this nerf, it's nowhere near the Ghost, Quake and Hercules that are broken champions. I used 140 characteristic stones on it, I also had the Nick Fury dup as an option for the R4 era, but I chose the Mole Man.
My 6* R4, Apocalypse went up yesterday to R4.
My r4 molegod also feels your pain. Rank down tickets aren't something I ever wanted for this, but its not fair to not provide them
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
You’re saying that with the hindsight that Kabam confirmed it was a bug.
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
You’re saying that with the hindsight that Kabam confirmed it was a bug.
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
Again, clarity vs bugfixing. Even if you were correct, Moleman would not be fixed to improve clarity, the ability description would be changed to something completely different. Moleman's description would be misrepresenting how the champion actually functions, whereas Surging Vengeance simply isn't clear enough on specifics.
But again, given that the text was never fixed, and they're now confirming that the text was in fact not the issue, we know that's not the case.
I have no issues with Kabam fixing a bug so that Moleman works as intended. If they would have responded to the many threads from players asking if this was working as intended the pending change would feel very different. All they had to say is something like "we are looking into this and we may have to make a change at some point if we determine that he is not working as intended." Players did their due diligence by bringing the matter to Kabam for clarification. Because Kabam failed on their end to communicate with the players they have created the current situation and they ought to take some responsibility for it.
If the way that Moleman is working is gamebreaking, they should apologize and explain why this change is necessary for the stability of the game. If it is not gamebreaking they should acknowledge that they should have communicated when players brought up the issue ages ago, and that they will leave him as he is and change the description accordingly.
Given Moleman's description, Kabam can justifiably make this change. But when dealing with real people who are also your customers, the fact that you can do something doesn't necessarily mean that you should do it. By not responding to the players when asked if this was intended they have made this much worse than it needed to be.
I hope mods are reading … just …don’t change him. Leave him alone, change his description To match his current form and move on and not piss off an obviously annoyed player base. Avoid any rank down tickets talks this way too. I’d rather my r4 works as he does today than get a rank down ticket…if even offered
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
You’re saying that with the hindsight that Kabam confirmed it was a bug.
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
Again, clarity vs bugfixing. Even if you were correct, Moleman would not be fixed to improve clarity, the ability description would be changed to something completely different. Moleman's description would be misrepresenting how the champion actually functions, whereas Surging Vengeance simply isn't clear enough on specifics.
But again, given that the text was never fixed, and they're now confirming that the text was in fact not the issue, we know that's not the case.
How is it clarity vs bug fixing when I've asked you to assume the Moleman TA wasn't a bug?
Surging vengeance does misrepresent how the node functions. it states "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." consecutive means to follow continously, so 2 follows 1, 3 follows 2, it goes 1 then 2, then 3. But the node functions by allowing the AI to go from 1 to 3. That isn't what the node says. Consecutive means it cannot go from 1 straight to 3, because then it isn't consecutive from 1 to 3.
This means you'd have to change the node to something completely different, and if that's ok to do for SV, why not for moleman.
You seem to be drawing distinctions to suit your argument.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
Remember, ignore that we now know MM is bugged. This is in a hypothetical yesterday when we didn't have confirmation it was bugged. If you answer anything about it being bugged I will know you haven't read my post, because as of yesterday we didn't know it was bugged for sure.
Here's my question. Both descriptions misrepresent what happens in game, both would be fixed to accurately show what happens. What is the difference between those two situations?
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
You’re saying that with the hindsight that Kabam confirmed it was a bug.
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
Again, clarity vs bugfixing. Even if you were correct, Moleman would not be fixed to improve clarity, the ability description would be changed to something completely different. Moleman's description would be misrepresenting how the champion actually functions, whereas Surging Vengeance simply isn't clear enough on specifics.
But again, given that the text was never fixed, and they're now confirming that the text was in fact not the issue, we know that's not the case.
How is it clarity vs bug fixing when I've asked you to assume the Moleman TA wasn't a bug?
Surging vengeance does misrepresent how the node functions. it states "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." consecutive means to follow continously, so 2 follows 1, 3 follows 2, it goes 1 then 2, then 3. But the node functions by allowing the AI to go from 1 to 3. That isn't what the node says. Consecutive means it cannot go from 1 straight to 3, because then it isn't consecutive from 1 to 3.
This means you'd have to change the node to something completely different, and if that's ok to do for SV, why not for moleman.
You seem to be drawing distinctions to suit your argument.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
Remember, ignore that we now know MM is bugged. This is in a hypothetical yesterday when we didn't have confirmation it was bugged. If you answer anything about it being bugged I will know you haven't read my post, because as of yesterday we didn't know it was bugged for sure.
Here's my question. Both descriptions misrepresent what happens in game, both would be fixed to accurately show what happens. What is the difference between those two situations?
But Surging Vengeance doesn't misrepresent anything. Using a sp3 after sp1 is still in order. 3 always comes after 1. Again, the only thing that would change with updating SV's text is eliminating confusion as to how the ability functions, because the current text simply isn't clear enough. In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do. There is no confusion or clarification, it simply is a different ability than stated.
The issue with SV and NC are that their text can easily be misinterpreted. There is literally no way to interpret Moleman's text in a way that his gameplay is correctly represented.
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
You’re saying that with the hindsight that Kabam confirmed it was a bug.
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
Again, clarity vs bugfixing. Even if you were correct, Moleman would not be fixed to improve clarity, the ability description would be changed to something completely different. Moleman's description would be misrepresenting how the champion actually functions, whereas Surging Vengeance simply isn't clear enough on specifics.
But again, given that the text was never fixed, and they're now confirming that the text was in fact not the issue, we know that's not the case.
How is it clarity vs bug fixing when I've asked you to assume the Moleman TA wasn't a bug?
Surging vengeance does misrepresent how the node functions. it states "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." consecutive means to follow continously, so 2 follows 1, 3 follows 2, it goes 1 then 2, then 3. But the node functions by allowing the AI to go from 1 to 3. That isn't what the node says. Consecutive means it cannot go from 1 straight to 3, because then it isn't consecutive from 1 to 3.
This means you'd have to change the node to something completely different, and if that's ok to do for SV, why not for moleman.
You seem to be drawing distinctions to suit your argument.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
Remember, ignore that we now know MM is bugged. This is in a hypothetical yesterday when we didn't have confirmation it was bugged. If you answer anything about it being bugged I will know you haven't read my post, because as of yesterday we didn't know it was bugged for sure.
Here's my question. Both descriptions misrepresent what happens in game, both would be fixed to accurately show what happens. What is the difference between those two situations?
But Surging Vengeance doesn't misrepresent anything. Using a sp3 after sp1 is still in order. 3 always comes after 1. Again, the only thing that would change with updating SV's text is eliminating confusion as to how the ability functions, because the current text simply isn't clear enough. In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do. There is no confusion or clarification, it simply is a different ability than stated.
The issue with SV and NC are that their text can easily be misinterpreted. There is literally no way to interpret Moleman's text in a way that his gameplay is correctly represented.
AJLMZ
Is that the alphabet in order?
J always comes after A, M always after L and Z after J. But they're not consecutive are they, because consecutive means following each other continuously. 1 then 3 is not continuous. Nor is AJLMZ.
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
You’re saying that with the hindsight that Kabam confirmed it was a bug.
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
Again, clarity vs bugfixing. Even if you were correct, Moleman would not be fixed to improve clarity, the ability description would be changed to something completely different. Moleman's description would be misrepresenting how the champion actually functions, whereas Surging Vengeance simply isn't clear enough on specifics.
But again, given that the text was never fixed, and they're now confirming that the text was in fact not the issue, we know that's not the case.
How is it clarity vs bug fixing when I've asked you to assume the Moleman TA wasn't a bug?
Surging vengeance does misrepresent how the node functions. it states "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." consecutive means to follow continously, so 2 follows 1, 3 follows 2, it goes 1 then 2, then 3. But the node functions by allowing the AI to go from 1 to 3. That isn't what the node says. Consecutive means it cannot go from 1 straight to 3, because then it isn't consecutive from 1 to 3.
This means you'd have to change the node to something completely different, and if that's ok to do for SV, why not for moleman.
You seem to be drawing distinctions to suit your argument.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
Remember, ignore that we now know MM is bugged. This is in a hypothetical yesterday when we didn't have confirmation it was bugged. If you answer anything about it being bugged I will know you haven't read my post, because as of yesterday we didn't know it was bugged for sure.
Here's my question. Both descriptions misrepresent what happens in game, both would be fixed to accurately show what happens. What is the difference between those two situations?
But Surging Vengeance doesn't misrepresent anything. Using a sp3 after sp1 is still in order. 3 always comes after 1. Again, the only thing that would change with updating SV's text is eliminating confusion as to how the ability functions, because the current text simply isn't clear enough. In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do. There is no confusion or clarification, it simply is a different ability than stated.
The issue with SV and NC are that their text can easily be misinterpreted. There is literally no way to interpret Moleman's text in a way that his gameplay is correctly represented.
Or the text doesn’t accurately describe how he plays in game…
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
You’re saying that with the hindsight that Kabam confirmed it was a bug.
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
Again, clarity vs bugfixing. Even if you were correct, Moleman would not be fixed to improve clarity, the ability description would be changed to something completely different. Moleman's description would be misrepresenting how the champion actually functions, whereas Surging Vengeance simply isn't clear enough on specifics.
But again, given that the text was never fixed, and they're now confirming that the text was in fact not the issue, we know that's not the case.
How is it clarity vs bug fixing when I've asked you to assume the Moleman TA wasn't a bug?
Surging vengeance does misrepresent how the node functions. it states "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." consecutive means to follow continously, so 2 follows 1, 3 follows 2, it goes 1 then 2, then 3. But the node functions by allowing the AI to go from 1 to 3. That isn't what the node says. Consecutive means it cannot go from 1 straight to 3, because then it isn't consecutive from 1 to 3.
This means you'd have to change the node to something completely different, and if that's ok to do for SV, why not for moleman.
You seem to be drawing distinctions to suit your argument.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
Remember, ignore that we now know MM is bugged. This is in a hypothetical yesterday when we didn't have confirmation it was bugged. If you answer anything about it being bugged I will know you haven't read my post, because as of yesterday we didn't know it was bugged for sure.
Here's my question. Both descriptions misrepresent what happens in game, both would be fixed to accurately show what happens. What is the difference between those two situations?
But Surging Vengeance doesn't misrepresent anything. Using a sp3 after sp1 is still in order. 3 always comes after 1. Again, the only thing that would change with updating SV's text is eliminating confusion as to how the ability functions, because the current text simply isn't clear enough. In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do. There is no confusion or clarification, it simply is a different ability than stated.
The issue with SV and NC are that their text can easily be misinterpreted. There is literally no way to interpret Moleman's text in a way that his gameplay is correctly represented.
AJLMZ
Is that the alphabet in order?
J always comes after A, M always after L and Z after J. But they're not consecutive are they, because consecutive means following each other continuously. 1 then 3 is not continuous. Nor is AJLMZ.
But they are in alphabetical order. It isn't the entire alphabet, but that wasn't specified, which is precisely the issue with SV; lack of specification. Again, this comes down to interpretation. This isn't the case with Moleman. There is no way to understand "optional" in "While Frenzy is not active".
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
You’re saying that with the hindsight that Kabam confirmed it was a bug.
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
Again, clarity vs bugfixing. Even if you were correct, Moleman would not be fixed to improve clarity, the ability description would be changed to something completely different. Moleman's description would be misrepresenting how the champion actually functions, whereas Surging Vengeance simply isn't clear enough on specifics.
But again, given that the text was never fixed, and they're now confirming that the text was in fact not the issue, we know that's not the case.
How is it clarity vs bug fixing when I've asked you to assume the Moleman TA wasn't a bug?
Surging vengeance does misrepresent how the node functions. it states "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." consecutive means to follow continously, so 2 follows 1, 3 follows 2, it goes 1 then 2, then 3. But the node functions by allowing the AI to go from 1 to 3. That isn't what the node says. Consecutive means it cannot go from 1 straight to 3, because then it isn't consecutive from 1 to 3.
This means you'd have to change the node to something completely different, and if that's ok to do for SV, why not for moleman.
You seem to be drawing distinctions to suit your argument.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
Remember, ignore that we now know MM is bugged. This is in a hypothetical yesterday when we didn't have confirmation it was bugged. If you answer anything about it being bugged I will know you haven't read my post, because as of yesterday we didn't know it was bugged for sure.
Here's my question. Both descriptions misrepresent what happens in game, both would be fixed to accurately show what happens. What is the difference between those two situations?
But Surging Vengeance doesn't misrepresent anything. Using a sp3 after sp1 is still in order. 3 always comes after 1. Again, the only thing that would change with updating SV's text is eliminating confusion as to how the ability functions, because the current text simply isn't clear enough. In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do. There is no confusion or clarification, it simply is a different ability than stated.
The issue with SV and NC are that their text can easily be misinterpreted. There is literally no way to interpret Moleman's text in a way that his gameplay is correctly represented.
AJLMZ
Is that the alphabet in order?
J always comes after A, M always after L and Z after J. But they're not consecutive are they, because consecutive means following each other continuously. 1 then 3 is not continuous. Nor is AJLMZ.
But they are in alphabetical order. It isn't the entire alphabet, but that wasn't specified, which is precisely the issue with SV; lack of specification. Again, this comes down to interpretation. This isn't the case with Moleman. There is no way to understand "optional" in "While Frenzy is not active".
You're misunderstanding consecutive. That means that it is actually 10000% specified.
Definition: "following each other continuously. in unbroken or logical sequence:" "five consecutive months of serious decline" So April, May, June, July and august. Not, January, April, August, November, December.
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions, both in text and gameplay. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
My question is this bug has not been around for a few days or week. It's been over a year. So, they had time to see the effect this bug had on the contest. Does that mean they saw it was game breaking based on the data they collected? Or was the bug a result of something else that they finally fixed which inadvertently fixed moleman as well, forcing them to post that change in the patch notes?. Why change the champion now when he was better before?
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.
With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.
In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?
My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)
Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.
So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.
Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.
So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?
Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
Knowingly attempt to exploit known bugs and you end up paying the price once said bug is fixed. What a shocker.
I'm sure you'll point me to where Kabam confirmed this was a bug.
Or I'm sure you can explain why we can assume all descriptions are correct when they get fixed monthly because there are mistakes, and because there are nodes that don't act according to their descriptions.
I'm sure.
Descriptions get fixed monthly, you say. How many months ago was moleman reworked? Wonder how that flew under the radar for so long despite having been mentioned repeatedly by players. Maybe the issue wasn't with the ability description? Just throwing out a possibility.
Champion description is what a champion is advertised as, and is what players first see, assuming they actually take the time to read abilities, and therefore is what should be assumed as correct, rather than picking and choosing whichever side happens to be most convenient to you. If an ability description is incorrect, it usually does get fixed quickly after having been discovered, and I'd imagine is also infinitely easier to fix than the alternative, so they really had no reason to hold off for that long if the issue really was ability text.
This is really just a repeat of the Doom/Wasp vs stun immunity bugfix. Now, try to remember how many rank-down tickets were handed out then, and that'll give you a good idea of how many will be given out this time around.
Right, so no pointing to where Kabam said it was a bug.
And your explanation of why we should take descriptions as accurate is “Kabam usually fix it”. Surging vengeance has been in the game for years. Night crawler’s sp3 description has been changed today after 5 years. So that explanation doesn’t hold. How come that hasn’t been fixed?
So I’ll ask again:
When did Kabam confirm it was a bug?
And why should we assume all descriptions are accurate when some get changed after 5 years, and some aren’t changed at all, while Kabam haven’t addressed Moleman’s bug ever?
Surging Vengeance and Nightcrawler are cases of improving clarity, not fixing bugs. Nothing is malfunctioning with either of those abilities, whether in text or gameplay. Moleman's description is very clear and leaves no room for confusion, so there's really no comparison there.
You’re saying that with the hindsight that Kabam confirmed it was a bug.
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
Again, clarity vs bugfixing. Even if you were correct, Moleman would not be fixed to improve clarity, the ability description would be changed to something completely different. Moleman's description would be misrepresenting how the champion actually functions, whereas Surging Vengeance simply isn't clear enough on specifics.
But again, given that the text was never fixed, and they're now confirming that the text was in fact not the issue, we know that's not the case.
How is it clarity vs bug fixing when I've asked you to assume the Moleman TA wasn't a bug?
Surging vengeance does misrepresent how the node functions. it states "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." consecutive means to follow continously, so 2 follows 1, 3 follows 2, it goes 1 then 2, then 3. But the node functions by allowing the AI to go from 1 to 3. That isn't what the node says. Consecutive means it cannot go from 1 straight to 3, because then it isn't consecutive from 1 to 3.
This means you'd have to change the node to something completely different, and if that's ok to do for SV, why not for moleman.
You seem to be drawing distinctions to suit your argument.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
Remember, ignore that we now know MM is bugged. This is in a hypothetical yesterday when we didn't have confirmation it was bugged. If you answer anything about it being bugged I will know you haven't read my post, because as of yesterday we didn't know it was bugged for sure.
Here's my question. Both descriptions misrepresent what happens in game, both would be fixed to accurately show what happens. What is the difference between those two situations?
But Surging Vengeance doesn't misrepresent anything. Using a sp3 after sp1 is still in order. 3 always comes after 1. Again, the only thing that would change with updating SV's text is eliminating confusion as to how the ability functions, because the current text simply isn't clear enough. In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do. There is no confusion or clarification, it simply is a different ability than stated.
The issue with SV and NC are that their text can easily be misinterpreted. There is literally no way to interpret Moleman's text in a way that his gameplay is correctly represented.
AJLMZ
Is that the alphabet in order?
J always comes after A, M always after L and Z after J. But they're not consecutive are they, because consecutive means following each other continuously. 1 then 3 is not continuous. Nor is AJLMZ.
But they are in alphabetical order. It isn't the entire alphabet, but that wasn't specified, which is precisely the issue with SV; lack of specification. Again, this comes down to interpretation. This isn't the case with Moleman. There is no way to understand "optional" in "While Frenzy is not active".
When frenzy is not active and moleman is under 10 monster mass, he gains TA. Since it doesn’t explicitly state that he loses TA when frenzy activates, I can also interpret this as ‘when frenzy is not active and moleman is under 10 MM, he gains TA. When frenzy is activated, his TA stays active regardless of how many MM he has’ I know that’s not what’s in the game but dont you think people who assumed this as true are not wrong? Since that’s how he functioned in game. It could have very well been an omission in description on the part of kabam since they never said otherwise.
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.
With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.
In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?
My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)
Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.
So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.
Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.
So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?
Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.
Allow me to break this down for you.
Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.
In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.
Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.
Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.
With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.
In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?
My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)
Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.
So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.
Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.
So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?
Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.
Allow me to break this down for you.
Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.
In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.
Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.
Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.
All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.
With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.
In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?
My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)
Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.
So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.
Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.
So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?
Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.
Allow me to break this down for you.
Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.
In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.
Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.
Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
Right, so you don't understand my hypothetical. Lot of words to just admit that.
I have said all along, that my hypothetical is that Moleman functions exactly how he does in game. So your second potential scenario.
I haven't created an entirely new ability that's even better than both, and I fear for your reading comprehension that you think I have.
My whole hypothetical is that the only issue with Moleman is clarity, because his description doesn't match in game. The only twisting occurring here is your desperate attempt or tragic failure to understand very simple things that I'm saying. I'm not sure why you feel the need to misrepresent my points as a lie or as false to fit your own view.
Have a think about whether you're doing this by accident or on purpose, if it's accident I'd really take a step back and try and work out where you got confused, or if it's on purpose have a think about why you feel the need to avoid my points - it's probably because you don't know how to argue against them.
I'll leave this one here, you're obviously not someone who can deal with opposing points of view.
Are you aware of what the word "clarity" means?
Nightcrawler is a case of clarity due to the fact that the "disorient" in his ability text does not refer to an existing game mechanic with the same name.
Surging Vengeance is a case of clarity due to the fact it's missing information in the node's description.
Moleman's ability is NOT a case of clarity due to the fact that his text literally contradicts what his abilities do in game.
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.
With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.
In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?
My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)
Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.
So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.
Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.
So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?
Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.
Allow me to break this down for you.
Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.
In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.
Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.
Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.
All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
except for the fact that if the issue were with the ability text, as I said multiple times already, it would've already been fixed a long time ago considering the issue was brought up well over a year ago, and they have to reason to leave that to sit when tweaking an ability's description is much easier than having to go and alter game mechanics.
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.
With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.
In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?
My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)
Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.
So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.
Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.
So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?
Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.
Allow me to break this down for you.
Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.
In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.
Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.
Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.
All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
Which is exactly my point, thank you! Felt like I was going mad.
If the description can be changed to what is in game, then it's the same as Surging vengeance. Both are long term issues that haven't been fixed and need more clarity with their description to match what happens in game, and therefore nobody could possibly know if it's a bug or not, whether the description should be changed to fit the game, or the game should be fixed to fit the description.
That means, nobody could possibly know it's a definite bug when they ranked moleman and when you add that to the fact Kabam never told us it was a bug, Moleman's rank ups were all within reason that he was working correctly.
please kabam dont do this, i use r3-4 skill gem for my mole man, i rank up mole man for this true acc still active while frenzy mode. please man dont do this. or u need to give back the R3-4 skill gem back:(
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.
With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.
In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?
My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)
Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.
So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.
Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.
So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?
Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.
Allow me to break this down for you.
Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.
In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.
Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.
Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.
All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
Which is exactly my point, thank you! Felt like I was going mad.
If the description can be changed to what is in game, then it's the same as Surging vengeance. Both are long term issues that haven't been fixed and need more clarity with their description to match what happens in game, and therefore nobody could possibly know if it's a bug or not, whether the description should be changed to fit the game, or the game should be fixed to fit the description.
That means, nobody could possibly know it's a definite bug when they ranked moleman and when you add that to the fact Kabam never told us it was a bug, Moleman's rank ups were all within reason that he was working correctly.
Exactly whatI was saying. We really couldnt know which they would decide to go with.
@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive" to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.
With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.
In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?
My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)
Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.
So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.
Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.
So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?
Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.
Allow me to break this down for you.
Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.
In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.
Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.
Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.
All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
except for the fact that if the issue were with the ability text, as I said multiple times already, it would've already been fixed a long time ago considering the issue was brought up well over a year ago, and they have to reason to leave that to sit when tweaking an ability's description is much easier than having to go and alter game mechanics.
Either way, kabam had over a year to say if this is bug and will be fixed or the description is incorrect.
Neither has happened and players are left to use the champ as is.
I just need my rank down ticket. I never ranked mine until someone pointed out how he counters evade and autoblock if I activate frenzy under 10 monster mass. KP has been my man all this time that I didn’t care to even bother about Moleman. And when I just took mine up less than 2weeks ago because the alliance went praising his true accuracy. I’m not saying they should or should not make the change, but it was in the game too long so some of us who just pull the champ recently to think it’s normal. So just give me my resources back, I will use it on someone else.
Comments
Before yesterday there was a possibility that Kabam would announce “Moleman’s ability description is being fixed to say “when below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”. That goes against your reading of the situation, which is fine, but as Kabam never confirmed it either way, you cannot say that it’s clear because there’s a chance it was not right. If it was updated, then it would accurately reflect what happens in game.
Forget for a moment that Moleman’s TA was a bug. What’s the difference between surging vengeance description being fixed to accurately reflect what happens in game, and Moleman’s description being updated to reflect what happens in game?
But again, given that the text was never fixed, and they're now confirming that the text was in fact not the issue, we know that's not the case.
Surging vengeance does misrepresent how the node functions. it states "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3." consecutive means to follow continously, so 2 follows 1, 3 follows 2, it goes 1 then 2, then 3. But the node functions by allowing the AI to go from 1 to 3. That isn't what the node says. Consecutive means it cannot go from 1 straight to 3, because then it isn't consecutive from 1 to 3.
This means you'd have to change the node to something completely different, and if that's ok to do for SV, why not for moleman.
You seem to be drawing distinctions to suit your argument.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes
from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive"
to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes
from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3."
to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
Remember, ignore that we now know MM is bugged. This is in a hypothetical yesterday when we didn't have confirmation it was bugged. If you answer anything about it being bugged I will know you haven't read my post, because as of yesterday we didn't know it was bugged for sure.
Here's my question. Both descriptions misrepresent what happens in game, both would be fixed to accurately show what happens. What is the difference between those two situations?
The issue with SV and NC are that their text can easily be misinterpreted. There is literally no way to interpret Moleman's text in a way that his gameplay is correctly represented.
This is basically a nerf reverting him back to having to decide between utility or damage.
I would expect rank down tickets so that I can rank up a different skill champ.
Is that the alphabet in order?
J always comes after A, M always after L and Z after J. But they're not consecutive are they, because consecutive means following each other continuously. 1 then 3 is not continuous. Nor is AJLMZ.
It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".
So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.
Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:
Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.
Moleman's description goes
from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive"
to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.
Surging Vengeance goes
from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3."
to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".
just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.
What is the difference between those two situations?
Definition:
"following each other continuously. in unbroken or logical sequence:"
"five consecutive months of serious decline"
So April, May, June, July and august. Not, January, April, August, November, December.
With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.
In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?
My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)
Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.
So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.
Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.
So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?
Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
Since it doesn’t explicitly state that he loses TA when frenzy activates, I can also interpret this as ‘when frenzy is not active and moleman is under 10 MM, he gains TA. When frenzy is activated, his TA stays active regardless of how many MM he has’
I know that’s not what’s in the game but dont you think people who assumed this as true are not wrong? Since that’s how he functioned in game. It could have very well been an omission in description on the part of kabam since they never said otherwise.
Allow me to break this down for you.
Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.
In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.
Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.
Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.
So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.
All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
Nightcrawler is a case of clarity due to the fact that the "disorient" in his ability text does not refer to an existing game mechanic with the same name.
Surging Vengeance is a case of clarity due to the fact it's missing information in the node's description.
Moleman's ability is NOT a case of clarity due to the fact that his text literally contradicts what his abilities do in game.
If the description can be changed to what is in game, then it's the same as Surging vengeance. Both are long term issues that haven't been fixed and need more clarity with their description to match what happens in game, and therefore nobody could possibly know if it's a bug or not, whether the description should be changed to fit the game, or the game should be fixed to fit the description.
That means, nobody could possibly know it's a definite bug when they ranked moleman and when you add that to the fact Kabam never told us it was a bug, Moleman's rank ups were all within reason that he was working correctly.
Neither has happened and players are left to use the champ as is.
Somehow that doesn't go over well.