**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
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.