Perhaps. Or the team could’ve acknowledged how popular he’s been in his current form for a very long time and updated his ability description. It might be a “fix” but it feels like it’s coming from the same place as the whole Namor/Cull nerf fiasco from a few years ago (ie “No, you can’t have nice things!”)
And I’m not sure it’s a particularly canny time to annoy a lot of customers.
Cull is still god, the bad thing is that he doesn't resist blows of any kind, he's made of paper
@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.
Except for the fact that if the issue was functionality Kabam would have announced or responded to the many posts regarding it, and mentioned that he will eventually be fixed, right? No. So we could assume they would just fix the description error, but not say anything for over a year about it being a bug.
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:(
Listen to this guy or he’s gonna have to change his forum name…
Seriously though kabamm gods.. kabam jax..looking at you mr reasonable.. keep him as is or issue rank down tickets (even sig backs?) as an r4s200 moleman owner, I didn’t take the decision lightly to pour resources into him. At the very least r4 rank downs. I think r3s are easy enough to come by now and he’s a great champ but many would have left him at r3 if you neuter him.
@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.
Except for the fact that if the issue was functionality Kabam would have announced it or responded to the many posts regarding it.
Not really? We're all very well aware of how unresponsive they are with gameplay-related issues, so the fact that anyone is surprised at any lack of communication is hilarious. Y'all are sitting here acting based on the least likely scenarios simply because it suits you best and then want to complain when the 90% comes. That's completely your fault and no one else's.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
@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.
Except for the fact that if the issue was functionality Kabam would have announced it or responded to the many posts regarding it.
Not really? We're all very well aware of how unresponsive they are with gameplay-related issues, so the fact that anyone is surprised at any lack of communication is hilarious. Y'all are sitting here acting based on the least likely scenarios simply because it suits you best and then want to complain when the 90% comes. That's completely your fault and no one else's.
Kabam are bad so it's your fault
Kabam are bad so it's your responsibility
Kabam are bad so you should expect it
Mr Fantastic would be proud with the amount you're stretching for your points
Thanks for twisting my point once again. You're doing a great job at it.
Your points are plenty bad without me twisting them my guy.
We are surprised by the lack of communication, and we feel that means some of the blame lies with Kabam. But you think "That's completely your fault and no one else's".
You're so eager to blame others, maybe Kabam aren't faultless here.
Thanks for twisting my point once again. You're doing a great job at it.
Not once did I say anyone besides Kabam is at fault for Kabam's unresponsiveness, but go ahead and interpret that as you will.
@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.
Except for the fact that if the issue was functionality Kabam would have announced it or responded to the many posts regarding it.
Not really? We're all very well aware of how unresponsive they are with gameplay-related issues, so the fact that anyone is surprised at any lack of communication is hilarious. Y'all are sitting here acting based on the least likely scenarios simply because it suits you best and then want to complain when the 90% comes. That's completely your fault and no one else's.
Kabam are bad so it's your fault
Kabam are bad so it's your responsibility
Kabam are bad so you should expect it
Mr Fantastic would be proud with the amount you're stretching for your points
Thanks for twisting my point once again. You're doing a great job at it.
Your points are plenty bad without me twisting them my guy.
We are surprised by the lack of communication, and we feel that means some of the blame lies with Kabam. But you think "That's completely your fault and no one else's".
You're so eager to blame others, maybe Kabam aren't faultless here.
Thanks for twisting my point once again. You're doing a great job at it.
Not once did I say anyone besides Kabam is at fault for Kabam's unresponsiveness, but go ahead and interpret that as you will.
So if Kabam are partly at fault, why shouldn't they do something to fix what they did?
@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.
Except for the fact that if the issue was functionality Kabam would have announced it or responded to the many posts regarding it.
Not really? We're all very well aware of how unresponsive they are with gameplay-related issues, so the fact that anyone is surprised at any lack of communication is hilarious. Y'all are sitting here acting based on the least likely scenarios simply because it suits you best and then want to complain when the 90% comes. That's completely your fault and no one else's.
Kabam are bad so it's your fault
Kabam are bad so it's your responsibility
Kabam are bad so you should expect it
Mr Fantastic would be proud with the amount you're stretching for your points
Thanks for twisting my point once again. You're doing a great job at it.
Your points are plenty bad without me twisting them my guy.
We are surprised by the lack of communication, and we feel that means some of the blame lies with Kabam. But you think "That's completely your fault and no one else's".
You're so eager to blame others, maybe Kabam aren't faultless here.
Thanks for twisting my point once again. You're doing a great job at it.
Not once did I say anyone besides Kabam is at fault for Kabam's unresponsiveness, but go ahead and interpret that as you will.
So if Kabam are partly at fault, why shouldn't they do something to fix what they did?
At this point there is nothing to fix, unless you're saying you're capable of inventing a time machine to send them back to send us a message that Moleman is in fact bugged.
The change itself is 100% justified and should've been expected, but people decided to ignore that and blow their resources regardless.
And somehow you manage to turn this into me saying Kabam's unresponsiveness was justified. Please.
@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.
Except for the fact that if the issue was functionality Kabam would have announced it or responded to the many posts regarding it.
Not really? We're all very well aware of how unresponsive they are with gameplay-related issues, so the fact that anyone is surprised at any lack of communication is hilarious. Y'all are sitting here acting based on the least likely scenarios simply because it suits you best and then want to complain when the 90% comes. That's completely your fault and no one else's.
LMAO. So we know this isn't a text error, because they would have quickly fixed it, but we shouldnt expect them to take the same amount of time, or less, to post/respond that this is a functional bug. Hahaha you're a funny guy/gal.
If you can assume that an error in text would be fixed in a timely manner, then the community could assume Kabam could take that time to address this as a bug.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
What about the many people that were not aware of this nor even heard about it? Many made decisions based on what they experienced personally and from what others said without ever hearing a disclaimer that this is only temporal. I would think they should know that certain changes need to be addressed right away or it can take on a new life or meaning.
@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.
Except for the fact that if the issue was functionality Kabam would have announced it or responded to the many posts regarding it.
Not really? We're all very well aware of how unresponsive they are with gameplay-related issues, so the fact that anyone is surprised at any lack of communication is hilarious. Y'all are sitting here acting based on the least likely scenarios simply because it suits you best and then want to complain when the 90% comes. That's completely your fault and no one else's.
Kabam are bad so it's your fault
Kabam are bad so it's your responsibility
Kabam are bad so you should expect it
Mr Fantastic would be proud with the amount you're stretching for your points
Thanks for twisting my point once again. You're doing a great job at it.
Your points are plenty bad without me twisting them my guy.
We are surprised by the lack of communication, and we feel that means some of the blame lies with Kabam. But you think "That's completely your fault and no one else's".
You're so eager to blame others, maybe Kabam aren't faultless here.
Thanks for twisting my point once again. You're doing a great job at it.
Not once did I say anyone besides Kabam is at fault for Kabam's unresponsiveness, but go ahead and interpret that as you will.
So if Kabam are partly at fault, why shouldn't they do something to fix what they did?
At this point there is nothing to fix, unless you're saying you're capable of inventing a time machine to send them back to send us a message that Moleman is in fact bugged.
The change itself is 100% justified and should've been expected, but people decided to ignore that and blow their resources regardless.
And somehow you manage to turn this into me saying Kabam's unresponsiveness was justified. Please.
A rank down ticket specific to moleman would more than fix Kabam's mistake of being unresponsive as you admit they have been. The conversation is done now, you admit Kabam has been unresponsive, you admit they should have told us he was bugged. What can they do to fix that? Let us unrank a champion built on a bug they failed to tell us. I'll stress again, this is not built on me wanting a moleman RDT, I don't really use mine or care. It's the principle that I think is the right thing to do, though I'm not convinced you'll be able to square that particular circle.
I appreciate you won't be able to say you agree with me, because your whole stubborn argument was built on not handing out RDTs, but I think we both know I'm right. Either you think Kabam is blameless, or you think they played a part and to fix that, they can do something about it. I really am done this time, I look forward to your response about how I twisted your words to make you seem bad when really, your points are just bad to begin with. Have a good one.
I look forward to your response about how I twisted your words to make you seem bad when really, your points are just bad to begin with.
Unnecessary but alright I guess.
Giving out RDTs doesn't fix Kabam's mistake, if anything all it does it encourage players to continue abusing publicly known bugs, and the next time a long-time bug is fixed the exact same problem will occur once again, just like it did with AA, just like it did with Doom/Wasp. Both sides are to be held accountable. You ranked up a champion? You don't get a do-over. You knew what you were getting into.
As for what Kabam should actually do, is fix their lack of communication rather than any band-aid fixes players will want to suggest. At the end of the day, they just need to let us know what's going on. If you ask me, whether or not a bug is present and in line to get fixed should be a given, but as far as whether or not the bug could've been fixed earlier, we don't know, because a lot of thing could either 1. get in the way of fixing certain bugs, or 2. simply be higher priority fixes, and this does need to be communicated with players.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
This is absolutely a nerf. Bug or not, people ranked him up for this utility, myself included. Was there ever any communication from Kabam saying they were going to fix it?
If not, we should have the selling thing like with Namor and Cull because that is better than rank down tickets.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing. Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't. We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here. Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left?
Didnt say it was unintended either. There’s no way of knowing, description differed from actual use for such a long time without clarification that no one could really keep track anymore.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing. Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't. We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here. Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
How long did it take for you to post this response? Maybe a minute? That’s something the mods could have done when numerous questions about this ‘bug’ were raised. They could have said it’s a bug and will be fixed in the future and all this could have been avoided. All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing. Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't. We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here. Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
How long did it take for you to post this response? Maybe a minute? That’s something the mods could have done when numerous questions about this ‘bug’ were raised. They could have said it’s a bug and will be fixed in the future and all this could have been avoided. All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.
I never said anything about RDTs. I leave that up to peoples' requests and Kabam. As for confirmation, there were a few Posts over a year ago that were overlooked. After that, pretty much radio silence on our end as well. That's because no one was looking. They wanted it to be left.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing. Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't. We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here. Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
How long did it take for you to post this response? Maybe a minute? That’s something the mods could have done when numerous questions about this ‘bug’ were raised. They could have said it’s a bug and will be fixed in the future and all this could have been avoided. All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.
I never said anything about RDTs. I leave that up to peoples' requests and Kabam. As for confirmation, there were a few Posts over a year ago that were overlooked. After that, pretty much radio silence on our end as well. That's because no one was looking. They wanted it to be left.
There’s one thread, I’d have to find it, about r4ing Moleman with a 7.4 gem or not to due to lack of communication surrounding his potential bug. Radio silence there too.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing. Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't. We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here. Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
How long did it take for you to post this response? Maybe a minute? That’s something the mods could have done when numerous questions about this ‘bug’ were raised. They could have said it’s a bug and will be fixed in the future and all this could have been avoided. All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.
I never said anything about RDTs. I leave that up to peoples' requests and Kabam. As for confirmation, there were a few Posts over a year ago that were overlooked. After that, pretty much radio silence on our end as well. That's because no one was looking. They wanted it to be left.
There’s one thread, I’d have to find it, about r4ing Moleman with a 7.4 gem or not to due to lack of communication surrounding his potential bug. Radio silence there too.
"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them." Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing. Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't. We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here. Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
How long did it take for you to post this response? Maybe a minute? That’s something the mods could have done when numerous questions about this ‘bug’ were raised. They could have said it’s a bug and will be fixed in the future and all this could have been avoided. All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.
I never said anything about RDTs. I leave that up to peoples' requests and Kabam. As for confirmation, there were a few Posts over a year ago that were overlooked. After that, pretty much radio silence on our end as well. That's because no one was looking. They wanted it to be left.
There’s one thread, I’d have to find it, about r4ing Moleman with a 7.4 gem or not to due to lack of communication surrounding his potential bug. Radio silence there too.
It’s nuts how it was literally edited by Ziibit. They knew. They knew it was an issue that people were confused about since the moment the confusion popped up, and they didn’t do anything to tell us either way.
This is such a massive let down in communication, Rank down tickets are what’s needed to make it right here. You can tell that it is, because any time RDTs are mentioned it’s a guaranteed way to get a heavy disagree ratio. At the moment, my post saying RDTs should be given is 54:8 for positive:negative reactions. People are disappointed and haven’t been this in favour of RDTs since the hood 1.0 buff.
Kabam seem to have made a push for communication with Jax being hired and he’s made a really good impact. Let’s carry that on with some good communication here and explain why there’s a good reason to not give RDTs when a failure in Kabam’s communication over a year and 4 months led to people feeling they can rank up a bugged champion.
Its funny Kabam always chooses the worst route when it comes to this. You have a champion that is slightly bugged since release in a way that is pro-player/player beneficial but not enough to be gamebreaking yet they decide to rectify the change 2 years later when lots of players have probably ranked up, loved using the champion.
Is it really wrong to just say, hey players seem to be enjoying this lil extra utility on the champ and it doesn't really make the champ too overpowering, lets just keep it as it's been so long already. Do that and they'll get thanked by the community instead of stirring up a whole debacle about this.
It was a bug, since it's not what his description implies... but Kabam has known about this for a long while... players have encouraged each other to pursue moleman for this pro-player glitch... therefore they should have just updated his description and let it be... with all the other things they could have fixed that have been broken for so long that hurt players this is just like a slap in the face honestly, I use moleman for a lot of content. The bug wasn't game breaking cause you still had to manage monster masses to maintain it... Kabam you guys need to fix the lag and input issue now... you've had plenty of time to figure it out now since you have had time to mess up moleman.
Kabam seem to have made a push for communication with Jax being hired and he’s made a really good impact. Let’s carry that on with some good communication here and explain why there’s a good reason to not give RDTs when a failure in Kabam’s communication over a year and 4 months led to people feeling they can rank up a bugged champion.
Jax has been very good and fairly quick to respond to many things here. I think his silence on this thread tells us everything we need to know.
Kabam seem to have made a push for communication with Jax being hired and he’s made a really good impact. Let’s carry that on with some good communication here and explain why there’s a good reason to not give RDTs when a failure in Kabam’s communication over a year and 4 months led to people feeling they can rank up a bugged champion.
Jax has been very good and fairly quick to respond to many things here. I think his silence on this thread tells us everything we need to know.
I have noticed this too. The issues he has replied to have gotten resolutions, which does not bode well for this topic
Comments
Seriously though kabamm gods.. kabam jax..looking at you mr reasonable.. keep him as is or issue rank down tickets (even sig backs?) as an r4s200 moleman owner, I didn’t take the decision lightly to pour resources into him. At the very least r4 rank downs. I think r3s are easy enough to come by now and he’s a great champ but many would have left him at r3 if you neuter him.
i forgot that this was even a bug
i feel betrayed
Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
Not once did I say anyone besides Kabam is at fault for Kabam's unresponsiveness, but go ahead and interpret that as you will.
The change itself is 100% justified and should've been expected, but people decided to ignore that and blow their resources regardless.
And somehow you manage to turn this into me saying Kabam's unresponsiveness was justified. Please.
If you can assume that an error in text would be fixed in a timely manner, then the community could assume Kabam could take that time to address this as a bug.
Unnecessary but alright I guess.
Giving out RDTs doesn't fix Kabam's mistake, if anything all it does it encourage players to continue abusing publicly known bugs, and the next time a long-time bug is fixed the exact same problem will occur once again, just like it did with AA, just like it did with Doom/Wasp. Both sides are to be held accountable. You ranked up a champion? You don't get a do-over. You knew what you were getting into.
As for what Kabam should actually do, is fix their lack of communication rather than any band-aid fixes players will want to suggest. At the end of the day, they just need to let us know what's going on. If you ask me, whether or not a bug is present and in line to get fixed should be a given, but as far as whether or not the bug could've been fixed earlier, we don't know, because a lot of thing could either 1. get in the way of fixing certain bugs, or 2. simply be higher priority fixes, and this does need to be communicated with players.
If not, we should have the selling thing like with Namor and Cull because that is better than rank down tickets.
Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't.
We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here.
Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.
As for confirmation, there were a few Posts over a year ago that were overlooked. After that, pretty much radio silence on our end as well. That's because no one was looking. They wanted it to be left.
This is such a massive let down in communication, Rank down tickets are what’s needed to make it right here. You can tell that it is, because any time RDTs are mentioned it’s a guaranteed way to get a heavy disagree ratio. At the moment, my post saying RDTs should be given is 54:8 for positive:negative reactions. People are disappointed and haven’t been this in favour of RDTs since the hood 1.0 buff.
Kabam seem to have made a push for communication with Jax being hired and he’s made a really good impact. Let’s carry that on with some good communication here and explain why there’s a good reason to not give RDTs when a failure in Kabam’s communication over a year and 4 months led to people feeling they can rank up a bugged champion.
Is it really wrong to just say, hey players seem to be enjoying this lil extra utility on the champ and it doesn't really make the champ too overpowering, lets just keep it as it's been so long already. Do that and they'll get thanked by the community instead of stirring up a whole debacle about this.