Kabam continue to wet the bed
Rookiie
Member Posts: 4,821 ★★★★★
So Kabam decided to open all progression levels for the Knullifier objective.
But guess what? You get the opportunity to start from 0!
On top of that, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that Trial of Symbiosis Wk2 did not award any points towards Knullifier.
Are you trying to subconsciously get summoners to spend more time on the game? Because guess what? It’s another stupid decision in what seems to be a long line of stupid decisions!
But guess what? You get the opportunity to start from 0!
On top of that, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that Trial of Symbiosis Wk2 did not award any points towards Knullifier.
Are you trying to subconsciously get summoners to spend more time on the game? Because guess what? It’s another stupid decision in what seems to be a long line of stupid decisions!
38
Comments
Additionally, how is starting off at 0 "ensuring you leave where you left off". Overall a very poor execution. Kabam seems to be really toeing the line for what they can get away with and what players wont tolerate.
Dr. Zola
Which makes it doubly hilarious that they hard code the reward distribution just to make sure we sign in daily…
Zola, I'm sure, understands the issue, and just enjoys needling the devs, the community, and the Earth in general. And we'll both be dead before humanity's brain damage crosses the Idiocracy threshold.
The "time is irrelevant" is the reverse of that, in my opinion, where something so unbelievable, so negative, so shocking was said by employees of the game we all play to our faces. It was the worst, most hateful comment they could have ever thrown our way, and it's one of those things where people see it and can't help but laugh in disbelief. It's much different from Cyclops.
Dr. Zola
When Miike announced that Cyclops was effective in AW, it came from a statistical standpoint. The community’s reaction was petty, but also understandable given that Cyclops is in fact an ineffective champion. The comment from Kabam was factual and neutral in its nature.
When Jax defended Kabam’s decision on the WoW energy cost, he was also being factual - the high energy cost was justified. However, he was fundamentally incorrect by stating ‘time is not a relevant resource in the game’s economical balance.’ Time is the underlying current and heartbeat of the game’s economical balance. Time is implemented, measured, accounted for, rewarded and penalized across the entire game. While not a hateful comment, it was definitely naive, not neutral and frankly, borderline insulting.
The common denominator here is that @DNA3000 is right - both memes reflect things that are wrong in the world today - just on opposite sides of the spectrum.
More importantly, what I do think @DNA3000 missed is a shot at @Suros_moon ’s definition of hard coding, which could have potentially started a sweet sequel to their debut showdown on the ‘crystals are rigged’ thread.
When Miike made his original "Cyclops effective" statement he didn't say Cyclops was an effective champion. He said Cyclops was an effective champion for those who used him. That's a subtle but important difference. If you say "Cyclops is a very effective champion" the impllication is that he's an effective champion compared to all other champions. That's the natural inference. But when you say he's effective for the players using him, you're saying something different. You're saying the people who use him get done what they want to get done. Cyclops might be the worst champion in the game, but if the players who use them complete the content they are using him for, he is effective in the sense that he does the job for those players. And that's was true then and true now.
Today, I think the playerbase is more used to the idea that there are so many champs and so many ways to play them, that a player can have a favorite champ that runs counter to conventional wisdom and still get the job done. If my favorite champ is Agent Venom or Rogue or Howard the Duck, it is entirely possible that I play that champ so much, I'm just comfortable enough with that champ to do all the content I want to do. They are effective for me. And this is important when it comes to balancing champs, because we have to always consider that even if a champion is not well loved by the majority, that doesn't mean we should change them in ways that the people who do use them and like them are just ignored. This was brought up most directly during the rebalancing processes for Guillotine and Hood. But when Miike first made his Cyclops statement, those discussions were not yet commonplace.
More recently, Jax stated that player time was not a relevant resource for balancing, but that was within the context of high difficulty content. When Kabam is designing content intended to test player skill, they obviously do not factor in the time it takes to do the content as part of the overall parameters of how to balance rewards for that content, because the reason for that content to exist is to test player skill. If you design the rewards to factor in time spent, then those rewards are not being given for the difficulty challenge. This makes total sense.
If MSD does a Woe fight and solos it on the first try, and I take fifty tries to do it, should Kabam somehow acknowledge the time I spent on it? Should I get more rewards than MSD because I spent more time on it? Of course not: that would be rewarding incompetence. But should I get less rewards? Well, if my rewards dropped the more tries I took, the incentive value of those rewards would drop steadily, until they became so low they ceased to be an incentive to even continue trying, which is not, in general, what you want your content rewards to do. Instead, I spend more energy and I spend more revives, because while my rewards are the same, there's a cost associated with not being as good. Instead of getting less rewards, I experience a higher cost. In that way, MSD is rewarded for having higher skill than me, but that reward is designed as a cost to me, not a loss of rewards from me. That prevents the death spiral of rewards dropping for me until those rewards become too low to incentivize me to even bother trying. Because they stay the same, and because the costs of trying over and over are sunk costs, the rewards still provide the same incentive value. This is usually a smart design decision.
But when players claim that Jax is saying that literally Kabam does not factor in player time at all with no context, that's ridiculous. In any communication between people, there's a certain amount of slack you have to cut each other, because if you force people to express everything perfectly and without any ambiguity or context, you get, well, my posts. It should be obvious to anyone being a reasonable reader that Jax could not have meant that Kabam does not value player time at all, because there's obvious counter-examples where that is false. The arena rewards are balanced primarily around the time players spend in it grinding. The calendars are designed to promote time engagement with the game - to encourage players to log in and spend time in the game. Kabam changed the way Dungeons worked, replacing them with Incursions, in part because of concerns regarding player burn out, a concern about how players were spending time in the game mode.
Time is an important factor in the design of any game: how much players spend and how they spend it. But time spent on a specific activity is not always a factor in how its difficulty or rewards are designed. That is, or at least should be, both obvious and reasonable. Kabam can care about something in general, but completely ignore it in specific limited circumstances when it is inappropriate to consider it with any weight compared to all other concerns in that circumstance. We don't really factor skill into arena rewards: it is difficult to squeeze more rewards out of the arena with any level of skill. There's a minimum threshold to actually do it, but then beyond that you're just rewarded for the amount of grind you do, not how skillfully you do it. And in fact, Kabam has resisted calls in the past to add skill elements to the arena, because that would be inappropriate.
The memes persist because it fits with the perceptions of many that Kabam developers a) have no idea how champions work, and b) could care less about the well-being and challenges of their playerbase. So there's no need to find out if Kabam ever said those things, and if so in what context.
As to the "hard coded" thing. In general, I wouldn't describe most of the player-facing parts of the game to be "hard coded" as they are almost always data driven. Which is to say, change the data fed into the game engine, and those things change. The random number generator algorithm is something you could say is likely "hard coded" because the game is almost certainly using a language random library. It didn't implement its own RNG, so the algorithm within the RNG is "hard coded." It can't be altered by the developers without fundamentally altering the programming of the game itself.
Beaides, so they added more rewards for more effort, players decision if they wanna go for them or not. They could have not added them and it would all be the same.
So yeah if you want an extra lower or higher tier rewards depending if you change progression in the middle of the event... Farm extra..
I can see how my wording was poor here. To clarify Im speaking about instances where (like the krakoan flowers), you can work towards a reward, earn that reward but then be forced to wait for no perceivable reason other than “we want players to sign in every day” which implies “We value engagement on a daily basis” which looks a bit out of place next to the jax comment. I don’t particularly care about how they code their “reward distributions” in reference to RNG. I said hard coded to emphasize the idea that they intentionally chose this route
I can't figure out Kabam continue to wet the bed as a meme 🤣
@Nightheart is your mission 🤣