I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision.
It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through.
Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals.
I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs.
They didn't feed us anything. That was a response to a question asked about the Champs included.
I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision.
It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through.
Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals.
I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs.
They didn't feed us anything. That was a response to a question asked about the Champs included.
Who said anything about feeding us?
I meant to say sell. I was focused on the game when I started commenting.
I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision.
It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through.
Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals.
I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs.
They didn't feed us anything. That was a response to a question asked about the Champs included.
Who said anything about feeding us?
I meant to say sell. I was focused on the game when I started commenting.
Ah ok. Either way, even though it was a response to a question, I gotta agree it was a line.
You would be hard-pressed to see a response from a Moderator that is partial enough to agree that Cyclops isn't good.
I think the conversation focused on that somehow, but it wasn't a complete statement in most cases. What he meant was among the number that use him, they use him very effectively. At various points, that became mixed with the opinion on Cyclops.
That's the difference between the data and the Players. The data doesn't have a partial opinion. People at the Top Tier may have an opinion on him, but the datamining looks at the actual usage.
It really has less to do with who is "good" and more to do with who is performing poorly. It's not really a "God Tier/Mid Tier/Garbage Tier" situation. It's a situation where they're looking at the data and excluding the bottom of those statistics, in whatever aspects they're looking at.
I'm still trying to figure out why someone with zero 5 stars in his IGN profile would have such a lengthy discussion about 5 stars. Can you help me understand why you have such a strong opinion on something you don't have? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, it's just odd to have such a strong opinion when 5 stars aren't what you play with.
For me it's an endless wonder.
To be fair, it could be because every time he went for a featured crystal he didn't get it and every basic he pulled has been junk, in which case you wouldn't rank past r3 and therefore your 4*s would still be higher. For him this could actually be a good thing.
I have 9 5*s and only one appears on my profile because the rest are junk, but it could double that just by opening all the shards I've stockpiled. RIP 5* featured crystals and all my self control in hoarding.
I am by no means defending any of the points he has made here so far, just posing a possibility.
I'm still trying to figure out why someone with zero 5 stars in his IGN profile would have such a lengthy discussion about 5 stars. Can you help me understand why you have such a strong opinion on something you don't have? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, it's just odd to have such a strong opinion when 5 stars aren't what you play with.
For me it's an endless wonder.
To be fair, it could be because every time he went for a featured crystal he didn't get it and every basic he pulled has been junk, in which case you wouldn't rank past r3 and therefore your 4*s would still be higher. For him this could actually be a good thing.
I have 9 5*s and only one appears on my profile because the rest are junk, but it could double that just by opening all the shards I've stockpiled. RIP 5* featured crystals and all my self control in hoarding.
I am by no means defending any of the points he has made here so far, just posing a possibility.
It's just to rile me. Been posting the same comment over and over. Luckily, I don't care. Lol.
I've had my share of rolls I wish went better, for sure, but for me it's about building a Roster. It all goes into it. I'm not so focused on getting the Top Tier. I take my chances, roll for what I want, and accept the outcome. Still waiting to Dup. Anything, really.
It really has less to do with who is "good" and more to do with who is performing poorly. It's not really a "God Tier/Mid Tier/Garbage Tier" situation. It's a situation where they're looking at the data and excluding the bottom of those statistics, in whatever aspects they're looking at.
If we're being honest we actually have no idea what it has to do with or what their criteria is for picking the champs on the list. All we know is what we have been told.
The statement is not untrue. We don't know exactly what areas they're looking at for analysis, but the data itself is like any other programming data. It's not separated by the Player definition of what Champ is God, what is Mid, what is Lower. It's just data.
I'm not questioning the validity of their statements.
It really has less to do with who is "good" and more to do with who is performing poorly. It's not really a "God Tier/Mid Tier/Garbage Tier" situation. It's a situation where they're looking at the data and excluding the bottom of those statistics, in whatever aspects they're looking at.
If we're being honest we actually have no idea what it has to do with or what their criteria is for picking the champs on the list. All we know is what we have been told.
The statement is not untrue. We don't know exactly what areas they're looking at for analysis, but the data itself is like any other programming data. It's not separated by the Player definition of what Champ is God, what is Mid, what is Lower. It's just data.
I'm not questioning the validity of their statements.
Yeah I'm not questioning the mods statement because like with any business they can only pass on what information they have been cleared to pass on. Does that mean we are being told everything or that the statement is 100% the truth? No , it doesn't. Like the older saying goes trust is earned. I don't blindly believe anything 100% unless it comes from someone that has earned that trust. As for the data, again, we really have no idea how there data is separated. We can only assume(Do I need to break that word down for anyone?) that it's like any other programming data but we really don't know. It is possible to have the data broke down in just about anyway you want. Point is, just like in my previous post, we can only go off the information we have been given because the rest is just speculation on our part. We can say that they do this or don't do that but when it comes down to it we have no idea what goes on at there company. I know some will say that this or that is done thus way or that way because that's how other companies do it but can anyone actually say that they know how anything is done at kabam 100% without a doubt? No. The only people that can are their employees.
At the same time, I think it's redundant for us to continue stating that. We're here to discuss ideas and thoughts on topics. Technically, none of us know. We can still have opinions and theories formed from our own observations and experience. I feel like it becomes a bit too political. I'm a proponent of saying what we think, within the respectable limits of the rules of the Forum. None of us know beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that fact won't change because we don't work for them. Might as well just say what we think. Lol.
Here’s what I would like answered about the chosen champions’ “effectiveness”: is that based on a total number? Or percentage used vs percentage effective? It would seem it’s a total. I can guarantee Stark Spiderman is way more effective in AQ and AW attack and defense then most, if not all, of the champions of the pool of 18. So it would seem that it’s based on a total rather than a percent. I think it’s safe to say there are more duped Cyclops out there than duped Sparks.
Also, this new crystal isn’t meant to be a money maker for Kabam, directly. It’s meant to push spenders toward the Grandmaster Featured crystals and thus increasing their profit. The spenders probably weren’t buying as many of the GF crystals as they would like so they had to do something to change that.
Here’s what I would like answered about the chosen champions’ “effectiveness”: is that based on a total number? Or percentage used vs percentage effective? It would seem it’s a total. I can guarantee Stark Spiderman is way more effective in AQ and AW attack and defense then most, if not all, of the champions of the pool of 18. So it would seem that it’s based on a total rather than a percent. I think it’s safe to say there are more duped Cyclops out there than duped Sparks.
Also, this new crystal isn’t meant to be a money maker for Kabam, directly. It’s meant to push spenders toward the Grandmaster Featured crystals and thus increasing their profit. The spenders probably weren’t buying as many of the GF crystals as they would like so they had to do something to change that.
I can't say I agree that it's based on a total number that use him, at least for the most part, simply because the comment referenced the small number that use him, use him very well. I think that's the misunderstanding about the data. I don't believe they're looking at the most popular as an indication of effectiveness. I believe they're examining all Champs and how effectively they're performing. My view is that it's not really about who is used the most. It's about identifying the Champs that perform poorly. For that, you would have to examine all Champs individually, then look at the collective data and make some type of comparison.
Not conjecturing on the GMC myself so I will just say that's an agree to disagree.
I can't say I agree that it's based on a total number that use him, at least for the most part, simply because the comment referenced the small number that use him, use him very well. I think that's the misunderstanding about the data. I don't believe they're looking at the most popular as an indication of effectiveness. I believe they're examining all Champs and how effectively they're performing. My view is that it's not really about who is used the most. It's about identifying the Champs that perform poorly. For that, you would have to examine all Champs individually, then look at the collective data and make some type of comparison.
Not conjecturing on the GMC myself so I will just say that's an agree to disagree.
I understand what you’re saying. But do you think, honestly, that ANY of those 18 is more effective than Dorm, Magik, Spark, Iceman, AA, GP, Hyp, Rogue, Quake, Ultron....?
I can't say I agree that it's based on a total number that use him, at least for the most part, simply because the comment referenced the small number that use him, use him very well. I think that's the misunderstanding about the data. I don't believe they're looking at the most popular as an indication of effectiveness. I believe they're examining all Champs and how effectively they're performing. My view is that it's not really about who is used the most. It's about identifying the Champs that perform poorly. For that, you would have to examine all Champs individually, then look at the collective data and make some type of comparison.
Not conjecturing on the GMC myself so I will just say that's an agree to disagree.
I understand what you’re saying. But do you think, honestly, that ANY of those 18 is more effective than Dorm, Magik, Spark, Iceman, AA, GP, Hyp, Rogue, Quake, Ultron....?
It depends on how Kabam is looking at certain data.
Let's say, for example, there's a few players with not as deep rosters that have to use Cyclops. These players are not running higher tier war and are running lower level AQs, but if still using 4 and 5 star Cyclops, they may be running through the lower level content. This would show up, when looking at the data a certain way, that the champion Cyclops dies the least/wins the most out of a certain pool of champs. It's not necessarily incorrect, as people with Stark Spidey, for example, may be pushing higher tier content, and dying more than someone running Cyclops at a lower level. This could be an argument for Cyclops being "more effective."
It'd still be a poor way to hand the data, and kind of disingenuous of Kabam to suggest the Cyclops can be considered more effective......but it all depends on what and how they're looking at. They could probably run numbers a bunch of different ways to come up with an argument for most champs. Unfortunately I doubt they're going to ever explain what they mean/look at when looking at champs' effectiveness.
You know what a good side effect of the rubbbish crystals is?
No one can blow their load of saved crystals on sub par champs like sentry and carnage, before knowing if they are any good or not. Instead we are going to have to blow units saved ( or, let’s be realistic, units brought with money) go aquire these new champs.
Now imagine the uproar, when someone spends thousands of dollars to acquire a new favourite champ (Sabretooth, doom, FF4....) and they are as rubbish as Carnage was...,
Kabam has better start getting these champ releases sorted.
It's too late to do this but... I think this might have gone down much better if you hadn't tried to put this ridiculous spin on it. It's clearly not beneficial to players and progression so why try to spin it as such? I would have been far happier with an explanation like, 5 star shards are getting much more easily available making featured crystals imbalanced. Or something that made sense. This is exactly the situation with AW - you put together a ridiculous statement with a ton of exclamation marks saying it would be amazing and that really made you look out of touch with reality (as real as a video game can be).
I don't think they really spun this specific crystal as being better than the old crystal. If you read the original announcement carefully, they actually mentioned the state of the game when 5* champions were first introduced, not what the state of the game was very recently. They said that originally, you had two shots at a featured, and then it was basically gone. And the basic crystal got additions extremely slowly, so if you missed your chance, it was gone for a long time or maybe practically forever.
Every change to the 5* system has improved that situation taken as a whole. 5* shard availability has increased. Featureds are now added to the basic much faster, which means the featured crystal itself is not the last and only chance at the featured like it originally was. And had we jumped straight from there to here, I don't think this crystal would seem quite so out of place if it came with a huge increase in shards.
The problem is that all of the 5* changes happened slowly in a problematic order. First we got the basic acceleration, then we got the 5* shard availability increases, and then only now are we getting the new featured crystal, and the devs never told the players directly this was all part of a whole. So the players (at least some of them) got used to having gigantic piles of shards and a featured crystal that was practically a featured champion selection box for anyone not called Anonymous2k.
Maybe this would have been better if they had announced way in advance that oh yeah, we're going to be shoving all the featureds into the basic crystal and tripling the availability of 5* shards, but starting now the current version of the featured crystal is on borrowed time: as soon as we catch up we will replace it with a crystal designed for higher 5* shard availability. In the meantime, enjoy the temporary ability to spend your shard on that crystal. I think some players would still be mad, but I think it might have been more palatable if, as you say, the new crystal was linked to other 5* improvements, and not allowed to be judged singularly.
And then again, maybe not. It is not something I would bet money on personally. If I was in charge, I would have probably wanted to do that anyway. But I don't know if that wouldn't have blown up in my face.
You have to consider this also though. Maybe the champs seem effective because the players that are using tgem effectively are forced to because they are tge best champs tgat they have at the moment. I can't help but think that if the champs listed are effective why did they not receive more votes for the $1 crystal. Reason is probably because the ones that have them would rather have better champs even though they use the ones they have effectively. Think of it like this. If you were only given 5 champs, no matter who they were, and those are the only champs you will ever have. Over time you will learn to use them effectively because you wouldn't have any choice. Also consider that some of those champs listed are probably some of the most drawn champs in the game. I would be interested to know the how many of each champ has been drawn from 5* crystals because that can skew the data. The more of any given champ in the game would make it seem like they are used effectively because once again if they are all you've got then you are going to become effective with them.
In the context we're discussing, those champions can't "seem" effective. What you are trying to say is that a particular champion may be used effectively by a particular player, but they would be more effective with another champion they simply don't have. And that's certainly possible. But any reasonable analysis would account for at least some of this, because it would separate two different factors: how much a champion is preferred verses how much a champion generates. Preference would measure how often a champion is used relative to the number of players who even have that champion. For example, Blade is probably highly preferred even though it is also likely that is isn't used very often on an absolute basis - not enough players have him. Effectiveness has to be judged relative to usage.
If Blade is more effective than, say, Colossus, that would be analytically true even if only one person played Blade and everyone else played nothing but Colossus (I'd be statistically suspect of data with only one person in it, of course). For the champions in the curated list to show up as "effective" it only needs to be true that there exist many other champions that are played by players that are less successful. That would then make them more successful regardless of whether or not there exist champions even more successful.
If you are asking yourself why the champions selected in the featured crystal didn't get votes for the $1 crystal, then you are making the assumption many players are making that those champions in the crystal are the champions that Kabam believes, or is claiming, that players would vote as the most desirable champions to possess. Nowhere do they make that claim and it is not a reasonable extrapolation to make.
Kabam: Hi top tier AQ player, who would you like to use "with great success?" Ghost Rider or Cyclops?
Top tier AQ player: Cyclops!
Kabam: Hi low tier AQ player, who would you like to use "with great success?" Ghost Rider or Cyclops?
Low tier AQ player: Cyclops!
1. They aren't being truthful with their data or reasoning. Instead of creating a reason, why say anything at all? Just say, "We decided as a group to use these 18."
2. Nobody is using those trash 18 champs because they WANT to. They are using them because they have them ranked up and they don't have better options.
Wouldn't the most effective be the most popular, and wouldn't popularity follow down the list of champs from most effective to least effictive?
Not necessarily. For example, and I'm making a somewhat contrived example to simplify discussion, suppose Iceman was *only* used on evade champs, and when he was used he was extremely good at killing them. Then whenever he was used he would be seen as extremely effective in Kabam's numbers. But suppose also that his damage was relatively low so outside of evade champs he was rarely used, passed over for champs like Gwenpool and Stark Spiderman. In that case, he could be simultaneously very effective and not very popular to use.
Rarely is anything so cut and dried, but how often a champion is used depends greatly on how broadly useful that champion is across a wide range of content. Effectiveness is more closely dependent on how well players can play that champion when they choose to play them, which might be very often or not very often.
This is an extreme oversimplification and in reality there are more variables involved, but if we graph "popularity" (in terms of usage, not demand) and "effectiveness" on a graph, the graph has four corners. Way off to the upper right is "highly popular" and "highly effective." This is also known as nerf-landia. Scarlet Witch has a permanent monument to her in this quadrant which we can't see because it is so far up and to the right its currently in orbit. Way off in the bottom left is "highly unpopular" and "highly ineffective." The players call this "dumpster fire" and the devs look there to find champions to buff. Luke Cage and Red Hulk apparently share a two-bedroom studio there. In the upper left is "highly effective" and "highly unpopular." These are niche champions really good at something and not so good at everything else. MMO dev companies never deliberately try to make these, but they tend to like them when they appear. And in the lower right are the "highly ineffective" and "highly popular" champions. Players think this corner doesn't exist and treats their inhabitants like Bigfoot. Devs know they exist, and they are a thorn in their side. They know knowledgeable players will want to change them to push them upward on the graph. But they also know a huge number customers will get pissed off if they do.
I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision.
It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through.
Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals.
I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs.
I agree with the second half of your post but not the first half... I actually think they explained willpower nerf, champ nerf and perfect block nerf better than this change. I mean, champ nerf was executed badly but at least they gave a clear explanation most of us could understand (we can't design content when these champs keep breezing through it).
Everytime there's a change like this i think they should explain two things honestly:
1. Explain why they do it. Not everything needs to be spun as "this is better for you". Sometimes a change is just better for the game overall.
2. Show how it is part of a bigger plan. For instance, when perfect block was nerfed there was the promise that the team would go back and relook content. Even ROL got changed so it was easier to get through without perfect block.
In fact, I remember part of the big plan for 6 star champs was to make 5 stars more available, and they are. They certainly didn't mention that making only crummy 5 stars more available was part of the plan though.
Wouldn't the most effective be the most popular, and wouldn't popularity follow down the list of champs from most effective to least effictive?
Not necessarily. For example, and I'm making a somewhat contrived example to simplify discussion, suppose Iceman was *only* used on evade champs, and when he was used he was extremely good at killing them. Then whenever he was used he would be seen as extremely effective in Kabam's numbers. But suppose also that his damage was relatively low so outside of evade champs he was rarely used, passed over for champs like Gwenpool and Stark Spiderman. In that case, he could be simultaneously very effective and not very popular to use.
Rarely is anything so cut and dried, but how often a champion is used depends greatly on how broadly useful that champion is across a wide range of content. Effectiveness is more closely dependent on how well players can play that champion when they choose to play them, which might be very often or not very often.
This is an extreme oversimplification and in reality there are more variables involved, but if we graph "popularity" (in terms of usage, not demand) and "effectiveness" on a graph, the graph has four corners. Way off to the upper right is "highly popular" and "highly effective." This is also known as nerf-landia. Scarlet Witch has a permanent monument to her in this quadrant which we can't see because it is so far up and to the right its currently in orbit. Way off in the bottom left is "highly unpopular" and "highly ineffective." The players call this "dumpster fire" and the devs look there to find champions to buff. Luke Cage and Red Hulk apparently share a two-bedroom studio there. In the upper left is "highly effective" and "highly unpopular." These are niche champions really good at something and not so good at everything else. MMO dev companies never deliberately try to make these, but they tend to like them when they appear. And in the lower right are the "highly ineffective" and "highly popular" champions. Players think this corner doesn't exist and treats their inhabitants like Bigfoot. Devs know they exist, and they are a thorn in their side. They know knowledgeable players will want to change them to push them upward on the graph. But they also know a huge number customers will get pissed off if they do.
There is no point discussing popular vs effective because it really doesn't matter. As I have said a few times, the only think that matters is the factors they used when looking and the data and we have no idea what those factors were. For all we know they could have compiled months or years of data and scrutinized over it for months or they could have thrown darts and whatever champs they hit became the 18.
Lots of players have asked questions about how Kabam likely datamined the game, and I can say from experience how most if not all MMO companies in general and all monetized F2P games do this as a matter of course. For people interested in knowing the broad strokes of this that it is 99% likely Kabam did, I can put that into some perspective. If you are only interested in an official statement from Kabam with the precise details of their datamining methodology I can't help you, and neither can anyone else on Earth, because no game company allows their employees to disclose that information. Short of breaking into Kabam's offices and conducting illegal corporate espionage, I'm afraid you will be unable to get what you want.
For all you know, they could have thrown darts. However, for all I know, to a reasonably high degree of confidence I know that they did not, at least not in the way you mean. I know they datamined the game. I know they datamined the metrics everyone datamines, and that includes metrics appropriate to monitoring variables the devs must know to operate their game properly. Metrics relevant to monetization, engagement, participation, progress, and resource management. What I know is simply different than what you know.
I have a point to discussing these things, because I'm familiar with them. If you don't think I'm a credible source, then there's no point in you discussing it with me. That would not invalidate my point in addressing the topic when it comes up.
Wouldn't the most effective be the most popular, and wouldn't popularity follow down the list of champs from most effective to least effictive?
Not necessarily. For example, and I'm making a somewhat contrived example to simplify discussion, suppose Iceman was *only* used on evade champs, and when he was used he was extremely good at killing them. Then whenever he was used he would be seen as extremely effective in Kabam's numbers. But suppose also that his damage was relatively low so outside of evade champs he was rarely used, passed over for champs like Gwenpool and Stark Spiderman. In that case, he could be simultaneously very effective and not very popular to use.
Rarely is anything so cut and dried, but how often a champion is used depends greatly on how broadly useful that champion is across a wide range of content. Effectiveness is more closely dependent on how well players can play that champion when they choose to play them, which might be very often or not very often.
This is an extreme oversimplification and in reality there are more variables involved, but if we graph "popularity" (in terms of usage, not demand) and "effectiveness" on a graph, the graph has four corners. Way off to the upper right is "highly popular" and "highly effective." This is also known as nerf-landia. Scarlet Witch has a permanent monument to her in this quadrant which we can't see because it is so far up and to the right its currently in orbit. Way off in the bottom left is "highly unpopular" and "highly ineffective." The players call this "dumpster fire" and the devs look there to find champions to buff. Luke Cage and Red Hulk apparently share a two-bedroom studio there. In the upper left is "highly effective" and "highly unpopular." These are niche champions really good at something and not so good at everything else. MMO dev companies never deliberately try to make these, but they tend to like them when they appear. And in the lower right are the "highly ineffective" and "highly popular" champions. Players think this corner doesn't exist and treats their inhabitants like Bigfoot. Devs know they exist, and they are a thorn in their side. They know knowledgeable players will want to change them to push them upward on the graph. But they also know a huge number customers will get pissed off if they do.
There is no point discussing popular vs effective because it really doesn't matter. As I have said a few times, the only think that matters is the factors they used when looking and the data and we have no idea what those factors were. For all we know they could have compiled months or years of data and scrutinized over it for months or they could have thrown darts and whatever champs they hit became the 18.
Lots of players have asked questions about how Kabam likely datamined the game, and I can say from experience how most if not all MMO companies in general and all monetized F2P games do this as a matter of course. For people interested in knowing the broad strokes of this that it is 99% likely Kabam did, I can put that into some perspective. If you are only interested in an official statement from Kabam with the precise details of their datamining methodology I can't help you, and neither can anyone else on Earth, because no game company allows their employees to disclose that information. Short of breaking into Kabam's offices and conducting illegal corporate espionage, I'm afraid you will be unable to get what you want.
For all you know, they could have thrown darts. However, for all I know, to a reasonably high degree of confidence I know that they did not, at least not in the way you mean. I know they datamined the game. I know they datamined the metrics everyone datamines, and that includes metrics appropriate to monitoring variables the devs must know to operate their game properly. Metrics relevant to monetization, engagement, participation, progress, and resource management. What I know is simply different than what you know.
I have a point to discussing these things, because I'm familiar with them. If you don't think I'm a credible source, then there's no point in you discussing it with me. That would not invalidate my point in addressing the topic when it comes up.
So you work for kabam? Because that is the only way you know for sure what they do. Otherwise you just posting what you think.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. I work for Kabam and that's how I know precisely what they do. That's a reasonable paraphrase of the post you quoted, if you squint real hard and hit your forehead with a hammer repeatedly.
DNA, you're a very credible and smart guy, but your explanations although probably very accurate, don't do anything to explain how Kabam can get away with calling the champs in the crystals "amongst the most effective". Cause they're not and it's not even close.
I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision.
It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through.
Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals.
I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs.
I will say that while I loved my block team it was ridiculous and the game is better without the leadership synergy so I've gotta give Kabam credit on that one. Agree with you on the nerf and the highly effective cyclops lol
DNA, you're a very credible and smart guy, but your explanations although probably very accurate, don't do anything to explain how Kabam can get away with calling the champs in the crystals "amongst the most effective". Cause they're not and it's not even close.
I can't explain how Kabam could justifiably say that, although I can say that @Kabam Miike only said that about a subset list of champions, not all of them.
I also can say that even if a Kabam dev came on the forums and directly stated that all of the curated champions would be among the most effective, I would then ask them how that was mathematically possible when that contradicts their statements about the numbers and restrictions of the curated list. Specifically, that the list must have an absolute minimum of 36 champions (because they cannot repeat) and as a practical matter at least 45 champions (because otherwise the two crystal's basic champions would be forced to alternate) and as there are only about 82 basic champions to pick from in the first place, at least 4 of the curated champions would have to be literally below average (only 41 can be above average).
The top 25% of all basic crystal champions is about 20 of them. It is literally impossible to make the new featured crystal work with 20, because after you use the first eighteen there's no way to make the crystal in May without repeats. The literal mathematical limit - which is still ridiculous because it forces the crystals to alternate, which contradicts what @Kabam Miike implied about the crystals - requires the top 44% of all basic champions. The top 44% can't all be great, or even good as many players judge good.
*Some* of the champions in the curated list could be among the more effective champs. Some literally cannot be because that's otherwise impossible.
I've also tried, and apparently ineffectively, to explain that "effective" doesn't likely mean "best." When a game developer says effective in the context of data mining, It means, when played by a player, that it generates more rewards than average at a lower cost than average (in the case of MCOC, that would mean dying less and using potions less generally), or something comparable.
In terms of which champions are *strongest* I would bet money that Cyclops is not in the top 25%. However, I would not bet money that Cyclops when played by the players that play him regularly isn't in the top 25% of champions that generate the most rewards or generates the most kills relative to the other 80+ champions in the 5* basic crystal. You're not betting on how strong Cyclops is anymore, you're betting on how other players play the game. I wouldn't risk my money betting on how other players, from top to bottom, play the game.
And to be frank, I can also say that @Kabam Miike isn't always right. Sometimes he misstates things (I've corrected his wording multiple times), sometimes he says things provable inaccurate (I've pointed out a couple here as well), and sometimes he is simply mistaken. As a community coordinator its his job to communicate clearly and accurately, but he is just one person and isn't necessarily the final word from Kabam about game design decisions.
Its the only word we have, so we have every right to demand clarity, but history sets the expectation we won't always get it. If I was him, I would not have described any champion in the crystal as "among the most effective." I would have said "among the more effective" or even "above average in effectiveness." My words don't demand justification. "Most" sets you up to justify that judgment, something you know you can't do without proprietary data you can't release.
I'll ask this again. "Among the most effective" compared to what???
Billy is the tallest in his family.
Bob is the best basketball player in his class.
Jenny is the smartest amongst her friends.
This doesn't tell us anything. Billy could be 5 feet tall. Bob could be in a school for the disabled. Jenny's friends can all be stupid.
Cyclops is "among the most effective" is a meaningless statement. He is the most effective compared to whom?
I don't like these deceptive reasons.
Exactly! Couldn't agree more. With no reference point, these statements are meaningless, even obsolete.
It's kind of like the big shift from percentage values to flat numerical values during the v12.0 fiasco. Previously champion X had 12.4% armor and that made perfect sense. Now they have 932... 932 what? Bananas? Cucumbers? The point is a raw number or statement like this with no point of reference has no meaning, no context and therefore leaves more questions than answers.
Reasonable high degree, so not 100%? I think that's what I said. That we don't know for sure.
When I say I have a reasonably high degree of certainty, what I mean is that the degree of certainty I have is high enough to reasonably operate as if the belief was true for all intents and purposes unless and until new evidence contradicts it. That doesn't mean I'm just guessing. That's comparable to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard jury members are instructed to operate under. You're never 100% certain about anything. So we don't know anything "for sure." But I can be sure enough to render a guilty verdict and walk away confident I made the correct decision about the fate of another human being's life.
Relative to that, I am somewhat more certain that Kabam datamines metrics the way everyone else I'm aware of does than the beyond reasonable doubt standard. Still not 100%, and yes, we still don't know for sure. And never will. The same way we are unlikely to be 100% sure of anything. 100% certainty is a useless standard to apply to anything in the real world.
That's a question no one can answer, and frankly, it's useless to keep repeating. Either you trust what they are saying, or you don't. Personally, I go on the information provided, and it saves me a great deal of energy asking questions I will never get an answer to.
The reality is it doesn't matter what they comment on as the most effective. Naturally, they're going to have a positive spin on Champs. It's their job. They're not just going to come out and say X Champ sucks, or Y Champ is ****. Besides that, what was stated wasn't even inaccurate to conceive. The small number that use Cyclops use him very effectively.
I think we're getting defocused on "most effective", and missing the point entirely. They're trying to omit the ones that perform the poorest. Which means anything else could be included.
That's a question no one can answer, and frankly, it's useless to keep repeating. Either you trust what they are saying, or you don't. Personally, I go on the information provided, and it saves me a great deal of energy asking questions I will never get an answer to.
The reality is it doesn't matter what they comment on as the most effective. Naturally, they're going to have a positive spin on Champs. It's their job. They're not just going to come out and say X Champ sucks, or Y Champ is ****. Besides that, what was stated wasn't even inaccurate to conceive. The small number that use Cyclops use him very effectively.
I think we're getting defocused on "most effective", and missing the point entirely. They're trying to omit the ones that perform the poorest. Which means anything else could be included.
That's a question no one can answer, and frankly, it's useless to keep repeating. Either you trust what they are saying, or you don't. Personally, I go on the information provided, and it saves me a great deal of energy asking questions I will never get an answer to.
The reality is it doesn't matter what they comment on as the most effective. Naturally, they're going to have a positive spin on Champs. It's their job. They're not just going to come out and say X Champ sucks, or Y Champ is ****. Besides that, what was stated wasn't even inaccurate to conceive. The small number that use Cyclops use him very effectively.
I think we're getting defocused on "most effective", and missing the point entirely. They're trying to omit the ones that perform the poorest. Which means anything else could be included.
By omitting the ones that perform the poorest isnt that saying they suck? If we would ever get some information more people might go with it but so far we've had very little information.
It's a good possibility that Cage and Rulk were omitted because they're testing buffs. What I suspect is they are looking at working on at least some of the Champs that are found on that list. I don't suspect they will give a list of the Champs they're leaving out.
For that matter, there's nowhere for us to go. They've explained what they're trying to do. We can speculate about the process, but they're relying on their own findings ultimately.
Comments
They didn't feed us anything. That was a response to a question asked about the Champs included.
I meant to say sell. I was focused on the game when I started commenting.
I think the conversation focused on that somehow, but it wasn't a complete statement in most cases. What he meant was among the number that use him, they use him very effectively. At various points, that became mixed with the opinion on Cyclops.
That's the difference between the data and the Players. The data doesn't have a partial opinion. People at the Top Tier may have an opinion on him, but the datamining looks at the actual usage.
To be fair, it could be because every time he went for a featured crystal he didn't get it and every basic he pulled has been junk, in which case you wouldn't rank past r3 and therefore your 4*s would still be higher. For him this could actually be a good thing.
I have 9 5*s and only one appears on my profile because the rest are junk, but it could double that just by opening all the shards I've stockpiled. RIP 5* featured crystals and all my self control in hoarding.
I am by no means defending any of the points he has made here so far, just posing a possibility.
It's just to rile me. Been posting the same comment over and over. Luckily, I don't care. Lol.
I've had my share of rolls I wish went better, for sure, but for me it's about building a Roster. It all goes into it. I'm not so focused on getting the Top Tier. I take my chances, roll for what I want, and accept the outcome. Still waiting to Dup. Anything, really.
I'm not questioning the validity of their statements.
At the same time, I think it's redundant for us to continue stating that. We're here to discuss ideas and thoughts on topics. Technically, none of us know. We can still have opinions and theories formed from our own observations and experience. I feel like it becomes a bit too political. I'm a proponent of saying what we think, within the respectable limits of the rules of the Forum. None of us know beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that fact won't change because we don't work for them. Might as well just say what we think. Lol.
Also, this new crystal isn’t meant to be a money maker for Kabam, directly. It’s meant to push spenders toward the Grandmaster Featured crystals and thus increasing their profit. The spenders probably weren’t buying as many of the GF crystals as they would like so they had to do something to change that.
I can't say I agree that it's based on a total number that use him, at least for the most part, simply because the comment referenced the small number that use him, use him very well. I think that's the misunderstanding about the data. I don't believe they're looking at the most popular as an indication of effectiveness. I believe they're examining all Champs and how effectively they're performing. My view is that it's not really about who is used the most. It's about identifying the Champs that perform poorly. For that, you would have to examine all Champs individually, then look at the collective data and make some type of comparison.
Not conjecturing on the GMC myself so I will just say that's an agree to disagree.
I understand what you’re saying. But do you think, honestly, that ANY of those 18 is more effective than Dorm, Magik, Spark, Iceman, AA, GP, Hyp, Rogue, Quake, Ultron....?
It depends on how Kabam is looking at certain data.
Let's say, for example, there's a few players with not as deep rosters that have to use Cyclops. These players are not running higher tier war and are running lower level AQs, but if still using 4 and 5 star Cyclops, they may be running through the lower level content. This would show up, when looking at the data a certain way, that the champion Cyclops dies the least/wins the most out of a certain pool of champs. It's not necessarily incorrect, as people with Stark Spidey, for example, may be pushing higher tier content, and dying more than someone running Cyclops at a lower level. This could be an argument for Cyclops being "more effective."
It'd still be a poor way to hand the data, and kind of disingenuous of Kabam to suggest the Cyclops can be considered more effective......but it all depends on what and how they're looking at. They could probably run numbers a bunch of different ways to come up with an argument for most champs. Unfortunately I doubt they're going to ever explain what they mean/look at when looking at champs' effectiveness.
No one can blow their load of saved crystals on sub par champs like sentry and carnage, before knowing if they are any good or not. Instead we are going to have to blow units saved ( or, let’s be realistic, units brought with money) go aquire these new champs.
Now imagine the uproar, when someone spends thousands of dollars to acquire a new favourite champ (Sabretooth, doom, FF4....) and they are as rubbish as Carnage was...,
Kabam has better start getting these champ releases sorted.
In the context we're discussing, those champions can't "seem" effective. What you are trying to say is that a particular champion may be used effectively by a particular player, but they would be more effective with another champion they simply don't have. And that's certainly possible. But any reasonable analysis would account for at least some of this, because it would separate two different factors: how much a champion is preferred verses how much a champion generates. Preference would measure how often a champion is used relative to the number of players who even have that champion. For example, Blade is probably highly preferred even though it is also likely that is isn't used very often on an absolute basis - not enough players have him. Effectiveness has to be judged relative to usage.
If Blade is more effective than, say, Colossus, that would be analytically true even if only one person played Blade and everyone else played nothing but Colossus (I'd be statistically suspect of data with only one person in it, of course). For the champions in the curated list to show up as "effective" it only needs to be true that there exist many other champions that are played by players that are less successful. That would then make them more successful regardless of whether or not there exist champions even more successful.
If you are asking yourself why the champions selected in the featured crystal didn't get votes for the $1 crystal, then you are making the assumption many players are making that those champions in the crystal are the champions that Kabam believes, or is claiming, that players would vote as the most desirable champions to possess. Nowhere do they make that claim and it is not a reasonable extrapolation to make.
Kabam: Hi top tier AQ player, who would you like to use "with great success?" Ghost Rider or Cyclops?
Top tier AQ player: Cyclops!
Kabam: Hi low tier AQ player, who would you like to use "with great success?" Ghost Rider or Cyclops?
Low tier AQ player: Cyclops!
1. They aren't being truthful with their data or reasoning. Instead of creating a reason, why say anything at all? Just say, "We decided as a group to use these 18."
2. Nobody is using those trash 18 champs because they WANT to. They are using them because they have them ranked up and they don't have better options.
Not necessarily. For example, and I'm making a somewhat contrived example to simplify discussion, suppose Iceman was *only* used on evade champs, and when he was used he was extremely good at killing them. Then whenever he was used he would be seen as extremely effective in Kabam's numbers. But suppose also that his damage was relatively low so outside of evade champs he was rarely used, passed over for champs like Gwenpool and Stark Spiderman. In that case, he could be simultaneously very effective and not very popular to use.
Rarely is anything so cut and dried, but how often a champion is used depends greatly on how broadly useful that champion is across a wide range of content. Effectiveness is more closely dependent on how well players can play that champion when they choose to play them, which might be very often or not very often.
This is an extreme oversimplification and in reality there are more variables involved, but if we graph "popularity" (in terms of usage, not demand) and "effectiveness" on a graph, the graph has four corners. Way off to the upper right is "highly popular" and "highly effective." This is also known as nerf-landia. Scarlet Witch has a permanent monument to her in this quadrant which we can't see because it is so far up and to the right its currently in orbit. Way off in the bottom left is "highly unpopular" and "highly ineffective." The players call this "dumpster fire" and the devs look there to find champions to buff. Luke Cage and Red Hulk apparently share a two-bedroom studio there. In the upper left is "highly effective" and "highly unpopular." These are niche champions really good at something and not so good at everything else. MMO dev companies never deliberately try to make these, but they tend to like them when they appear. And in the lower right are the "highly ineffective" and "highly popular" champions. Players think this corner doesn't exist and treats their inhabitants like Bigfoot. Devs know they exist, and they are a thorn in their side. They know knowledgeable players will want to change them to push them upward on the graph. But they also know a huge number customers will get pissed off if they do.
Billy is the tallest in his family.
Bob is the best basketball player in his class.
Jenny is the smartest amongst her friends.
This doesn't tell us anything. Billy could be 5 feet tall. Bob could be in a school for the disabled. Jenny's friends can all be stupid.
Cyclops is "among the most effective" is a meaningless statement. He is the most effective compared to whom?
I don't like these deceptive reasons.
They're certainly among the most effective
I agree with the second half of your post but not the first half... I actually think they explained willpower nerf, champ nerf and perfect block nerf better than this change. I mean, champ nerf was executed badly but at least they gave a clear explanation most of us could understand (we can't design content when these champs keep breezing through it).
Everytime there's a change like this i think they should explain two things honestly:
1. Explain why they do it. Not everything needs to be spun as "this is better for you". Sometimes a change is just better for the game overall.
2. Show how it is part of a bigger plan. For instance, when perfect block was nerfed there was the promise that the team would go back and relook content. Even ROL got changed so it was easier to get through without perfect block.
In fact, I remember part of the big plan for 6 star champs was to make 5 stars more available, and they are. They certainly didn't mention that making only crummy 5 stars more available was part of the plan though.
Lots of players have asked questions about how Kabam likely datamined the game, and I can say from experience how most if not all MMO companies in general and all monetized F2P games do this as a matter of course. For people interested in knowing the broad strokes of this that it is 99% likely Kabam did, I can put that into some perspective. If you are only interested in an official statement from Kabam with the precise details of their datamining methodology I can't help you, and neither can anyone else on Earth, because no game company allows their employees to disclose that information. Short of breaking into Kabam's offices and conducting illegal corporate espionage, I'm afraid you will be unable to get what you want.
For all you know, they could have thrown darts. However, for all I know, to a reasonably high degree of confidence I know that they did not, at least not in the way you mean. I know they datamined the game. I know they datamined the metrics everyone datamines, and that includes metrics appropriate to monitoring variables the devs must know to operate their game properly. Metrics relevant to monetization, engagement, participation, progress, and resource management. What I know is simply different than what you know.
I have a point to discussing these things, because I'm familiar with them. If you don't think I'm a credible source, then there's no point in you discussing it with me. That would not invalidate my point in addressing the topic when it comes up.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. I work for Kabam and that's how I know precisely what they do. That's a reasonable paraphrase of the post you quoted, if you squint real hard and hit your forehead with a hammer repeatedly.
I will say that while I loved my block team it was ridiculous and the game is better without the leadership synergy so I've gotta give Kabam credit on that one. Agree with you on the nerf and the highly effective cyclops lol
I can't explain how Kabam could justifiably say that, although I can say that @Kabam Miike only said that about a subset list of champions, not all of them.
I also can say that even if a Kabam dev came on the forums and directly stated that all of the curated champions would be among the most effective, I would then ask them how that was mathematically possible when that contradicts their statements about the numbers and restrictions of the curated list. Specifically, that the list must have an absolute minimum of 36 champions (because they cannot repeat) and as a practical matter at least 45 champions (because otherwise the two crystal's basic champions would be forced to alternate) and as there are only about 82 basic champions to pick from in the first place, at least 4 of the curated champions would have to be literally below average (only 41 can be above average).
The top 25% of all basic crystal champions is about 20 of them. It is literally impossible to make the new featured crystal work with 20, because after you use the first eighteen there's no way to make the crystal in May without repeats. The literal mathematical limit - which is still ridiculous because it forces the crystals to alternate, which contradicts what @Kabam Miike implied about the crystals - requires the top 44% of all basic champions. The top 44% can't all be great, or even good as many players judge good.
*Some* of the champions in the curated list could be among the more effective champs. Some literally cannot be because that's otherwise impossible.
I've also tried, and apparently ineffectively, to explain that "effective" doesn't likely mean "best." When a game developer says effective in the context of data mining, It means, when played by a player, that it generates more rewards than average at a lower cost than average (in the case of MCOC, that would mean dying less and using potions less generally), or something comparable.
In terms of which champions are *strongest* I would bet money that Cyclops is not in the top 25%. However, I would not bet money that Cyclops when played by the players that play him regularly isn't in the top 25% of champions that generate the most rewards or generates the most kills relative to the other 80+ champions in the 5* basic crystal. You're not betting on how strong Cyclops is anymore, you're betting on how other players play the game. I wouldn't risk my money betting on how other players, from top to bottom, play the game.
And to be frank, I can also say that @Kabam Miike isn't always right. Sometimes he misstates things (I've corrected his wording multiple times), sometimes he says things provable inaccurate (I've pointed out a couple here as well), and sometimes he is simply mistaken. As a community coordinator its his job to communicate clearly and accurately, but he is just one person and isn't necessarily the final word from Kabam about game design decisions.
Its the only word we have, so we have every right to demand clarity, but history sets the expectation we won't always get it. If I was him, I would not have described any champion in the crystal as "among the most effective." I would have said "among the more effective" or even "above average in effectiveness." My words don't demand justification. "Most" sets you up to justify that judgment, something you know you can't do without proprietary data you can't release.
Exactly! Couldn't agree more. With no reference point, these statements are meaningless, even obsolete.
It's kind of like the big shift from percentage values to flat numerical values during the v12.0 fiasco. Previously champion X had 12.4% armor and that made perfect sense. Now they have 932... 932 what? Bananas? Cucumbers? The point is a raw number or statement like this with no point of reference has no meaning, no context and therefore leaves more questions than answers.
When I say I have a reasonably high degree of certainty, what I mean is that the degree of certainty I have is high enough to reasonably operate as if the belief was true for all intents and purposes unless and until new evidence contradicts it. That doesn't mean I'm just guessing. That's comparable to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard jury members are instructed to operate under. You're never 100% certain about anything. So we don't know anything "for sure." But I can be sure enough to render a guilty verdict and walk away confident I made the correct decision about the fate of another human being's life.
Relative to that, I am somewhat more certain that Kabam datamines metrics the way everyone else I'm aware of does than the beyond reasonable doubt standard. Still not 100%, and yes, we still don't know for sure. And never will. The same way we are unlikely to be 100% sure of anything. 100% certainty is a useless standard to apply to anything in the real world.
The reality is it doesn't matter what they comment on as the most effective. Naturally, they're going to have a positive spin on Champs. It's their job. They're not just going to come out and say X Champ sucks, or Y Champ is ****. Besides that, what was stated wasn't even inaccurate to conceive. The small number that use Cyclops use him very effectively.
I think we're getting defocused on "most effective", and missing the point entirely. They're trying to omit the ones that perform the poorest. Which means anything else could be included.
Nope.
It's a good possibility that Cage and Rulk were omitted because they're testing buffs. What I suspect is they are looking at working on at least some of the Champs that are found on that list. I don't suspect they will give a list of the Champs they're leaving out.
For that matter, there's nowhere for us to go. They've explained what they're trying to do. We can speculate about the process, but they're relying on their own findings ultimately.