**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.

General Game Feedback [Merged Threads]

1…2223252728…118

Comments

  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    Amadeo01 said:


    I see what you're saying, but if they have all the data, I do not think that if they took the lowest damage champion in the game and tweaked up his/her attack by 10% that suddenly, they'd be overpowered and cause imbalance. Nor would I suspect that requires beta testing. When they "rebalanced" the champs recently, I don't actually recall any beta testing and those changes were much more significant than the simple things I'm proposing. I was actually thinking that the concern would be on the opposite end, where even if you took the time to tweak up a low-end champ, it probably wouldn't much difference anyway.

    The rebalancing of the champs was because they noticed that the champ wasn't working as intended. In a way, the gameplay of players using these champs were like the beta. The whole point of the beta is to test champs and note any good/bad things. That's why even though champs go through beta, they're not guaranteed to stay the same as they were in beta. The rebalances were made after "player testing", which is just another way of saying "players using the champs". Also, if it wouldn't make any difference, why tweak them?
  • BenQcSlayerBenQcSlayer Posts: 867 ★★★
    Mirage_Turtle said:

    BenQcSlayer said:

    Notsavage19 said:

    BenQcSlayer said:


    I also wonder why Kabam haven't found a solution, a form of agreement that allows the players to either sell or transfer their account to another player or friend! After all if someone spent a few hundred or thousand dollar$$ on this game, including investing his time, he should own the right to transfert or sell his account!

    Because that's not fair to the other players. You could just buy an account instead of working for it. Also, lets say you buy an account for $1000, and spend $1000 on crystals. You won't pull the same champs, which means it's not the same just to spend the money on your own account versus spending money to get someone else's account.
    I agree that buying an account makes it easier than working for it, and will give an advantage over other players, unless they also buy an account that is already stacked with a great roster.

    Your account is yours and it represents the "time and money" you invested in it and that as value for anyone who as an account. Kabam should find a solution an agreement with players to allow them to sell that "value".

    Not everyone can agree with this proposition, it is an idea thrown in the mix with many other idea found on this thread.
    Your account is owned by Kabam no matter how much money you put into it.
    My mistake, I should of wrote, "your account is owned by Kabam" but players should be able to sell the Value that is represented by the money and time they invested in their account.

    Just a suggestion, that I think will never land on the discussion table at Kabam headquarter!
  • Amadeo01Amadeo01 Posts: 212 ★★★
    Notsavage19 said:

    Amadeo01 said:


    I see what you're saying, but if they have all the data, I do not think that if they took the lowest damage champion in the game and tweaked up his/her attack by 10% that suddenly, they'd be overpowered and cause imbalance. Nor would I suspect that requires beta testing. When they "rebalanced" the champs recently, I don't actually recall any beta testing and those changes were much more significant than the simple things I'm proposing. I was actually thinking that the concern would be on the opposite end, where even if you took the time to tweak up a low-end champ, it probably wouldn't much difference anyway.

    The rebalancing of the champs was because they noticed that the champ wasn't working as intended. In a way, the gameplay of players using these champs were like the beta. The whole point of the beta is to test champs and note any good/bad things. That's why even though champs go through beta, they're not guaranteed to stay the same as they were in beta. The rebalances were made after "player testing", which is just another way of saying "players using the champs". Also, if it wouldn't make any difference, why tweak them?
    I don't really think that's the case. Take the rebalancing of namor. It wasn't him not working as intended. It was them looking at the data and saying, hm, he's doing a bit too much damage for our liking b/c he gets to 30 charges too fast. Hm, he seems to be regenerating quite a bit, let's lower that. It had nothing to do with his mechanics not working as intended. Similarly, when they looked at invisible woman, they straight up said that they noticed her damage was below average, but they were going to leave it because synergies might help her. That's what I'm talking about. If they pull up a really pillow-fisted champ, they could easily see that his/her attack is below average. It should not be a terribly involved process to bring it up so it is more along "average" levels. And of course it would make a difference, I was just saying that if they are so afraid it'll suddenly make the bottom of the barrel champ OP (which it won't), they can do it first and collect some more data for a few months to see if damage is now more in-line with other champs and it made enough of a difference that more ppl are now using/ranking that champ.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    Nick_Caine_32 said:


    To be fair though, and you seem to keep missing this, but they've done quite a few "tweaks" before to champions without having a beta. Gamora, Hulk, abomination, winter soldier, hawkeye, punisher, Magik...and a few more i'm forgetting - all had changes done in the monthly updates with no betas required. Some of them were very small like animation changes that added abilities, some were more extensive like Gamora, but all of them didn't get a dedicated beta for their changes. Only when they started doing "full" reworks like venom, luke cage, she hulk, red hulk, etc did they start doing the wider beta testing with the players.

    Small attribute changes shouldn't take an entire dedicated beta to test and see if they make the champs better. No change that small like the examples I listed would unbalance the game or require some extensive testing period to get results. For a company that pulls in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue, it's not being unreasonable for players to request some small changes in older champs to make them somewhat viable in current content. Full reworks, yes, we understand the time commitment and having to do betas for them. But some middle ground and a sense of urgency in fixing these older champs diluting the 6 star pool would go a long way to satisfying players who are getting bored.

    Okay, I get what you're saying, but those small changes in the champs still took time. And what other people are suggesting is going into the champ's attack rating and changing the attack ratings, not adding abilities. Kabam didn't make any noticeable changes to the attack ratings of champs like Hulk, Gamora, Abom, etc to my knowledge. They added abilities that made them more viable. That requires some time. But what some people are suggesting is actually changing the attack rating of champions, which is capable of creating imbalance. What if a maxed 2* is able to do more damage than a maxed 3* at its base? By tweaking the actual base attack, you open a door to multiple problems. My tweaking abilities, it's not going to create as much imbalance, but it take much longer.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,234 ★★★★★
    Notsavage19 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I don't agree with that line of thinking at all. Progression-wise, I don't expect to use lower Champs in progressively higher Story content. While I will agree that the Gates between Act 5 and Act 6 are extreme, I don't see going backwards as something that logically happens. There are many ways to create content for lower, unused Champs. This isn't one of them that I see. To be perfectly honest, it leaves me scratching my head.

    But that means Kabam is trapped in an upward spiral where they have to keep making things harder, and release higher-tier champs (7 stars), and I feel like they've already created viable champions, so why not put them to use? We've used them once, and we're not really going to use them for much content. If they wanted to do a new Book, it would make sense that the progression path would be similar to Book 1, where the first and second Acts were completed using 2*s. This way, Kabam can focus their energy on something else, and not on making a new star-tier champion. Think about how much work goes into making another mechanic for a 7*. They have the mini-game for sp3 in 5 and 6*s, they have adrenaline for 6*s. What would they add for 7*s and how much time would that take? If they didn't incorporate lower tiers into their Story Mode content, the only direction would be to go up, and that would mean so much work for Kabam, when they could make challenging content with the champs they already have.
    In terms of Story, I can think of a whole host of games which make it the quintessential goal post for hurdles and unlocking more content. You get past X in Story to mark progression and access Y. I don't think we're even close to 7*s yet. We still don't have Max 6*s. I do see that there's a concern because of the extremity between Act 5 and 6, but I don't think using lower Champs is a way to go. The upward spiral people are referencing is Story. It gets harder as you go up.
  • Unio77Unio77 Posts: 2,532 ★★★★★
    If it were simple as on overnight change this game could be one of the best in the market of its kind
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    Amadeo01 said:


    I don't really think that's the case. Take the rebalancing of namor. It wasn't him not working as intended. It was them looking at the data and saying, hm, he's doing a bit too much damage for our liking b/c he gets to 30 charges too fast. Hm, he seems to be regenerating quite a bit, let's lower that. It had nothing to do with his mechanics not working as intended. Similarly, when they looked at invisible woman, they straight up said that they noticed her damage was below average, but they were going to leave it because synergies might help her. That's what I'm talking about. If they pull up a really pillow-fisted champ, they could easily see that his/her attack is below average. It should not be a terribly involved process to bring it up so it is more along "average" levels. And of course it would make a difference, I was just saying that if they are so afraid it'll suddenly make the bottom of the barrel champ OP (which it won't), they can do it first and collect some more data for a few months to see if damage is now more in-line with other champs and it made enough of a difference that more ppl are now using/ranking that champ.

    Exactly. Namor wasn't working as the developers intended. But like I said, you can't just tweak the base attack of a champ by much without opening a door to many problems. Instead, you can change some of their abilities that could increase their attack to make them viable, but those things take time.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:


    In terms of Story, I can think of a whole host of games which make it the quintessential goal post for hurdles and unlocking more content. You get past X in Story to mark progression and access Y. I don't think we're even close to 7*s yet. We still don't have Max 6*s. I do see that there's a concern because of the extremity between Act 5 and 6, but I don't think using lower Champs is a way to go. The upward spiral people are referencing is Story. It gets harder as you go up.

    I understand what you're saying, and I know that there are many games that just go up in terms of dealing with progression, but as of now, I don't that the Contest would benefit from higher tier champs and increasing fight PIs. Instead, I'm saying that we should keep the difficulty the same, but just tone it to the level of lower tier champs, since we are restarting a book. It's not going to make it any easier, it's just going to require a different kind of roster.
  • ChrisBosioChrisBosio Posts: 50 ★
    I don't know if this has been touched on in this thread yet, but I think that a big issue with the game is the steadfast stance that the in-game economy is in good shape. We saw in Dorky Diggity Dave's interview with the Kabam team that Kabam Frenchie (iirc) continuously dodged gold issues, wouldn't acknowledge issues with resources in general, and basically just skirted the questions that Dave was asking. He also did an interview on the Contest Realm Podcast with RichtheMan and Dan from FrontlineMCOC. It felt quite a bit the same listening to him skirt issues and respond with canned answers. The claim that they want to manage progression through the game but then offering crystals for units/money doesn't really feel like it lines up. Obviously Kabam is a business, but if they are going to claim something, they should do a better job of supporting that claim elsewhere in game. The desire to drive FTP players down and bend the knee to whales feels a lot like a product at the end of its product life-cycle. Rehashing the same old things over and over again, the eventual launch of their next big game, and a general lack of acknowledgement of what the in game issues are feels a lot like they are preparing for the end of the game regardless of their claims that they have a road-map that goes out for years. "How much money can we collect on auto-pilot before it's not worth managing the servers anymore?" seems to be the path they are currently on. I certainly hope this isn't the case because I love the depth and community that comes along with this game, but it seems like the Book2: Act 1 beta has brought a lot of the long existing problems back to the forefront and seemingly is the last straw for a ton of the players in this game.

    @Kabam Miike posted a response to the general backlash Kabam has been receiving over the last couple of days, but he didn't really touch on anything. More of the same. "We are going to do this" or "We see the issues and may/may not be working on them" or "It takes a lot of time." Feels again like there are issues they refuse to acknowledge and they are just providing canned answers. Maybe the people at the top have something to do with this and the Kabam employees we see/hear from/deal with are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully some things get worked out and they share some information about the future of the game.



  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    edited May 2020
    Mirage_Turtle said:




    The problem is this imbalance already exists. I have MANY 4* champs that can outdamage my 6* Ebony Maw. The situation you're afraid of is already here. What I'm suggesting is a way to eliminate it.

    Not out damage, but have higher base attack. Sure, your 4* corvus or namor could out damage a noodle like 6* ebony, but their base attacks aren't higher (to my knowledge). That's why you tweak abilities, not just the base attack.
  • slackerslacker Posts: 772 ★★★★
    Taking about champion rebalance things, i would prefer rework a whole new ability than little change in number, that would make them game-changer than better-for-nothing, Colosus, She Hulk,Venom,.. is great example, then again rework is like making new champ's ability, took time, but the waiting is worth for quality of new ability
  • Amadeo01Amadeo01 Posts: 212 ★★★
    slacker said:

    Taking about champion rebalance things, i would prefer rework a whole new ability than little change in number, that would make them game-changer than better-for-nothing, Colosus, She Hulk,Venom,.. is great example, then again rework is like making new champ's ability, took time, but the waiting is worth for quality of new ability

    No argument there, that's definitely preferable, but that is the long process that requires 6+ months. My suggestion is actually primarily towards champs that already have utility and don't need a full rework (like Heimdall), but would benefit from just having a bit of a buff to damage. Something like that.
  • Mirage_TurtleMirage_Turtle Posts: 1,868 ★★★★
    slacker said:

    Taking about champion rebalance things, i would prefer rework a whole new ability than little change in number, that would make them game-changer than better-for-nothing, Colosus, She Hulk,Venom,.. is great example, then again rework is like making new champ's ability, took time, but the waiting is worth for quality of new ability

    I'm not suggesting that it's an either/or scenario. I think they should keep going with the older champion overhauls as I've been pleased with each of the ones you listed (though they could stand to be faster). All I'm suggesting is smaller changes to other champs in the meantime to try to squeeze some relevance out of them.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    Amadeo01 said:


    So unless the developers intended for those bottom of the barrel champs to be useless and do no damage, why would it be a hugely involved process to say, hey, in our data, champion x seems to be doing below average damage, we didn't intend for him/her to be useless, let's bring it up a bit to be more in-line with other champs in the game. I honestly can't see a scenario where you can take a really really pillow fisted champ, tweak up the damage some 5-10%, and suddenly boom, you've opened pandora's box and that champ is now going to be OP, which seems to be what you keep alluding to.

    One opportunity they could use to evaluate champs like this is when they are adding them into the 6* pool. Before throwing in champs, take a breath and look at their data. Look at iron patriot. Look at joe fixit. Look at the stats, how is their health? How is their damage? What is their usability? Make a few minor tweaks if necessary before introducing it into the 6* crystal. Something like that.

    So there's two paths this can go. You can do the 10% increase to base attack, which essentially does nothing. The variation in attack rating among champions is higher than that 10% increase.

    Or you could increase the percentage more, which would make them more viable, BUT, it would also create some imbalance.

    The point is that increasing the attack rating is either going to do nothing, or too much. That's why we change abilities. And those take time.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:


    There's only 1 small, but significant flaw in that global: attack rating is good, but block proficiency needs to be raised. Otherwise the 2*s will get shattered on every parry.

    That's the point. You have intercept. That way the challenge is there, but it's doable with any 2* champ.
Sign In or Register to comment.