**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
There is currently an issue where some Alliances are are unable to find a match in Alliance Wars, or are receiving Byes without getting the benefits of the Win. We will be adjusting the Season Points of the Alliances that are affected within the coming weeks, and will be working to compensate them for their missed Per War rewards as well.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
An Update to Balancing in MCOC!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Now delete this comment don't give a flying **** & I am out
Once upon a time, champions were designed, released, monitored, and then if necessary rebalanced. Back when champions were much simpler, champions didn't need rebalancing as often, but this was still the process. We know this because Kabam described this process long ago. My guess is that when they moved to the more aggressive buff schedule, this released champion review process was either heavily reduced or almost completely eliminated to make time for the buff program. And as a result, we might be seeing a higher variation in champions: more super gods, more duds.
This is problematic, because today's duds are tomorrow's old duds. If we are focusing on buffing old champs to the point where we're breaking all the new champs, we're not really making progress on the problem. What's more, whether we buff an old champ or a new champ in the long run doesn't affect how many duds the average player gets, but it does sour the new champion well more if the new champs are busted. More over, the longer the champ exists, the more people have it, the more familiar people are with the champ, the harder it becomes to tweak if there's a problem.
The hope, I'm guessing, is to solve several problems simultaneously. First, to try to stop the flow of duds into general population by returning to the old style release/review/tweak system. This might reduce the number of duds faster than buffing the old champs, because these tweaks are less likely to get tangled up in long term player expectations. Second, increase the value of new champions and new champion pools (which, when all is said and done, ultimately powers the game). And third, to learn some lessons from the last time this sort of thing was attempted, and create a system where the devs can signal to the players well in advance what the intended capabilities of a champion are in general terms, so that players are less surprised by updates: both when they happen, and what things are updated when they happen.
The rating system is not necessary for Kabam to update champions. The rating system is there to communicate to the players what they intended to make and what they are looking at when the release a champion. It is a kind of short hand for communicating the design intent of the champion when it was created. If we eliminate the rating system, all that changes is the players no longer get to know ahead of time what the design intent of champions is. The devs will still return to the release/monitor/tweak system. We just won't have any inside view of it.
A champion that should be nerfed but isn't because that's supposedly better for the players is like a student who isn't punished for cheating in class because that is supposedly better for the students. The problem is the same: both are graded on a curve. The student who cheats improves their grades at the expense of every other student. The champion that isn't nerfed keeps their performance by reducing the performance of every other champion in the game, by increasing the relative difficulty of the content of the game to accommodate it.
That's just how content is implemented in games like this. Its all driven by metrics. Average performance metrics.
What I'm not fine with is that it is replacing a well established buff system that was almost universally praised with hits like Mole Man, Ultron, Nebula, Diablo, Bishop, Venompool, Thor Ragnarok and Howard the Duck.
Kabam you need to up your game. But then again you guys really don't care what we think.
Unlike many that think it, this game isn’t dying. They make money, regardless of how much people think they’ve lost on all the “horrible” deals they give us. You also don’t put time into a game like this an release videos of upcoming stuff, a new game mode, input fixes, this balance update etc. for a game that’s just a “sunk cost” to them
You saying this is a sunk cost makes it seem like they are putting the effort (time and money) in for this stuff and will receive nothing. That is not the case. They will still turn a pretty profit for their efforts.
The game is the game, and within reason, we see how the game is monetized. They have been pretty consistent with that, for the most part, for years. I don’t have an issue with that; the game needs to make a profit.
But my point was that, for example, Superior Iron Man was released in 2015 or 2016, something like that. A reskin. Never particularly impactful upon the game.
That character has already been done. It’s sunk cost. The people who worked on the skin have already been paid. The kit itself is almost identical to OG Iron Man, even after the slightest of adjustments, years ago, so that design work was minimal.
Reworking Superior Iron Man would require new investment of time and resources — let’s say it was $100, as a round/even number.
Now, I would authorize it, because the kit hasn’t held up well and was never that strong to begin with. I would offer the kit in crystals again, after the buff, and attempt to make back the new investment expenditure that way, something like that.
But some people wouldn’t do that. Some people would say, “use that $100 elsewhere, or not at all. The kit’s done. Sunk cost.”
That’s the vibe this game gives, at times. Not that people aren’t working on it, still, in the present as part of their workflow/employment. The game is still operating and, as you noted, making a profit.
But in what feels, since last August, the diminishing cadence of buffs. Now this. I think everyone understands the pandemic has been hard to handle, and I don’t care if Wish crystals never make it to the game, stuff like that.
But I do question if addressing old concerns are simply not worth it to them
There are champs that are immensely better for certain content. Kabam controls that by changing the nodes and the champs usefulness moving forward. Every few months there's max sig Namor content and duped Ronan content. Those champs are so much better than any other option for that content that it doesn't make sense to use anyone else.
Maybe it would be more useful if they ran the metrics by people and talked about how they determine a champ is too strong/weak and needs tweaking. The Namor regen is a good example of data used poorly that they should have run by someone before talking about it.
The nerf to Hercules 😡 made little to no sense unless the purpose was to annoy players and remind them that anyone can get that pointless nerf so keep your torches and pitchforks ready. All the post-release nerf culture will do is make people angry because it's hardly ever truly necessary and wouldn't take months to discern in any case.
That's what I gathered. I also suspect it will assist in our own understanding, though I believe people will still compile their own judgments either way.In other words, this sounds like the devs will be tuning champs to match the ratings, not set the ratings to match the champs. So the rating has to be more of what the devs want, not what they know the champ is. The ratings are subjective in a sense, because I believe they express intent. But that's unavoidable with intent. The point is not for the rating to be an absolute measure of a champ's performance. I believe it is to communicate to the players what the devs are aiming for, so devs and players are on the same page.
This is the single most intriguing thing about the whole post..... so they hired someone from here, from the forums, to work directly on the buff program.
Who, is this community member that they hired to work on this new Champion Balancing team???
My bet (hope) is on @BitterSteel . He has written extensively about the buff program , really well thought out posts. Besides, if my memory served me right I think he has degrees/background in statistics/data analytics so he fits the bill perfectly. And he is also well loved and respected in the forums.
Another (wishful thinking) one could be perhaps @DNA3000 ? Similar reasons as above.
.... or maybe is a forum mod that got promoted to Balancing Team member? Imagine if it's @Kabam Miike ... if it's him then I guess we will FINALLY get a Cyclops buff that would truly make him "EFFECTIVE" !!!! Yay? I guess...
But ah well, I guess we'll know when we'll know.
The game needs bug fixes not tier lists