**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
An Update to Balancing in MCOC!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I wonder if the ratings will be rough. Say iHulk, Hyperion, and Archangel all have 5/5 for damage. They make new champ Blue Marvel and they want him to be in rank 5 but his output at Hyperion class is too hard to achieve and too shart to be of value so they tweak him.
That reminds me of the old Image comics rating system where god-tier Strength-Speed-Durability superhumans were called Majestic class after Mr Majestic (Superman pastiche for those those that don't know). That categorization could be easier for people to wrap their heads around. Saying "We want her to be Hyperion class ballpark for damage" and she's Grooting it up, you know they missed the mark and can convey that simply by saying, "Lol. No. She's Grooting like mad. Go back to the lab."
The biggest issue with this is the blind reliance on (sometimes clearly faulty) data. Kabam is correct that the impact for these 2 wasn’t that big of a deal but the issue is a failure to understand why. Very few people liked using Cull because he has top end damage but nearly no end game viability due to trash block. Now he still has top end damage, but less so, and not much will change. Some people might still choose to use him but the nerf was just clearly 100% unnecessary.
Namor was and is solid, but only when you’re max sig (a big ask). His ramp up was rather slow and now it’s worse so he’s less desirable for anything except super long unavoidable damage fights. Even setting all that aside, I don’t care how many times it’s repeated, Namor’s regen was nowhere, not even close, to some of the best in the game. It was barely passable. Anyone that played him knew that but instead a clearly faulty formula was relied upon so that his regen now may as well be non-existent. I still suspect that the data included not taking damage at max sig as healing from it thus grossly inflating the “heal”.
In other words, both were completely unnecessary nerfs. These are not a shining light of balance changes done right and proven over time. They were just tone deaf changes done in vacuum that still left the champions capable of performing their core functions but mainly just served to annoy players.
I appreciate that more flexibility is wanted in design and I completely agree with the concepts. But I haven’t seen a “balance” done right yet and that makes what could be exciting, instead quite terrifying. I’d feel a lot better if the previous tries were straight up owned as mistakes that won’t be repeated.
I digress
I fail to see why the player base is as you say it, “stupid”.
Essentially what is being told in this post is the beloved buff program is being replaced. This replacement will buff less champions and add a rating system that no one asked for or really wants.
1. I do believe a rating system will be beneficial for newer players to the game, especially when knowing what champions are good for what - I think this is a plus. However, from an experienced player’s standpoint, it seems that this is more or less a waste of time; an experienced player knows what counters to bring, and when to bring them.
2. This program will reduce the buff cadence, which is helpful for all players. As a more experienced player, I rely on these monthly buffs to stay interested in the game. Buffed champs with new interactions, new mechanics, and new experiences alleviate the need for more content in an otherwise slow month (especially January and February). This is part of the reason that there’s been a forum post at the top of general for the past week asking for who the February buff champs are. I cannot stress this enough, but this is exactly why I am not in favor of this system. Buffed champs = more enjoyment = more likely to spend = alleviating boredom.
3. I agree with the idea of making the team’s intention clear to players for each champ. That, in itself, will help players understand what to expect for the champ’s purpose before even receiving it. It will be a (pardon the pun) Herculean task to classify all types of utility in the game as intended utility level by the team, but I wish them luck.
4. In contrast to the above, I disagree with the idea of balancing the champ after release - I believe the team is making this harder on themselves. By selling a champion upon release that can be potentially tuned-down or tuned-up, the consumer base will be more reluctant to buy this said champion, and it will create more hostility and discontent towards the team. A solution I would suggest is to extend the content creators’ beta for a champion to fix issues before release.
Final notes:
I believe this is a case of good idea, horrible timing. Yes, this system should be implemented, but only after buffing the rest of the champs that need to be looked at - not take this system of prioritizing new champs’ edits over older ones. This is especially bad timing due to January and February being slow months.
In addition, I do not think that a champion should be tuned down with this program; champions should be tuned down before release and then tuned up later if necessary.
We can't ask for communication and clarification and then turn our nose up at efforts to offer that.
Also there are lots of champs who gets completely new uses and utilities with synergies.
How about instead of this ability rebalancing initiative you rebalance the outdated rewards like
Summoner advancement
Alliance event rank rewards
War win/loss rewards and crystals
Quest crystals
Alliance crystals