The ship has sailed. They're moving forward with the new system. You might as well accept it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn’t want buffs for champs that are drastically underperforming in the contest?
No, but I am suggesting that repeatedly posting objections to their new approach is beating a dead horse.
“New approach” aka consistently mediocre buffs at best with the potential of nerfs.
That horse clearly isnt the only dead thing here.
So I get where you’re coming from here, but we have only had 2 buffs to look at. Maybe the buffs will be consistently mediocre, but I think it’s too early to tell.
And we haven’t seen the balancing program at all yet, so we don’t know what that’ll be like. And I think “the potential for nerfs” is a pretty un-nuanced way to write it off. If the program delivers 23 solid tune ups and 1 slight tune down this next 12 months, would you say that program is a disaster because of the one nerf? It had the potential for nerfs after all, even though it’s clearly a net positive for the game.
What if it had 0 nerfs and no champs needed to be tuned?
My point is, we don’t know what it will look like and it’s clearly going ahead. So why don’t we wait and see how it turns out, instead of negatively just saying “well, that’s a failure because there’s potential for nerfs”. Maybe they’ll be really bad, and there won’t be anything near like the benefit that the previous buff system gave us. Who knows?
The ship has sailed. They're moving forward with the new system. You might as well accept it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn’t want buffs for champs that are drastically underperforming in the contest?
No, but I am suggesting that repeatedly posting objections to their new approach is beating a dead horse.
“New approach” aka consistently mediocre buffs at best with the potential of nerfs.
That horse clearly isnt the only dead thing here.
So I get where you’re coming from here, but we have only had 2 buffs to look at. Maybe the buffs will be consistently mediocre, but I think it’s too early to tell.
And we haven’t seen the balancing program at all yet, so we don’t know what that’ll be like. And I think “the potential for nerfs” is a pretty un-nuanced way to write it off. If the program delivers 23 solid tune ups and 1 slight tune down this next 12 months, would you say that program is a disaster because of the one nerf? It had the potential for nerfs after all, even though it’s clearly a net positive for the game.
What if it had 0 nerfs and no champs needed to be tuned?
My point is, we don’t know what it will look like and it’s clearly going ahead. So why don’t we wait and see how it turns out, instead of negatively just saying “well, that’s a failure because there’s potential for nerfs”. Maybe they’ll be really bad, and there won’t be anything near like the benefit that the previous buff system gave us. Who knows?
Even if we have 23 amazing buffs, if there is 1 nerf the whole community will be in uproar that their precious champion was nerfed and how dare kabam even touch their favorite champion. The point is people will always complain no matter how good the rebalancing program is.
The ship has sailed. They're moving forward with the new system. You might as well accept it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn’t want buffs for champs that are drastically underperforming in the contest?
No, but I am suggesting that repeatedly posting objections to their new approach is beating a dead horse.
“New approach” aka consistently mediocre buffs at best with the potential of nerfs.
That horse clearly isnt the only dead thing here.
And we haven’t seen the balancing program at all yet, so we don’t know what that’ll be like. And I think “the potential for nerfs” is a pretty un-nuanced way to write it off. If the program delivers 23 solid tune ups and 1 slight tune down this next 12 months, would you say that program is a disaster because of the one nerf? It had the potential for nerfs after all, even though it’s clearly a net positive for the game.
Im open to their ideas, but the lack of information given and the use of the two champs that have been buffed is still bad. While i see you point, im looking at what it has delivered so far, which is absolutely nothing. We’ve gotten the single worst buff in the past 24 months and a small tune to a champ that will still barely get used.
Im sure it could be fine but so far it is incredibly underwhelming especially considering the old cadence of 1 tuneup/1 moderate/1 overhaul per month. Obviously i get how much strain that put on their team but even so those buffs were all really strong. Look at Mr.F, Massacre, or Nebula. They got some relatively minor changes which made them fantastic champs.
Even Angela, she received essentially a line of text and was improved a ton. That in itself was somewhat of a “low effort” buff but it was super effective.
Ill wait and see in the coming months but im a bot nervous for the state of the buff program.
It was all fun and games until those 2 arrived and argued. Geez. Every single time.
Yeah I wish I could block people from commenting on posts. I have 2 people in mind right off the bat
Actually you can block them so you don’t have see theirs comments. I have one of them blocked. First, switch to full site mode or just use a computer browser. Then click on that member, you will see this icon
It was all fun and games until those 2 arrived and argued. Geez. Every single time.
Yeah I wish I could block people from commenting on posts. I have 2 people in mind right off the bat
Actually you can block them so you don’t have see theirs comments. I have one of them blocked. First, switch to full site mode or just use a computer browser. Then click on that member, you will see this icon
Click on ignore and say yes.
YES!!!!! This is the most important comment I've ever read on the forums!
The only thing sadder than an R4 Groot’s damage is forum members taking themselves too seriously and disrespecting the meaning of a thread, arguing their points over it.
I’m no groot expert but couldn’t one theoretically take a @Real_Madrid_76_2 approach to playing him and get smacked in the face 37 times to get fury buffs? Surely there’s some way to make him hit harder than 2.7K mediums lol
Comments
And we haven’t seen the balancing program at all yet, so we don’t know what that’ll be like. And I think “the potential for nerfs” is a pretty un-nuanced way to write it off. If the program delivers 23 solid tune ups and 1 slight tune down this next 12 months, would you say that program is a disaster because of the one nerf? It had the potential for nerfs after all, even though it’s clearly a net positive for the game.
What if it had 0 nerfs and no champs needed to be tuned?
My point is, we don’t know what it will look like and it’s clearly going ahead. So why don’t we wait and see how it turns out, instead of negatively just saying “well, that’s a failure because there’s potential for nerfs”. Maybe they’ll be really bad, and there won’t be anything near like the benefit that the previous buff system gave us. Who knows?
Im sure it could be fine but so far it is incredibly underwhelming especially considering the old cadence of 1 tuneup/1 moderate/1 overhaul per month. Obviously i get how much strain that put on their team but even so those buffs were all really strong. Look at Mr.F, Massacre, or Nebula. They got some relatively minor changes which made them fantastic champs.
Even Angela, she received essentially a line of text and was improved a ton. That in itself was somewhat of a “low effort” buff but it was super effective.
Ill wait and see in the coming months but im a bot nervous for the state of the buff program.
Click on ignore and say yes.
I’m no groot expert but couldn’t one theoretically take a @Real_Madrid_76_2 approach to playing him and get smacked in the face 37 times to get fury buffs? Surely there’s some way to make him hit harder than 2.7K mediums lol