Mole-Man true accuracy removed during Frenzy.

Mole Man: True Accuracy no longer remains active while in Frenzy mode.

It was bound to happen.

Comments

"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them."
Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”

Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?

Did i say it was intended?

Malreck04

This is absolutely a nerf. Bug or not, people ranked him up for this utility, myself included. Was there ever any communication from Kabam saying they were going to fix it?

If not, we should have the selling thing like with Namor and Cull because that is better than rank down tickets.

GroundedWisdom

"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them."
Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”

Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?

Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing.
Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't.
We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here.
Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.

Masterpuff

"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them."
Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”

Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left?

Didnt say it was unintended either. There’s no way of knowing, description differed from actual use for such a long time without clarification that no one could really keep track anymore.

Graves_3

"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them."
Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”

Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing.
Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't.
We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here.
Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.

How long did it take for you to post this response? Maybe a minute? That’s something the mods could have done when numerous questions about this ‘bug’ were raised. They could have said it’s a bug and will be fixed in the future and all this could have been avoided.
All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them."
Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”

Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing.
Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't.
We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here.
Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
How long did it take for you to post this response? Maybe a minute? That’s something the mods could have done when numerous questions about this ‘bug’ were raised. They could have said it’s a bug and will be fixed in the future and all this could have been avoided.
All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.

I never said anything about RDTs. I leave that up to peoples' requests and Kabam.
As for confirmation, there were a few Posts over a year ago that were overlooked. After that, pretty much radio silence on our end as well. That's because no one was looking. They wanted it to be left.

Masterpuff

"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them."
Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”

Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing.
Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't.
We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here.
Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
How long did it take for you to post this response? Maybe a minute? That’s something the mods could have done when numerous questions about this ‘bug’ were raised. They could have said it’s a bug and will be fixed in the future and all this could have been avoided.
All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.
I never said anything about RDTs. I leave that up to peoples' requests and Kabam.
As for confirmation, there were a few Posts over a year ago that were overlooked. After that, pretty much radio silence on our end as well. That's because no one was looking. They wanted it to be left.

There’s one thread, I’d have to find it, about r4ing Moleman with a 7.4 gem or not to due to lack of communication surrounding his potential bug. Radio silence there too.

Malreck04

"Just a heads up. Incase you're taking advantage of any unintended outcomes, we're planning on fixing them."
Somehow that doesn't go over well.
“Just a heads up. Incase you’ve been using that unspecified discrepancy between the description and the actual game for the last year and a half, we are going to fix it despite not commenting on the issue throughout the year and a half it existed.”

Funny, i dont know why that did smooth right over with the community.
What part of his description, pre-buff and post-buff, indicated that the interaction was intended?
Did i say it was intended?
Then what's the argument? If you're aware it wasn't intended, why expect it to be left? I don't know why the argument keeps being made that it's been a year. An unintended effect is an unintended effect. People got good use out of it. Now they're fixing it, and everyone wants it to stay the same. On the basis of time existing.
Imma be frank. If there wasn't a purpose to them fixing it, it would have been left. Yet everyone and their cousin becomes an expert on what is okay to leave and what isn't.
We all have our opinions, and we all have the right to express them. Arguing semantics is a weak argument. We can't pick and choose which bugs they should fix and complain they don't fix things in the same breath. So many contradictions here.
Holding them responsible for fixing the game is ridiculous. So is expecting to keep any bug because people enjoy using it.
How long did it take for you to post this response? Maybe a minute? That’s something the mods could have done when numerous questions about this ‘bug’ were raised. They could have said it’s a bug and will be fixed in the future and all this could have been avoided.
All people are asking for was an acknowledgment of said bug and since there was none, some sort of restitution for the people who ranked him up. Specifically in the form of RDT’s. Better still would be to just change the description and leave him the way he is but since I am not everyone or their cousin, I will just settle for RDT.
I never said anything about RDTs. I leave that up to peoples' requests and Kabam.
As for confirmation, there were a few Posts over a year ago that were overlooked. After that, pretty much radio silence on our end as well. That's because no one was looking. They wanted it to be left.
There’s one thread, I’d have to find it, about r4ing Moleman with a 7.4 gem or not to due to lack of communication surrounding his potential bug. Radio silence there too.

I remember this one, back in april: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2071186#Comment_2071186

Demonzfyre

This is unjustifiably illegal.
I DEMAND RANK-DOWN TICKETS.

BTW I love how Kabam's undercover agents just keep clicking the "disagree" buttons on real players' thoughts about how they're disappointed.

Well when you say something as ridiculous as this, you will get disagrees.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Kappa2g

Its funny Kabam always chooses the worst route when it comes to this. You have a champion that is slightly bugged since release in a way that is pro-player/player beneficial but not enough to be gamebreaking yet they decide to rectify the change 2 years later when lots of players have probably ranked up, loved using the champion.

Is it really wrong to just say, hey players seem to be enjoying this lil extra utility on the champ and it doesn't really make the champ too overpowering, lets just keep it as it's been so long already. Do that and they'll get thanked by the community instead of stirring up a whole debacle about this.

WhyMe1984

It was a bug, since it's not what his description implies... but Kabam has known about this for a long while... players have encouraged each other to pursue moleman for this pro-player glitch... therefore they should have just updated his description and let it be... with all the other things they could have fixed that have been broken for so long that hurt players this is just like a slap in the face honestly, I use moleman for a lot of content. The bug wasn't game breaking cause you still had to manage monster masses to maintain it... Kabam you guys need to fix the lag and input issue now... you've had plenty of time to figure it out now since you have had time to mess up moleman.

Havanaknight

Kabam seem to have made a push for communication with Jax being hired and he’s made a really good impact. Let’s carry that on with some good communication here and explain why there’s a good reason to not give RDTs when a failure in Kabam’s communication over a year and 4 months led to people feeling they can rank up a bugged champion.

Jax has been very good and fairly quick to respond to many things here. I think his silence on this thread tells us everything we need to know.

Malreck04

Kabam seem to have made a push for communication with Jax being hired and he’s made a really good impact. Let’s carry that on with some good communication here and explain why there’s a good reason to not give RDTs when a failure in Kabam’s communication over a year and 4 months led to people feeling they can rank up a bugged champion.
Jax has been very good and fairly quick to respond to many things here. I think his silence on this thread tells us everything we need to know.

I have noticed this too. The issues he has replied to have gotten resolutions, which does not bode well for this topic

Worknprogress

@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.

It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".

So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.

Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:

Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.

Moleman's description goes
from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive"
to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.

Surging Vengeance goes
from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3."
to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".

just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.

What is the difference between those two situations?

The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.

With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.

In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?

My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)

Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.

So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.

Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.

So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?

Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.

Allow me to break this down for you.

Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.

In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.

EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.

OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.

You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.

Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.

Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.

OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.

So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.

All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
Which is exactly my point, thank you! Felt like I was going mad.

If the description can be changed to what is in game, then it's the same as Surging vengeance. Both are long term issues that haven't been fixed and need more clarity with their description to match what happens in game, and therefore nobody could possibly know if it's a bug or not, whether the description should be changed to fit the game, or the game should be fixed to fit the description.

That means, nobody could possibly know it's a definite bug when they ranked moleman and when you add that to the fact Kabam never told us it was a bug, Moleman's rank ups were all within reason that he was working correctly.

Except for the fact the wording was the same originally when he released as it is now. What changed was how he actually worked. While they may not have said it was a bug, they definitely didn't say that the change in how he worked was intended either. You're basically saying that everyone assumed he was bugged on initial release and that he was fixed when he was buffed. I'm sorry but that just doesn't hold water for me. You're saying it's not unreasonable to assume he's been working correctly bc that's how he's been working ever since his buff. At the same time that would mean people should have assumed he was working correctly originally and since no description was changed but how he worked did, it should have been glaringly obvious he was bugged.

No one has argued the communication wasn't handled horribly. There isn't any legitimate argument for people not realizing he's been bugged this whole time though.

Malreck04

@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.

It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".

So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.

Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:

Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.

Moleman's description goes
from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive"
to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.

Surging Vengeance goes
from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3."
to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".

just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.

What is the difference between those two situations?

The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.

With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.

In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?

My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)

Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.

So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.

Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.

So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?

Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.

Allow me to break this down for you.

Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.

In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.

EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.

OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.

You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.

Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.

Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.

OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.

So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.

All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
Which is exactly my point, thank you! Felt like I was going mad.

If the description can be changed to what is in game, then it's the same as Surging vengeance. Both are long term issues that haven't been fixed and need more clarity with their description to match what happens in game, and therefore nobody could possibly know if it's a bug or not, whether the description should be changed to fit the game, or the game should be fixed to fit the description.

That means, nobody could possibly know it's a definite bug when they ranked moleman and when you add that to the fact Kabam never told us it was a bug, Moleman's rank ups were all within reason that he was working correctly.
Except for the fact the wording was the same originally when he released as it is now. What changed was how he actually worked. While they may not have said it was a bug, they definitely didn't say that the change in how he worked was intended either. You're basically saying that everyone assumed he was bugged on initial release and that he was fixed when he was buffed. I'm sorry but that just doesn't hold water for me. You're saying it's not unreasonable to assume he's been working correctly bc that's how he's been working ever since his buff. At the same time that would mean people should have assumed he was working correctly originally and since no description was changed but how he worked did, it should have been glaringly obvious he was bugged.

No one has argued the communication wasn't handled horribly. There isn't any legitimate argument for people not realizing he's been bugged this whole time though.

The power to decide whether something is a bug or a feature lies with the developer, not the player. So the player can only make a best bet, but never conclusively declare something as a bug because the dev has freedom to simply say it is not so.

Worknprogress

@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.

It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".

So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.

Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:

Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.

Moleman's description goes
from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive"
to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.

Surging Vengeance goes
from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3."
to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".

just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.

What is the difference between those two situations?

The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.

With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.

In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?

My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)

Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.

So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.

Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.

So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?

Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.

Allow me to break this down for you.

Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.

In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.

EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.

OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.

You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.

Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.

Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.

OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.

So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.

All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
Which is exactly my point, thank you! Felt like I was going mad.

If the description can be changed to what is in game, then it's the same as Surging vengeance. Both are long term issues that haven't been fixed and need more clarity with their description to match what happens in game, and therefore nobody could possibly know if it's a bug or not, whether the description should be changed to fit the game, or the game should be fixed to fit the description.

That means, nobody could possibly know it's a definite bug when they ranked moleman and when you add that to the fact Kabam never told us it was a bug, Moleman's rank ups were all within reason that he was working correctly.
Except for the fact the wording was the same originally when he released as it is now. What changed was how he actually worked. While they may not have said it was a bug, they definitely didn't say that the change in how he worked was intended either. You're basically saying that everyone assumed he was bugged on initial release and that he was fixed when he was buffed. I'm sorry but that just doesn't hold water for me. You're saying it's not unreasonable to assume he's been working correctly bc that's how he's been working ever since his buff. At the same time that would mean people should have assumed he was working correctly originally and since no description was changed but how he worked did, it should have been glaringly obvious he was bugged.

No one has argued the communication wasn't handled horribly. There isn't any legitimate argument for people not realizing he's been bugged this whole time though.
The power to decide whether something is a bug or a feature lies with the developer, not the player. So the player can only make a best bet, but never conclusively declare something as a bug because the dev has freedom to simply say it is not so.

Which they did and are correcting with the next update. What's your point?

Players may not be able to declare something a bug, but they can sure notice them. Plenty of people did immediately. Plenty of other people did and then still chose to invest in him anyway (I have a R3 mole, I couldn't care less if RDT are issued) bc "Kabam would have to give RDT if they fix him anyway". I've had plenty of these conversations over the last year.

People keep saying Kabam didn't communicate this well so they're partially responsible (which is true), but players are also partially responsible for ranking him regardless of how many people tell them he's bugged and not bothering to realize that on their own.

I personally couldn't care less whether they give RDT or not. I definitely don't agree that they're owed to anyone though. People definitely need to get over the fact he's being fixed regardless and the whole "just leave him like he is bc I like him" nonsense is ridiculous. If someone is that bothered by the change, take your RDT if it comes and rank him down. If they don't come, oh well maybe read champ abilities a bit better next time and don't rely on a YouTuber to tell you who to rank.

Wally_Woofer

@solopolo when you say "In your hypothetical, Moleman's text literally states something that the champion does not do" I really worry that you're not following what I'm saying. My hypothetical is quite literally the situation where Moleman does do that.

It's like me saying hypothetically lets say my name is bob, and you said "In your hypothetical, your name literally isn't bob".

So please, answer my question that I've been trying to get you to answer for the last 3 posts.

Ok, in my hypothetical scenario:

Moleman/Surging Vengeance works correctly in game. Their ability description doesn't reflect what goes on.

Moleman's description goes
from: “When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive"
to: "When below 10 MM and not in frenzy MM gains a TA passive, this TA stays while in frenzy”.

Surging Vengeance goes
from: "Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3."
to: ""Uses Special Attacks in consecutive order from 1 to 3, restarting from the beginning after Special 3. If this opponent gets to SP3 they will use it immediately".

just stick to the hypothetical, where MM isn't bugged, his text doesn't say something he cannot do, because in my hypothetical Moleman is supposed to keep his TA in frenzy. This is important.

What is the difference between those two situations?

The difference is that you've completely changed the way that Moleman's ability functions. You've now created a lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass, and as a result the line you've added at the end is completely unnecessary because the True Accuracy wouldn't fall off upon activating Frenzy regardless.
Tell me, do you know the point of hypotheticals? I'm presenting a situation to ask about your logic and views on that situation. And when I do, you're acting like you have no idea what a hypothetical is.

With the bob example, it's like I've said "hypothetically lets say my name is bob", and you said "In your hypothetical, you've changed your name to bob! That's not allowed". Yes... that's the point of a hypothetical.

In response to me saying "Imagine Moleman's abilities are like this" and you've said "No you have changed what Moleman's abilities are like". Do you not see how you are missing the point of the hypothetical?

My whole point here, is that if Moleman's ability description was changed and it wasn't a bug you would have no way to explain the difference between that and surging vengeance because there isn't one. Your only differences you've offered are "Moleman is bugged" (my hypothetical states that it's not bugged), "you've added an ability to moleman" (no, my hypothetical is that moleman has that ability) and surging vengeance description accurately portrays what happens in game (no it doesn't, because in the same way you can't answer 1, 5, 76, 77 and 98 as the answer to "name 5 consecutive numbers between 1-100", a champion going from sp1 to sp3 is *not* consecutive)

Either, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, in which case let me know and I can explain it in more detail. Or you do understand, but you're deliberately playing as though you don't in order to disingenuously answer my questions by ignoring the hypothetical because you know that it proves my point.

So I'll give it one last try to attempt for you to actually take part in this debate honestly.

Just for one second, please try and imagine a world where the way that Moleman functions as of yesterday is quite literally the way he is supposed to work with the "lingering effect that only checks its condition upon initial activation rather than a continuous one that is only active under the conditions of Frenzy not being active AND Moleman being below 10 Monster Mass" as you describe. Imagine that is all part of his abilities, but not his description.

So, if Moleman isn't bugged, and if no abilities have been added to him by me or anyone else, and if his description was changed to represent what happens in the game. Why is that not the exact same situation as SV being updated to represent what it does in the game?

Please, try not to answer anything along the lines of "his abilities are changed", "he's bugged" or anything else that clearly betrays your lack of knowledge about hypotheticals or consecutive. Either you're being performatively unaware in order to avoid admitting my point, or you genuinely don't know what these words mean.
All you've managed to accomplish with thes posts is prove that you're in no position to nitpick kabam's wording, and you don't even realize it.

Allow me to break this down for you.

Surging Vengeance's issue is not about nitpicking definitions of any specific word, it's simply that the node doesn't mention what happens once the defender reaches 3 bars of power before using their sp2. It is missing information which results in confusion as to how the ability functions. The only change that needs to happen here is to add said missing information to the node description.

In order to fix Moleman there are 2 potential scenarios.

EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.

OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.

You've done neither. Instead you threw out both abilities and created an entirely new ability that's even better than both because you don't understand how to properly word an ability.

Regardless, your hypothetical has no place here. You're trying to create an entirely new scenario in which your point still fails to hold any ground and requires you to twist facts even further. Bottom line is, Moleman's issue has nothing to do with clarity like the other abilities you've mentioned so far, and can't be compared to any of them.

Whether Surging Vengeance's issue is an issue of incorrect wording by definition, or simply an oversight by Kabam, it is not at all an issue with the functionality of the node.
EITHER they change how the ability functions in order to fit the description, meaning the ability itself was not functioning as intended, and the description is accurate.

OR they alter the wording in order to match how the champion functions in game, meaning the issue was actually with the champion's text.

So you are admitting that the "bug" could have been with the functionality or that the issue coulda actually been w the champion's text, meaning the functionality coulda been correct.

All this says to me is that it really couldnt be clear to anyone if the champ was working as intended or bugged.
Which is exactly my point, thank you! Felt like I was going mad.

If the description can be changed to what is in game, then it's the same as Surging vengeance. Both are long term issues that haven't been fixed and need more clarity with their description to match what happens in game, and therefore nobody could possibly know if it's a bug or not, whether the description should be changed to fit the game, or the game should be fixed to fit the description.

That means, nobody could possibly know it's a definite bug when they ranked moleman and when you add that to the fact Kabam never told us it was a bug, Moleman's rank ups were all within reason that he was working correctly.
Except for the fact the wording was the same originally when he released as it is now. What changed was how he actually worked. While they may not have said it was a bug, they definitely didn't say that the change in how he worked was intended either. You're basically saying that everyone assumed he was bugged on initial release and that he was fixed when he was buffed. I'm sorry but that just doesn't hold water for me. You're saying it's not unreasonable to assume he's been working correctly bc that's how he's been working ever since his buff. At the same time that would mean people should have assumed he was working correctly originally and since no description was changed but how he worked did, it should have been glaringly obvious he was bugged.

No one has argued the communication wasn't handled horribly. There isn't any legitimate argument for people not realizing he's been bugged this whole time though.

There is a subtle flaw in your logic sir. You assume that everyone bothers to understand every champ from trash to god. I'd surmise that before his buff, he was cast aside and rarely thought about. After his buff, and the trumpeting to come check him out, folks acquainted themselves. The likelihood that the majority understood him prior (or even had him in their roster and considered worthy to understand ) could be called into question.

Wally_Woofer

In other instances, something was stated by Kabam as not correct and left for a period before fixed...in that case I could agree...but the silence on this one speaks volumes.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Malreck04

My point is that Kabam not saying that it is indeed a bug until now takes away some responsibility for taking up mole man, hoping that Kabam will leave it as is(reasonable assumption; remember when they left in moon knight's bleeds?). Basically what I'm saying is that the players are not to blame for this situation.

In a vacuum :
Was MM bugged(going off the text)? Yes

Do Kabam need to provide RDT/selling? Technically a bug fix so No

Would providing RDT/selling be a gesture of goodwill and acknowledgement that they are to blame for not declaring it early on, which led to many people ranking a bugged champion? Absolutely

PapaMidnite007

This sums up the thread lol

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Greekhit

I never understood why Kabam always choose the difficult way to do things.
Was Mole Man bugged? Absolutely.
Was he breaking the game? Not even close.
Instead of fixing the bug after nearly two years that is active, they could had just changed the description to fit the champ.
Mole Man has lost a lot of value and same as Namor and so many other victims of "unintented" abilities/interactions he will be a candidate for a buff pretty soon.
Kabam choses to "nerf" champs in order to have to buff them sooner, than it would naturally take 😂
And while we are on the subject, Kabam revert Namor to his original state, because as he is now he realy sucks 😂

danteofdmc

This is super annoying cause I used an awakening gem and 150 sigs on moleman(not molegod now apparently) instead of Shang chi. I know it was a bug, but they left it in so long that it felt like part of his kit - enter frenzy under 10 monster mass to keep more utility, but make it harder to sustain the frenzy.

danteofdmc

Guess my mole man is getting permanently benched. Shame I wasted an AG and a ton of sigs. Should've used them on Shang chi, who now infinitely outclasses moleman imo

mortenhy

Unless it was a bug that’s how it’s always been. According to his bio going above 10 monster mass makes true accuracy fall off
I might be wrong but they did say they wouldn’t change that ability and that they’ll let it be as it is but I can be wrong.

Nope you are not wrong.

Woowerinn

I just ranked up mole man r4 thanks you screwed up my best hero you should focus to fix real problems in the game not to ruin down something make the gamer happy at least i am disappointed again no too much to left to play you take that too…