Mole-Man true accuracy removed during Frenzy.

Worknprogress · July 2022

BitterSteel said:

The_Chump said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:
@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 · July 2022

Worknprogress said:

BitterSteel said:

The_Chump said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:
@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 · July 2022

Malreck04 said:

Worknprogress said:

BitterSteel said:

The_Chump said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:
@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 · July 2022

Worknprogress said:

BitterSteel said:

The_Chump said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:
@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 · July 2022

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.

Malreck04 · July 2022

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 · July 2022

This sums up the thread lol

Greekhit · July 2022

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 · July 2022

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 · July 2022

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 · July 2022

MilitaryJane said:

Wakandas_Finest said:
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 · July 2022

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…

Kabam Zanzibar · July 2022

I have merged the two threads from @MilitaryJane and @Amms90 in order to keep the conversation in one place. Please remember to keep the ongoing discussion civil and constructive.

mortenhy · July 2022

MilitaryJane said:

Wakandas_Finest said:
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.

Moosetiptronic · July 2022

Hyperion cosmic charge; it states he gains them periodically, without defining the period.

If they released patch notes saying it was finally fixed and they changed the period to 30 seconds per charge, how would everyone feel?

Or change elsa, so her special 3 defines the chance for how many buffs, and getting 3 is reduced to 10%, rather than every time?

They can claim it's just fixing a bug after all.

Mike_e_j · July 2022

This should never happen again. Kabam need to acknowledge a champion bug with the community within a month (I'm being generous there) and provide clarity around what they plan to do about it and when. That makes it easy for people to decide if they want to pump resources in to a champ or not. It's not going to help this moleman situation but it needs to happen for every other bug specific to champion abilities from here on in.

The issue here (yet again) is kabams woeful communication skills and it's a really easy one to resolve. Do it and a backlash like this will never happen again. In fact now would be a perfect time to give the community a list of champion ability bugs you're aware of and what the plan is to resolve them. This should be provided on a regular basis. This helps everyone including you kabam

NihalFayaz · July 2022

The point is after number of threads on the issue, Kabam never responded to any. They neither confirmed nor denied the ability.
As I see it, ranking a bugged champion is sole responsibility of the player base but keeping players in dark by never acknowledging the bug is outrageous. & It's second part that Kabam needs to compensate players for.

BitterSteel · July 2022

Worknprogress said:

Malreck04 said:

Worknprogress said:

BitterSteel said:

The_Chump said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:

solopolo said:

BitterSteel said:
@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.

I know it’s kinda your shtick to be anti-people making mistakes, and be dismissing of people. But not everyone plays this game as seriously as us, focussing on the community and the forums and YouTube as much as we do. You’re really extrapolating from your own experiences and making it fit everyone else.

Just take a step back and realise that there are over 200 champions in the game, descriptions are fixed all the time, and just because something is the same way that it is now as it was years ago doesn’t mean it’s not broken. There are plenty of slightly oddly written descriptions and it is within reason that some players may not know Moleman is bugged. Just look at some of these posts saying “I had no idea Moleman was bugged when I ranked him!” I can find examples if you like. Someone may never have even picked up Moleman before his buff, how are they supposed to know that’s not how he worked?

Should we be expected to research every champion before we play them to learn their entire history and make sure nothing has changed? Or should we be able to expect a standard from Kabam where they confirm bugs, and the lack of a confirmation of a bug for a year and 4 months is something that breeds misinformation and those chickens have come home to roost.

So, unless you’re saying those people are lying, which would be quite the accusation to fit your own narrative without proof, we have to admit that it’s quite a common thing that people did not know that Moleman was bugged.

Take a step back, and realise that the vast majority people don’t spend their time on the forum, they may not be in serious line chats where people bring this up. You say people shouldn’t rely on a YouTuber, there are 310k people subbed to Seatin. As of 2015, the game had more than 40 million downloads. I don’t think most people watch YouTube.

It is absolutely up to Kabam to communicate here. You are in a vacuum where on this forum it is common knowledge or spoke about often that Moleman is bugged. A search proves that. But if YouTube represents a tiny proportion of the player base, the forum represents even less. And if members of the forum can say they never knew Moleman was bugged, what chance does the average player have?

It’s very easy to say “just read it” but many descriptions are wrong and do not match what happens in game. That’s why so many gets fixed. Many descriptions are vague and it is within the realms of possibility that Moleman was missing a line to explain what was happening. It is not on the player to realise that. It is on Kabam to make what happens in their game clear. I know it’s usually your viewpoint to blame players instead with situations like this, but sometimes it’s actually Kabam who have to make it right.

I’m fine if Kabam want to fix the bug after all this time, in fact I think they should, bugs should not stick around just because they’re pro player, I just think their communication sucks and it’s not reasonable for the entire community to figure it out instead when Kabam had literally hundreds of opportunities to confirm it either way and they stayed silent. That silence gives an impression it’s alright, they never said it was a bug, it could easily have been a description error.

I’m not saying, nor have I ever said players are completely blameless. But most of the onus is on kabam to communicate issues and bugs which may affects your rank ups. It is not the players duty to do research, they are playing a game.

And at the end of it all, you come to a situation that we have now and you as a kabam employee have the decision. You have a large proportion of players not knowing he is bugged because they don’t partake in the discussions we do on YouTube forum or Reddit or line, you have silence from your end when it would have taken 5 minutes to write a post one time over the last year and 4 months. Are you really telling me that you wouldn’t do anything to make it right? Even just from a “good relations” point of view, to make people who are (and I don’t know why I have to emphasise this) playing a game happier.

Some players will have ranked him while bugged and thinking it, sure, they would get RDTs as well, there’s no harm in that except your own emotional reaction to it. You don’t want players to get their way here, we know, but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t. The players who ranked Moleman without knowing he was bugged in good faith, they deserve rank down tickets for assuming things were working correctly in the game.

Basically, step outside your bubble for a second and consider the world outside of forums and YouTube. Step outside and realise that it’s Kabams job to present a working game and communicate the bugs. When they fail, and that leads to people taking Moleman up as their first R4 champion and finding out he’s going to be neutered the next day, they have a responsibility to do something about it.

Amms90 · July 2022

Kabam Zanzibar said:
I have merged the two threads from @MilitaryJane and @Amms90 in order to keep the conversation in one place. Please remember to keep the ongoing discussion civil and constructive.

The real info we need is whether or not kabam will consider undoing this "bug fix". What the vast majority of the player base wants (except for groundedwisdom and demonzfire who always have a different opinion from everyone else) is that mole man stays as he is now. Easy enough to correct the ability decription to reflect the way he works right now. Meaning he will lose true accuracy if he reaches 10 monster mass. He will keep it if he stays below 10 monster mass. Whether he enters frenzy or not. Easy fix. No gamebreaking bug here. Not a champ that's unbalanced as is. And you spare us summoners the pain and frustration, the feeling of loss and of being robbed we would get from this nerf. After a year and a half that the champ was untouched with no bug acknowledged by kabam.

Leatherhothead · July 2022

Man i don't know there have been soo many messed up things in the game recently and it was okkay for me but this change just hurts. And funny thing it isn't even needed tbh. Don't leave us people like this kabam help us out on this one. You guys changed something in moleman a few months back in the patch notes but it wasn't this bug. Also there was a not so old thread on this where we specifically asked the team if you are gonna do something about it after nearly one and half year, before taking him to r4. That post was edited by you yourself but still there was nothing communicated by the team. Just please take the responsibility on this there are thousands of the players in community who chose to r4 mm just for this piece of utility which isn't even game breaking or something.@Kabam Zibiit

Le_Gentleman · July 2022

You have to understand that many people ranked him up solely for his true accuracy coupled with damage when you play him right. He is just simply not the same champ if it's removed. Also if it was going to be changed all along it should have been specified when this "bug" first came out, not be ignored and if i remember correctly they specifically said it wouldn't be changed.

Bosk · July 2022

R4 MOLEMAN is part of my paragon team. This nerf does hurt...maybe enough to walk away from a game that is losing interest to its player base.
Kabaam needs to respond about RDTs before July 4 deals are over.

Le_Gentleman · July 2022

Amms90 said:

Kabam Zanzibar said:
I have merged the two threads from @MilitaryJane and @Amms90 in order to keep the conversation in one place. Please remember to keep the ongoing discussion civil and constructive.
The real info we need is whether or not kabam will consider undoing this "bug fix". What the vast majority of the player base wants (except for groundedwisdom and demonzfire who always have a different opinion from everyone else) is that mole man stays as he is now. Easy enough to correct the ability decription to reflect the way he works right now. Meaning he will lose true accuracy if he reaches 10 monster mass. He will keep it if he stays below 10 monster mass. Whether he enters frenzy or not. Easy fix. No gamebreaking bug here. Not a champ that's unbalanced as is. And you spare us summoners the pain and frustration, the feeling of loss and of being robbed we would get from this nerf. After a year and a half that the champ was untouched with no bug acknowledged by kabam.

I agree with this and think this is a great idea. It has been done in the past and had no impact on the game but redeeemed the champs in question for the people who had them.

VIЯЦƧ · July 2022

As others have pointed out already in this post, I feel that the description implied that while Mole Man was not “starting” in a frenzied state and under 10 Monster Mass he would have access to True Accuracy. So for me when he still had true accuracy being under 10 monster mass but pushed into a frenzied state read correct. Other people will have a different interpretation but never the less a simple solution would be to keep Mole Man the same.

This in my perception is a nerf of a champion that is out of the Kabam realm of the “Champion Balancing Program”. This creates distrust amongst the player base and leaves the door open for Kabam to change any other ambiguous descriptions in the future.

SandeepS · July 2022

Personally I think it should be reversed. This champ is not part of the rebalancing programme. If it was an issue and resolved within 3 months I would have been ok. This has been like this for ages so I think it should be left as is.

CosmicGuardian · July 2022

Unfortunately, I highly doubt that Mole Man will be left as he is. This situation very much reminds me of the one from a few years back involving changes made to She Hulk. I can’t remember exactly what was changed, but I believe for quite a while she was able to combo straight into a heavy, or something along those lines. Then one update it was changed all of a sudden and they eventually had to hand out rank down tickets, as they said this part of She Hulk was a very long standing bug and would not be left as is. The absolute most I see coming out of this is rank down tickets, and that might be a stretch as I know they don’t like handing those out often.

TITAN727 · July 2022

Kabam the bug has been around for over a year and ppl thought it was part of his kit. When I got moleman I went straight to YouTube for info on him and saw the general consensus on MM was he was an awesome champ with great utility . So I R4 him…..I use him daily he’s one of my favorite champs currently but the accuracy made him good. I feel like he’s nothing like other champs tho- he’s no Hercules ….. he’s just a great skill champ. He’s fine as is….why not just rewrite the description…leave him be.

R4 materials are not easy to get atm..so ppl who ranked him (let alone r4 him) should have the chance at least to decide whether or not to rank him down…can u guys do that for the community who ranked MM?

Mole-Man true accuracy removed during Frenzy.

Comments