I’m trying to understand what is the thought process behind spending precious man hours to change something that has been the way it’s been for over a year when the game still has massive lag and and input issues? This is an honest question why is this a focus from Kabam? What would be the point of doing this now if it was important why wouldn’t it been done a year ago and why would you want to upset a community that is already upset with a game that is not working properly?
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
At first it sounds logically but it's not. Players gave their consensus ideas before and Kabam listened, it bring on a good atmosphere, nothing is negative. Because they proved that they can listen to do something better for the community. Now they are stubborn and they prove that they are stubborn beyond repair. They were wrong when they released a bugged champ, they were wrong when they wait that long to announce a fix and they were wrong when they fixed a beloved and be ranked by masses despite strong objections.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
At first it sounds logically but it's not. Players gave their consensus ideas before and Kabam listened, it bring on a good atmosphere, nothing is negative. Because they proved that they can listen to do something better for the community. Now they are stubborn and they prove that they are stubborn beyond repair. They were wrong when they released a bugged champ, they were wrong when they wait that long to announce a fix and they were wrong when they fixed a beloved and be ranked by masses despite strong objections.
Wrong in all definitions.
What's wrong is assuming that because we want it to be kept, and we see it as no harm, then by default is not harmful to the game. We have every right to ask for what we want. That doesn't mean every request is feasible, and it doesn't mean because we like something, it isn't harmful to the game. They've made efforts. That needs to be acknowledged.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
At first it sounds logically but it's not. Players gave their consensus ideas before and Kabam listened, it bring on a good atmosphere, nothing is negative. Because they proved that they can listen to do something better for the community. Now they are stubborn and they prove that they are stubborn beyond repair. They were wrong when they released a bugged champ, they were wrong when they wait that long to announce a fix and they were wrong when they fixed a beloved and be ranked by masses despite strong objections.
Wrong in all definitions.
Let me know when you start working on a game that does everything right.
This game for me is and always has been about the champs more then the content itself. I spent when I got Mole Man and he is the second most excited I’ve been for a six star. He’s one of two rank 3’s I have. For a lot of people, he’s one of their few rank 4’s. The number of **** 6 stars I had to wade through to get Mole Man and Kitty Pryde is ridiculous but that’s beside the point. It was so satisfying to use him how he was against auto block and evade champs. The play style was so aggressive and fun and he was probably my favorite to play other than my R5 Colossus. Got Kabam’d I guess. Might step away from the game if that’s how it’s gonna be. Don’t need to feel like I’m at work and they’re taking away my safety knife for safety issues lol. RIP Molegod
Hi I'm one of the 41k viewers here but after the announcement regarding the RDT I can't stay silent. My account is only one R4 away from Paragon, I was an alliance leader and now an officer in another alliance. I'm one of 3 people out of 30 in total who really get information about the game and also read here in the forum.
Maybe Kabam isn't aware of it, but the other 27 people in this alliance are asking in chat for advice on ranking champions. Some of these people are 55+ and neither speak English nor watch videos to understand champions. And they don't read book-sized champ descriptions hard enough to understand every last detail.
These people are also not as experienced, good and obsessed as most of the forum users here. The players writing here can also play well with any other champion and don't need Mole Man specifically to actually have a good chance against Evade or Autoblock champions.
Also, getting an RDT doesn't do these people any good, because many of them don't even have an alternate champion that they could level in exchange to have an answer to Evade/Autoblock. And what about the players who specifically chose Mole Man from a Nexus instead of a Falcon or Shang-Chi or crafted him with a skill awakening gem and invested Sigs.
Someone in my alliance once said that I'm the only one here who's still motivated at all. But I've thought about quitting so many times in my mind. The main reason for this is that I already think so many decisions here are completely wrong and this situation and final decision to nerf Mole Man and send RDT is really the most demotivating and worst thing I have experienced here so far. For me it is a betrayal of trust. The game revolves around the champions for most and it takes an incredible amount of time to invest. Many even spend tons of money to get exactly this champion. So how please can you still trust after this decision that the next champion will not be destroyed in the same way.
I can understand very well that not all customer requests can be implemented. I come from the same industry and I know that customers don't always know what they really want. But in this case I could only hear disappointment and bitterness about this change to Mole Man not only here in the forum but also in the chat with various people.
I can only hope that there will be a rethink here and the change to Mole Man will be reversed and only the description will be adjusted. My request, before RDT are sent, bring this back to the development team or to the decision maker and find a better solution for this. I can only ask all other forum readers to also express their opinion here in order to prevent this nerf.
If a nerf is really necessary for whatever reason, then at least let Mole Man have True Accuracy as long as he is not in frenzy and remove the 10 monster mass limit. That would still keep it fun and manageable to play, and it would be a good balance between Damage in Frenzy and Utility (Purify+True Accuracy) if he is not in Frenzy.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not trump the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the latter. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
As I said, I respect their IP and legally, yes, they can do as they please. But how would we react if one day they turned around and said that Doom is too OP or, there’s something that is not as it was originally intended. Would you still maintain that we have no say?
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
As I said, I respect their IP and legally, yes, they can do as they please. But how would we react if one day they turned around and said that Doom is too OP or, there’s something that is not as it was originally intended. Would you still maintain that we have no say?
I never called you entitled. I don't know you personally. I called the responses entitled. All too often, the word transparency is thrown around, even in the face of transparency. What I don't agree with is using it falsely to demand whatever information we feel is owed to us when we don't get what we want.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
As I said, I respect their IP and legally, yes, they can do as they please. But how would we react if one day they turned around and said that Doom is too OP or, there’s something that is not as it was originally intended. Would you still maintain that we have no say?
We have every right to an opinion, and Kabam has every right to disregard that opinion and do what they wish with their game. Like it or not, those are the simple facts of the matter.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
As I said, I respect their IP and legally, yes, they can do as they please. But how would we react if one day they turned around and said that Doom is too OP or, there’s something that is not as it was originally intended. Would you still maintain that we have no say?
I never called you entitled. I don't know you personally. I called the responses entitled. All too often, the word transparency is thrown around, even in the face of transparency. What I don't agree with is using it falsely to demand whatever information we feel is owed to us when we don't get what we want.
You make it sound like we asked for the world. Fact is we had it and it was taken away. Shouldn’t be that difficult to either revert the changes or give a logical reason as to why that is not possible. Anyway, all good mate. I respect your opinion. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
With v36.0, we made changes to Mole Man to bring his game play in line with his champion description. We were aware of the community sentiment around this choice and I assured you we would continue conversations behind the scenes.
We acknowledge that the weight of this issue lies in: we failed to communicate over a prolonged period of time regarding this bug, and as a result it essentially became a nerf. We apologize for the way this was handled.
As a result, we have decided to grant rankdown tickets to all players with a 5- or 6-star Mole Man. This is an effort to give our summoners the choice to handle the situation how they please.
These tickets will be available in the next week or two and will have an expiry date attached to them. They will be accessible through your in-game mail.
I hate this decision. Kabam failed the players 4 times in this whole situation:
1) kabam releases a campion buff with a bug. This can happen. But they fail to announce the bug or to inform the player base about this, not replying even to direct questions, for a year and a half. First fail
2) kabam decides to "fix the bug" no one knows a bug. Second fail. The community is extremely unhappy about this and asks to leave him alone
3) kabam fails to fix the bug. The community is happy and hopes they will leave him alone. Kabam says it's not over because they're discussing what to do. The community is hopeful. This is a fail because they failed to fix the bug, even though it seems to be a positive one.
4) kabam decides to acknowledge the fact that the way this was handled is a fail and that the "bug fix" ends up being a nerf. So they decide to issue rank down tickets. The community is unhappy again. In the end we lost a great piece of utility from a champion that was often used. And will now be much less useful and much less used. This is the ultimate fail where the dialogue with the community still failed to deliver the result most of the players hopes for.
I want to add another piece of info in case somebody is forgetting about it: since the arrival of nexus crystals and then later with class nexus and finally with choice crystals (2020, 2021 etc..) kabam has introduced a feature that allows the player a CHOICE. Now it's true that for newer champions we always have the issue that kabam might nerf them at any random time because they said that beforehand. But for older champs we make a choice knowing what we get. This situation with mole man is very bad because people made choices. Who to pick, who to rank up, who to invest ag and maybe sig stones in. We are talking about important decisions and important resources. Kabam should take accountability for all those choices. Just a rank down ticket won't fix all the damage. This is exactly why kabam should have left mole man alone.
A rank down ticket won't give me back my 2020 champ selector.
I totally agree. I have put money and a lot of time into my R3 Moleman, all those 5tc selectors I have bought for real money I will never get back...if I knew this 2 months ago I wouldn't use so many ressources to take Moleman to R3.
I’m not sure why nobody seems too mad about awakening gems. Do you all have so many 6 star gems that it doesn’t matter?
I’ve had two in my whole 5 years playing the game.
On cyber Monday first I paid 1000 units for an offer, then 4000 units for the next one, followed by 10000 units for the 3rd offer, and then finally another 3000 for the gem crystal.
I got the exact color I wanted, red, and immediately awakened my favorite champ- MM
TBH the awakening gem is worth a lot more to me than a few t5cc and some alphas.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
As I said, I respect their IP and legally, yes, they can do as they please. But how would we react if one day they turned around and said that Doom is too OP or, there’s something that is not as it was originally intended. Would you still maintain that we have no say?
I never called you entitled. I don't know you personally. I called the responses entitled. All too often, the word transparency is thrown around, even in the face of transparency. What I don't agree with is using it falsely to demand whatever information we feel is owed to us when we don't get what we want.
You make it sound like we asked for the world. Fact is we had it and it was taken away. Shouldn’t be that difficult to either revert the changes or give a logical reason as to why that is not possible. Anyway, all good mate. I respect your opinion. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
As I said, I respect their IP and legally, yes, they can do as they please. But how would we react if one day they turned around and said that Doom is too OP or, there’s something that is not as it was originally intended. Would you still maintain that we have no say?
I never called you entitled. I don't know you personally. I called the responses entitled. All too often, the word transparency is thrown around, even in the face of transparency. What I don't agree with is using it falsely to demand whatever information we feel is owed to us when we don't get what we want.
You make it sound like we asked for the world. Fact is we had it and it was taken away. Shouldn’t be that difficult to either revert the changes or give a logical reason as to why that is not possible. Anyway, all good mate. I respect your opinion. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
They did give a logical reason. It was a bug.
How is anybody going to know there's a bugged champ if kabam doesn't send an in game message? Not everyone uses the forum. I am only here for this topic. It shouldn't be our responsibility to find out game issues, kabam should let us know.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
As I said, I respect their IP and legally, yes, they can do as they please. But how would we react if one day they turned around and said that Doom is too OP or, there’s something that is not as it was originally intended. Would you still maintain that we have no say?
I never called you entitled. I don't know you personally. I called the responses entitled. All too often, the word transparency is thrown around, even in the face of transparency. What I don't agree with is using it falsely to demand whatever information we feel is owed to us when we don't get what we want.
You make it sound like we asked for the world. Fact is we had it and it was taken away. Shouldn’t be that difficult to either revert the changes or give a logical reason as to why that is not possible. Anyway, all good mate. I respect your opinion. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
They did give a logical reason. It was a bug.
No, it wasn’t just a bug. It was a bug that they didn’t acknowledge in a timely manner, a bug people asked them about for over a year and received not response and a bug that got fixed out of the blue without discussing it with the community. Don’t oversimplify the situation please. If Kabam is going to put their foot down on the change then, I think we deserve to know why it is so important to do so.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
As I said, I respect their IP and legally, yes, they can do as they please. But how would we react if one day they turned around and said that Doom is too OP or, there’s something that is not as it was originally intended. Would you still maintain that we have no say?
I never called you entitled. I don't know you personally. I called the responses entitled. All too often, the word transparency is thrown around, even in the face of transparency. What I don't agree with is using it falsely to demand whatever information we feel is owed to us when we don't get what we want.
You make it sound like we asked for the world. Fact is we had it and it was taken away. Shouldn’t be that difficult to either revert the changes or give a logical reason as to why that is not possible. Anyway, all good mate. I respect your opinion. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
They did give a logical reason. It was a bug.
How is anybody going to know there's a bugged champ if kabam doesn't send an in game message? Not everyone uses the forum. I am only here for this topic. It shouldn't be our responsibility to find out game issues, kabam should let us know.
They've already admitted they failed to communicate that it was a bug. No one is faulting Players. That doesn't mean that keeping it bugged is a feasible resolution.
What is the harm in keeping him as is (or as was...)?
I'm pretty sure this is a rhetorical question no one actually cares to know the answer to, but as I am a glutton for punishment I'll answer it anyway. The harm is it establishes the precedent that the game is run by player committee.
The fundamental idea seems to be, if there's a long standing bug, and the players don't like it, they can berate Kabam forever until it gets fixed. The longer it persists, the worse it is. There's never a time when the players should just accept a bug they don't like. However, if the bug is something the players do like, they should be allowed to demand that it remain, and the longer it persists, the more valid that demand should be considered.
Basically, whenever there's a discrepancy in the game, the players should get to decide how it is resolved. Which is basically saying the players should dictate how the game evolves, completely ad hoc, according to their whims.
To me, that's a dangerous thing to even contemplate, as I would almost certainly not want to play a game run by a committee of its most vocal players. And this isn't even a case where you could claim special circumstances, because the player community (or at least its most vocally critical parts) doesn't believe in special circumstances unless they operate in their favor.
Kabam has not demonstrated that they are the sharpest dev team in the world, but I would still rather play their game than any conceivable Bizarro version run by any group of players of the game. Unless that group of players was run by me, in which case I would want to play it, but most of the rest of you almost certainly wouldn't.
Obviously there are things that should not be left to the players, but overall if the players aren't happy, they leave. They leave, the game goes away. So yes, players should have a voice in these matters. Players asked about this when the buff happened and there were no responses from Kabam about it. After that long, it became a feature of the character to the players. After nearly a year and a half, hundreds of videos of players using him one way and then a sudden change that even Kabam admitted was a nerf. If this had been stated within a week or two of the buff going live, no one would be complaining. Everyone would have known a fix was coming. Couple that with the overwhelming response to "Don't make this change, it isn't good", Kabam Jax then posting that they were going to review the comments only to have the nerf go into effect anyway and then silence and you have this storm of annoyed players. No one is saying that the players should have ultimate say, but when this is the response to a change, you don't do the change. This is how the conversation should have gone with Kabam management:
Dev 1: "Players are really unhappy about the proposed fix. What should we do?" Dev 2: "They all don't want this and it kind of is our fault for not addressing it at all for over a year." Dev 1: "Is it game breaking or overpowered?" Dev 2: "Nope." Dev 1: "Leave it. The players will be happy."
Everyone looks at Kabam more favorably and thanks them for listening. Players get to keep a champ as they have been for 16 months that they love. Devs gain some leeway if they have to make a change on a future champ because they were reasonable. This isn't about the players wanting to run the game, this is about the players voicing their complaints about how this entire situation was handled.
There was an acknowledgment of the reactions, the confirmation that feedback was being heard and discussed, the admittance of a failure to communicate, and the decision to allow people to revisit their Ranking choices. That is a reasonable response. We can't always have what we want because it makes us happy, if there is a reason within the design for it to stay fixed. Players having what they want does not **** the overall design. If that was the case, the game would degenerate and end for everyone.
And what would that reason be? The only thing Kabam has said is that they wanted to bring the champion’s abilities inline with the description. So out of the two options: one that would make everyone happy and another that would simply be accepted by some, they chose the former. If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction. Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
You're assuming it was simply a choice, just a whim, and they decided to ignore what people wanted. What you're not accounting for is the fact that we aren't aware of the internal workings of the game, the content they're putting out, the problems that leaving the bug has led to on their end, etc.
Well, we don’t know, do we? Clearly there wasn’t an issue with something in the game. If it’s to do with an upcoming piece of content they could have said that? Again, full transparency.
How are you certain there wasn't an issue in the game? Are you aware of the back-end programming? No. Neither am I, and neither are the majority of us on here. What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
Sure, I’m assuming base on what I know, which is what you’re doing to. You’re missing the point. Once again we’re left to assume. Once again there’s no transparency. Which is ironic because that was what they highlighted as the main issue.
They were transparent. What they didn't do was release a detailed outline of their every internal move and decision. Which isn't necessary. They admitted fault, they heard the feedback, and they responded in the best way they could. That's all we need really. You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
And you keep assuming. “They responded the best way they could” - assumption. “That’s all we need” - probably a fraction of players would agree. Assumption. Wouldn’t it be great to know instead? Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
That last part is very wrong. They can do as they please. You agreed to it when you started playing the game.
As I said, I respect their IP and legally, yes, they can do as they please. But how would we react if one day they turned around and said that Doom is too OP or, there’s something that is not as it was originally intended. Would you still maintain that we have no say?
I never called you entitled. I don't know you personally. I called the responses entitled. All too often, the word transparency is thrown around, even in the face of transparency. What I don't agree with is using it falsely to demand whatever information we feel is owed to us when we don't get what we want.
You make it sound like we asked for the world. Fact is we had it and it was taken away. Shouldn’t be that difficult to either revert the changes or give a logical reason as to why that is not possible. Anyway, all good mate. I respect your opinion. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
They did give a logical reason. It was a bug.
How is anybody going to know there's a bugged champ if kabam doesn't send an in game message? Not everyone uses the forum. I am only here for this topic. It shouldn't be our responsibility to find out game issues, kabam should let us know.
They've already admitted they failed to communicate that it was a bug. No one is faulting Players. That doesn't mean that keeping it bugged is a feasible resolution.
It's the amount of time they took to address it. It has caused so many ripple effects. If players don't get back generic rank up gems they used, then they are losing out. And awakening gems. I'm also trying to address communication issues that have been brought more to light from this situation. Kabam needs to inform everyone via in game message and/or alert on the champ info page. If I have to close my business for the day abruptly, I call my patients, not let them show up to a locked door. I now know moleman is bugged, but had no idea until someone on YouTube mentioned kabams update
Comments
Wrong in all definitions.
Maybe Kabam isn't aware of it, but the other 27 people in this alliance are asking in chat for advice on ranking champions. Some of these people are 55+ and neither speak English nor watch videos to understand champions. And they don't read book-sized champ descriptions hard enough to understand every last detail.
These people are also not as experienced, good and obsessed as most of the forum users here. The players writing here can also play well with any other champion and don't need Mole Man specifically to actually have a good chance against Evade or Autoblock champions.
Also, getting an RDT doesn't do these people any good, because many of them don't even have an alternate champion that they could level in exchange to have an answer to Evade/Autoblock. And what about the players who specifically chose Mole Man from a Nexus instead of a Falcon or Shang-Chi or crafted him with a skill awakening gem and invested Sigs.
Someone in my alliance once said that I'm the only one here who's still motivated at all. But I've thought about quitting so many times in my mind. The main reason for this is that I already think so many decisions here are completely wrong and this situation and final decision to nerf Mole Man and send RDT is really the most demotivating and worst thing I have experienced here so far. For me it is a betrayal of trust. The game revolves around the champions for most and it takes an incredible amount of time to invest. Many even spend tons of money to get exactly this champion. So how please can you still trust after this decision that the next champion will not be destroyed in the same way.
I can understand very well that not all customer requests can be implemented. I come from the same industry and I know that customers don't always know what they really want. But in this case I could only hear disappointment and bitterness about this change to Mole Man not only here in the forum but also in the chat with various people.
I can only hope that there will be a rethink here and the change to Mole Man will be reversed and only the description will be adjusted. My request, before RDT are sent, bring this back to the development team or to the decision maker and find a better solution for this. I can only ask all other forum readers to also express their opinion here in order to prevent this nerf.
If a nerf is really necessary for whatever reason, then at least let Mole Man have True Accuracy as long as he is not in frenzy and remove the 10 monster mass limit. That would still keep it fun and manageable to play, and it would be a good balance between Damage in Frenzy and Utility (Purify+True Accuracy) if he is not in Frenzy.
If there was a reason, as you say, acknowledging it would’ve saved us unnecessary friction.
Either we’re still missing the transparency and communication we all want or they chose the easy compromise instead of fully backtracking.
What you're asserting is, "We all used him successfully, so there's no conflict.". That's only part of the story.
You know I hate using the word entitlement, and I get the upset feelings, but ignoring their efforts because we didn't get the outcome we wanted is...well, entitlement.
Wouldn’t it be great to know instead?
Regarding your backhanded comment in calling me entitled, we do have a say in what happens with the game we play and some poor money into. Sure, it remains their IP and I respect that. But that doesn’t mean they can do as they please, which would be a very poor business policy.
Anyway, all good mate. I respect your opinion. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’m not sure why nobody seems too mad about awakening gems. Do you all have so many 6 star gems that it doesn’t matter?
I’ve had two in my whole 5 years playing the game.
On cyber Monday first I paid 1000 units for an offer, then 4000 units for the next one, followed by 10000 units for the 3rd offer, and then finally another 3000 for the gem crystal.
I got the exact color I wanted, red, and immediately awakened my favorite champ- MM
TBH the awakening gem is worth a lot more to me than a few t5cc and some alphas.
Or is it just me?
Don’t oversimplify the situation please.
If Kabam is going to put their foot down on the change then, I think we deserve to know why it is so important to do so.