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
Can your patients tell you, well, sometimes those messages have been wrong in the past, so we decided to ignore it, and when we showed up and no one was there, that's a problem. You should have somehow communicated that this message was the correct one this time?
Because that's the situation here. Moleman's in-game description was correct. There was no other communication to indicate it was wrong. But players are saying that if the game performance differs from the in-game text, because in-game text has been wrong before they are free to ignore it and assume it is in error, and if it actually was correct Kabam had an obligation to inform them that it was incorrect.
But forum messages and in-game emails have also on occasion been in error. Why can't players also assume *those* are in error and claim they should be allowed to assume Mole man's in-game performance is the correct one, even in the face of in-game text and forum and in-game email messaging? Why can players ignore in-game text which is available to everyone, but must honor forum messages which most players never see? Or in-game email which based on past history most players don't read? If the actual champion descriptions in the game are not presumed to be authoritative - acknowledging that mistakes happen but they can happen everywhere - then what's the point of even having champion in-game text descriptions.
Which communications channel should players be expected to trust, given that all of them will be subject to errors at times. None of them will be 100% accurate. But players must make reasonable assumptions regardless. What's the reasonable assumption when all communications channels are imperfect?
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
Those ripple effects are what they were addressing in the admittance that they faltered in communication, and the extension of Rank-Down capabilities. What you're saying is, because it existed for so long and caused harm, it should be left to continue to cause harm. Doesn't add up to me.
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
Can your patients tell you, well, sometimes those messages have been wrong in the past, so we decided to ignore it, and when we showed up and no one was there, that's a problem. You should have somehow communicated that this message was the correct one this time?
Because that's the situation here. Moleman's in-game description was correct. There was no other communication to indicate it was wrong. But players are saying that if the game performance differs from the in-game text, because in-game text has been wrong before they are free to ignore it and assume it is in error, and if it actually was correct Kabam had an obligation to inform them that it was incorrect.
But forum messages and in-game emails have also on occasion been in error. Why can't players also assume *those* are in error and claim they should be allowed to assume Mole man's in-game performance is the correct one, even in the face of in-game text and forum and in-game email messaging? Why can players ignore in-game text which is available to everyone, but must honor forum messages which most players never see? Or in-game email which based on past history most players don't read? If the actual champion descriptions in the game are not presumed to be authoritative - acknowledging that mistakes happen but they can happen everywhere - then what's the point of even having champion in-game text descriptions.
Which communications channel should players be expected to trust, given that all of them will be subject to errors at times. None of them will be 100% accurate. But players must make reasonable assumptions regardless. What's the reasonable assumption when all communications channels are imperfect?
Your scenario is completely different. I said abruptly, from what I've been reading kabam was silent for over a year even though people were actively asking. If a player ignores a message, their fault. I also know I'm not the only one that interpreted moleman's description different than how kabam intended. Many descriptions are lengthy and not easy to always remember so we do our best and practice with them and reread descriptions based off the practice. I am not asking for more than a rdt, but do hope kabam addresses the public about generic gems that some may have used before knowing there was a bug. I am simply trying to give constructive criticism and game improvement ideas, like in game message, something on the champ info screen like the video section that was added, or maybe an in game button that brings up known bugs.
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
Those ripple effects are what they were addressing in the admittance that they faltered in communication, and the extension of Rank-Down capabilities. What you're saying is, because it existed for so long and caused harm, it should be left to continue to cause harm. Doesn't add up to me.
My message doesn't add up to you because either you read my message assuming I am upset they fixed the bug, or you can't understand what I said. My message was strictly about kabams poor communication that caused the uproar from much of the community and how they might be able to avoid this situation in the future. Never once did I say they should have left moleman alone, I believe they should have fixed the bug.
Some of you are ready to die on the "it was a bug, therefore it needed to be fixed" hill. It was a champion loved by players for exactly how it was and I think we can all agree that it didn't make him ridiculously OP. So I'm still waiting for Kabam to tell me why they didn't make the pro player choice.
Some of you are ready to die on the hill of “It was pro player and did no harm, therefore it doesn’t need to be fixed” hill.
It’s. Their. Game. It’s. Their. Choice.
End of discussion. They decided to do what they have, they’ve said they would discuss it internally. If they decide to leave the fix in place, you have to accept that. If they decide to revert the fix, then you get to accept that.
Some of you are ready to die on the "it was a bug, therefore it needed to be fixed" hill. It was a champion loved by players for exactly how it was and I think we can all agree that it didn't make him ridiculously OP. So I'm still waiting for Kabam to tell me why they didn't make the pro player choice.
Some of you are ready to die on the hill of “It was pro player and did no harm, therefore it doesn’t need to be fixed” hill.
It’s. Their. Game. It’s. Their. Choice.
End of discussion. They decided to do what they have, they’ve said they would discuss it internally. If they decide to leave the fix in place, you have to accept that. If they decide to revert the fix, then you get to accept that.
We seem to be going around in circles. Yes, it's their IP, and they could paint Mole Man in pink if they wanted to. E.g. imagine you're going to a restaurant for dinner and halfway eating your lovely steak a waiter comes in and takes the plate. You know, because the plate is the restaurant's so they can do whatever they want. All I'm asking is for them to communicate why they went the route of the rank down option. And now it is effectively the end of the discussion because I'm exhausted.
Some of you are ready to die on the "it was a bug, therefore it needed to be fixed" hill. It was a champion loved by players for exactly how it was and I think we can all agree that it didn't make him ridiculously OP. So I'm still waiting for Kabam to tell me why they didn't make the pro player choice.
Some of you are ready to die on the hill of “It was pro player and did no harm, therefore it doesn’t need to be fixed” hill.
It’s. Their. Game. It’s. Their. Choice.
End of discussion. They decided to do what they have, they’ve said they would discuss it internally. If they decide to leave the fix in place, you have to accept that. If they decide to revert the fix, then you get to accept that.
We seem to be going around in circles. Yes, it's their IP, and they could paint Mole Man in pink if they wanted to. E.g. imagine you're going to a restaurant for dinner and halfway eating your lovely steak a waiter comes in and takes the plate. You know, because the plate is the restaurant's so they can do whatever they want. All I'm asking is for them to communicate why they went the route of the rank down option. And now it is effectively the end of the discussion because I'm exhausted.
Well for starters, once you fix a bug, you can't just remove the code that fixed it. Secondly, bringing back issues that were not intended isn't exactly in their wheel house. Third, as DNA touched on, it's a Pandora's Box. The bottom line for me is, if it was harmless enough, they would have left it and changed the description. They obviously have their reasons. That's about it.
Some of you are ready to die on the "it was a bug, therefore it needed to be fixed" hill. It was a champion loved by players for exactly how it was and I think we can all agree that it didn't make him ridiculously OP. So I'm still waiting for Kabam to tell me why they didn't make the pro player choice.
Some of you are ready to die on the hill of “It was pro player and did no harm, therefore it doesn’t need to be fixed” hill.
It’s. Their. Game. It’s. Their. Choice.
End of discussion. They decided to do what they have, they’ve said they would discuss it internally. If they decide to leave the fix in place, you have to accept that. If they decide to revert the fix, then you get to accept that.
We seem to be going around in circles. Yes, it's their IP, and they could paint Mole Man in pink if they wanted to. E.g. imagine you're going to a restaurant for dinner and halfway eating your lovely steak a waiter comes in and takes the plate. You know, because the plate is the restaurant's so they can do whatever they want. All I'm asking is for them to communicate why they went the route of the rank down option. And now it is effectively the end of the discussion because I'm exhausted.
Your lack of understanding is actually astonishing.
It’s not their IP, it’s Marvels so no they couldn’t make Moleman pink if they wanted to. They have the license to make the game but it is still Marvels. Just like you get a license to use the game, but it’s not your game to modify or change yourself.
Secondly, that analogy is wrong. Very very wrong.
If you went to a restaurant and ordered that steak for 16 months, it was exactly how you liked it, then one day the restaurant decides to change the seasoning on that steak because they had been using the wrong one that entire time, you can ask them why they changed it but you can’t force them to use the old wrong recipe just because you liked it better. Could the restaurant have kept the old seasoning? Sure. Do they have to? Not at all. And no matter what some complaints some may have, they don’t have to give you a reason as to why they decided on that decision. Cause frankly it’s none of your business to know all of the inner workings, nor do they have to disclose anything that isn’t absolutely essential to the overall product.
Some of you are ready to die on the "it was a bug, therefore it needed to be fixed" hill. It was a champion loved by players for exactly how it was and I think we can all agree that it didn't make him ridiculously OP. So I'm still waiting for Kabam to tell me why they didn't make the pro player choice.
Some of you are ready to die on the hill of “It was pro player and did no harm, therefore it doesn’t need to be fixed” hill.
It’s. Their. Game. It’s. Their. Choice.
End of discussion. They decided to do what they have, they’ve said they would discuss it internally. If they decide to leave the fix in place, you have to accept that. If they decide to revert the fix, then you get to accept that.
We seem to be going around in circles. Yes, it's their IP, and they could paint Mole Man in pink if they wanted to. E.g. imagine you're going to a restaurant for dinner and halfway eating your lovely steak a waiter comes in and takes the plate. You know, because the plate is the restaurant's so they can do whatever they want. All I'm asking is for them to communicate why they went the route of the rank down option. And now it is effectively the end of the discussion because I'm exhausted.
Your lack of understanding is actually astonishing.
It’s not their IP, it’s Marvels so no they couldn’t make Moleman pink if they wanted to. They have the license to make the game but it is still Marvels. Just like you get a license to use the game, but it’s not your game to modify or change yourself.
Secondly, that analogy is wrong. Very very wrong.
If you went to a restaurant and ordered that steak for 16 months, it was exactly how you liked it, then one day the restaurant decides to change the seasoning on that steak because they had been using the wrong one that entire time, you can ask them why they changed it but you can’t force them to use the old wrong recipe just because you liked it better. Could the restaurant have kept the old seasoning? Sure. Do they have to? Not at all. And no matter what some complaints some may have, they don’t have to give you a reason as to why they decided on that decision. Cause frankly it’s none of your business to know all of the inner workings, nor do they have to disclose anything that isn’t absolutely essential to the overall product.
That is the facts.
I see that analogies don't help here because you're taking everything literally instead of understanding the point. The IP could be Kabam's, Marvel's or Santa Claus. The point was that I understand that someone owns the game and they can decide to do as they please. Also the point is that there is something called customer relations, and doing as you please disregarding your customers is a terrible business policy. Surely there is a way of putting out the reason for that solution in a statement. Why are you all so set in being ignorant?
Because as adults you realise that you’re not always going to get the answers you want. This is nothing to do with customer relations at all and your consistent changing of argument just tells me that you don’t have the maturity to understand this either.
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
Can your patients tell you, well, sometimes those messages have been wrong in the past, so we decided to ignore it, and when we showed up and no one was there, that's a problem. You should have somehow communicated that this message was the correct one this time?
Because that's the situation here. Moleman's in-game description was correct. There was no other communication to indicate it was wrong. But players are saying that if the game performance differs from the in-game text, because in-game text has been wrong before they are free to ignore it and assume it is in error, and if it actually was correct Kabam had an obligation to inform them that it was incorrect.
But forum messages and in-game emails have also on occasion been in error. Why can't players also assume *those* are in error and claim they should be allowed to assume Mole man's in-game performance is the correct one, even in the face of in-game text and forum and in-game email messaging? Why can players ignore in-game text which is available to everyone, but must honor forum messages which most players never see? Or in-game email which based on past history most players don't read? If the actual champion descriptions in the game are not presumed to be authoritative - acknowledging that mistakes happen but they can happen everywhere - then what's the point of even having champion in-game text descriptions.
Which communications channel should players be expected to trust, given that all of them will be subject to errors at times. None of them will be 100% accurate. But players must make reasonable assumptions regardless. What's the reasonable assumption when all communications channels are imperfect?
Your scenario is completely different. I said abruptly, from what I've been reading kabam was silent for over a year even though people were actively asking. If a player ignores a message, their fault. I also know I'm not the only one that interpreted moleman's description different than how kabam intended. Many descriptions are lengthy and not easy to always remember so we do our best and practice with them and reread descriptions based off the practice. I am not asking for more than a rdt, but do hope kabam addresses the public about generic gems that some may have used before knowing there was a bug. I am simply trying to give constructive criticism and game improvement ideas, like in game message, something on the champ info screen like the video section that was added, or maybe an in game button that brings up known bugs.
No one is arguing that the lack of communication is not an issue. But that's a completely separate issue. You don't get compensation for lack of communication. The issue here is that within an absence of communication, players decided they could just assume whatever was convenient and then demand that that assumption be honored. Lack of communication is a Kabam problem. But deciding in the absence of communication any assumption was reasonable is a player problem.
In fact, even questioning whether players should have assumed the in-game behavior was correct or the in-game text was correct is itself completely missing the point entirely. When faced with a lack of clarifying information, the correct assumption to make is the null assumption: the assumption that no one knows which behavior is the correct and intended one, and to act accordingly. People have to act on imperfect or incomplete information all the time, in fact that's the norm pretty much everywhere in life. Players should have assumed that the in-game behavior *might* become permanent or *might* get changed due to the discrepancy, and acted on the assumption that neither option was guaranteed.
The developers are responsible for how the game is operated, but the players are fully responsible for their game play decisions.
I have poured many resources and signature stones into Mole Man because I wish to r4 my 6* Mole. After the rank down, I hope Kabam can return all my resources and signature stones (can be generic or skill based) so that I can r4 another skill champion and maximize his signature ability. 6* signature stones do not come easily. It is only fair Kabam return them to the players who pour all their resources in Mole.
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
Can your patients tell you, well, sometimes those messages have been wrong in the past, so we decided to ignore it, and when we showed up and no one was there, that's a problem. You should have somehow communicated that this message was the correct one this time?
Because that's the situation here. Moleman's in-game description was correct. There was no other communication to indicate it was wrong. But players are saying that if the game performance differs from the in-game text, because in-game text has been wrong before they are free to ignore it and assume it is in error, and if it actually was correct Kabam had an obligation to inform them that it was incorrect.
But forum messages and in-game emails have also on occasion been in error. Why can't players also assume *those* are in error and claim they should be allowed to assume Mole man's in-game performance is the correct one, even in the face of in-game text and forum and in-game email messaging? Why can players ignore in-game text which is available to everyone, but must honor forum messages which most players never see? Or in-game email which based on past history most players don't read? If the actual champion descriptions in the game are not presumed to be authoritative - acknowledging that mistakes happen but they can happen everywhere - then what's the point of even having champion in-game text descriptions.
Which communications channel should players be expected to trust, given that all of them will be subject to errors at times. None of them will be 100% accurate. But players must make reasonable assumptions regardless. What's the reasonable assumption when all communications channels are imperfect?
Your scenario is completely different. I said abruptly, from what I've been reading kabam was silent for over a year even though people were actively asking. If a player ignores a message, their fault. I also know I'm not the only one that interpreted moleman's description different than how kabam intended. Many descriptions are lengthy and not easy to always remember so we do our best and practice with them and reread descriptions based off the practice. I am not asking for more than a rdt, but do hope kabam addresses the public about generic gems that some may have used before knowing there was a bug. I am simply trying to give constructive criticism and game improvement ideas, like in game message, something on the champ info screen like the video section that was added, or maybe an in game button that brings up known bugs.
No one is arguing that the lack of communication is not an issue. But that's a completely separate issue. You don't get compensation for lack of communication. The issue here is that within an absence of communication, players decided they could just assume whatever was convenient and then demand that that assumption be honored. Lack of communication is a Kabam problem. But deciding in the absence of communication any assumption was reasonable is a player problem.
In fact, even questioning whether players should have assumed the in-game behavior was correct or the in-game text was correct is itself completely missing the point entirely. When faced with a lack of clarifying information, the correct assumption to make is the null assumption: the assumption that no one knows which behavior is the correct and intended one, and to act accordingly. People have to act on imperfect or incomplete information all the time, in fact that's the norm pretty much everywhere in life. Players should have assumed that the in-game behavior *might* become permanent or *might* get changed due to the discrepancy, and acted on the assumption that neither option was guaranteed.
The developers are responsible for how the game is operated, but the players are fully responsible for their game play decisions.
Do you even realize yet that I'm not saying kabam shouldn't have fixed him? I also mentioned it multiple times to another in this thread. Again, I'm just trying to help kabam find better ways to improve communication, every company wants input on how to improve their product. They knew he was bugged, but didn't notify the community, at least not that I've found. And if they did try to, it seems like most of the players had no idea about it. That's where I'm just trying to help them find a new, improved feature to inform players on something going on in the game. I can't understand why you aren't able to get that message from my comments. I agree that if a player believes they are taking advantage of a bug and it gets fixed, that's their problem. I don't know why you think I'm disagreeing with you.
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.
Couple of questions on rank down tickets
1. Will these tickets give back what we spent (ie if we used a rank up gem or catalysts) or will it just give a rank gem to everyone or catalysts to everyone?
2. If we ranked up Mole Man from say 3 to 4 after the patch, will we still get a rank down ticket and will it be just one rank or all the way to rank 1?
3. Once ticket is in, can we rank up moleman to test him then rank him down?
- Leaving him with 100% active TA for full duration of the fight, I dont see that as balanced. -Nerfing him down, but now if you want TA, the damage is shamefully abysmal.
I dont support any of these 2 cases.
And imo rdts serves the purpose to give many people second chance to chose another rankup. My r3 will stay r3 though.
So... rankdown tickets... for many people that will give them options to move resources into another champion and is an option...
but what about those of us who picked Mole-God as a champion from the 2020 selector in the July 4th Deal? Will we be able to trade that back in and pick another champion?
So... rankdown tickets... for many people that will give them options to move resources into another champion and is an option...
but what about those of us who picked Mole-God as a champion from the 2020 selector in the July 4th Deal? Will we be able to trade that back in and pick another champion?
Yup, lots of us they’re not considering. People like you that chose him from a rare nexus, and people like me that invested an awakening gem (still the most precious resource in the game) into him.
I don’t spend time reading the champ descriptions for all my champs. I get a champ, if I like him I go to YouTube and watch Jason Voorhees’ video on how to use him. Period. From that, I learned that he keeps TA as long as he was below 10 MM. So I used that all day long for evade champs.
Nothing on there covers the bug that hasn’t been acknowledged as a bug, that if it had been a bug would have been fixed by now, but to watch out, because it might actually be a bug, in which case it might actually be fixed one day. If it’s actually a bug, which it may or may not actually be.
Comments
Because that's the situation here. Moleman's in-game description was correct. There was no other communication to indicate it was wrong. But players are saying that if the game performance differs from the in-game text, because in-game text has been wrong before they are free to ignore it and assume it is in error, and if it actually was correct Kabam had an obligation to inform them that it was incorrect.
But forum messages and in-game emails have also on occasion been in error. Why can't players also assume *those* are in error and claim they should be allowed to assume Mole man's in-game performance is the correct one, even in the face of in-game text and forum and in-game email messaging? Why can players ignore in-game text which is available to everyone, but must honor forum messages which most players never see? Or in-game email which based on past history most players don't read? If the actual champion descriptions in the game are not presumed to be authoritative - acknowledging that mistakes happen but they can happen everywhere - then what's the point of even having champion in-game text descriptions.
Which communications channel should players be expected to trust, given that all of them will be subject to errors at times. None of them will be 100% accurate. But players must make reasonable assumptions regardless. What's the reasonable assumption when all communications channels are imperfect?
It’s. Their. Game. It’s. Their. Choice.
End of discussion. They decided to do what they have, they’ve said they would discuss it internally. If they decide to leave the fix in place, you have to accept that. If they decide to revert the fix, then you get to accept that.
E.g. imagine you're going to a restaurant for dinner and halfway eating your lovely steak a waiter comes in and takes the plate. You know, because the plate is the restaurant's so they can do whatever they want.
All I'm asking is for them to communicate why they went the route of the rank down option.
And now it is effectively the end of the discussion because I'm exhausted.
The bottom line for me is, if it was harmless enough, they would have left it and changed the description. They obviously have their reasons. That's about it.
Your lack of understanding is actually astonishing.
It’s not their IP, it’s Marvels so no they couldn’t make Moleman pink if they wanted to. They have the license to make the game but it is still Marvels. Just like you get a license to use the game, but it’s not your game to modify or change yourself.
Secondly, that analogy is wrong. Very very wrong.
If you went to a restaurant and ordered that steak for 16 months, it was exactly how you liked it, then one day the restaurant decides to change the seasoning on that steak because they had been using the wrong one that entire time, you can ask them why they changed it but you can’t force them to use the old wrong recipe just because you liked it better. Could the restaurant have kept the old seasoning? Sure. Do they have to? Not at all. And no matter what some complaints some may have, they don’t have to give you a reason as to why they decided on that decision. Cause frankly it’s none of your business to know all of the inner workings, nor do they have to disclose anything that isn’t absolutely essential to the overall product.
That is the facts.
I’m done with this conversation.
In fact, even questioning whether players should have assumed the in-game behavior was correct or the in-game text was correct is itself completely missing the point entirely. When faced with a lack of clarifying information, the correct assumption to make is the null assumption: the assumption that no one knows which behavior is the correct and intended one, and to act accordingly. People have to act on imperfect or incomplete information all the time, in fact that's the norm pretty much everywhere in life. Players should have assumed that the in-game behavior *might* become permanent or *might* get changed due to the discrepancy, and acted on the assumption that neither option was guaranteed.
The developers are responsible for how the game is operated, but the players are fully responsible for their game play decisions.
1. Will these tickets give back what we spent (ie if we used a rank up gem or catalysts) or will it just give a rank gem to everyone or catalysts to everyone?
2. If we ranked up Mole Man from say 3 to 4 after the patch, will we still get a rank down ticket and will it be just one rank or all the way to rank 1?
3. Once ticket is in, can we rank up moleman to test him then rank him down?
Thanks
-Nerfing him down, but now if you want TA, the damage is shamefully abysmal.
I dont support any of these 2 cases.
And imo rdts serves the purpose to give many people second chance to chose another rankup.
My r3 will stay r3 though.
but what about those of us who picked Mole-God as a champion from the 2020 selector in the July 4th Deal? Will we be able to trade that back in and pick another champion?
I don’t spend time reading the champ descriptions for all my champs. I get a champ, if I like him I go to YouTube and watch Jason Voorhees’ video on how to use him. Period. From that, I learned that he keeps TA as long as he was below 10 MM. So I used that all day long for evade champs.
Nothing on there covers the bug that hasn’t been acknowledged as a bug, that if it had been a bug would have been fixed by now, but to watch out, because it might actually be a bug, in which case it might actually be fixed one day. If it’s actually a bug, which it may or may not actually be.