Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
The first is obvious. It's their intention that determines that. If you would like to change that, you're free to put in an offer to purchase the game. There is no such thing as a beneficial bug. As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
How will you see a pattern when you don’t keep a tally? If you keep pushing everything under the rug saying it’s a one of thing, every new occurrence will be a one of thing. If you keep a tally you can see a pattern. It’s process improvement 101. You need to keep track of data to improve.
If your tally involves going back years to comb through examples, then clearly there's more of a resentment than a pattern.
By the same token, people shouldn’t ask everyone to come up with examples every time someone posts about something. It’s honestly up to the company to see where things failed and to have a process to prevent it from happening. Whether it happens once a day or once in 3 years.
The inherent problem here is trust, or a lack of trust, depending on your stance.
Some of you are arguing that the higher value was a bug. That's fine.
Others are arguing it was a nerf. That's fine too.
Kabam has come over the top and called it a bug now as well. That's also fine.
The dilemma lies in the reality that they are in fact, the same thing, when no one knows what something should have been at the onset.
To my knowledge, there are two places to view stats for a relic. In game, and on the MCoC site.
The image above is from the MCoC site. Stats listed are for a 6*R2 relic. No other stats are listed. One can presume they would be lower, but shouldn't be expected to know exactly what they should be.
So when Kabam comes off the top rope saying its a bug, you have two choices. Trust them, or don't.
If you choose to trust them, that's fine, but it's completely unreasonable to be dismissive to those who choose not to trust them, as there's no way to prove one way or another if something was intended by Kabam (then later deemed to be unreasonable by them), or if something was unintended, and later corrected to their intended version.
For those of you who watched one of my favorite TV shows, Brooklyn 99, there's an episode where Boyle gives Terry $10,000 dollars when he intended to give him $100, but didn't account for the fact that the bank automatically added the two decimal values. So did Boyle intend to give him $10,000 or $100? Only Boyle knows for sure. Everyone else has to take his word for it.
Regardless, relic rankup mats are still relatively rare to the casual player. If someone ranked up a 5* relic because of the previous values, then has those values decreased, whether because of a legitimate bug, or a nerf, they should definitely be given those materials back (and I'm not one who did that, so I'm not even advocating for myself...I've got no dog in this fight).
Bottom line, when an individual acts on the information at their disposal, then that information is changed by the business in charge, those individuals should be compensated.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
The first is obvious. It's their intention that determines that. If you would like to change that, you're free to put in an offer to purchase the game. There is no such thing as a beneficial bug. As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
How will you see a pattern when you don’t keep a tally? If you keep pushing everything under the rug saying it’s a one of thing, every new occurrence will be a one of thing. If you keep a tally you can see a pattern. It’s process improvement 101. You need to keep track of data to improve.
If your tally involves going back years to comb through examples, then clearly there's more of a resentment than a pattern.
By the same token, people shouldn’t ask everyone to come up with examples every time someone posts about something. It’s honestly up to the company to see where things failed and to have a process to prevent it from happening. Whether it happens once a day or once in 3 years.
There was a point to that question. There isn't a history of silent nerfs. You have a couple intentional changes that weren't communicated properly, and some bugs that were resolved without confirmation that they were bugs. The reaction is as if they can't be trusted, and that's what I disagree with on the basis of history.
Anyone who read the description was aware something was amiss. Never confirmed, sure. That doesn't mean there's a shelf life on a bug. For some reason, people think if a bug has existed for a certain amount of time, it must be left. There's no "fix before" date. At this point we're debating the same few examples. They didn't communicate this in time. There have been one or two, or maybe even a few, examples over the years. The vast majority of history shows they strive to be open and upfront, and you can't deny that because they have been. The only time you hear differently is when things like this happen, and then generalizations are made, and I'm sure this example will come up years down the road. This keeping tally mentality is really quite unproductive.
Only one party knows whether something is “unintended”—and it isn’t the players.
Only one party is disadvantaged when a beneficial but “unintended” effect is revised—and it isn’t the game team.
Only one party has the ability and the obligation to inform the community when an item is being changed—and that certainly isn’t the players.
Dr. Zola
The first is obvious. It's their intention that determines that. If you would like to change that, you're free to put in an offer to purchase the game. There is no such thing as a beneficial bug. As for the last statement, we've established that. It went live before they could communicate the change, and they apologized and took responsibility. That feels pretty redundant.
If something is becoming a pattern and a habit, I would consider it understandable when people point that out. If it's "3 years ago we had this change....5 years ago a Moderator was wrong....", that's a list the dedication of which is a personal issue.
How will you see a pattern when you don’t keep a tally? If you keep pushing everything under the rug saying it’s a one of thing, every new occurrence will be a one of thing. If you keep a tally you can see a pattern. It’s process improvement 101. You need to keep track of data to improve.
If your tally involves going back years to comb through examples, then clearly there's more of a resentment than a pattern.
By the same token, people shouldn’t ask everyone to come up with examples every time someone posts about something. It’s honestly up to the company to see where things failed and to have a process to prevent it from happening. Whether it happens once a day or once in 3 years.
There was a point to that question. There isn't a history of silent nerfs. You have a couple intentional changes that weren't communicated properly, and some bugs that were resolved without confirmation that they were bugs. The reaction is as if they can't be trusted, and that's what I disagree with on the basis of history.
Why do you always have to derail every single post in the forums? Who cares if it was a silent nerf or not the issue here is some people spent resources on that relic and now 4* and 5* versions are pretty bad. Some people in my alliance even ranked up Gambit because of the relic, now he's back to being mid unless you were Lucky enough to pull the 6* version. There has to be some sort of compensation for this, obviously not a massive compensation since it isn't a huge deal like the Mole Man nerf but a "hey we're sorry" is not enough for most of us, unless you like to kiss up to the devs of course.
If you think I'm derailing this Thread somehow, you're not following. I never said anything at all against any kind of Compensation. I'm not explicitly asking for it, but I never argued against it. I'm responding to other aspects of the conversation. Which is how the Forums work. We discuss the game with each other. Not just ask for things from the aforementioned Devs. If that's the point YOU want to make, then make it. You don't need to tell me to stop commenting for that.
If you think I'm derailing this Thread somehow, you're not following. I never said anything at all against any kind of Compensation. I'm not explicitly asking for it, but I never argued against it. I'm responding to other aspects of the conversation. Which is how the Forums work. We discuss the game with each other. Not just ask for things from the aforementioned Devs. If that's the point YOU want to make, then make it. You don't need to tell me to stop commenting for that.
I have a genuine question. Why do you always capitalize random words? Like thread, forum or compensation.
If you think I'm derailing this Thread somehow, you're not following. I never said anything at all against any kind of Compensation. I'm not explicitly asking for it, but I never argued against it. I'm responding to other aspects of the conversation. Which is how the Forums work. We discuss the game with each other. Not just ask for things from the aforementioned Devs. If that's the point YOU want to make, then make it. You don't need to tell me to stop commenting for that.
I have a genuine question. Why do you always capitalize random words? Like thread, forum or compensation.
Force of habit I suppose. When it's an actual name, or colloquial name on the Forum, then I tend to capitalize. The difference between a forum, and the Forum for example.
I run the precision mastery 5/5 (plus 1/5 lesser precision) for +450 critical rating. Am I right in thinking that a champion needs less than 350 base critical rating for the 4 star Gambit Relic to have any effect? Out of my current 6 star mutants (at various ranks) that only applies to Apocalypse who has a critical rating of 329. So only 1 of my champs benefits from this relic and only gets +21 critical rating?
Exactly @DrZola, going off Jax’s explanation and this part in particular: ‘This ability should only bump the Crit Rating up to the listed amount’
I understand this as: if your Crit Rating is above 800 then the relic has no effect, and if it is below 800 then you only gain Crit Rating to take your total Crit rating to 800.
What I’m saying is that with my current masteries all of my 6 star mutants have higher than 800 Crit Rating except for Apocalypse who has a total Crit Rating of 779. So only he would benefit and he would only gain +21 additional rating.
Exactly @DrZola, going off Jax’s explanation and this part in particular: ‘This ability should only bump the Crit Rating up to the listed amount’
I understand this as: if your Crit Rating is above 800 then the relic has no effect, and if it is below 800 then you only gain Crit Rating to take your total Crit rating to 800.
What I’m saying is that with my current masteries all of my 6 star mutants have higher than 800 Crit Rating except for Apocalypse who has a total Crit Rating of 779. So only he would benefit and he would only gain +21 additional rating.
It isn’t unusual for in-game descriptions to be poorly phrased.
For example, here a key phrase is also “up to.” Do special attack hits by your Apoc that deal physical damage gain the full +21, or are they eligible to gain +21 but may, in fact, gain less than that? Is it subject to pRNG whether they true up to 800 crit rating or not? Why even use the phrase “up to” at all if the effect is simply to bump all physical special attack hits to 800 crit rating?
Is the intent to give +800 for any hit with crit rating below 800 but give none at all for a hit with 801 crit rating? Who knows?
In short: what’s intended here? and is a bot writing these descriptions?
Exactly @DrZola, going off Jax’s explanation and this part in particular: ‘This ability should only bump the Crit Rating up to the listed amount’
I understand this as: if your Crit Rating is above 800 then the relic has no effect, and if it is below 800 then you only gain Crit Rating to take your total Crit rating to 800.
What I’m saying is that with my current masteries all of my 6 star mutants have higher than 800 Crit Rating except for Apocalypse who has a total Crit Rating of 779. So only he would benefit and he would only gain +21 additional rating.
It isn’t unusual for in-game descriptions to be poorly phrased.
For example, here a key phrase is also “up to.” Do special attack hits by your Apoc that deal physical damage gain the full +21, or are they eligible to gain +21 but may, in fact, gain less than that? Is it subject to pRNG whether they true up to 800 crit rating or not? Why even use the phrase “up to” at all if the effect is simply to bump all physical special attack hits to 800 crit rating?
Is the intent to give +800 for any hit with crit rating below 800 but give none at all for a hit with 801 crit rating? Who knows?
In short: what’s intended here? and is a bot writing these descriptions?
Dr. Zola
Probably serial Google Translate copypastes from English to Canadian and back.
I run the precision mastery 5/5 (plus 1/5 lesser precision) for +450 critical rating. Am I right in thinking that a champion needs less than 350 base critical rating for the 4 star Gambit Relic to have any effect? Out of my current 6 star mutants (at various ranks) that only applies to Apocalypse who has a critical rating of 329. So only 1 of my champs benefits from this relic and only gets +21 critical rating?
If masteries were free to change, this would almost be interesting. With the relic subbing in for those masteries, you could move things all over the place for a single fight. But they aren’t free to move and thus there’s no point.
I run the precision mastery 5/5 (plus 1/5 lesser precision) for +450 critical rating. Am I right in thinking that a champion needs less than 350 base critical rating for the 4 star Gambit Relic to have any effect? Out of my current 6 star mutants (at various ranks) that only applies to Apocalypse who has a critical rating of 329. So only 1 of my champs benefits from this relic and only gets +21 critical rating?
If masteries were free to change, this would almost be interesting. With the relic subbing in for those masteries, you could move things all over the place for a single fight. But they aren’t free to move and thus there’s no point.
I don’t think masterys affect the champions base stats. I’m in the 8.3 beta and this is before and after mastery reset:
I run the precision mastery 5/5 (plus 1/5 lesser precision) for +450 critical rating. Am I right in thinking that a champion needs less than 350 base critical rating for the 4 star Gambit Relic to have any effect? Out of my current 6 star mutants (at various ranks) that only applies to Apocalypse who has a critical rating of 329. So only 1 of my champs benefits from this relic and only gets +21 critical rating?
If masteries were free to change, this would almost be interesting. With the relic subbing in for those masteries, you could move things all over the place for a single fight. But they aren’t free to move and thus there’s no point.
Best in mind this relic affects Special Attacks that deal physical damage, so your basic attacks wouldn’t see a crit rate boost.
I run the precision mastery 5/5 (plus 1/5 lesser precision) for +450 critical rating. Am I right in thinking that a champion needs less than 350 base critical rating for the 4 star Gambit Relic to have any effect? Out of my current 6 star mutants (at various ranks) that only applies to Apocalypse who has a critical rating of 329. So only 1 of my champs benefits from this relic and only gets +21 critical rating?
If masteries were free to change, this would almost be interesting. With the relic subbing in for those masteries, you could move things all over the place for a single fight. But they aren’t free to move and thus there’s no point.
Best in mind this relic affects Special Attacks that deal physical damage, so your basic attacks wouldn’t see a crit rate boost.
I run the precision mastery 5/5 (plus 1/5 lesser precision) for +450 critical rating. Am I right in thinking that a champion needs less than 350 base critical rating for the 4 star Gambit Relic to have any effect? Out of my current 6 star mutants (at various ranks) that only applies to Apocalypse who has a critical rating of 329. So only 1 of my champs benefits from this relic and only gets +21 critical rating?
If masteries were free to change, this would almost be interesting. With the relic subbing in for those masteries, you could move things all over the place for a single fight. But they aren’t free to move and thus there’s no point.
I don’t think masterys affect the champions base stats. I’m in the 8.3 beta and this is before and after mastery reset:
Interesting! Does the relic move up base stats, or would they all apply after?
Comments
Some of you are arguing that the higher value was a bug. That's fine.
Others are arguing it was a nerf. That's fine too.
Kabam has come over the top and called it a bug now as well. That's also fine.
The dilemma lies in the reality that they are in fact, the same thing, when no one knows what something should have been at the onset.
To my knowledge, there are two places to view stats for a relic. In game, and on the MCoC site.
The image above is from the MCoC site. Stats listed are for a 6*R2 relic. No other stats are listed. One can presume they would be lower, but shouldn't be expected to know exactly what they should be.
So when Kabam comes off the top rope saying its a bug, you have two choices. Trust them, or don't.
If you choose to trust them, that's fine, but it's completely unreasonable to be dismissive to those who choose not to trust them, as there's no way to prove one way or another if something was intended by Kabam (then later deemed to be unreasonable by them), or if something was unintended, and later corrected to their intended version.
For those of you who watched one of my favorite TV shows, Brooklyn 99, there's an episode where Boyle gives Terry $10,000 dollars when he intended to give him $100, but didn't account for the fact that the bank automatically added the two decimal values. So did Boyle intend to give him $10,000 or $100? Only Boyle knows for sure. Everyone else has to take his word for it.
Regardless, relic rankup mats are still relatively rare to the casual player. If someone ranked up a 5* relic because of the previous values, then has those values decreased, whether because of a legitimate bug, or a nerf, they should definitely be given those materials back (and I'm not one who did that, so I'm not even advocating for myself...I've got no dog in this fight).
Bottom line, when an individual acts on the information at their disposal, then that information is changed by the business in charge, those individuals should be compensated.
If that's the point YOU want to make, then make it. You don't need to tell me to stop commenting for that.
Here’s the text I think you’re referring to @Chris_118
Dr. Zola
I understand this as: if your Crit Rating is above 800 then the relic has no effect, and if it is below 800 then you only gain Crit Rating to take your total Crit rating to 800.
What I’m saying is that with my current masteries all of my 6 star mutants have higher than 800 Crit Rating except for Apocalypse who has a total Crit Rating of 779. So only he would benefit and he would only gain +21 additional rating.
For example, here a key phrase is also “up to.” Do special attack hits by your Apoc that deal physical damage gain the full +21, or are they eligible to gain +21 but may, in fact, gain less than that? Is it subject to pRNG whether they true up to 800 crit rating or not? Why even use the phrase “up to” at all if the effect is simply to bump all physical special attack hits to 800 crit rating?
Is the intent to give +800 for any hit with crit rating below 800 but give none at all for a hit with 801 crit rating? Who knows?
In short: what’s intended here? and is a bot writing these descriptions?
Dr. Zola
Dr. Zola
Dr. Zola