Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » General_Vis wrote: » I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision. It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through. Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals. I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs. They didn't feed us anything. That was a response to a question asked about the Champs included. Who said anything about feeding us?
GroundedWisdom wrote: » General_Vis wrote: » I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision. It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through. Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals. I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs. They didn't feed us anything. That was a response to a question asked about the Champs included.
General_Vis wrote: » I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision. It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through. Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals. I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs.
Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » General_Vis wrote: » I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision. It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through. Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals. I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs. They didn't feed us anything. That was a response to a question asked about the Champs included. Who said anything about feeding us? I meant to say sell. I was focused on the game when I started commenting. Ah ok. Either way, even though it was a response to a question, I gotta agree it was a line.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » General_Vis wrote: » I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision. It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through. Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals. I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs. They didn't feed us anything. That was a response to a question asked about the Champs included. Who said anything about feeding us? I meant to say sell. I was focused on the game when I started commenting.
rwhack wrote: » I'm still trying to figure out why someone with zero 5 stars in his IGN profile would have such a lengthy discussion about 5 stars. Can you help me understand why you have such a strong opinion on something you don't have? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, it's just odd to have such a strong opinion when 5 stars aren't what you play with. For me it's an endless wonder.
RedRooster wrote: » rwhack wrote: » I'm still trying to figure out why someone with zero 5 stars in his IGN profile would have such a lengthy discussion about 5 stars. Can you help me understand why you have such a strong opinion on something you don't have? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, it's just odd to have such a strong opinion when 5 stars aren't what you play with. For me it's an endless wonder. To be fair, it could be because every time he went for a featured crystal he didn't get it and every basic he pulled has been junk, in which case you wouldn't rank past r3 and therefore your 4*s would still be higher. For him this could actually be a good thing. I have 9 5*s and only one appears on my profile because the rest are junk, but it could double that just by opening all the shards I've stockpiled. RIP 5* featured crystals and all my self control in hoarding. I am by no means defending any of the points he has made here so far, just posing a possibility.
Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It really has less to do with who is "good" and more to do with who is performing poorly. It's not really a "God Tier/Mid Tier/Garbage Tier" situation. It's a situation where they're looking at the data and excluding the bottom of those statistics, in whatever aspects they're looking at. If we're being honest we actually have no idea what it has to do with or what their criteria is for picking the champs on the list. All we know is what we have been told.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » It really has less to do with who is "good" and more to do with who is performing poorly. It's not really a "God Tier/Mid Tier/Garbage Tier" situation. It's a situation where they're looking at the data and excluding the bottom of those statistics, in whatever aspects they're looking at.
Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It really has less to do with who is "good" and more to do with who is performing poorly. It's not really a "God Tier/Mid Tier/Garbage Tier" situation. It's a situation where they're looking at the data and excluding the bottom of those statistics, in whatever aspects they're looking at. If we're being honest we actually have no idea what it has to do with or what their criteria is for picking the champs on the list. All we know is what we have been told. The statement is not untrue. We don't know exactly what areas they're looking at for analysis, but the data itself is like any other programming data. It's not separated by the Player definition of what Champ is God, what is Mid, what is Lower. It's just data. I'm not questioning the validity of their statements. Yeah I'm not questioning the mods statement because like with any business they can only pass on what information they have been cleared to pass on. Does that mean we are being told everything or that the statement is 100% the truth? No , it doesn't. Like the older saying goes trust is earned. I don't blindly believe anything 100% unless it comes from someone that has earned that trust. As for the data, again, we really have no idea how there data is separated. We can only assume(Do I need to break that word down for anyone?) that it's like any other programming data but we really don't know. It is possible to have the data broke down in just about anyway you want. Point is, just like in my previous post, we can only go off the information we have been given because the rest is just speculation on our part. We can say that they do this or don't do that but when it comes down to it we have no idea what goes on at there company. I know some will say that this or that is done thus way or that way because that's how other companies do it but can anyone actually say that they know how anything is done at kabam 100% without a doubt? No. The only people that can are their employees.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It really has less to do with who is "good" and more to do with who is performing poorly. It's not really a "God Tier/Mid Tier/Garbage Tier" situation. It's a situation where they're looking at the data and excluding the bottom of those statistics, in whatever aspects they're looking at. If we're being honest we actually have no idea what it has to do with or what their criteria is for picking the champs on the list. All we know is what we have been told. The statement is not untrue. We don't know exactly what areas they're looking at for analysis, but the data itself is like any other programming data. It's not separated by the Player definition of what Champ is God, what is Mid, what is Lower. It's just data. I'm not questioning the validity of their statements.
EBG78 wrote: » Here’s what I would like answered about the chosen champions’ “effectiveness”: is that based on a total number? Or percentage used vs percentage effective? It would seem it’s a total. I can guarantee Stark Spiderman is way more effective in AQ and AW attack and defense then most, if not all, of the champions of the pool of 18. So it would seem that it’s based on a total rather than a percent. I think it’s safe to say there are more duped Cyclops out there than duped Sparks. Also, this new crystal isn’t meant to be a money maker for Kabam, directly. It’s meant to push spenders toward the Grandmaster Featured crystals and thus increasing their profit. The spenders probably weren’t buying as many of the GF crystals as they would like so they had to do something to change that.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » I can't say I agree that it's based on a total number that use him, at least for the most part, simply because the comment referenced the small number that use him, use him very well. I think that's the misunderstanding about the data. I don't believe they're looking at the most popular as an indication of effectiveness. I believe they're examining all Champs and how effectively they're performing. My view is that it's not really about who is used the most. It's about identifying the Champs that perform poorly. For that, you would have to examine all Champs individually, then look at the collective data and make some type of comparison. Not conjecturing on the GMC myself so I will just say that's an agree to disagree.
EBG78 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » I can't say I agree that it's based on a total number that use him, at least for the most part, simply because the comment referenced the small number that use him, use him very well. I think that's the misunderstanding about the data. I don't believe they're looking at the most popular as an indication of effectiveness. I believe they're examining all Champs and how effectively they're performing. My view is that it's not really about who is used the most. It's about identifying the Champs that perform poorly. For that, you would have to examine all Champs individually, then look at the collective data and make some type of comparison. Not conjecturing on the GMC myself so I will just say that's an agree to disagree. I understand what you’re saying. But do you think, honestly, that ANY of those 18 is more effective than Dorm, Magik, Spark, Iceman, AA, GP, Hyp, Rogue, Quake, Ultron....?
Axo4545 wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » Thestoryteller6 wrote: » It's too late to do this but... I think this might have gone down much better if you hadn't tried to put this ridiculous spin on it. It's clearly not beneficial to players and progression so why try to spin it as such? I would have been far happier with an explanation like, 5 star shards are getting much more easily available making featured crystals imbalanced. Or something that made sense. This is exactly the situation with AW - you put together a ridiculous statement with a ton of exclamation marks saying it would be amazing and that really made you look out of touch with reality (as real as a video game can be). I don't think they really spun this specific crystal as being better than the old crystal. If you read the original announcement carefully, they actually mentioned the state of the game when 5* champions were first introduced, not what the state of the game was very recently. They said that originally, you had two shots at a featured, and then it was basically gone. And the basic crystal got additions extremely slowly, so if you missed your chance, it was gone for a long time or maybe practically forever. Every change to the 5* system has improved that situation taken as a whole. 5* shard availability has increased. Featureds are now added to the basic much faster, which means the featured crystal itself is not the last and only chance at the featured like it originally was. And had we jumped straight from there to here, I don't think this crystal would seem quite so out of place if it came with a huge increase in shards. The problem is that all of the 5* changes happened slowly in a problematic order. First we got the basic acceleration, then we got the 5* shard availability increases, and then only now are we getting the new featured crystal, and the devs never told the players directly this was all part of a whole. So the players (at least some of them) got used to having gigantic piles of shards and a featured crystal that was practically a featured champion selection box for anyone not called Anonymous2k. Maybe this would have been better if they had announced way in advance that oh yeah, we're going to be shoving all the featureds into the basic crystal and tripling the availability of 5* shards, but starting now the current version of the featured crystal is on borrowed time: as soon as we catch up we will replace it with a crystal designed for higher 5* shard availability. In the meantime, enjoy the temporary ability to spend your shard on that crystal. I think some players would still be mad, but I think it might have been more palatable if, as you say, the new crystal was linked to other 5* improvements, and not allowed to be judged singularly. And then again, maybe not. It is not something I would bet money on personally. If I was in charge, I would have probably wanted to do that anyway. But I don't know if that wouldn't have blown up in my face. You have to consider this also though. Maybe the champs seem effective because the players that are using tgem effectively are forced to because they are tge best champs tgat they have at the moment. I can't help but think that if the champs listed are effective why did they not receive more votes for the $1 crystal. Reason is probably because the ones that have them would rather have better champs even though they use the ones they have effectively. Think of it like this. If you were only given 5 champs, no matter who they were, and those are the only champs you will ever have. Over time you will learn to use them effectively because you wouldn't have any choice. Also consider that some of those champs listed are probably some of the most drawn champs in the game. I would be interested to know the how many of each champ has been drawn from 5* crystals because that can skew the data. The more of any given champ in the game would make it seem like they are used effectively because once again if they are all you've got then you are going to become effective with them.
DNA3000 wrote: » Thestoryteller6 wrote: » It's too late to do this but... I think this might have gone down much better if you hadn't tried to put this ridiculous spin on it. It's clearly not beneficial to players and progression so why try to spin it as such? I would have been far happier with an explanation like, 5 star shards are getting much more easily available making featured crystals imbalanced. Or something that made sense. This is exactly the situation with AW - you put together a ridiculous statement with a ton of exclamation marks saying it would be amazing and that really made you look out of touch with reality (as real as a video game can be). I don't think they really spun this specific crystal as being better than the old crystal. If you read the original announcement carefully, they actually mentioned the state of the game when 5* champions were first introduced, not what the state of the game was very recently. They said that originally, you had two shots at a featured, and then it was basically gone. And the basic crystal got additions extremely slowly, so if you missed your chance, it was gone for a long time or maybe practically forever. Every change to the 5* system has improved that situation taken as a whole. 5* shard availability has increased. Featureds are now added to the basic much faster, which means the featured crystal itself is not the last and only chance at the featured like it originally was. And had we jumped straight from there to here, I don't think this crystal would seem quite so out of place if it came with a huge increase in shards. The problem is that all of the 5* changes happened slowly in a problematic order. First we got the basic acceleration, then we got the 5* shard availability increases, and then only now are we getting the new featured crystal, and the devs never told the players directly this was all part of a whole. So the players (at least some of them) got used to having gigantic piles of shards and a featured crystal that was practically a featured champion selection box for anyone not called Anonymous2k. Maybe this would have been better if they had announced way in advance that oh yeah, we're going to be shoving all the featureds into the basic crystal and tripling the availability of 5* shards, but starting now the current version of the featured crystal is on borrowed time: as soon as we catch up we will replace it with a crystal designed for higher 5* shard availability. In the meantime, enjoy the temporary ability to spend your shard on that crystal. I think some players would still be mad, but I think it might have been more palatable if, as you say, the new crystal was linked to other 5* improvements, and not allowed to be judged singularly. And then again, maybe not. It is not something I would bet money on personally. If I was in charge, I would have probably wanted to do that anyway. But I don't know if that wouldn't have blown up in my face.
Thestoryteller6 wrote: » It's too late to do this but... I think this might have gone down much better if you hadn't tried to put this ridiculous spin on it. It's clearly not beneficial to players and progression so why try to spin it as such? I would have been far happier with an explanation like, 5 star shards are getting much more easily available making featured crystals imbalanced. Or something that made sense. This is exactly the situation with AW - you put together a ridiculous statement with a ton of exclamation marks saying it would be amazing and that really made you look out of touch with reality (as real as a video game can be).
Axo4545 wrote: » Wouldn't the most effective be the most popular, and wouldn't popularity follow down the list of champs from most effective to least effictive?
Twunt wrote: » Oh come on. Why did my comment get removed? You guys are among the quickest at reviewing forum posts.
Axo4545 wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » Wouldn't the most effective be the most popular, and wouldn't popularity follow down the list of champs from most effective to least effictive? Not necessarily. For example, and I'm making a somewhat contrived example to simplify discussion, suppose Iceman was *only* used on evade champs, and when he was used he was extremely good at killing them. Then whenever he was used he would be seen as extremely effective in Kabam's numbers. But suppose also that his damage was relatively low so outside of evade champs he was rarely used, passed over for champs like Gwenpool and Stark Spiderman. In that case, he could be simultaneously very effective and not very popular to use. Rarely is anything so cut and dried, but how often a champion is used depends greatly on how broadly useful that champion is across a wide range of content. Effectiveness is more closely dependent on how well players can play that champion when they choose to play them, which might be very often or not very often. This is an extreme oversimplification and in reality there are more variables involved, but if we graph "popularity" (in terms of usage, not demand) and "effectiveness" on a graph, the graph has four corners. Way off to the upper right is "highly popular" and "highly effective." This is also known as nerf-landia. Scarlet Witch has a permanent monument to her in this quadrant which we can't see because it is so far up and to the right its currently in orbit. Way off in the bottom left is "highly unpopular" and "highly ineffective." The players call this "dumpster fire" and the devs look there to find champions to buff. Luke Cage and Red Hulk apparently share a two-bedroom studio there. In the upper left is "highly effective" and "highly unpopular." These are niche champions really good at something and not so good at everything else. MMO dev companies never deliberately try to make these, but they tend to like them when they appear. And in the lower right are the "highly ineffective" and "highly popular" champions. Players think this corner doesn't exist and treats their inhabitants like Bigfoot. Devs know they exist, and they are a thorn in their side. They know knowledgeable players will want to change them to push them upward on the graph. But they also know a huge number customers will get pissed off if they do. There is no point discussing popular vs effective because it really doesn't matter. As I have said a few times, the only think that matters is the factors they used when looking and the data and we have no idea what those factors were. For all we know they could have compiled months or years of data and scrutinized over it for months or they could have thrown darts and whatever champs they hit became the 18.
DNA3000 wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » Wouldn't the most effective be the most popular, and wouldn't popularity follow down the list of champs from most effective to least effictive? Not necessarily. For example, and I'm making a somewhat contrived example to simplify discussion, suppose Iceman was *only* used on evade champs, and when he was used he was extremely good at killing them. Then whenever he was used he would be seen as extremely effective in Kabam's numbers. But suppose also that his damage was relatively low so outside of evade champs he was rarely used, passed over for champs like Gwenpool and Stark Spiderman. In that case, he could be simultaneously very effective and not very popular to use. Rarely is anything so cut and dried, but how often a champion is used depends greatly on how broadly useful that champion is across a wide range of content. Effectiveness is more closely dependent on how well players can play that champion when they choose to play them, which might be very often or not very often. This is an extreme oversimplification and in reality there are more variables involved, but if we graph "popularity" (in terms of usage, not demand) and "effectiveness" on a graph, the graph has four corners. Way off to the upper right is "highly popular" and "highly effective." This is also known as nerf-landia. Scarlet Witch has a permanent monument to her in this quadrant which we can't see because it is so far up and to the right its currently in orbit. Way off in the bottom left is "highly unpopular" and "highly ineffective." The players call this "dumpster fire" and the devs look there to find champions to buff. Luke Cage and Red Hulk apparently share a two-bedroom studio there. In the upper left is "highly effective" and "highly unpopular." These are niche champions really good at something and not so good at everything else. MMO dev companies never deliberately try to make these, but they tend to like them when they appear. And in the lower right are the "highly ineffective" and "highly popular" champions. Players think this corner doesn't exist and treats their inhabitants like Bigfoot. Devs know they exist, and they are a thorn in their side. They know knowledgeable players will want to change them to push them upward on the graph. But they also know a huge number customers will get pissed off if they do.
Axo4545 wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » Wouldn't the most effective be the most popular, and wouldn't popularity follow down the list of champs from most effective to least effictive? Not necessarily. For example, and I'm making a somewhat contrived example to simplify discussion, suppose Iceman was *only* used on evade champs, and when he was used he was extremely good at killing them. Then whenever he was used he would be seen as extremely effective in Kabam's numbers. But suppose also that his damage was relatively low so outside of evade champs he was rarely used, passed over for champs like Gwenpool and Stark Spiderman. In that case, he could be simultaneously very effective and not very popular to use. Rarely is anything so cut and dried, but how often a champion is used depends greatly on how broadly useful that champion is across a wide range of content. Effectiveness is more closely dependent on how well players can play that champion when they choose to play them, which might be very often or not very often. This is an extreme oversimplification and in reality there are more variables involved, but if we graph "popularity" (in terms of usage, not demand) and "effectiveness" on a graph, the graph has four corners. Way off to the upper right is "highly popular" and "highly effective." This is also known as nerf-landia. Scarlet Witch has a permanent monument to her in this quadrant which we can't see because it is so far up and to the right its currently in orbit. Way off in the bottom left is "highly unpopular" and "highly ineffective." The players call this "dumpster fire" and the devs look there to find champions to buff. Luke Cage and Red Hulk apparently share a two-bedroom studio there. In the upper left is "highly effective" and "highly unpopular." These are niche champions really good at something and not so good at everything else. MMO dev companies never deliberately try to make these, but they tend to like them when they appear. And in the lower right are the "highly ineffective" and "highly popular" champions. Players think this corner doesn't exist and treats their inhabitants like Bigfoot. Devs know they exist, and they are a thorn in their side. They know knowledgeable players will want to change them to push them upward on the graph. But they also know a huge number customers will get pissed off if they do. There is no point discussing popular vs effective because it really doesn't matter. As I have said a few times, the only think that matters is the factors they used when looking and the data and we have no idea what those factors were. For all we know they could have compiled months or years of data and scrutinized over it for months or they could have thrown darts and whatever champs they hit became the 18. Lots of players have asked questions about how Kabam likely datamined the game, and I can say from experience how most if not all MMO companies in general and all monetized F2P games do this as a matter of course. For people interested in knowing the broad strokes of this that it is 99% likely Kabam did, I can put that into some perspective. If you are only interested in an official statement from Kabam with the precise details of their datamining methodology I can't help you, and neither can anyone else on Earth, because no game company allows their employees to disclose that information. Short of breaking into Kabam's offices and conducting illegal corporate espionage, I'm afraid you will be unable to get what you want. For all you know, they could have thrown darts. However, for all I know, to a reasonably high degree of confidence I know that they did not, at least not in the way you mean. I know they datamined the game. I know they datamined the metrics everyone datamines, and that includes metrics appropriate to monitoring variables the devs must know to operate their game properly. Metrics relevant to monetization, engagement, participation, progress, and resource management. What I know is simply different than what you know. I have a point to discussing these things, because I'm familiar with them. If you don't think I'm a credible source, then there's no point in you discussing it with me. That would not invalidate my point in addressing the topic when it comes up. So you work for kabam? Because that is the only way you know for sure what they do. Otherwise you just posting what you think.
DNA3000 wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » Wouldn't the most effective be the most popular, and wouldn't popularity follow down the list of champs from most effective to least effictive? Not necessarily. For example, and I'm making a somewhat contrived example to simplify discussion, suppose Iceman was *only* used on evade champs, and when he was used he was extremely good at killing them. Then whenever he was used he would be seen as extremely effective in Kabam's numbers. But suppose also that his damage was relatively low so outside of evade champs he was rarely used, passed over for champs like Gwenpool and Stark Spiderman. In that case, he could be simultaneously very effective and not very popular to use. Rarely is anything so cut and dried, but how often a champion is used depends greatly on how broadly useful that champion is across a wide range of content. Effectiveness is more closely dependent on how well players can play that champion when they choose to play them, which might be very often or not very often. This is an extreme oversimplification and in reality there are more variables involved, but if we graph "popularity" (in terms of usage, not demand) and "effectiveness" on a graph, the graph has four corners. Way off to the upper right is "highly popular" and "highly effective." This is also known as nerf-landia. Scarlet Witch has a permanent monument to her in this quadrant which we can't see because it is so far up and to the right its currently in orbit. Way off in the bottom left is "highly unpopular" and "highly ineffective." The players call this "dumpster fire" and the devs look there to find champions to buff. Luke Cage and Red Hulk apparently share a two-bedroom studio there. In the upper left is "highly effective" and "highly unpopular." These are niche champions really good at something and not so good at everything else. MMO dev companies never deliberately try to make these, but they tend to like them when they appear. And in the lower right are the "highly ineffective" and "highly popular" champions. Players think this corner doesn't exist and treats their inhabitants like Bigfoot. Devs know they exist, and they are a thorn in their side. They know knowledgeable players will want to change them to push them upward on the graph. But they also know a huge number customers will get pissed off if they do. There is no point discussing popular vs effective because it really doesn't matter. As I have said a few times, the only think that matters is the factors they used when looking and the data and we have no idea what those factors were. For all we know they could have compiled months or years of data and scrutinized over it for months or they could have thrown darts and whatever champs they hit became the 18. Lots of players have asked questions about how Kabam likely datamined the game, and I can say from experience how most if not all MMO companies in general and all monetized F2P games do this as a matter of course. For people interested in knowing the broad strokes of this that it is 99% likely Kabam did, I can put that into some perspective. If you are only interested in an official statement from Kabam with the precise details of their datamining methodology I can't help you, and neither can anyone else on Earth, because no game company allows their employees to disclose that information. Short of breaking into Kabam's offices and conducting illegal corporate espionage, I'm afraid you will be unable to get what you want. For all you know, they could have thrown darts. However, for all I know, to a reasonably high degree of confidence I know that they did not, at least not in the way you mean. I know they datamined the game. I know they datamined the metrics everyone datamines, and that includes metrics appropriate to monitoring variables the devs must know to operate their game properly. Metrics relevant to monetization, engagement, participation, progress, and resource management. What I know is simply different than what you know. I have a point to discussing these things, because I'm familiar with them. If you don't think I'm a credible source, then there's no point in you discussing it with me. That would not invalidate my point in addressing the topic when it comes up.
