GroundedWisdom wrote: » Neither one of us implied that we were the most intelligent people in the Thread. I can't speak for DNA. I expressed my views and the counter to them was to question whether we work for Kabam, and to point out that we don't know for sure. Which I've expressed myself. I have a pretty good understanding on the general subject, and DNA has more experience in the field than I do. I respect his input. All I'm doing is sharing my thoughts on the subject.
Axo4545 wrote: » LeNoirFaineant wrote: » @Axo4545 I must've missed that. Thought GW who gets asked that all the time was just trying to lump them together lol. Nah, they just seem to forget that people might have different opinions than they do and when you press GW on anything to do with his he deflects and says he's moving on.
LeNoirFaineant wrote: » @Axo4545 I must've missed that. Thought GW who gets asked that all the time was just trying to lump them together lol.
Cuteshelf wrote: » Seriously, who cares about either of these 2? If I could figure out how to block people.... Let’s get back to the topic at hand instead of being derailed by GW every time he post some ridiculous response....
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone.
RedRooster wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone. The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads. It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from. I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Cuteshelf wrote: » Seriously, who cares about either of these 2? If I could figure out how to block people.... Let’s get back to the topic at hand instead of being derailed by GW every time he post some ridiculous response.... Let me help you. Go to my Profile, click the drop down, and select Ignore.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » LeNoirFaineant wrote: » @Axo4545 I must've missed that. Thought GW who gets asked that all the time was just trying to lump them together lol. Nah, they just seem to forget that people might have different opinions than they do and when you press GW on anything to do with his he deflects and says he's moving on. You're not presenting any actual counters to my thoughts. You're just questioning what I'm saying to try and prove me wrong. There's a difference. You've decided for yourself, admittedly, that I argue for the sake of being contrary, and have taken it upon yourself to dispute me the same way you perceive I function. I'm not a contrarian. I don't argue for the sake of arguing. I present points not currently being considered. That's what usually happens in a debate. I fully encourage people to challenge my thoughts in a respectful way. I don't have much time to do it aimlessly, or just for the sake of mental sparring.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » RedRooster wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone. The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads. It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from. I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal. Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards.
RedRooster wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RedRooster wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone. The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads. It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from. I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal. Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards. Hmmm - there you go providing an intentionally obtuse post again. I might have just blown all my shards on 5* pulls, does that exclude me? No it doesn't. Or you might as well have said they are targeting anyone who has ever had or is ever capable of getting 15k 5* shards. It's not just about what you have but also about where you are in the game. The point is that casual gamers and high end gamers do not have the same requirements for their roster. The game is segmented, that's why not every deal they release is for every player. Just like not every crystal is for every player. If you're a player that is 6 months in and hasn't got a 5* champ or doesn't even have enough shards to obtain one. Don't include that data to establish "effectiveness".
GroundedWisdom wrote: » RedRooster wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RedRooster wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone. The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads. It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from. I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal. Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards. Hmmm - there you go providing an intentionally obtuse post again. I might have just blown all my shards on 5* pulls, does that exclude me? No it doesn't. Or you might as well have said they are targeting anyone who has ever had or is ever capable of getting 15k 5* shards. It's not just about what you have but also about where you are in the game. The point is that casual gamers and high end gamers do not have the same requirements for their roster. The game is segmented, that's why not every deal they release is for every player. Just like not every crystal is for every player. If you're a player that is 6 months in and hasn't got a 5* champ or doesn't even have enough shards to obtain one. Don't include that data to establish "effectiveness". That's not obtuse at all. You're suggesting that the Featured Crystal needs to reflect one specific demographic. It does not. The Featured 5* and the 5* Crystals are for all Players that have enough Shards to open them. These days, you can get them from logging in over a particular amount of time. That statement about all Offers not applying to all Players is not the same context at all. Offers are varied and spread out over the year. These Crystals are available for anyone that has enough Shards. You're implying that these Crystals are directed more towards those that need Top Tier Champs to compete. This is not true. It may be true in the case of the GMCs, but there is also a requirement to have access to those which means the Players would typically be in a similar range after completing it. Anyone who has 15,000 Shards can choose to go for the Featured 5*, and that doesn't mean they have to be on the higher end of things. In fact, the only indication we have is that they're trying to avoid including the ones which perform the poorest. Which most likely means overall, not at one particular area of the game.
RedRooster wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RedRooster wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RedRooster wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone. The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads. It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from. I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal. Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards. Hmmm - there you go providing an intentionally obtuse post again. I might have just blown all my shards on 5* pulls, does that exclude me? No it doesn't. Or you might as well have said they are targeting anyone who has ever had or is ever capable of getting 15k 5* shards. It's not just about what you have but also about where you are in the game. The point is that casual gamers and high end gamers do not have the same requirements for their roster. The game is segmented, that's why not every deal they release is for every player. Just like not every crystal is for every player. If you're a player that is 6 months in and hasn't got a 5* champ or doesn't even have enough shards to obtain one. Don't include that data to establish "effectiveness". That's not obtuse at all. You're suggesting that the Featured Crystal needs to reflect one specific demographic. It does not. The Featured 5* and the 5* Crystals are for all Players that have enough Shards to open them. These days, you can get them from logging in over a particular amount of time. That statement about all Offers not applying to all Players is not the same context at all. Offers are varied and spread out over the year. These Crystals are available for anyone that has enough Shards. You're implying that these Crystals are directed more towards those that need Top Tier Champs to compete. This is not true. It may be true in the case of the GMCs, but there is also a requirement to have access to those which means the Players would typically be in a similar range after completing it. Anyone who has 15,000 Shards can choose to go for the Featured 5*, and that doesn't mean they have to be on the higher end of things. In fact, the only indication we have is that they're trying to avoid including the ones which perform the poorest. Which most likely means overall, not at one particular area of the game. No it's not what I said, if anything what I said is closer to excluding a particular demographic, not including a particular demographic. As they stand the new featured crystals provide almost no benefit over a basic crystal and cost 50% more, unless you've come to conclusion that the 50% premium is worth avoiding "ineffective" champs. The problem is if their metrics include data from low skill conditions, it's not really a good measure of "effectiveness" is it? If you are an emerging player that ONLY has 15k shards, the premium of buying a 15K crystal for a mediocre champ makes no sense. Just because something is technically applicable doesn't mean that is the target. I have arms and legs and can ride a bike and a disposable income, but that doesn't mean I'm the target for people trying to sell bikes. I would hate to see you write a business plan. I am quite sure that Kabam did think about which segments the crystal was applicable to, otherwise it is you that are giving them less credit than they deserve. They might not end up with the same conclusions as the player base, but I'm sure they thought about it.
RedRooster wrote: » @GroundedWisdom A "featured" champion isn't necessarily better than a basic champ, it's just newer. With that in mind, straight up question - forget about how Kabam have curated the list of basics and all the other stuff in this discussion. Do you honestly think this crystal is better than the existing one and if so why?
RedRooster wrote: » @GroundedWisdom Distilling your answer. I read "Better... Yes" more times than I read "Better... No", so I take it on the whole you consider it a better crystal. It was relatively straightforward question.@Axo4545 The fact there are so many opinions here should give them at least the idea that we are unhappy with the change and should consider a different approach. Here's my constructive idea: On the basis that we get two new champs per month. 1) Rotate the two new champs through a 3 month life cycle, removing the oldest two featured champs at the end of each month. So the featured champs are still in there a total of 3 months. 2) Change the pool of basic champs each month 3) Reduce the basic pool down to 12 champs, making the total pool 18 champs This means that the basic pool doesn't become stale and I feel makes the "featured" crystal worth the 50% premium based on the increased odds of pulling a champ you are looking for.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » RedRooster wrote: » @GroundedWisdom Distilling your answer. I read "Better... Yes" more times than I read "Better... No", so I take it on the whole you consider it a better crystal. It was relatively straightforward question.@Axo4545 The fact there are so many opinions here should give them at least the idea that we are unhappy with the change and should consider a different approach. Here's my constructive idea: On the basis that we get two new champs per month. 1) Rotate the two new champs through a 3 month life cycle, removing the oldest two featured champs at the end of each month. So the featured champs are still in there a total of 3 months. 2) Change the pool of basic champs each month 3) Reduce the basic pool down to 12 champs, making the total pool 18 champs This means that the basic pool doesn't become stale and I feel makes the "featured" crystal worth the 50% premium based on the increased odds of pulling a champ you are looking for. That's an oversimplified summary of what I said. I didn't say it was better. I said it was a viable option and I understand the reasons behind it. Better depends on what perspective you're looking at it from.
