GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game.
BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant
GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows.
GangsterSauce wrote: » Don't worry guys. Kabam is always looking out for the players just like how Donald Trump looks out for Americans.
BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great?
GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great? Why would they do that? Let's overlook the fact that it's conspiracy. If they wanted to include the Champs they wanted, they wouldn't go through the trouble of concocting an excuse to look at "easy data". We don't know the specifics. However, if they're looking at all Champs available as 5*s and identifying the lowest performing, that means they're looking at all Champs, regardless of what Tier they're in. That's the part people aren't getting. Just because we personally think a particular Champ sucks doesn't mean they are useless. Has nothing to do with being suited for any particular Tier, or easy Fights. The Crystal is going to have a range of Champs that alternate. We can form whatever opinions we want on the Champs in it, but those are the Champs available. The only thing we know is that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly. Which is reasonable. We can't expect a Crystal full of "God Tier Champs".
BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great? Why would they do that? Let's overlook the fact that it's conspiracy. If they wanted to include the Champs they wanted, they wouldn't go through the trouble of concocting an excuse to look at "easy data". We don't know the specifics. However, if they're looking at all Champs available as 5*s and identifying the lowest performing, that means they're looking at all Champs, regardless of what Tier they're in. That's the part people aren't getting. Just because we personally think a particular Champ sucks doesn't mean they are useless. Has nothing to do with being suited for any particular Tier, or easy Fights. The Crystal is going to have a range of Champs that alternate. We can form whatever opinions we want on the Champs in it, but those are the Champs available. The only thing we know is that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly. Which is reasonable. We can't expect a Crystal full of "God Tier Champs". It is a fact that if people don’t have as good champions, they won’t do as well. That’s not my opinion, if you have wolverine, star Lord and blade in aq you will do much better on average than if you had Khamalha Khan, spidergwen and Luke cage (excluding beta). If kabam wanted to make more money then they would put champions like that in the pool more than the better ones. You’re just assuming the data was collected that way, unless I missed something. The only thing we know is that Kabam “say” they are making an effort to not include ones that perform poorly. I know we can’t expect a crystal full of God tier champs, but I think we should expect at least a few. This crystal literally has no god tier champs, only trash and a couple of decent champs.
Anonymous wrote: » We're not asking for a crystal full of "God tier champs." We're asking for a crystal worth 15k shards. If I go to the grocery store and I want milk, I could spend about half the price more for organic milk. I wouldn't want to spend more on the same milk I could get for less.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great? Why would they do that? Let's overlook the fact that it's conspiracy. If they wanted to include the Champs they wanted, they wouldn't go through the trouble of concocting an excuse to look at "easy data". We don't know the specifics. However, if they're looking at all Champs available as 5*s and identifying the lowest performing, that means they're looking at all Champs, regardless of what Tier they're in. That's the part people aren't getting. Just because we personally think a particular Champ sucks doesn't mean they are useless. Has nothing to do with being suited for any particular Tier, or easy Fights. The Crystal is going to have a range of Champs that alternate. We can form whatever opinions we want on the Champs in it, but those are the Champs available. The only thing we know is that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly. Which is reasonable. We can't expect a Crystal full of "God Tier Champs". It is a fact that if people don’t have as good champions, they won’t do as well. That’s not my opinion, if you have wolverine, star Lord and blade in aq you will do much better on average than if you had Khamalha Khan, spidergwen and Luke cage (excluding beta). If kabam wanted to make more money then they would put champions like that in the pool more than the better ones. You’re just assuming the data was collected that way, unless I missed something. The only thing we know is that Kabam “say” they are making an effort to not include ones that perform poorly. I know we can’t expect a crystal full of God tier champs, but I think we should expect at least a few. This crystal literally has no god tier champs, only trash and a couple of decent champs. It's not that hard to understand. You have 6 Champs that are Featuted, and 18 others that are already in the Basic Crystal. They're not picking and choosing anything, save for the Champs that are found to be performing poorly. Performing poorly means overall. They wouldn't use the Top Tier perspective alone to determine that because you'll find the list of Champs at that level very specific. I'm not assuming anything. You're eluding to the idea that it's possible they're not including any "good" Champs. I'm going on the information provided. We've had one pool revealed. Hardly cause for suspicion.
BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great? Why would they do that? Let's overlook the fact that it's conspiracy. If they wanted to include the Champs they wanted, they wouldn't go through the trouble of concocting an excuse to look at "easy data". We don't know the specifics. However, if they're looking at all Champs available as 5*s and identifying the lowest performing, that means they're looking at all Champs, regardless of what Tier they're in. That's the part people aren't getting. Just because we personally think a particular Champ sucks doesn't mean they are useless. Has nothing to do with being suited for any particular Tier, or easy Fights. The Crystal is going to have a range of Champs that alternate. We can form whatever opinions we want on the Champs in it, but those are the Champs available. The only thing we know is that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly. Which is reasonable. We can't expect a Crystal full of "God Tier Champs". It is a fact that if people don’t have as good champions, they won’t do as well. That’s not my opinion, if you have wolverine, star Lord and blade in aq you will do much better on average than if you had Khamalha Khan, spidergwen and Luke cage (excluding beta). If kabam wanted to make more money then they would put champions like that in the pool more than the better ones. You’re just assuming the data was collected that way, unless I missed something. The only thing we know is that Kabam “say” they are making an effort to not include ones that perform poorly. I know we can’t expect a crystal full of God tier champs, but I think we should expect at least a few. This crystal literally has no god tier champs, only trash and a couple of decent champs. It's not that hard to understand. You have 6 Champs that are Featuted, and 18 others that are already in the Basic Crystal. They're not picking and choosing anything, save for the Champs that are found to be performing poorly. Performing poorly means overall. They wouldn't use the Top Tier perspective alone to determine that because you'll find the list of Champs at that level very specific. I'm not assuming anything. You're eluding to the idea that it's possible they're not including any "good" Champs. I'm going on the information provided. We've had one pool revealed. Hardly cause for suspicion. Well you are assuming it. Kabam never said which area they collect data from. Just that they collected data. For all we know it could be two fights, 5* cyclops vs 1* juggernaut, (I’m not saying it is, but that is collecting data) “We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal.... we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions in these Crystals.” If they only looked at low level war and quest. They can conclude that not very good champions are performing well. For example, a bad champion like Antman will have good data, because he isn’t used in hard fights, because players know he will lose. But he’s used in easy fights. To put that in more understandable terms for you, on my account. Ant man probably has one of the best win rates for my champions. Because I use him to get my streak in arena against 3-30 champions. In aq, I used him for a couple of months on map 2 when I wasn’t as strong. I used him against easy champions. Someone like ghost rider, yeah he’s a much better champion. But I lose much more often with him, because I use him to tackle the hard fights, like act 5, map 6, Aw tier 1-2. Again you are assuming that kabam mean overall when they say performing poorly, you don’t know exactly what they mean therefore it is an assumption. One that mike has chosen to not answer
GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great? Why would they do that? Let's overlook the fact that it's conspiracy. If they wanted to include the Champs they wanted, they wouldn't go through the trouble of concocting an excuse to look at "easy data". We don't know the specifics. However, if they're looking at all Champs available as 5*s and identifying the lowest performing, that means they're looking at all Champs, regardless of what Tier they're in. That's the part people aren't getting. Just because we personally think a particular Champ sucks doesn't mean they are useless. Has nothing to do with being suited for any particular Tier, or easy Fights. The Crystal is going to have a range of Champs that alternate. We can form whatever opinions we want on the Champs in it, but those are the Champs available. The only thing we know is that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly. Which is reasonable. We can't expect a Crystal full of "God Tier Champs". It is a fact that if people don’t have as good champions, they won’t do as well. That’s not my opinion, if you have wolverine, star Lord and blade in aq you will do much better on average than if you had Khamalha Khan, spidergwen and Luke cage (excluding beta). If kabam wanted to make more money then they would put champions like that in the pool more than the better ones. You’re just assuming the data was collected that way, unless I missed something. The only thing we know is that Kabam “say” they are making an effort to not include ones that perform poorly. I know we can’t expect a crystal full of God tier champs, but I think we should expect at least a few. This crystal literally has no god tier champs, only trash and a couple of decent champs. It's not that hard to understand. You have 6 Champs that are Featuted, and 18 others that are already in the Basic Crystal. They're not picking and choosing anything, save for the Champs that are found to be performing poorly. Performing poorly means overall. They wouldn't use the Top Tier perspective alone to determine that because you'll find the list of Champs at that level very specific. I'm not assuming anything. You're eluding to the idea that it's possible they're not including any "good" Champs. I'm going on the information provided. We've had one pool revealed. Hardly cause for suspicion. Well you are assuming it. Kabam never said which area they collect data from. Just that they collected data. For all we know it could be two fights, 5* cyclops vs 1* juggernaut, (I’m not saying it is, but that is collecting data) “We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal.... we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions in these Crystals.” If they only looked at low level war and quest. They can conclude that not very good champions are performing well. For example, a bad champion like Antman will have good data, because he isn’t used in hard fights, because players know he will lose. But he’s used in easy fights. To put that in more understandable terms for you, on my account. Ant man probably has one of the best win rates for my champions. Because I use him to get my streak in arena against 3-30 champions. In aq, I used him for a couple of months on map 2 when I wasn’t as strong. I used him against easy champions. Someone like ghost rider, yeah he’s a much better champion. But I lose much more often with him, because I use him to tackle the hard fights, like act 5, map 6, Aw tier 1-2. Again you are assuming that kabam mean overall when they say performing poorly, you don’t know exactly what they mean therefore it is an assumption. One that mike has chosen to not answer Empirical, or observational, data. It's not so much of an assumption when you consider that they have to look at all the data to determine which are performing the poorest. If you want to entertain the idea that they examined a couple Fights and isolated those as effective, without examining all others, be my guest. A Champ that isn't used at the Top Tier isn't by default ineffective. That's my bottom line.
BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great? Why would they do that? Let's overlook the fact that it's conspiracy. If they wanted to include the Champs they wanted, they wouldn't go through the trouble of concocting an excuse to look at "easy data". We don't know the specifics. However, if they're looking at all Champs available as 5*s and identifying the lowest performing, that means they're looking at all Champs, regardless of what Tier they're in. That's the part people aren't getting. Just because we personally think a particular Champ sucks doesn't mean they are useless. Has nothing to do with being suited for any particular Tier, or easy Fights. The Crystal is going to have a range of Champs that alternate. We can form whatever opinions we want on the Champs in it, but those are the Champs available. The only thing we know is that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly. Which is reasonable. We can't expect a Crystal full of "God Tier Champs". It is a fact that if people don’t have as good champions, they won’t do as well. That’s not my opinion, if you have wolverine, star Lord and blade in aq you will do much better on average than if you had Khamalha Khan, spidergwen and Luke cage (excluding beta). If kabam wanted to make more money then they would put champions like that in the pool more than the better ones. You’re just assuming the data was collected that way, unless I missed something. The only thing we know is that Kabam “say” they are making an effort to not include ones that perform poorly. I know we can’t expect a crystal full of God tier champs, but I think we should expect at least a few. This crystal literally has no god tier champs, only trash and a couple of decent champs. It's not that hard to understand. You have 6 Champs that are Featuted, and 18 others that are already in the Basic Crystal. They're not picking and choosing anything, save for the Champs that are found to be performing poorly. Performing poorly means overall. They wouldn't use the Top Tier perspective alone to determine that because you'll find the list of Champs at that level very specific. I'm not assuming anything. You're eluding to the idea that it's possible they're not including any "good" Champs. I'm going on the information provided. We've had one pool revealed. Hardly cause for suspicion. Well you are assuming it. Kabam never said which area they collect data from. Just that they collected data. For all we know it could be two fights, 5* cyclops vs 1* juggernaut, (I’m not saying it is, but that is collecting data) “We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal.... we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions in these Crystals.” If they only looked at low level war and quest. They can conclude that not very good champions are performing well. For example, a bad champion like Antman will have good data, because he isn’t used in hard fights, because players know he will lose. But he’s used in easy fights. To put that in more understandable terms for you, on my account. Ant man probably has one of the best win rates for my champions. Because I use him to get my streak in arena against 3-30 champions. In aq, I used him for a couple of months on map 2 when I wasn’t as strong. I used him against easy champions. Someone like ghost rider, yeah he’s a much better champion. But I lose much more often with him, because I use him to tackle the hard fights, like act 5, map 6, Aw tier 1-2. Again you are assuming that kabam mean overall when they say performing poorly, you don’t know exactly what they mean therefore it is an assumption. One that mike has chosen to not answer Empirical, or observational, data. It's not so much of an assumption when you consider that they have to look at all the data to determine which are performing the poorest. If you want to entertain the idea that they examined a couple Fights and isolated those as effective, without examining all others, be my guest. A Champ that isn't used at the Top Tier isn't by default ineffective. That's my bottom line. Wow you used so many words to say absolutely nothing.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great? Why would they do that? Let's overlook the fact that it's conspiracy. If they wanted to include the Champs they wanted, they wouldn't go through the trouble of concocting an excuse to look at "easy data". We don't know the specifics. However, if they're looking at all Champs available as 5*s and identifying the lowest performing, that means they're looking at all Champs, regardless of what Tier they're in. That's the part people aren't getting. Just because we personally think a particular Champ sucks doesn't mean they are useless. Has nothing to do with being suited for any particular Tier, or easy Fights. The Crystal is going to have a range of Champs that alternate. We can form whatever opinions we want on the Champs in it, but those are the Champs available. The only thing we know is that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly. Which is reasonable. We can't expect a Crystal full of "God Tier Champs". It is a fact that if people don’t have as good champions, they won’t do as well. That’s not my opinion, if you have wolverine, star Lord and blade in aq you will do much better on average than if you had Khamalha Khan, spidergwen and Luke cage (excluding beta). If kabam wanted to make more money then they would put champions like that in the pool more than the better ones. You’re just assuming the data was collected that way, unless I missed something. The only thing we know is that Kabam “say” they are making an effort to not include ones that perform poorly. I know we can’t expect a crystal full of God tier champs, but I think we should expect at least a few. This crystal literally has no god tier champs, only trash and a couple of decent champs. It's not that hard to understand. You have 6 Champs that are Featuted, and 18 others that are already in the Basic Crystal. They're not picking and choosing anything, save for the Champs that are found to be performing poorly. Performing poorly means overall. They wouldn't use the Top Tier perspective alone to determine that because you'll find the list of Champs at that level very specific. I'm not assuming anything. You're eluding to the idea that it's possible they're not including any "good" Champs. I'm going on the information provided. We've had one pool revealed. Hardly cause for suspicion. Well you are assuming it. Kabam never said which area they collect data from. Just that they collected data. For all we know it could be two fights, 5* cyclops vs 1* juggernaut, (I’m not saying it is, but that is collecting data) “We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal.... we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions in these Crystals.” If they only looked at low level war and quest. They can conclude that not very good champions are performing well. For example, a bad champion like Antman will have good data, because he isn’t used in hard fights, because players know he will lose. But he’s used in easy fights. To put that in more understandable terms for you, on my account. Ant man probably has one of the best win rates for my champions. Because I use him to get my streak in arena against 3-30 champions. In aq, I used him for a couple of months on map 2 when I wasn’t as strong. I used him against easy champions. Someone like ghost rider, yeah he’s a much better champion. But I lose much more often with him, because I use him to tackle the hard fights, like act 5, map 6, Aw tier 1-2. Again you are assuming that kabam mean overall when they say performing poorly, you don’t know exactly what they mean therefore it is an assumption. One that mike has chosen to not answer Empirical, or observational, data. It's not so much of an assumption when you consider that they have to look at all the data to determine which are performing the poorest. If you want to entertain the idea that they examined a couple Fights and isolated those as effective, without examining all others, be my guest. A Champ that isn't used at the Top Tier isn't by default ineffective. That's my bottom line. Wow you used so many words to say absolutely nothing. So when you present something and I respond with my points, that's saying nothing? Interesting way to have a discussion. Seems selective, if you ask me.
BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great? Why would they do that? Let's overlook the fact that it's conspiracy. If they wanted to include the Champs they wanted, they wouldn't go through the trouble of concocting an excuse to look at "easy data". We don't know the specifics. However, if they're looking at all Champs available as 5*s and identifying the lowest performing, that means they're looking at all Champs, regardless of what Tier they're in. That's the part people aren't getting. Just because we personally think a particular Champ sucks doesn't mean they are useless. Has nothing to do with being suited for any particular Tier, or easy Fights. The Crystal is going to have a range of Champs that alternate. We can form whatever opinions we want on the Champs in it, but those are the Champs available. The only thing we know is that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly. Which is reasonable. We can't expect a Crystal full of "God Tier Champs". It is a fact that if people don’t have as good champions, they won’t do as well. That’s not my opinion, if you have wolverine, star Lord and blade in aq you will do much better on average than if you had Khamalha Khan, spidergwen and Luke cage (excluding beta). If kabam wanted to make more money then they would put champions like that in the pool more than the better ones. You’re just assuming the data was collected that way, unless I missed something. The only thing we know is that Kabam “say” they are making an effort to not include ones that perform poorly. I know we can’t expect a crystal full of God tier champs, but I think we should expect at least a few. This crystal literally has no god tier champs, only trash and a couple of decent champs. It's not that hard to understand. You have 6 Champs that are Featuted, and 18 others that are already in the Basic Crystal. They're not picking and choosing anything, save for the Champs that are found to be performing poorly. Performing poorly means overall. They wouldn't use the Top Tier perspective alone to determine that because you'll find the list of Champs at that level very specific. I'm not assuming anything. You're eluding to the idea that it's possible they're not including any "good" Champs. I'm going on the information provided. We've had one pool revealed. Hardly cause for suspicion. Well you are assuming it. Kabam never said which area they collect data from. Just that they collected data. For all we know it could be two fights, 5* cyclops vs 1* juggernaut, (I’m not saying it is, but that is collecting data) “We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal.... we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions in these Crystals.” If they only looked at low level war and quest. They can conclude that not very good champions are performing well. For example, a bad champion like Antman will have good data, because he isn’t used in hard fights, because players know he will lose. But he’s used in easy fights. To put that in more understandable terms for you, on my account. Ant man probably has one of the best win rates for my champions. Because I use him to get my streak in arena against 3-30 champions. In aq, I used him for a couple of months on map 2 when I wasn’t as strong. I used him against easy champions. Someone like ghost rider, yeah he’s a much better champion. But I lose much more often with him, because I use him to tackle the hard fights, like act 5, map 6, Aw tier 1-2. Again you are assuming that kabam mean overall when they say performing poorly, you don’t know exactly what they mean therefore it is an assumption. One that mike has chosen to not answer Empirical, or observational, data. It's not so much of an assumption when you consider that they have to look at all the data to determine which are performing the poorest. If you want to entertain the idea that they examined a couple Fights and isolated those as effective, without examining all others, be my guest. A Champ that isn't used at the Top Tier isn't by default ineffective. That's my bottom line. Wow you used so many words to say absolutely nothing. So when you present something and I respond with my points, that's saying nothing? Interesting way to have a discussion. Seems selective, if you ask me. I recognise your (misguided) points. But you are a broken record repeating the same viewpoints over and over and over.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » It's not about the most effective at all. They're looking at the data and avoiding the least effective based on what they're finding. Which means anything else can be included. People might have an opinion one way or another, but the data shows what it shows. And data can be used to lie, meaning that it shows nothing significant Data doesn't lie. It shows the actual usage of the Champs. When examining the effectiveness of Champs, that's about as significant and impartial as it gets. There is a difference between general concensus on who is good and who is not, and the actual performance data. TL:DR - Just because Top Tier Players think that half the Roster sucks doesn't mean that will reflect in the data. The efficiency of a Champ is more than just one area of the game. I didn’t say data doesn’t lie. But it can be used to lie, for example here And this is just one example, research how to lie with statistics and there’s a huge range of ways kabam could have (emphasis on could have) manipulated their data to conclude that cyclops is amongst the effective champs such as star Lord and gwenpool. They could have just taken easy level fights and because we don’t know the parameters of their data collection, they will conclude that cyclops is effective because he wins 100% of his fights! Isn’t that great? Why would they do that? Let's overlook the fact that it's conspiracy. If they wanted to include the Champs they wanted, they wouldn't go through the trouble of concocting an excuse to look at "easy data". We don't know the specifics. However, if they're looking at all Champs available as 5*s and identifying the lowest performing, that means they're looking at all Champs, regardless of what Tier they're in. That's the part people aren't getting. Just because we personally think a particular Champ sucks doesn't mean they are useless. Has nothing to do with being suited for any particular Tier, or easy Fights. The Crystal is going to have a range of Champs that alternate. We can form whatever opinions we want on the Champs in it, but those are the Champs available. The only thing we know is that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly. Which is reasonable. We can't expect a Crystal full of "God Tier Champs". It is a fact that if people don’t have as good champions, they won’t do as well. That’s not my opinion, if you have wolverine, star Lord and blade in aq you will do much better on average than if you had Khamalha Khan, spidergwen and Luke cage (excluding beta). If kabam wanted to make more money then they would put champions like that in the pool more than the better ones. You’re just assuming the data was collected that way, unless I missed something. The only thing we know is that Kabam “say” they are making an effort to not include ones that perform poorly. I know we can’t expect a crystal full of God tier champs, but I think we should expect at least a few. This crystal literally has no god tier champs, only trash and a couple of decent champs. It's not that hard to understand. You have 6 Champs that are Featuted, and 18 others that are already in the Basic Crystal. They're not picking and choosing anything, save for the Champs that are found to be performing poorly. Performing poorly means overall. They wouldn't use the Top Tier perspective alone to determine that because you'll find the list of Champs at that level very specific. I'm not assuming anything. You're eluding to the idea that it's possible they're not including any "good" Champs. I'm going on the information provided. We've had one pool revealed. Hardly cause for suspicion. Well you are assuming it. Kabam never said which area they collect data from. Just that they collected data. For all we know it could be two fights, 5* cyclops vs 1* juggernaut, (I’m not saying it is, but that is collecting data) “We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal.... we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions in these Crystals.” If they only looked at low level war and quest. They can conclude that not very good champions are performing well. For example, a bad champion like Antman will have good data, because he isn’t used in hard fights, because players know he will lose. But he’s used in easy fights. To put that in more understandable terms for you, on my account. Ant man probably has one of the best win rates for my champions. Because I use him to get my streak in arena against 3-30 champions. In aq, I used him for a couple of months on map 2 when I wasn’t as strong. I used him against easy champions. Someone like ghost rider, yeah he’s a much better champion. But I lose much more often with him, because I use him to tackle the hard fights, like act 5, map 6, Aw tier 1-2. Again you are assuming that kabam mean overall when they say performing poorly, you don’t know exactly what they mean therefore it is an assumption. One that mike has chosen to not answer Empirical, or observational, data. It's not so much of an assumption when you consider that they have to look at all the data to determine which are performing the poorest. If you want to entertain the idea that they examined a couple Fights and isolated those as effective, without examining all others, be my guest. A Champ that isn't used at the Top Tier isn't by default ineffective. That's my bottom line. Wow you used so many words to say absolutely nothing. So when you present something and I respond with my points, that's saying nothing? Interesting way to have a discussion. Seems selective, if you ask me. I recognise your (misguided) points. But you are a broken record repeating the same viewpoints over and over and over. That's because there's little more on the subject to discuss, and the information hasn't changed. There will be a new Featured, and it goes live February 13th. 6 Featured outcomes, and 18 Basics. Equal chance at any particular Champ. Now, we can sit and debate ad nauseum on how they came to include those Champs, but the question has been answered by them. You're entirely free to believe that or not. If you're not willing to listen to my points, why bother engaging in the debate with me? Lol.
Kabam Miike wrote: » Notvasq wrote: » How will those 18 champions be chosed? Will you choose, according to y'all standard, few *bad* pull, like a lottery ticket where it is a *better chance next time*. Because let's be honest, you can't really put in that crystal the top 18 you can think of everytime. But you guys can decide to put a few of those *bad* champs in it. Or along with that new crystal, are you guys planning to try to balance the tier list overall? We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal. This means that while Player perception of the Champions may not always align, we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions in these Crystals.
Notvasq wrote: » How will those 18 champions be chosed? Will you choose, according to y'all standard, few *bad* pull, like a lottery ticket where it is a *better chance next time*. Because let's be honest, you can't really put in that crystal the top 18 you can think of everytime. But you guys can decide to put a few of those *bad* champs in it. Or along with that new crystal, are you guys planning to try to balance the tier list overall?
GroundedWisdom wrote: » (Body was too long) There's a difference between crying victim and being a target. That's not what's taking place here. I'm engaged with you. You just keep rejecting my points. Back to the topic. How is this Crystal any different than a Basic or the current Featured? You say they shouldn't include such "bad Champs". What defines a bad Champ? Popular opinion? A run through of ROL WS? LOL? Tier 1 AW? Whatever you look at has to be applied to the entire game, not just the top. Meaning, you say they're bad. Does that mean they're actually bad, and bad for everyone? Does the fact that people higher up aren't using them mean they're bad altogether? You see what I'm getting at here? What is it about this Crystal that means it has to be different than others and only include "good Champs"? Because what we have to work with is the Champs in the pool. Same ones in the Basic, and in the current Featured. You're going to have Champs in that pool that some don't want. That's why there's a random outcome. Otherwise it's just the same Champs circulating, and no one progresses their Roster. What you're missing is that they're making an effort to minimize the "bad Champs". The problem is people have very different definitions of what that means than the actual design perspective. It's the equivalent of saying, "You design what you want, but we will tell you what to keep.". We speak for where we are personally at in the game. That doesn't mean our opinion speaks for the entire game itself.
Hubris_hater wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » (Body was too long) There's a difference between crying victim and being a target. That's not what's taking place here. I'm engaged with you. You just keep rejecting my points. Back to the topic. How is this Crystal any different than a Basic or the current Featured? You say they shouldn't include such "bad Champs". What defines a bad Champ? Popular opinion? A run through of ROL WS? LOL? Tier 1 AW? Whatever you look at has to be applied to the entire game, not just the top. Meaning, you say they're bad. Does that mean they're actually bad, and bad for everyone? Does the fact that people higher up aren't using them mean they're bad altogether? You see what I'm getting at here? What is it about this Crystal that means it has to be different than others and only include "good Champs"? Because what we have to work with is the Champs in the pool. Same ones in the Basic, and in the current Featured. You're going to have Champs in that pool that some don't want. That's why there's a random outcome. Otherwise it's just the same Champs circulating, and no one progresses their Roster. What you're missing is that they're making an effort to minimize the "bad Champs". The problem is people have very different definitions of what that means than the actual design perspective. It's the equivalent of saying, "You design what you want, but we will tell you what to keep.". We speak for where we are personally at in the game. That doesn't mean our opinion speaks for the entire game itself. Very good points mate, that will be ignored again. We all look at this game (and in life) from only our own position, however much we claim we dont. Most people on this forum are higher-mid to higher level players ( the few hundred that are on the forums in total, wonder why they are empty?) so they see that most of the champs they would class as "bad" or "OK" champs. Forgetting that at least 50% of the player base would be quite happy to get them, and like the fact that there is less chance of getting a really bad champ (in certain peoples opinions) So you will be flagged and called names as usual because you disagree with them At the end of the day, its a done deal for now. Best to see how it works out and then discuss, because Kabam will not be changing this for at least the first 3 months I would think. But people will still complain on here over and over because they can (that is right) and because it lets off steam (good as well) but with no ultimate point to doing so
BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » (Body was too long) There's a difference between crying victim and being a target. That's not what's taking place here. I'm engaged with you. You just keep rejecting my points. Back to the topic. How is this Crystal any different than a Basic or the current Featured? You say they shouldn't include such "bad Champs". What defines a bad Champ? Popular opinion? A run through of ROL WS? LOL? Tier 1 AW? Whatever you look at has to be applied to the entire game, not just the top. Meaning, you say they're bad. Does that mean they're actually bad, and bad for everyone? Does the fact that people higher up aren't using them mean they're bad altogether? You see what I'm getting at here? What is it about this Crystal that means it has to be different than others and only include "good Champs"? Because what we have to work with is the Champs in the pool. Same ones in the Basic, and in the current Featured. You're going to have Champs in that pool that some don't want. That's why there's a random outcome. Otherwise it's just the same Champs circulating, and no one progresses their Roster. What you're missing is that they're making an effort to minimize the "bad Champs". The problem is people have very different definitions of what that means than the actual design perspective. It's the equivalent of saying, "You design what you want, but we will tell you what to keep.". We speak for where we are personally at in the game. That doesn't mean our opinion speaks for the entire game itself. See calling yourself a “target” is crying victim in itself because you’re giving yourself special treatment just because you’ve built yourself a reputation of chatting absolute rubbish. I’m rejecting your points because I believe they are wrong, I’m questioning your points but yes I reject them. And that’s the same as what you’re doing so what’s the point bringing it up? The difference between this and basic, is that it’s 5k extra shards for a worse version of the basic crystal. There’s no god tier in it, there’s just a better chance of getting a featured, which you act like is the best thing like sliced bread, but there’s no increased chance of a good champ it’s just increased chance of a new champ. The difference between featured old and new is the point of an old featured was to get that specific champ you wanted, the new is just to get a new champ which is useless because you’re likely going to get a new champ that isn’t good or one you want. The new featured is just a basic crystal with no god tier, a better chance to dupe one of the bad champions in it, and for 50% extra price. You’re speaking as though different champions are good at different levels. If you asked a Level 30 summoner whether they wanted blade or ant man they would most likely say blade. Blade doesn’t become bad because the person is lower in the game. Champions are bad because they aren’t as useful as others, not because someone’s at a different part of the game.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » BitterSteel wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » (Body was too long) There's a difference between crying victim and being a target. That's not what's taking place here. I'm engaged with you. You just keep rejecting my points. Back to the topic. How is this Crystal any different than a Basic or the current Featured? You say they shouldn't include such "bad Champs". What defines a bad Champ? Popular opinion? A run through of ROL WS? LOL? Tier 1 AW? Whatever you look at has to be applied to the entire game, not just the top. Meaning, you say they're bad. Does that mean they're actually bad, and bad for everyone? Does the fact that people higher up aren't using them mean they're bad altogether? You see what I'm getting at here? What is it about this Crystal that means it has to be different than others and only include "good Champs"? Because what we have to work with is the Champs in the pool. Same ones in the Basic, and in the current Featured. You're going to have Champs in that pool that some don't want. That's why there's a random outcome. Otherwise it's just the same Champs circulating, and no one progresses their Roster. What you're missing is that they're making an effort to minimize the "bad Champs". The problem is people have very different definitions of what that means than the actual design perspective. It's the equivalent of saying, "You design what you want, but we will tell you what to keep.". We speak for where we are personally at in the game. That doesn't mean our opinion speaks for the entire game itself. See calling yourself a “target” is crying victim in itself because you’re giving yourself special treatment just because you’ve built yourself a reputation of chatting absolute rubbish. I’m rejecting your points because I believe they are wrong, I’m questioning your points but yes I reject them. And that’s the same as what you’re doing so what’s the point bringing it up? The difference between this and basic, is that it’s 5k extra shards for a worse version of the basic crystal. There’s no god tier in it, there’s just a better chance of getting a featured, which you act like is the best thing like sliced bread, but there’s no increased chance of a good champ it’s just increased chance of a new champ. The difference between featured old and new is the point of an old featured was to get that specific champ you wanted, the new is just to get a new champ which is useless because you’re likely going to get a new champ that isn’t good or one you want. The new featured is just a basic crystal with no god tier, a better chance to dupe one of the bad champions in it, and for 50% extra price. You’re speaking as though different champions are good at different levels. If you asked a Level 30 summoner whether they wanted blade or ant man they would most likely say blade. Blade doesn’t become bad because the person is lower in the game. Champions are bad because they aren’t as useful as others, not because someone’s at a different part of the game. No. There are many Champs and many are good. The problem is people get so cemented in using the same OP lineup that they consider the rest bad. Are there some Champs that need some work? Sure. That's what they're identifying. Forget about Blade. He's one Champ. This time next year we'll be talking about a different one, no doubt. The Featured was a chance at newer Champs. Always has been, and that will remain the same. Each will have 6 Featured Champs in it. It was never a "God Tier" Crystal. That all depends on who is running. The real argument is people won't be able to get a Champ the second they come out. Fair enough. Perhaps that has gone on too long and people feel entitled. Perhaps we have a 5* Featured Arena in the works. Who knows. What defines a Champ as good or bad from their perspective is not necessarily the same as ours, and that's the point I am making. It's based on usage, and yes, if people have it they will use it. That's the point. We're not going to get to a point where we edit the Champs that exist based on who we like and who we don't like. Where people are at is absolutely a variable. I can assure you, people aren't all as militant and diligent in their selection. They use their Champs. That's what they're for.
