September dev diary.

For those who have read it in the announcements and news section of the forums. What do you think about the changes the mcoc team announced?

I personally think it’s still lacking and the dev team need to test their new systems very well before implementing them live in the game. We can’t have a trend of mishaps only for them to be resolved after a very long time ( adaptive EQ ).
Paragon gauntlet should have taught the mcoc team not to make classic difficulty compulsory to enter elder difficulty… but do they listen ? NO !! Do they care if we are screwed over ??? NO!!!

As for spider woman’s balance update it’s still not what I was hoping for… removing ensnare is just not it.

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

MoeyTehr

"We missed the mark. We really didn't want to miss the mark. But we missed the mark. We've heard you about missing the mark and we promise we won't miss the mark ever again. Because we hear you."

"Spider-Woman is super scary on Node 42 in War, i.e. a single component in a massive game...therefore we're going to nerf her and not the node."

"We want to get rid of the Classic requirement for EQ but, sorrynotsorry, our code is so stupid that it'll take up to six months to change it."

"To prevent this from happening again, we're supposedly implementing better review and testing processes that should've been in place in the first place. Honest!"

Ark504

what i dont get is , if they can make unraked BG matchmaking roster dependent why they cant make the same with ranked one too , that means they dont want avergage non spending players to get into GC.

arifin74

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883475#Comment_2883475

Exactly the point. so uncollected players, getting easy games, reach GC, same reward. And a player with thousand spent, huge roster, fighting tough matches, reach GC, same reward. does it make sense?

Chuck_Finley

After reading and thinking about it for a bit, just seems like it’s more of the same with their hope that Friday’s compensation and announcements will make everyone forget about it. Oh sure there are some changes, but they are drops in the bucket, not the course correction needed. I wasn’t impressed.

It missed the mark. …

Fuzzycat

Kabam's latest MCOC Dev Diary on Spider-Woman is basically a masterclass in deflection, gaslighting, and never taking responsibility. The Kabam Special™. We've seen it a million times: hype up an OP attacker, cash in, then gut them once the sales numbers stop ringing. Spoiler alert: Karolina and Nico, you’re up next.

And really, how hard is this?

Attacker → Ensnare ON (maybe even as a pre-fight ability?)
Defender → Ensnare OFF

Rocket science? No. But hey, honesty isn't really Kabam's strong suit, is it? Let's call it what it is: they don't want her strong offensively either. Can't say it out loud, of course, so we get this song-and-dance "adjustment."

"Spider-Woman on node 42 is terrifying!" Oh please. That's only a Tier 1 headache, and it's not even the ensnare that's the main problem - it's the fumble. Meanwhile Enchantress, Serpent, Bullseye wreck half the player base daily, but sure, let's go after SW because… reasons. Truth is, she makes a mockery of their "unbeatable" defender kits - Dark Phoenix's immortality, Serpent's death immunity, Bullseye's evade, the works. And Kabam's fragile egos just can't handle that level of versatility.

They sold us Spider-Woman on the strength of ensnare, then pretend she suddenly "needs balancing." Please. What she really does is break their carefully scripted "buy the new champ to counter the new problem we just invented" cycle. Can't have an older champ shutting down their next cash cow, right?

At the end of the day, I don't think it's Spider-Woman that needs rebalancing - it's Kabam.

Bamajd

They are really good at walking backwards. Forward? Not so much

BeastDad

Anyone still giving them money at this point is better off setting it on fire in their front yard.

Ark504

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883478#Comment_2883478

Well, at least everyone gets what they want that way, don’t you think? If you have a huge roster, how can you expect to face someone with a lower rated account ? And if someone has a lower rated account, it’s unfair for them to face higher rated accounts. The point is, matchmaking should focus on fairness and skill, not just roster size or spending, otherwise the game just rewards whales and punishes average players.

Furrymoosen

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883648#Comment_2883648

And fairness of competition means if you want to go for the rewards at the top then you face the accounts you might not want to face

Ark504

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883654#Comment_2883654

This logic only works if matches were purely skill based. here, roster size and spending matter a lot, so facing anyone you don’t want doesn’t automatically make it fair.

GroundedWisdom

They make an effort and pivot, and people are still not happy.

I'm all for bringing forth issues and voicing concerns, but when the company admits fault and makes adjustments, you have to acknowledge that. Otherwise people aren't going to feel appeased no matter what effort they make, and there's no sense in discussing it.

ahmynuts

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883660#Comment_2883660

No one is going to be happy or appeased with anything kabam does as long as serpent, enchantress, and dark phoenix remain untouched

GroundedWisdom

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883664#Comment_2883664

No one said they were abolishing all strong Defenders. They said SHE was stronger than they intended.

Abspain101

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883482#Comment_2883482

but Rex said it was the aar that was the issue on offense so he did admit that was why they removed ensnare from her offensively and they decided to add fumble to her offensive kit

ahmynuts

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883665#Comment_2883665

......yes?

They didn't say that. Which is the issue as I said.

Chovner

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883469#Comment_2883469

This is pretty much how I read most of that Dev Diary as well…

Magrailothos

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883482#Comment_2883482

Except... You say:

"....Please. What she really does is break their carefully scripted "buy the new champ to counter the new problem we just invented" cycle. Can't have an older champ shutting down their next cash cow, right?"

Spider-Woman came out way after Bullseye and Serpent - and she literally was the newest champ to counter Bullseye, according to her Deep Dive…

"she makes a mockery of their "unbeatable" defender kits - Dark Phoenix's immortality, Serpent's death immunity, Bullseye's evade...."

You think a 30% Ability Accuracy reduction makes her a Serpent counter? Reducing his immortality to a mere 85% chance to proc?

I mean, I'm sure it came in handy occasionally. But 'makes a mockery' of them?

No, not really.

GroundedWisdom

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883667#Comment_2883667

Then you're focusing on the wrong thing. They never said she was too powerful a Defender among all other Champs. They said she was too powerful for what they wanted her to be, which is the whole point of these reviews. Serpent, Enchantress, Bullseye, et al., are performing how they intend FOR THEM. They had their own review and it was determined they're hitting the marks they want them to.

There's always going to be a range of how Champs compare. They're not all going to be on a level with the "best". It might not be a popular decision, but it's not about comparing her to other Defenders. It's about comparing her to their own goals.

BringPopcorn

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883687#Comment_2883687

The range is an imaginary number they just put as a label. Why is she a 3.5? How come there are no 3.1, 3.7? What makes her a 3.5?…

They opened a door to justify any future nerf

BabyGroot

It’s the fact that they said she was alright offensively and that defensively she had an issue. Then used that to try to get us to not focus on her offensive nerf that gets to me.

Idk about you all but for me, I’m done spending since they got what they wanted. Nerfing Spider Woman. I’m not supporting a company who repeatedly tries to manipulate their customers.

After Serpent not getting nerfed and the 10 year anniversary being a huge bust, I left for months. Then came back to what the past few months have been.

Getting closer and closer to just giving up on Kabam and this game.

Furrymoosen

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883659#Comment_2883659

Sure, within the parameters of what you want the competition to be, but that's not how Kabam set it up. It sucks for those of us that spend very little or nothing at all, but roster is an important component to this competition. You don't see the Rockies protesting the MLB playoffs right now because the Dodgers got in because they spent a bunch of money on a better roster.

Now, Kabam still has a problem to solve at the end of the day. The gap between spenders and non is absurd and is only growing. At some point they need to address that. But a solution to BGs is never to give smaller accounts any sort of easier path to the rewards that are available. Instead, we get to hit a cap of how far we can go, as frustrating as it may be. To argue in any fashion that a UC account should only face UC accounts and take a place up with the likes of Bero and others is silly.

GroundedWisdom

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883690#Comment_2883690

Not sure what you mean but the door is always open for them to make any changes they want. That has been the case for the duration of the game.

I think the more you focus on the numbers, the more into semantics territory we get. The bottom line as I see it is how she was performing didn't align with how they wanted her.

BringPopcorn

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883710#Comment_2883710

How can ratings and numbers be semantics? If the numbers are semantics it means they are made up.

200+ champs and this is the only one performing over the intended rating?

GroundedWisdom

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883712#Comment_2883712

Of course the numbers are made up. Kabam made a ranking system to explain to us in layman's terms what their goals are for Champs.

*Or they explained a system they already have in place. That I don't know.

GroundedWisdom

Also, this isn't the only Champ overperforming. We had the same reactions the last time a Champ was taken down a notch. This has just been the first in a while.

Buttehrs

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883687#Comment_2883687

Are we reading the same things? They very clearly stated "as a defender". Yet everyone amd their mother can obviously see they mean " she shuts down more than we wanted her to and its costing us but we arent gonna come out and say that".

GroundedWisdom

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883718#Comment_2883718

That's your interpretation. That doesn't mean it's the case. Doesn't mean it's not the case. Personally I go by what people say and do, not what I think it really is.

BringPopcorn

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883715#Comment_2883715

I agree with that, I am just calling their story BS. You can't use as argument a made up number to justify the argument cause its made up.

Lets say Dracula comes out with a 3 damage rating next update, they can keep on using their made up numbers to say "Oh hey guys Dracula is performing over our intended 3.0 rating. We will be nerfing him because he does way too much damage on defense".

Buttehrs

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2883719#Comment_2883719

Theres nothing to intepret when it 100% clearly stated defensively.