Buffs don’t always have to be complete overhauls

Kobster84Kobster84 Member Posts: 2,898 ★★★★★
in General Discussion
I feel some champs could just do with an attack boost or something along the lines of that would be a lot quicker then giving a massive overhaul

Comments

  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • GreekhitGreekhit Member Posts: 2,820 ★★★★★
    Doing overhauls and consuming time and personnel (and the end convert the champs buffs to passive) by the time there are more serious problems in the game (outage,outdated solo crystals/eq rewards etc.) it’s just a waste. I totally agree with kobster84. Why not simple stats upgrades to older and weaker champs to match the game meta? For example for colossus if a 10% to his basic attack and 10% (or more if needed) armor up effectiveness would applied he would be ok. Small changes at the stats not the characteristics and utility of a champ.
  • ZuroZuro Member Posts: 2,914 ★★★★★
    When it comes to colossus it sure does
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,643 ★★★★★
    They have to consider things like overall balance, the Meta, where the game is going, the data, etc. These things aren't entirely based on popular opinion. The Champs being voted on are among the lowest-scoring in the data. The list of Champs that people hold that they believe need a buff isn't necessarily the same as the actual list of Champs that require attention. If you asked for example, End-Gamers, I'm sure they would say most are garbage. That doesn't mean they automatically need a revision, since there's a very specific and select list which that demographic will use.
    Then there's the fact that any changes aren't just done on a whim, regardless of how much work is involved. All that was seen on this end was changes to Gams that didn't require an overhaul. However, those were calculated and carefully added. It wasn't just "While we're at it...".
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited May 2019
    This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,643 ★★★★★
    zeezee57 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    They have to consider things like overall balance, the Meta, where the game is going, the data, etc. These things aren't entirely based on popular opinion. The Champs being voted on are among the lowest-scoring in the data. The list of Champs that people hold that they believe need a buff isn't necessarily the same as the actual list of Champs that require attention. If you asked for example, End-Gamers, I'm sure they would say most are garbage. That doesn't mean they automatically need a revision, since there's a very specific and select list which that demographic will use.
    Then there's the fact that any changes aren't just done on a whim, regardless of how much work is involved. All that was seen on this end was changes to Gams that didn't require an overhaul. However, those were calculated and carefully added. It wasn't just "While we're at it...".

    Your mischaracterization of endgame players that "they would say most are garbage" is wildly inaccurate. It's pretty clear which champs are "garbage" and which ones would be deemed as average, serviceable, situational etc. You're mistaking the small group of champs endgame players devote resources to as them considering everything else garbage which just isn't at all true. Same for your thought that the list of champs most players think need buffs not being the same as the ones that require attention. Just because Kabam released a short list doesn't mean there aren't at least another dozen champs who would land in the exact same sphere as that short list. Your statements are your own assumptions, not stated facts even though you present them as such. Magneto or Falcon for example are every bit as bad as the champs on the buff list regardless of their absence on it.
    It's not inaccurate at all. You see them here, day in and day out, complaining that most of the Roster is trash. That's not only untrue, that's a byproduct of where they're at in the game. Only, these changes affect everyone who uses said Champs. I did not say there weren't others on the lower end, but there are less that actually need an update than are commonly requested. The data is what is examined, not just who thinks what Champ needs a buff. As for the rest of your rebuttal, I'm not chasing my tail in the whole "Fact vs. Opinion" argument. That's just a debate without any real effort.
  • WiMakWiMak Member Posts: 359 ★★
    Shoot… They could just make it so kamala will build up furies with heavies and didn’t lose them if contacted. She was clearly a failed first draft on that ability concept anyway... Mordo, hela, quake

    You keep outdated champs in the game, let them evolve a little to stay relevant in the meta. Big re-works are awesome and I love it but very simple re-works on “beta concepts“ would be easy and appreciated.
  • troyelricaccount2troyelricaccount2 Member Posts: 50 ★
    The idea is to make older champs useful. Some champs only need boosts to already existing abilities. Hence tweaking the numbers alone can make them average champs . Reworking takes time and effort and will take more than a year to rework all trash cans even if they buff 2 champs pee month which I don't think will happen
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,643 ★★★★★
    zeezee57 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    zeezee57 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    They have to consider things like overall balance, the Meta, where the game is going, the data, etc. These things aren't entirely based on popular opinion. The Champs being voted on are among the lowest-scoring in the data. The list of Champs that people hold that they believe need a buff isn't necessarily the same as the actual list of Champs that require attention. If you asked for example, End-Gamers, I'm sure they would say most are garbage. That doesn't mean they automatically need a revision, since there's a very specific and select list which that demographic will use.
    Then there's the fact that any changes aren't just done on a whim, regardless of how much work is involved. All that was seen on this end was changes to Gams that didn't require an overhaul. However, those were calculated and carefully added. It wasn't just "While we're at it...".

    Your mischaracterization of endgame players that "they would say most are garbage" is wildly inaccurate. It's pretty clear which champs are "garbage" and which ones would be deemed as average, serviceable, situational etc. You're mistaking the small group of champs endgame players devote resources to as them considering everything else garbage which just isn't at all true. Same for your thought that the list of champs most players think need buffs not being the same as the ones that require attention. Just because Kabam released a short list doesn't mean there aren't at least another dozen champs who would land in the exact same sphere as that short list. Your statements are your own assumptions, not stated facts even though you present them as such. Magneto or Falcon for example are every bit as bad as the champs on the buff list regardless of their absence on it.
    It's not inaccurate at all. You see them here, day in and day out, complaining that most of the Roster is trash. That's not only untrue, that's a byproduct of where they're at in the game. Only, these changes affect everyone who uses said Champs. I did not say there weren't others on the lower end, but there are less that actually need an update than are commonly requested. The data is what is examined, not just who thinks what Champ needs a buff. As for the rest of your rebuttal, I'm not chasing my tail in the whole "Fact vs. Opinion" argument. That's just a debate without any real effort.
    Haha yea why differentiate fact from opinion, you've clearly examined all the data and know what champs actually need buffs and which ones don't. Please show us all the data you've examined to narrow down the champs that actually do need to be revisited and separate them from the ones who don't. Obviously its just other posters opinion that certain champs need fixing while yours is data driven facts.
    You're literally just putting words in my mouth to try and pigeonhole my comment. Yes, it's other people expressing opinions on who needs buffed. The only ones qualified to properly assess who does and doesn't are the Devs, and they rely on the data. All you're doing is arguing arbitrarily about my comment, and how it's not fact. That's a lazy way to debate. Don't address the actual points I made, just refute with the redundant statement that my opinions are not fact. That goes without saying. No one's opinion here is more fact than anyone else's in that sense, unless it's from Kabam. Yet here we all are, discussing our opinions. Now that we've established that, how about the points I made?
  • Kobster84Kobster84 Member Posts: 2,898 ★★★★★
    troyelricaccount2 said:

    The idea is to make older champs useful. Some champs only need boosts to already existing abilities. Hence tweaking the numbers alone can make them average champs . Reworking takes time and effort and will take more than a year to rework all trash cans even if they buff 2 champs pee month which I don't think will happen

    Yes that’s why I feel stat buffs etc would be quite easy to do to a lot of mediocre champs
Sign In or Register to comment.