**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
There is currently an issue where some Alliances are are unable to find a match in Alliance Wars, or are receiving Byes without getting the benefits of the Win. We will be adjusting the Season Points of the Alliances that are affected within the coming weeks, and will be working to compensate them for their missed Per War rewards as well.

Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.

She-Hulk Heavy Speed Bug Fix [Title Edited for Clarity]

1202123252634

Comments

  • MajormoscowMajormoscow Posts: 6

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    “Intended ability change” is a made up term that you are using to describe Kabam “fixing” a way that a certain champ operates based on what they “intend”. Otherwise known as a “glitch”. there is literally no difference to what the current situation is even considering the extremes; both the extreme resources required to bring shehulk to rank 5 for cavalier content, and the extreme handicap that having sw or Thor pre 12.0 nerf gave to a user. Neither should be ignored and neither is distinguishably different from the other.
    I'm not sure what narrative you're operating on, but it's not at all congruent with what's taken place.
    The term "intended" has been used many times on here. As in, intentional. What a Champ has been intended to do. Layman's Terms, what Kabam wants the outcome to be.
    The nerfs with 12.0 were 100% intentional, performed on intentional Abilities, as well as the very system itself. Those changes aren't even close to what we're talking about here. There were MAJOR changes to those Champs and the Meta. Those were very deliberate and specific cases that had to be altered to ensure the game itself would continue.
    There was nothing intentional about Shulk performing this way, and 6.2 just brought it to the forefront. That wasn't an intentional design. It wasn't a major change to how she was intended to perform.
    We can analyze the use of the term ad nauseum, but one was a change to something that was very much intended beforehand, and the other was an unintentional glitch that became a much larger problem when people decided to exploit it in 6.2. Was it a grave exploit? No. It was exploitable in the sense that it gave an advantage they never "intended".
    As far as the user is concerned the point is moot. If they designed a game they couldn’t expand on or if they designed a character’s abilities they couldn’t make money on what difference is that to the user? They are both still glitches to which people invested resources arguably more so into shehulk than to max a 4star Thor?! Whether the changes seem extreme to kabam or not isn’t the issue. The issue is the resources and what they cost the user. Every change as far as kabam is concerned is “game balancing” and nerf is a four letter word. But they are the same thing here and it seems obvious to everyone but you. So strange.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,193 ★★★★★

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    “Intended ability change” is a made up term that you are using to describe Kabam “fixing” a way that a certain champ operates based on what they “intend”. Otherwise known as a “glitch”. there is literally no difference to what the current situation is even considering the extremes; both the extreme resources required to bring shehulk to rank 5 for cavalier content, and the extreme handicap that having sw or Thor pre 12.0 nerf gave to a user. Neither should be ignored and neither is distinguishably different from the other.
    I'm not sure what narrative you're operating on, but it's not at all congruent with what's taken place.
    The term "intended" has been used many times on here. As in, intentional. What a Champ has been intended to do. Layman's Terms, what Kabam wants the outcome to be.
    The nerfs with 12.0 were 100% intentional, performed on intentional Abilities, as well as the very system itself. Those changes aren't even close to what we're talking about here. There were MAJOR changes to those Champs and the Meta. Those were very deliberate and specific cases that had to be altered to ensure the game itself would continue.
    There was nothing intentional about Shulk performing this way, and 6.2 just brought it to the forefront. That wasn't an intentional design. It wasn't a major change to how she was intended to perform.
    We can analyze the use of the term ad nauseum, but one was a change to something that was very much intended beforehand, and the other was an unintentional glitch that became a much larger problem when people decided to exploit it in 6.2. Was it a grave exploit? No. It was exploitable in the sense that it gave an advantage they never "intended".
    As far as the user is concerned the point is moot. If they designed a game they couldn’t expand on or if they designed a character’s abilities they couldn’t make money on what difference is that to the user? They are both still glitches to which people invested resources arguably more so into shehulk than to max a 4star Thor?! Whether the changes seem extreme to kabam or not isn’t the issue. The issue is the resources and what they cost the user. Every change as far as kabam is concerned is “game balancing” and nerf is a four letter word. But they are the same thing here and it seems obvious to everyone but you. So strange.
    The point isn't moot. The point is what we're debating. Shulk was a glitch. 12.0 was a total 180 of intentions.
  • WhathappenedWhathappened Posts: 747 ★★★
    edited August 2019
    Well with the history of questionable "bug fixes" and "description changes" people are loosing faith in the game. I think if handled appropriately most people wouldn't be near as upset about these things but here we are. I really hope Kabam will look at this as a learning opportunity and try to fix the trust between the community and Kabam. I realize just about any change will upset a few people but this one upsets almost the entire community. Also it's not just about how She Hulk is being handled, this has been building for a while. We've been handed lots of fixes that were handled poorly and we've had enough. I just received a 2016 science gem and two days ago it would have been used on she hulk and now her worth dropped considerably. How could someone not be mad if they just ranked her up? I really don't think it's an option not to give Rank Down tickets at this point, she hulk specific of course. I really hope Kabam will take time to evaluate how they are treating their base and work on improving. It's a great game and I love it so let's do the right things to keep the people enjoying the experience and not feel like we are being treated horribly.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,193 ★★★★★

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    “Intended ability change” is a made up term that you are using to describe Kabam “fixing” a way that a certain champ operates based on what they “intend”. Otherwise known as a “glitch”. there is literally no difference to what the current situation is even considering the extremes; both the extreme resources required to bring shehulk to rank 5 for cavalier content, and the extreme handicap that having sw or Thor pre 12.0 nerf gave to a user. Neither should be ignored and neither is distinguishably different from the other.
    I'm not sure what narrative you're operating on, but it's not at all congruent with what's taken place.
    The term "intended" has been used many times on here. As in, intentional. What a Champ has been intended to do. Layman's Terms, what Kabam wants the outcome to be.
    The nerfs with 12.0 were 100% intentional, performed on intentional Abilities, as well as the very system itself. Those changes aren't even close to what we're talking about here. There were MAJOR changes to those Champs and the Meta. Those were very deliberate and specific cases that had to be altered to ensure the game itself would continue.
    There was nothing intentional about Shulk performing this way, and 6.2 just brought it to the forefront. That wasn't an intentional design. It wasn't a major change to how she was intended to perform.
    We can analyze the use of the term ad nauseum, but one was a change to something that was very much intended beforehand, and the other was an unintentional glitch that became a much larger problem when people decided to exploit it in 6.2. Was it a grave exploit? No. It was exploitable in the sense that it gave an advantage they never "intended".
    As far as the user is concerned the point is moot. If they designed a game they couldn’t expand on or if they designed a character’s abilities they couldn’t make money on what difference is that to the user? They are both still glitches to which people invested resources arguably more so into shehulk than to max a 4star Thor?! Whether the changes seem extreme to kabam or not isn’t the issue. The issue is the resources and what they cost the user. Every change as far as kabam is concerned is “game balancing” and nerf is a four letter word. But they are the same thing here and it seems obvious to everyone but you. So strange.
    The point isn't moot. The point is what we're debating. Shulk was a glitch. 12.0 was a total 180 of intentions.
    Eh not quite, the users investment remains the same in both cases. They are left with a devalued product. They deserve to be compensated.
    No. Not really. Not being controversial with that statement, but I don't agree that people should be given the means to adjust with every change they make. That is a never-ending cycle, and suggest much more than just compensation.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,193 ★★★★★
    Some cases, yes. Not every fix.
  • MajormoscowMajormoscow Posts: 6

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    “Intended ability change” is a made up term that you are using to describe Kabam “fixing” a way that a certain champ operates based on what they “intend”. Otherwise known as a “glitch”. there is literally no difference to what the current situation is even considering the extremes; both the extreme resources required to bring shehulk to rank 5 for cavalier content, and the extreme handicap that having sw or Thor pre 12.0 nerf gave to a user. Neither should be ignored and neither is distinguishably different from the other.
    I'm not sure what narrative you're operating on, but it's not at all congruent with what's taken place.
    The term "intended" has been used many times on here. As in, intentional. What a Champ has been intended to do. Layman's Terms, what Kabam wants the outcome to be.
    The nerfs with 12.0 were 100% intentional, performed on intentional Abilities, as well as the very system itself. Those changes aren't even close to what we're talking about here. There were MAJOR changes to those Champs and the Meta. Those were very deliberate and specific cases that had to be altered to ensure the game itself would continue.
    There was nothing intentional about Shulk performing this way, and 6.2 just brought it to the forefront. That wasn't an intentional design. It wasn't a major change to how she was intended to perform.
    We can analyze the use of the term ad nauseum, but one was a change to something that was very much intended beforehand, and the other was an unintentional glitch that became a much larger problem when people decided to exploit it in 6.2. Was it a grave exploit? No. It was exploitable in the sense that it gave an advantage they never "intended".
    As far as the user is concerned the point is moot. If they designed a game they couldn’t expand on or if they designed a character’s abilities they couldn’t make money on what difference is that to the user? They are both still glitches to which people invested resources arguably more so into shehulk than to max a 4star Thor?! Whether the changes seem extreme to kabam or not isn’t the issue. The issue is the resources and what they cost the user. Every change as far as kabam is concerned is “game balancing” and nerf is a four letter word. But they are the same thing here and it seems obvious to everyone but you. So strange.
    The point isn't moot. The point is what we're debating. Shulk was a glitch. 12.0 was a total 180 of intentions.
    Eh not quite, the users investment remains the same in both cases. They are left with a devalued product. They deserve to be compensated.
    No. Not really. Not being controversial with that statement, but I don't agree that people should be given the means to adjust with every change they make. That is a never-ending cycle, and suggest much more than just compensation.
    What arguments do you have to support your opinion that people shouldn’t be compensated for purchasing something with a perceived value only for the company that is in charge of attributing that value to then devalue the product they purchased? Just curious...
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,193 ★★★★★

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    “Intended ability change” is a made up term that you are using to describe Kabam “fixing” a way that a certain champ operates based on what they “intend”. Otherwise known as a “glitch”. there is literally no difference to what the current situation is even considering the extremes; both the extreme resources required to bring shehulk to rank 5 for cavalier content, and the extreme handicap that having sw or Thor pre 12.0 nerf gave to a user. Neither should be ignored and neither is distinguishably different from the other.
    I'm not sure what narrative you're operating on, but it's not at all congruent with what's taken place.
    The term "intended" has been used many times on here. As in, intentional. What a Champ has been intended to do. Layman's Terms, what Kabam wants the outcome to be.
    The nerfs with 12.0 were 100% intentional, performed on intentional Abilities, as well as the very system itself. Those changes aren't even close to what we're talking about here. There were MAJOR changes to those Champs and the Meta. Those were very deliberate and specific cases that had to be altered to ensure the game itself would continue.
    There was nothing intentional about Shulk performing this way, and 6.2 just brought it to the forefront. That wasn't an intentional design. It wasn't a major change to how she was intended to perform.
    We can analyze the use of the term ad nauseum, but one was a change to something that was very much intended beforehand, and the other was an unintentional glitch that became a much larger problem when people decided to exploit it in 6.2. Was it a grave exploit? No. It was exploitable in the sense that it gave an advantage they never "intended".
    As far as the user is concerned the point is moot. If they designed a game they couldn’t expand on or if they designed a character’s abilities they couldn’t make money on what difference is that to the user? They are both still glitches to which people invested resources arguably more so into shehulk than to max a 4star Thor?! Whether the changes seem extreme to kabam or not isn’t the issue. The issue is the resources and what they cost the user. Every change as far as kabam is concerned is “game balancing” and nerf is a four letter word. But they are the same thing here and it seems obvious to everyone but you. So strange.
    The point isn't moot. The point is what we're debating. Shulk was a glitch. 12.0 was a total 180 of intentions.
    Eh not quite, the users investment remains the same in both cases. They are left with a devalued product. They deserve to be compensated.
    No. Not really. Not being controversial with that statement, but I don't agree that people should be given the means to adjust with every change they make. That is a never-ending cycle, and suggest much more than just compensation.
    What arguments do you have to support your opinion that people shouldn’t be compensated for purchasing something with a perceived value only for the company that is in charge of attributing that value to then devalue the product they purchased? Just curious...
    Besides the fact that you don't actually purchase anything for ownership, only lease permission to use their product, a product which they outline in plain sight within the TOS that they reserve the right to modify....several.
    There are numerous changes that go into maintaining a game. If you're continually giving the means to adjust, that's just an endless process. Further to that, it defeats the point of making changes in most cases because people can just keep changing Champs so that nothing ever affects them, and no outcomes are met. Also, that sets a precedence of expectation that anytime they need to change something, they must give people something. Finally, not all cases warrant it. There's a reason Compensation is done on a case-by-case basis. The effect of the change factors into it. It's not an automatic given.
  • ThatGuyYouSaw235ThatGuyYouSaw235 Posts: 3,142 ★★★★★
    what happened here?

    I require lè context
  • MajormoscowMajormoscow Posts: 6

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    “Intended ability change” is a made up term that you are using to describe Kabam “fixing” a way that a certain champ operates based on what they “intend”. Otherwise known as a “glitch”. there is literally no difference to what the current situation is even considering the extremes; both the extreme resources required to bring shehulk to rank 5 for cavalier content, and the extreme handicap that having sw or Thor pre 12.0 nerf gave to a user. Neither should be ignored and neither is distinguishably different from the other.
    I'm not sure what narrative you're operating on, but it's not at all congruent with what's taken place.
    The term "intended" has been used many times on here. As in, intentional. What a Champ has been intended to do. Layman's Terms, what Kabam wants the outcome to be.
    The nerfs with 12.0 were 100% intentional, performed on intentional Abilities, as well as the very system itself. Those changes aren't even close to what we're talking about here. There were MAJOR changes to those Champs and the Meta. Those were very deliberate and specific cases that had to be altered to ensure the game itself would continue.
    There was nothing intentional about Shulk performing this way, and 6.2 just brought it to the forefront. That wasn't an intentional design. It wasn't a major change to how she was intended to perform.
    We can analyze the use of the term ad nauseum, but one was a change to something that was very much intended beforehand, and the other was an unintentional glitch that became a much larger problem when people decided to exploit it in 6.2. Was it a grave exploit? No. It was exploitable in the sense that it gave an advantage they never "intended".
    As far as the user is concerned the point is moot. If they designed a game they couldn’t expand on or if they designed a character’s abilities they couldn’t make money on what difference is that to the user? They are both still glitches to which people invested resources arguably more so into shehulk than to max a 4star Thor?! Whether the changes seem extreme to kabam or not isn’t the issue. The issue is the resources and what they cost the user. Every change as far as kabam is concerned is “game balancing” and nerf is a four letter word. But they are the same thing here and it seems obvious to everyone but you. So strange.
    The point isn't moot. The point is what we're debating. Shulk was a glitch. 12.0 was a total 180 of intentions.
    Eh not quite, the users investment remains the same in both cases. They are left with a devalued product. They deserve to be compensated.
    No. Not really. Not being controversial with that statement, but I don't agree that people should be given the means to adjust with every change they make. That is a never-ending cycle, and suggest much more than just compensation.
    What arguments do you have to support your opinion that people shouldn’t be compensated for purchasing something with a perceived value only for the company that is in charge of attributing that value to then devalue the product they purchased? Just curious...
    Besides the fact that you don't actually purchase anything for ownership, only lease permission to use their product, a product which they outline in plain sight within the TOS that they reserve the right to modify....several.
    There are numerous changes that go into maintaining a game. If you're continually giving the means to adjust, that's just an endless process. Further to that, it defeats the point of making changes in most cases because people can just keep changing Champs so that nothing ever affects them, and no outcomes are met. Also, that sets a precedence of expectation that anytime they need to change something, they must give people something. Finally, not all cases warrant it. There's a reason Compensation is done on a case-by-case basis. The effect of the change factors into it. It's not an automatic given.
    Well You are saying “change” like it could be a positive or a negative which is not the scenario we are discussing. The “change” is a negative for the user who has invested resources whether they “own” anything or not. In this “case” it’s clear to me and many users that our resources have been devalued and we’d like to have the chance to reevaluate our decision based off the developers “change”. Still doesn’t answer the question I posed to you... but feel free to keep flailing.
  • Davidnr93Davidnr93 Posts: 33
    Kabam you’ve let the community down many times before but this is just harsh on your behalf. Shame on you
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 2,143 ★★★★★
    edited August 2019

    Snizzbar said:

    Watch your step Major he's using big words like 'narrative' and 'congruent'

    I so sorry. Me stop now.
    You've shown admirable restraint in not overusing 'meta' though, so well done
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,193 ★★★★★

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    Do you think they intended for the leadership mastery to create perfect block teams that would dominate the game? Do you think they intended for willpower to make 1/2 the champs not viable and others almost unkillable? Do you think they intended for SW to be able to keep opponents stunned the entire fight or beat anything in the game with a crit team? Any time they change anything it's because it isn't working as intended. They didn't change them because they were working as intended but they changed their mind, they changed them because the design wasn't producing the intended result. She hulk is no more "glitched" than they were. She hulk is working exactly as she was designed to work. There is no programming glitch causing her to be able to chain combos into stuns. When Doc Oc used to cause opponents to start the fight dead, that was a glitch. Of course SH isn't working the way they intended her to work. Any time they alter a champ it's because they aren't working the way they were intended to work. Sometimes there is a bug. Sometimes they just didn't realize how the design would play. None of this should have any bearing on whether or not compensation is warranted.
    Shulk was not intentionally designed that way. Nothing about her design even remotely suggests it, nor her Description.
    Many people have tried to Rank Champs and take advantage of things not intended. That didn't result in Tickets. I can think of a number of examples. Simply put, just because it has persisted doesn't mean it was intended, and it doesn't automatically mean people are owed something when it's fixed. If you're going to suggest this is the same as 12.0, which DID warrant Compensation, I don't think you remember the difference in the degree of change.
  • Patchie93Patchie93 Posts: 1,898 ★★★★
    Daredevil not being affected by invisibility makes sense since he doesn't use sight.

    Magneto and Juggs being immune to reverse controls is pulled straight from the comics and other forms of entertainment they've been in. Once again makes sense.

    Symbiote Supreme they tested and decided he would be to strong if they kept his text the way it was and matched his abilities to that thus they compromised by improving his intended % to 50 percent from its current 30%. I have Sym Sup as a r5/65 and have sunk close to 100 sig stones into him and don't regret it.

    Although I feel for those who r5/65 a she hulk for this one strategy they thought was intended it was stated that no champion besides Wasp should be able to do this. And yes it sucks but if no rdts were given for MD changes or AAs changes then I gotta disagree with this warranting a RDT. She can still stack her furies and apply taunt just not at a ridiculous level where she was essentially safe from damage from certain champions sp1s
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,193 ★★★★★

    don't think anyone is disagreeing with the intention part of the situation. they've done a pretty good job of explaining why they're making the change.
    this doesn't change the fact that people who ranked up she hulk based on what they saw and had no other reason to confirm otherwise have been burned.
    the intention doesn't matter, what matters is what actually happened and how it affected players.
    since the change is being made, and it unfortunately negatively affected summoners who ranked her up...
    it just makes sense that a way to recoup resources to move on is justified.
    this isn't a matter of whos fault it is. its just the unfortunate reality of the situation

    The intention part has to do with the purpose of RDTs. That's the tie-in. According to feedback thus far, they're for significant changes to how Champs are intended to perform. Now, I can't speak for them and what they choose to do, so I can't say they won't do anything. I'm just pointing out the difference in changes.
  • ZuroZuro Posts: 2,707 ★★★★★

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    Do you think they intended for the leadership mastery to create perfect block teams that would dominate the game? Do you think they intended for willpower to make 1/2 the champs not viable and others almost unkillable? Do you think they intended for SW to be able to keep opponents stunned the entire fight or beat anything in the game with a crit team? Any time they change anything it's because it isn't working as intended. They didn't change them because they were working as intended but they changed their mind, they changed them because the design wasn't producing the intended result. She hulk is no more "glitched" than they were. She hulk is working exactly as she was designed to work. There is no programming glitch causing her to be able to chain combos into stuns. When Doc Oc used to cause opponents to start the fight dead, that was a glitch. Of course SH isn't working the way they intended her to work. Any time they alter a champ it's because they aren't working the way they were intended to work. Sometimes there is a bug. Sometimes they just didn't realize how the design would play. None of this should have any bearing on whether or not compensation is warranted.
    Shulk was not intentionally designed that way. Nothing about her design even remotely suggests it, nor her Description.
    Many people have tried to Rank Champs and take advantage of things not intended. That didn't result in Tickets. I can think of a number of examples. Simply put, just because it has persisted doesn't mean it was intended, and it doesn't automatically mean people are owed something when it's fixed. If you're going to suggest this is the same as 12.0, which DID warrant Compensation, I don't think you remember the difference in the degree of change.
    Even if it want in her description who would that matter you are acting like in every champs description they tell you all the combos possible with them
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,193 ★★★★★
    Zuro said:

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    Do you think they intended for the leadership mastery to create perfect block teams that would dominate the game? Do you think they intended for willpower to make 1/2 the champs not viable and others almost unkillable? Do you think they intended for SW to be able to keep opponents stunned the entire fight or beat anything in the game with a crit team? Any time they change anything it's because it isn't working as intended. They didn't change them because they were working as intended but they changed their mind, they changed them because the design wasn't producing the intended result. She hulk is no more "glitched" than they were. She hulk is working exactly as she was designed to work. There is no programming glitch causing her to be able to chain combos into stuns. When Doc Oc used to cause opponents to start the fight dead, that was a glitch. Of course SH isn't working the way they intended her to work. Any time they alter a champ it's because they aren't working the way they were intended to work. Sometimes there is a bug. Sometimes they just didn't realize how the design would play. None of this should have any bearing on whether or not compensation is warranted.
    Shulk was not intentionally designed that way. Nothing about her design even remotely suggests it, nor her Description.
    Many people have tried to Rank Champs and take advantage of things not intended. That didn't result in Tickets. I can think of a number of examples. Simply put, just because it has persisted doesn't mean it was intended, and it doesn't automatically mean people are owed something when it's fixed. If you're going to suggest this is the same as 12.0, which DID warrant Compensation, I don't think you remember the difference in the degree of change.
    Even if it want in her description who would that matter you are acting like in every champs description they tell you all the combos possible with them
    Well it matters because there's no indication that she was supposed to perform that way, and according to Kabam themselves, she wasn't, so...
  • Patchie93Patchie93 Posts: 1,898 ★★★★

    Patchie93 said:

    Daredevil not being affected by invisibility makes sense since he doesn't use sight.

    Magneto and Juggs being immune to reverse controls is pulled straight from the comics and other forms of entertainment they've been in. Once again makes sense.

    Symbiote Supreme they tested and decided he would be to strong if they kept his text the way it was and matched his abilities to that thus they compromised by improving his intended % to 50 percent from its current 30%. I have Sym Sup as a r5/65 and have sunk close to 100 sig stones into him and don't regret it.

    Although I feel for those who r5/65 a she hulk for this one strategy they thought was intended it was stated that no champion besides Wasp should be able to do this. And yes it sucks but if no rdts were given for MD changes or AAs changes then I gotta disagree with this warranting a RDT. She can still stack her furies and apply taunt just not at a ridiculous level where she was essentially safe from damage from certain champions sp1s

    Its not a matter of making sense. What its saying is that theres a good amount of champs that dont have abilities in their descriptions.
    In addition to the ones mention by OP, cyclops completely counters havoc and that's not in his description...
    Probably other that I cant think of right now also
    Havok and cyclops specials (beam attacks) not hurting each other is also based on their comic book origins.

    As well daredevil, Juggs, Magnetos, cyclops, havoks interactions were all confirmed to be intended by kabam on the forums shortly after they were announced. People even asked about these kind of things on the spotlight so that it can be confirmed by kabam
  • Patchie93Patchie93 Posts: 1,898 ★★★★
    Im not trying to say kabam is amazing and they can do no wrong. They are horrible for making changes without warning and I feel for those who are affected by this change but at the same time not 1 person every posted asking if this was an intended design of she-hulks or not
  • ZuroZuro Posts: 2,707 ★★★★★
    Patchie93 said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Daredevil not being affected by invisibility makes sense since he doesn't use sight.

    Magneto and Juggs being immune to reverse controls is pulled straight from the comics and other forms of entertainment they've been in. Once again makes sense.

    Symbiote Supreme they tested and decided he would be to strong if they kept his text the way it was and matched his abilities to that thus they compromised by improving his intended % to 50 percent from its current 30%. I have Sym Sup as a r5/65 and have sunk close to 100 sig stones into him and don't regret it.

    Although I feel for those who r5/65 a she hulk for this one strategy they thought was intended it was stated that no champion besides Wasp should be able to do this. And yes it sucks but if no rdts were given for MD changes or AAs changes then I gotta disagree with this warranting a RDT. She can still stack her furies and apply taunt just not at a ridiculous level where she was essentially safe from damage from certain champions sp1s

    Its not a matter of making sense. What its saying is that theres a good amount of champs that dont have abilities in their descriptions.
    In addition to the ones mention by OP, cyclops completely counters havoc and that's not in his description...
    Probably other that I cant think of right now also
    Havok and cyclops specials (beam attacks) not hurting each other is also based on their comic book origins.

    As well daredevil, Juggs, Magnetos, cyclops, havoks interactions were all confirmed to be intended by kabam on the forums shortly after they were announced. People even asked about these kind of things on the spotlight so that it can be confirmed by kabam
    As mentioned before it has nothing to do with comics if Kabam is saying that the heavy combo wasn't in her description so it's in unintended what about stuff that was mentioned before like cyclops and havok interaction that's not in there description yet it's still in the game so where do we cross the line
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,193 ★★★★★
    Zuro said:

    Zuro said:

    They were unintended glitches in their mechanics. Drax wasn't even something that was with all devices.
    There's no bait in my statement. There seems to be bait in others on here, but I'm not interested in taking it.

    The abilities of SW and Thor pre-nerf were also “glitches in their mechanics” Kabam issued rank down tickets. Same should happen here. If they lack the foresight into exploits they should be the ones who swallow the pill.
    No. Those weren't just glitches in their mechanics. They were the intended performance of Champs. Very specific Abilities which, in combination with Synergies and a percentage-based system, brought the future of the game itself into a stalemate. They couldn't create anything the Champs couldn't mathematically cut through.
    It’s laughable that you think that doesn’t meet the definition of a glitch. Just because kabam’s fine tuning has come down to more minute changes doesn’t mean that people investing resources in viable champs shouldn’t be acknowledged. Indefensible to not compensate for.
    The difference between a glitch and an intended Ability change is exactly what we're discussing, and there IS a difference. I'm completely aware of the difference between this and 12.0. I was here the whole time.
    Do you think they intended for the leadership mastery to create perfect block teams that would dominate the game? Do you think they intended for willpower to make 1/2 the champs not viable and others almost unkillable? Do you think they intended for SW to be able to keep opponents stunned the entire fight or beat anything in the game with a crit team? Any time they change anything it's because it isn't working as intended. They didn't change them because they were working as intended but they changed their mind, they changed them because the design wasn't producing the intended result. She hulk is no more "glitched" than they were. She hulk is working exactly as she was designed to work. There is no programming glitch causing her to be able to chain combos into stuns. When Doc Oc used to cause opponents to start the fight dead, that was a glitch. Of course SH isn't working the way they intended her to work. Any time they alter a champ it's because they aren't working the way they were intended to work. Sometimes there is a bug. Sometimes they just didn't realize how the design would play. None of this should have any bearing on whether or not compensation is warranted.
    Shulk was not intentionally designed that way. Nothing about her design even remotely suggests it, nor her Description.
    Many people have tried to Rank Champs and take advantage of things not intended. That didn't result in Tickets. I can think of a number of examples. Simply put, just because it has persisted doesn't mean it was intended, and it doesn't automatically mean people are owed something when it's fixed. If you're going to suggest this is the same as 12.0, which DID warrant Compensation, I don't think you remember the difference in the degree of change.
    Even if it want in her description who would that matter you are acting like in every champs description they tell you all the combos possible with them
    Well it matters because there's no indication that she was supposed to perform that way, and according to Kabam themselves, she wasn't, so...
    There is no indication that ghost can intercept attacks while phasing yet that still happens
    We're not talking about other Champs. We're talking about this one. If the time comes that something else turns out to be unintended, I'll be happy to look at that. At the moment, the issue is Shulk, and other interactions aren't going to change the fact that this isn't something they want to happen.
  • Patchie93Patchie93 Posts: 1,898 ★★★★
    Actually it's more so that no champion should be able to chain heavies with the exception of wasp.

    It's possible this could've been on a list and just been bumped up due to the popularity of she hulk but I don't think it was done with malicious intent.

    But once again if people had seen this for awhile how come not one person ever thought hey this looks way to good to be true let me just double check it's working as intended. Such as when hood was introduced and people noticed this
  • Secret_GamerSecret_Gamer Posts: 348 ★★
    I mean as I already mentioned in this thread... if they fixed this ability of champs being able to combo with Heavies, at least fix every other champ that is able to do that (Old Man Logan, champs with Uppercut Heavy)... Or else this happens.
This discussion has been closed.