I'm confused. There's all of this talk about heavy timing and pausing, yet the AI can still instantly Heavy Attack.
It's been reported for years now, yet the issue still persists in the game. The AI on harder difficulties frequently has no delay, no charge, no windup to cause a Heavy Attack. This allows the AI to break your block, which is made worse by nodes on that fight (which are usually found on the harder fights) that will cause things like stun, degeneration, bleed, poison, or some other damage or debuff that makes the rapid and unavoidable heavy that much more costly.
Why hasn't this issue been fixed so that the AI has a set, standard time to charge their Heavy Attack, instead of having a rapid Heavy that we cannot react to?
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
Actually, the Champion Spotlight isn’t worth the paper it’s written on—pretty much everything that isn’t in the specific champ description is additional stuff that may or may not be applicable.
Take those Dev Notes that are so helpful. “Chatter and tips,” according to Miike, which is to say just some guy (or gal) editorializing.
Even descriptions are at best unclear and at worst just plain suspect—SymSup is just the most obvious one. Another example is Sabretooth, who has from the outset been described as “randomly” receiving between 3 and 6 persistent charges (if he has 0 at fight start).
When players started keeping stats on how often the different levels of charges generated, Sabretooth wound up with 3 charges a lot more than 6. “Randomly” meant it wasn’t always the same amount, but it was also weighted against the highest amount (if I recall correctly).
I realize it’s a complicated game with a lot of moving parts, and that sometimes things get missed. No one should be demanding perfection.
But the complexity of game interactions is precisely why players should be given a little more credence and why the team should be on here all the time substantively discussing the issues experienced in game.
Too often, it feels like all we get is a dismissive pat on the head.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
Too often, it feels like all we get is a dismissive pat on the head.
Ugh, this sentence sums up so much of the playerbase's experience with Kabam.
Imo they need to issue rank down tickets for these changes but they also need to lockout ranking the champions which rank down tickets are meant to be used the moment they are announced to prevent players taking advantage of rdt.
Also the ability to take back any gems/sig stones used on a nerfed champ needs to be enabled.
Doing those 2 things above mentioned is the only way kabam will be able to reliably keep a balance in the game in a way that is fair to the players
Imo they need to issue rank down tickets for these changes but they also need to lockout ranking the champions which rank down tickets are meant to be used the moment they are announced to prevent players taking advantage of rdt.
Also the ability to take back any gems/sig stones used on a nerfed champ needs to be enabled.
Doing those 2 things above mentioned is the only way kabam will be able to reliably keep a balance in the game in a way that is fair to the players
Yeah I want my awakening gem back that I used on Iron Man... (Said no one ever ).
RDT's should be given across the board for any champs that are changed. Not hard to do when She-Hulk has been done already or do not touch the champions. Simple...
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
Actually, the Champion Spotlight isn’t worth the paper it’s written on—pretty much everything that isn’t in the specific champ description is additional stuff that may or may not be applicable.
Take those Dev Notes that are so helpful. “Chatter and tips,” according to Miike, which is to say just some guy (or gal) editorializing.
Even descriptions are at best unclear and at worst just plain suspect—SymSup is just the most obvious one. Another example is Sabretooth, who has from the outset been described as “randomly” receiving between 3 and 6 persistent charges (if he has 0 at fight start).
When players started keeping stats on how often the different levels of charges generated, Sabretooth wound up with 3 charges a lot more than 6. “Randomly” meant it wasn’t always the same amount, but it was also weighted against the highest amount (if I recall correctly).
I realize it’s a complicated game with a lot of moving parts, and that sometimes things get missed. No one should be demanding perfection.
But the complexity of game interactions is precisely why players should be given a little more credence and why the team should be on here all the time substantively discussing the issues experienced in game.
Too often, it feels like all we get is a dismissive pat on the head.
Dr. Zola
The message I'm getting is that we should take everything that the moderators say with a grain of salt, that nothing they post as far as information is set in stone, and Kabam can change whatever they want, whenever they want it.
Seems legit.
Spot on, all "god tier" champs are up in the air as far as I'm concerned moving forward. Kabam can arbitrarily call any ability a bug and will remove any champ that has similar attributes afterwards to prove it lol.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
Do you believe the game team bears zero responsibility for the descriptions and performance of the champs they create, code and describe?
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
No sir. I don't expect you to cosign anything. I was simply stating that Kabam should consider testing new champions more fully so they would know if a description was game breaking...or I don't know... accurate. BEFORE release.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
Do you believe the game team bears zero responsibility for the descriptions and performance of the champs they create, code and describe?
Dr. Zola
We all love it when the game team "fixes" bugs that never actually contradicted champion descriptions in the first place. Don't you?
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
Do you believe the game team bears zero responsibility for the descriptions and performance of the champs they create, code and describe?
Dr. Zola
No. I don't believe they bear zero responsibility. What I believe is that their responsibility for the health and balance of the game supersedes a text error.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
No sir. I don't expect you to cosign anything. I was simply stating that Kabam should consider testing new champions more fully so they would know if a description was game breaking...or I don't know... accurate. BEFORE release.
Mistakes can and will happen. There's no such thing as perfection, especially with a game as complex and moving as this one. Testing separately can't predict every issue once things go live.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
Do you believe the game team bears zero responsibility for the descriptions and performance of the champs they create, code and describe?
Dr. Zola
No. I don't believe they bear zero responsibility. What I believe is that their responsibility for the health and balance of the game supersedes a text error.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
No sir. I don't expect you to cosign anything. I was simply stating that Kabam should consider testing new champions more fully so they would know if a description was game breaking...or I don't know... accurate. BEFORE release.
Mistakes can and will happen. There's no such thing as perfection, especially with a game as complex and moving as this one. Testing separately can't predict every issue once things go live.
🙄 ... so the stories ARE true. 👌 😁😂🤣😂😁😂🤣😂😁 Good day sir.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
Do you believe the game team bears zero responsibility for the descriptions and performance of the champs they create, code and describe?
Dr. Zola
No. I don't believe they bear zero responsibility. What I believe is that their responsibility for the health and balance of the game supersedes a text error.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
No sir. I don't expect you to cosign anything. I was simply stating that Kabam should consider testing new champions more fully so they would know if a description was game breaking...or I don't know... accurate. BEFORE release.
Mistakes can and will happen. There's no such thing as perfection, especially with a game as complex and moving as this one. Testing separately can't predict every issue once things go live.
🙄 ... so the stories ARE true. 👌 😁😂🤣😂😁😂🤣😂😁 Good day sir.
No I don't work for them if that's what you mean. You think Employees would bother with half the arguments I deal with? Lol.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
Do you believe the game team bears zero responsibility for the descriptions and performance of the champs they create, code and describe?
Dr. Zola
No. I don't believe they bear zero responsibility. What I believe is that their responsibility for the health and balance of the game supersedes a text error.
SS wasn't increased to 100% as per the Description error because that would have been too powerful. They discussed it, though. In this case, Champs aren't supposed to do that unless specified. Like Wasp. The decision isn't really one that hinges on what the Description says. It's the outcome.
Kabam writes the descriptions, not us. If they do not stand behind the way champs are initially presented to us, then the Champion Spotlight isn't worth the paper it is written on (so to speak).
They discussed that possibility, most likely for the very same reason. If you expect me to cosign them making alterations that are game breaking or overly-powerful just because of the wording, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on that one.
No sir. I don't expect you to cosign anything. I was simply stating that Kabam should consider testing new champions more fully so they would know if a description was game breaking...or I don't know... accurate. BEFORE release.
Mistakes can and will happen. There's no such thing as perfection, especially with a game as complex and moving as this one. Testing separately can't predict every issue once things go live.
To make sure I understand: a text error, even one that induces people to rely on it by spending real and/or virtual resources, is acceptable as long as the team decides the health and balance of the game requires it to be changed?
Would your answer be the same if the text error isn’t actually an error, but rather simply something the team decides to change because of an unforeseen circumstance?
Any responsibility for either of these situations?
We will not be issuing Rank Down Tickets for the other Champions that need to have the issue with the ability to Combo into a Heavy Attack fixed.
As mentioned in the announcement, Rank Down Tickets will not be given as a result of every Champion change or bug fix. They must be carefully considered on a case by case basis. In the case of She-Hulk this was being utilized regularly, and to defeat top tier content. The other Champions that will have this issue resolved have not been used in such a way. Thanks for your patience and understanding as we work toward a resolution for this issue.
So your lack of competence in software testing is now called "champions that need to have the issue with the ability to Combo into a Heavy Attack fixed. "??? This is beyond pathetic and i can help you, just listen! How about to close the game for 3 months, more than enough time to fix all the "bugs" with champions abilities and to fix actual bugs. Then upload the game into the app stores again and let all have fun. What? You gonna lose money? Oh that's the problem......
We will not be issuing Rank Down Tickets for the other Champions that need to have the issue with the ability to Combo into a Heavy Attack fixed.
As mentioned in the announcement, Rank Down Tickets will not be given as a result of every Champion change or bug fix. They must be carefully considered on a case by case basis. In the case of She-Hulk this was being utilized regularly, and to defeat top tier content. The other Champions that will have this issue resolved have not been used in such a way. Thanks for your patience and understanding as we work toward a resolution for this issue.
So your lack of competence in software testing is now called "champions that need to have the issue with the ability to Combo into a Heavy Attack fixed. "??? This is beyond pathetic and i can help you, just listen! How about to close the game for 3 months, more than enough time to fix all the "bugs" with champions abilities and to fix actual bugs. Then upload the game into the app stores again and let all have fun. What? You gonna lose money? Oh that's the problem......
They would lose money as well as customers because of that I feel. Three months is a long time. It would be one thing to not release any new big content, for three months, but to shut it all down for that long would be crazy.
I'm sorry if there is any disappointment here but it has already been clarified that no additional rank down tickets will be given related to this issue.
Comments
It's been reported for years now, yet the issue still persists in the game. The AI on harder difficulties frequently has no delay, no charge, no windup to cause a Heavy Attack. This allows the AI to break your block, which is made worse by nodes on that fight (which are usually found on the harder fights) that will cause things like stun, degeneration, bleed, poison, or some other damage or debuff that makes the rapid and unavoidable heavy that much more costly.
Why hasn't this issue been fixed so that the AI has a set, standard time to charge their Heavy Attack, instead of having a rapid Heavy that we cannot react to?
Take those Dev Notes that are so helpful. “Chatter and tips,” according to Miike, which is to say just some guy (or gal) editorializing.
Even descriptions are at best unclear and at worst just plain suspect—SymSup is just the most obvious one. Another example is Sabretooth, who has from the outset been described as “randomly” receiving between 3 and 6 persistent charges (if he has 0 at fight start).
When players started keeping stats on how often the different levels of charges generated, Sabretooth wound up with 3 charges a lot more than 6. “Randomly” meant it wasn’t always the same amount, but it was also weighted against the highest amount (if I recall correctly).
I realize it’s a complicated game with a lot of moving parts, and that sometimes things get missed. No one should be demanding perfection.
But the complexity of game interactions is precisely why players should be given a little more credence and why the team should be on here all the time substantively discussing the issues experienced in game.
Too often, it feels like all we get is a dismissive pat on the head.
Dr. Zola
Also the ability to take back any gems/sig stones used on a nerfed champ needs to be enabled.
Doing those 2 things above mentioned is the only way kabam will be able to reliably keep a balance in the game in a way that is fair to the players
Dr. Zola
😁😂🤣😂😁😂🤣😂😁
Good day sir.
Would your answer be the same if the text error isn’t actually an error, but rather simply something the team decides to change because of an unforeseen circumstance?
Any responsibility for either of these situations?
Dr. Zola
This is beyond pathetic and i can help you, just listen!
How about to close the game for 3 months, more than enough time to fix all the "bugs" with champions abilities and to fix actual bugs. Then upload the game into the app stores again and let all have fun.
What? You gonna lose money? Oh that's the problem......