I'm about 99% sure they just re-ran the Cull Cav last Sunday. Can anyone confirm that? Pretty gritty to run that crystal one last time and then post his nerf.
It's true they have done it multiple times after the actual release of him
The whole retuning idea is wrong. Test your champs properly before releasing.
I spent a ton of real life money on obtaining Cull. And that was based solely on his damage. I’ve ranked up all the way up to R5 and use him often. How fair is it to change anything at any time just because a champ is too good? That changes everything with this game. New champ comes out and does insane damage, but now there’s most likely a chance that character will be nerfed. What’s the point in trying to obtain a champ when that champ will most likely be changed in months time? Totally unfair.
Lets give an example Champ a does 20k damage Champ b does 22k damage Champ c does 19k damage Champ d does 40k damage.
There is obviously an issue with champ d. It does not mean there is an issue with being the top damage dealer, but that d's damage is way out of control. It means they have to design fights specifically with him in mind, similar to blades danger sense. This weakens the value of all other champs because they can no longer compete, and now everyone has to have cull to clear content.
How do people not see this? The argument he takes a lot of potions and ramp-up time so he still should have absolutely game-breaking DPS is ludicrous -- I could say the same thing about Sentry.
You can't have a game that says beat this content with Sentry and another character does the same content in 10-15 hits
And like I said champ d will do 5k damage in his first fight so if they buff him in other ways to make him more sustainable I don’t mind otherwise don’t touch the champ
Your statement makes no sense.. Lets take a look at the damage output of a normal 8 fight path
acculmative:
Champ a does 20k damage Champ b does 22k damage Champ c does 19k damage Champ d does 5k damage.
Champ a does 40k damage Champ b does 44k damage Champ c does 38k damage Champ d does 45k damage.
Using these numebrs you can see that even with the first fight he is doing 5k damage after the second fight he has already recovered and done more:
Champ a does 60k damage Champ b does 66k damage Champ c does 57k damage Champ d does 85k damage.
Now he is doing a third more than anyone else after the third. This will grow until he is doing close to double the damage still, the first fight does not matter, over the course of the fight he will greatly surpass the others.
I don’t understand. How are these numbers possible? In the first fight doesn’t every champ need to have the same damage output to go to the second fight? I.e. the first defender has 50k HP so every attacker will have 50k damage output. I do not think this illustration is the best unless you can clarify. Maybe if you said x champ did 40k with 20 hits vs y champ that did 50k with 5 hits it would be a better illustration.
It really doesn’t matter if his damage is too much or just right. They sold a product under a certain specifications. They need to honor it or give compensation. Kabam said they test their champs but can test it as much as we can? Then you need to stagger the release more instead of adjusting every champ you release. Release two champs half as often.. guess what you bought yourself? TWICE THE TESTING TIME! Create champs further ahead so they can be tested properly. Sorry but this is not a coincidence that he’s being nerfed right after all the arenas, cavaliers and featured 5*’s aren’t around. They scraped every dollar first and then dropped the nerf.
So what happens the next time they have to rebalance a Champ? This is round 1 of regular revisions. Do people threaten to Boycott everytime one comes? If there's something that needs to be adjusted, they will adjust it. That's what they've committed to. People can't threaten to take the revisions hostage everytime a Champ they like is being questioned.
I don't think the argument is about all future readjustments. Adjusting champs who are underperforming is welcomed by the community. When they adjust champs down after advertising and selling thousands in cavalier crystals usually multiple offers for champs that are overhyped by Youtubers it creates a sense of mistrust in the community. They adjusted cull twice to balance his power already and it was excepted by the community. He isn't a game breaking champ as he stands since he has very low block proficiency and requires parry to function as intended. I'm not even a fan of cull myself since I prefer intercept to parry but I see a huge problem with nerfing a product after multiple sale pushes. I'd rather see them under promise on a champs power and abilities and later over deliver with a buff as needed. If the game team and content creators are testing these champs they should have some idea before the release if they will be overpowered
You will be losing money in the long run! Handcuffing the Whales. People will be less motivated to spend money. Great idea Kaaloss profit! Whoever came up with this great idea should be walked out the door! Thought you wanted to make make not lose it! LOL
Exactly.. the fact that they're willing to lose money over this tells me they really care about the game and to ensure its balance and longevity.
I am curious at what point did they start collecting data, because didn’t they have an adjustment on him already? Seems kinda silly to do another one
The game constantly records data. The problem with datamining champion performance is that initially the performance of every champion is skewed by the fact that very few players have them, and the players that do tend to skew higher in skill than average. They aren't completely representative of the playerbase. Conversely, they are also less experienced with the champs, and there's less meta-information about the champs floating around.
Over time as more players get and rank champions up and start using them, the breadth of the players who have the champ becomes more representative of the whole playerbase, and the overall performance of the champ tends to rise as both the skilled players get more practice with them, and things like guides and videos and friend-of-a-friend experience filters down to the rest of the players.
Given how crystals work, it could be three to six months or more before you get a rough representative sample of players using a champ, and six months to a year before the champ's full potential actually shows up in the data when the majority of players using them have a better understanding of the champ.
To put this another way, everyone seems to be assuming that the "data" being collected is about the champion, so all it takes is one person playing the champ to show what the champ can do. But the data being collected is not about the champ. The data being collected is actually about *us* and how we do when we have the champ. Champs are balanced not based on how good they are, but on how good we are when we play them. It is the combination of champion and player that is being judged, across all the players playing the game.
Working from your explanation, would it be wrong to suggest if the data began to show the majority of the players using him were clearing content not designed to be cleared so easily, that this adjustment (plus their recent featured crystal for him) could be seen as a bit shady?
"Could be seen as" a bit shady? No, I don't think that's wrong. I don't think it is shady, but I can see how it can be seen as shady. One thing I've learned over time is there's a real disconnect between all game developers in the universe and most game players, that isn't really talked about much, so much so that most game players don't realize it is there and even most game developers don't realize it is there.
This is a big oversimplification, but game players view games as if they are a golf course they are trying to beat. The course remains mostly fixed (yes, I know they change course layouts on occasion, so the example isn't great) and the player wants to keep coming back over and over, getting better at beating that course. The challenge is fixed, and the player judges their progress relative to the challenge.
However, almost all online games are designed as if they were graded on a curve. Your grade isn't determined by how well you do against the test, it is determined by how well you do against all the other players. Content is designed relative to the players: when the players do better that means the content was easier, and when the players do worse that means the content was harder, and adjustments are made. In our case when champions do better than intended that means they were designed too strong, and vice versa. The players' performance determines how good the champions actually are, and when they do especially well with them, that can be cause for a nerf.
The developers would say that if the players do way better with one champ than another, that means that champ was made too good, and beyond a certain threshold it has to be adjusted. The players would say if the players do way better with one champ than another, they should be rewarded for that performance and not punished. This is a fundamental difference in perspective, that I'm not sure how to resolve.
This isn't just limited to game development. If you've taken the SAT exams in the United States, you can compare your score with other people who took the test at the same time. You can't directly compare your score with other people who took the test at different times, because the people who make the test keep changing the test and the test's intrinsic difficulty, to try to normalize the scores over time. That means it is entirely possible that the test you took was significantly harder than the test someone two years ago took. Is that fair? It depends on what you think the purpose of the test is. If people are smarter today than yesterday, should they get better scores? A student might say yes. The test administrators would say no. They would say the purpose of the test is to highlight differences between all the students taking the test at the same time, not to reward one year's students with better scores if they are better test takers than any other year's students.
So what happens the next time they have to rebalance a Champ? This is round 1 of regular revisions. Do people threaten to Boycott everytime one comes? If there's something that needs to be adjusted, they will adjust it. That's what they've committed to. People can't threaten to take the revisions hostage everytime a Champ they like is being questioned.
I don't think the argument is about all future readjustments. Adjusting champs who are underperforming is welcomed by the community. When they adjust champs down after advertising and selling thousands in cavalier crystals usually multiple offers for champs that are overhyped by Youtubers it creates a sense of mistrust in the community. They adjusted cull twice to balance his power already and it was excepted by the community. He isn't a game breaking champ as he stands since he has very low block proficiency and requires parry to function as intended. I'm not even a fan of cull myself since I prefer intercept to parry but I see a huge problem with nerfing a product after multiple sale pushes. I'd rather see them under promise on a champs power and abilities and later over deliver with a buff as needed. If the game team and content creators are testing these champs they should have some idea before the release if they will be overpowered
The comment was made that Cull wouldn't be adjusted or it would be 12.0 all over again. That suggests a very perpetual situation. Give in, and the next time it creates a situation where people are controlling the game. It works both ways. If a Champ is way too powerful, balancing can work the other way. I'm not saying that to create a fear of every strong Champ being adjusted. It entirely depends on the context of the data. The bottom line in this case is he was showing higher than any other, and that's higher than they intend any Champ to hit within the snapshot they collected.
seriously i dont know how can you with all honesty say that you like the performance of ronin? do u guys even play the game? i am not saying he is bad but u are telling me that he doesn't need a buff and human torch who is better than him needs it? he lacks so much utility and the damage is just average compared to lots of champs
Dear Kabam, Nerfing champions because they outdamage other champions is very shady - especially when we spend money for the CHANCE to get and dupe champions. It would be kind of ok if we were able to buy champs outright of had a system in place to rank down champs. Please reconsider these nerfs. It seriously impacts our ability to make good rank up decisions. Resources are still very hard to come by. People have spent a lot of money on this game to get awesome champs. Please, I urge you to make rank down tickets a permanent fixture if you're going to be rebalancing from now on.
These panic moves just undermine what you're trying to do. When you quickstep adjust a champ like it was a must-do vs a "we're not sure we like what the data is telling us so we're going to look at the circumstances around the data. Changing a champ outside of bugs is the last recourse but we'll compensate you if that's what we need to do." but have casually ignored the tons of other champs that stink on ice and have for a long time, it looks like you have an anti-customer agenda and that you generally don't have a solid testing plan. Your customers can only assume that you are well pleased with the champs that are super-trash and frustratingly common, and that by your inaction, you always intended that they suck.
CULL IS STILL GOING TO REMAIN ONE OF THE TOP DAMAGE DEALER IN THE GAME.
And you trust them?They have been lying to us all the time.There is no reason to believe them.
The other thing is even if cull is on par with the other top damage champs like ghost he won’t be used, since he would have nothing on those champs since he has no significant utility
I know that's the whole point of people complaining he is nothing without his damage even if it is "OP".That's the point of Cull,Raw damage and 0 utility.
I'm sick of hearing this no utility bs. Go read into his abilities in detail and it will show every utility he has. Armor break, autoblock/evade shutdown, and projectile parry. How is a raw damage champ supposed to have the most utility in the game?
That is after a few missions are completed and usually at least 2-4 fights done before he’s gets those abilities but he loses most of them when the thanos favors run out which at least end game content can be very quickly if the ai decides to not throw a special or heavy.
Is this a impulse nerf? Have you thought about the consequences? You will be losing money in the long run! Handcuffing the Whales. People will be less motivated to spend money. Great idea Kaaloss profit! Whoever came up with this great idea should be walked out the door! Thought you wanted to make make not lose it! LOL
I know a lot of people think this, and there's no way to convince them otherwise, but these kinds of balancing adjustments, from 12.0 to the present day, are critical to the long term survival of a game like this. All I can say is everyone who bet on the people who said 12.0 would be the death of the game have been definitively proven wrong, as has everyone else who has claimed that a particular game change would sink the game. By the time we can prove this claim is also just as wrong, everyone will have moved on to the next game-killing thing.
This is completely separate from the fact that the kinds of processes Kabam is implementing now, with regard to things like post-release balancing passes, wasn't invented by Kabam. They've been around in the game development industry for long enough it is entirely possible the guy who came up with this great idea has already died of old age. Kabam isn't coming up with new ways to screw with the players, Kabam is in fact decades late to the party.
In fact, it was *the players* who were demanding that Kabam do this kind of thing, way back when Sentry was released (if not earlier). The idea was that Kabam wouldn't revisit a champ until enough data had been collected for the long term performance of a new champ, and it was the players that said that was too long: new champs should be revisited relatively soon after release and tweaked if the data said it should be. The problem is tweaking works both ways: if the data says a buff is warranted then that will happen, but if a nerf is warranted then that will happen instead. Players cannot demand that the developers only buff. That request simply isn't taken seriously by any dev.
So what happens the next time they have to rebalance a Champ? This is round 1 of regular revisions. Do people threaten to Boycott everytime one comes? If there's something that needs to be adjusted, they will adjust it. That's what they've committed to. People can't threaten to take the revisions hostage everytime a Champ they like is being questioned.
Dude you've got to stop. They are wrong and so are you. Here's my proof
Balance changes starting in OCTOBER These changes will be made BEFORE the Champs come to basic crystals. Kabam set a standard, and immediately changed said standard. End of story. You are wrong. They are wrong.
Lol y’all complaining as if y’all didn’t know this was coming after they announced their 3 month plan for champs
Exactly.
People complaining about spending money on the Cav crystals - it's not like you're not told that Cull could be looked at.
Also it's not like he's the only guy you're getting from the Crystal - don't tell me you won't be happy pulling a Corvus or a Domino or a Ghost from the Cav Crystal as well.
Also if you'd R5 him over the past month or so - again - you knew a review was coming, it's on you to impulsively rank him up without waiting a bit.
Kabam isn't the to be blamed for everything you do in the game, c'mon now.
Not a Cull player. Just saying that it's a little shady that Kabam told us explicitly that this would only impact champions not in the basic, but then would go back and adjust three champs in the basic.
I'm fine waiting on ranking up a champion to R5 until he/she enters the basic. It's tedious, but if I'm really terrified they'll get nerfed I'll wait. I'm not fine waiting forever because I'll never know when a champion is "safe" to rank up.
Can you point to where they said it would not affect those in basic? I am pretty sure you are taking their statement out of context.
It's posted in here several times. Do you actually read threads? Or just find ones you can easily disagree with?
There's no other problematic game that I've ever played other than MCOC. I'm starting to think you guys are literally the actual biggest villain hiding behind the scene of this game.
The whole retuning idea is wrong. Test your champs properly before releasing.
I spent a ton of real life money on obtaining Cull. And that was based solely on his damage. I’ve ranked up all the way up to R5 and use him often. How fair is it to change anything at any time just because a champ is too good? That changes everything with this game. New champ comes out and does insane damage, but now there’s most likely a chance that character will be nerfed. What’s the point in trying to obtain a champ when that champ will most likely be changed in months time? Totally unfair.
Lets give an example Champ a does 20k damage Champ b does 22k damage Champ c does 19k damage Champ d does 40k damage.
There is obviously an issue with champ d. It does not mean there is an issue with being the top damage dealer, but that d's damage is way out of control. It means they have to design fights specifically with him in mind, similar to blades danger sense. This weakens the value of all other champs because they can no longer compete, and now everyone has to have cull to clear content.
How do people not see this? The argument he takes a lot of potions and ramp-up time so he still should have absolutely game-breaking DPS is ludicrous -- I could say the same thing about Sentry.
You can't have a game that says beat this content with Sentry and another character does the same content in 10-15 hits
And like I said champ d will do 5k damage in his first fight so if they buff him in other ways to make him more sustainable I don’t mind otherwise don’t touch the champ
Your statement makes no sense.. Lets take a look at the damage output of a normal 8 fight path
acculmative:
Champ a does 20k damage Champ b does 22k damage Champ c does 19k damage Champ d does 5k damage.
Champ a does 40k damage Champ b does 44k damage Champ c does 38k damage Champ d does 45k damage.
Using these numebrs you can see that even with the first fight he is doing 5k damage after the second fight he has already recovered and done more:
Champ a does 60k damage Champ b does 66k damage Champ c does 57k damage Champ d does 85k damage.
Now he is doing a third more than anyone else after the third. This will grow until he is doing close to double the damage still, the first fight does not matter, over the course of the fight he will greatly surpass the others.
I don’t understand. How are these numbers possible? In the first fight doesn’t every champ need to have the same damage output to go to the second fight? I.e. the first defender has 50k HP so every attacker will have 50k damage output. I do not think this illustration is the best unless you can clarify. Maybe if you said x champ did 40k with 20 hits vs y champ that did 50k with 5 hits it would be a better illustration.
I insist that if you guys are buffing human torch’s offensive capabilities because the data has showed you that he is underperforming but Ronin is performing as he should maybe being a bit more clear on how you are measuring this would give us q better understanding of the decision.
When you compare these two characters you can see a lot of people using torch way more (both offensively and defensively) in AW , AQ , you see a lot of content creators using him to tackle different parts of the game. On the other hand Ronin is my particulately well liked but you see him rarely making an appearance or being used in wars, quests , even in arenas. Even in YouTube and other social media it’s hard to find recent content with him (other than when he was released)
Also in this particular case I believe he is possessed by way less people than Torch, Cull or even Ebony since he wasn’t as hyped as the others.
Again, I would love for Ronin just to be nudged (maybe just a bit more bleed damage, or a bit more AAR ) but more than that , I ask for clarity in the decisions
Why not just make champs that can counter balance those champs rather than constantly nerfing champs?
When you have a Champion that wildly outdamages other Champions, and we start making content to counter that specific Champion, this harshly punishes every other Champion in game, and every Summoner that does not have that Champion.
Cull “wildly out damages” other champs? Like who and in what content? Show us the magic “data”. This should be good.
Something that people often miss is that the type of content doesn't really bear hard on the data, aside from where they collect it. Meaning it's not just about End-Game content. While you may find the heaviest hitters there, performance data isn't just about who uses what God Tier in End-Game. Data is data.
Yes, the data says cull hits really hard everywhere, but that isn’t enough, if you look at the fights he’s against chances are they’re the easiest fights without problem nodes, which the data likley won’t show, kabam aren’t using the right sources here, rather than looking at damage data they need to look at more specific things, I haven’t seen anyone using him for tough fights in 6.2 including all content creators and the 3 very prestigious alliances I’ve been in since 6.2 was released
If you're looking at Damage amounts, it is enough.
Did you read my post? Being able to do easy fights fast is NOT significant enough to make a champ need a nerf, I could use anyone for those fights and easily get though them, all cull does there is make it faster, he doesn’t provide anything that makes him a game changer for an account, now act 5 is likley a different story since 90% of the fights are what I’m classing as ‘easy’ fights without nodes requiring a specific champ, but act 6 v1 and other endgame content are built around these ‘problem fights’ which makes cull only really be any good for a couple paths that any champ could do
I read your response, and it's understandable for people to rationalize these things when they're upset. "It's not that much because of Condition X and Condition Y." However, it's in the numbers on their end, and numbers can't lie. They're undoubtedly aware of this community and the history regarding changes. If the data wasn't showing reason to consider him higher than the others, they wouldn't be opening up that can of worms. You can't argue conditions with the numbers, and evidently there is a "Too much." threshold in comparison to other high-end Champs.
I thing I’ve learnt about numbers is that they don’t lie but they can be deceiving, and this is a prime example of this
I have to disagree with grounded wisdom and you here. Numbers can lie. There are entire fields of statistics dedicated to understanding numbers to make sure they are seeing the truth.
Kabam i hope you're seeing you're unencouraging people to spend money on cavalier and featured crystals.. arn't you happy with making money?!
Well by them doing this it shows that they're more concerned about balancing the game and ensuring its longevity rather than making a few quick bucks here and there.
If you look at the situation without emotion you'll see the logic.
Why not just make champs that can counter balance those champs rather than constantly nerfing champs?
When you have a Champion that wildly outdamages other Champions, and we start making content to counter that specific Champion, this harshly punishes every other Champion in game, and every Summoner that does not have that Champion.
Cull “wildly out damages” other champs? Like who and in what content? Show us the magic “data”. This should be good.
Something that people often miss is that the type of content doesn't really bear hard on the data, aside from where they collect it. Meaning it's not just about End-Game content. While you may find the heaviest hitters there, performance data isn't just about who uses what God Tier in End-Game. Data is data.
Yes, the data says cull hits really hard everywhere, but that isn’t enough, if you look at the fights he’s against chances are they’re the easiest fights without problem nodes, which the data likley won’t show, kabam aren’t using the right sources here, rather than looking at damage data they need to look at more specific things, I haven’t seen anyone using him for tough fights in 6.2 including all content creators and the 3 very prestigious alliances I’ve been in since 6.2 was released
If you're looking at Damage amounts, it is enough.
Did you read my post? Being able to do easy fights fast is NOT significant enough to make a champ need a nerf, I could use anyone for those fights and easily get though them, all cull does there is make it faster, he doesn’t provide anything that makes him a game changer for an account, now act 5 is likley a different story since 90% of the fights are what I’m classing as ‘easy’ fights without nodes requiring a specific champ, but act 6 v1 and other endgame content are built around these ‘problem fights’ which makes cull only really be any good for a couple paths that any champ could do
I read your response, and it's understandable for people to rationalize these things when they're upset. "It's not that much because of Condition X and Condition Y." However, it's in the numbers on their end, and numbers can't lie. They're undoubtedly aware of this community and the history regarding changes. If the data wasn't showing reason to consider him higher than the others, they wouldn't be opening up that can of worms. You can't argue conditions with the numbers, and evidently there is a "Too much." threshold in comparison to other high-end Champs.
I thing I’ve learnt about numbers is that they don’t lie but they can be deceiving, and this is a prime example of this
You think they're deceiving because they show him higher than any other? Tell me. If that's the case, why did so many people Rank him? Was that because it wasn't that good, and the ramp-up took time, and he couldn't do this and that? No. It was because of the Damage.
Not a Cull player. Just saying that it's a little shady that Kabam told us explicitly that this would only impact champions not in the basic, but then would go back and adjust three champs in the basic.
I'm fine waiting on ranking up a champion to R5 until he/she enters the basic. It's tedious, but if I'm really terrified they'll get nerfed I'll wait. I'm not fine waiting forever because I'll never know when a champion is "safe" to rank up.
Can you point to where they said it would not affect those in basic? I am pretty sure you are taking their statement out of context.
It's posted in here several times. Do you actually read threads? Or just find ones you can easily disagree with?
You want to substantiate your “claim” prove it plain and simple. You show numbers that prove it then there’s no issue.
Exactly this ... This is all I've been trying to ask for since beginning of this thread ... If Kabam would be "brave" enough to provide this to show us what they see .. and why they want to change to something ... then they'd find the player base MUCH more understanding and open about it ... (assuming, of course, the data actual makes sense) heh
Why not just make champs that can counter balance those champs rather than constantly nerfing champs?
When you have a Champion that wildly outdamages other Champions, and we start making content to counter that specific Champion, this harshly punishes every other Champion in game, and every Summoner that does not have that Champion.
Cull “wildly out damages” other champs? Like who and in what content? Show us the magic “data”. This should be good.
Something that people often miss is that the type of content doesn't really bear hard on the data, aside from where they collect it. Meaning it's not just about End-Game content. While you may find the heaviest hitters there, performance data isn't just about who uses what God Tier in End-Game. Data is data.
Yes, the data says cull hits really hard everywhere, but that isn’t enough, if you look at the fights he’s against chances are they’re the easiest fights without problem nodes, which the data likley won’t show, kabam aren’t using the right sources here, rather than looking at damage data they need to look at more specific things, I haven’t seen anyone using him for tough fights in 6.2 including all content creators and the 3 very prestigious alliances I’ve been in since 6.2 was released
If you're looking at Damage amounts, it is enough.
Did you read my post? Being able to do easy fights fast is NOT significant enough to make a champ need a nerf, I could use anyone for those fights and easily get though them, all cull does there is make it faster, he doesn’t provide anything that makes him a game changer for an account, now act 5 is likley a different story since 90% of the fights are what I’m classing as ‘easy’ fights without nodes requiring a specific champ, but act 6 v1 and other endgame content are built around these ‘problem fights’ which makes cull only really be any good for a couple paths that any champ could do
I read your response, and it's understandable for people to rationalize these things when they're upset. "It's not that much because of Condition X and Condition Y." However, it's in the numbers on their end, and numbers can't lie. They're undoubtedly aware of this community and the history regarding changes. If the data wasn't showing reason to consider him higher than the others, they wouldn't be opening up that can of worms. You can't argue conditions with the numbers, and evidently there is a "Too much." threshold in comparison to other high-end Champs.
I thing I’ve learnt about numbers is that they don’t lie but they can be deceiving, and this is a prime example of this
I have to disagree with grounded wisdom and you here. Numbers can lie. There are entire fields of statistics dedicated to understanding numbers to make sure they are seeing the truth.
Not a Cull player. Just saying that it's a little shady that Kabam told us explicitly that this would only impact champions not in the basic, but then would go back and adjust three champs in the basic.
I'm fine waiting on ranking up a champion to R5 until he/she enters the basic. It's tedious, but if I'm really terrified they'll get nerfed I'll wait. I'm not fine waiting forever because I'll never know when a champion is "safe" to rank up.
Can you point to where they said it would not affect those in basic? I am pretty sure you are taking their statement out of context.
It's posted in here several times. Do you actually read threads? Or just find ones you can easily disagree with?
I have yet to see it, why could you not link it?
Ok, now in there, please circle where it says they will not evaluate and change champions outside of that period, which is the claim in dispute... If I tell you I will mow the lawn right after a storm that does not mean that I will not mow the lawn lacking a storm...
People would complain for the sake of complaining sometimes... smh. .
"Cull will remain one of the best damage champ in the game".
Read.
The problem is that Kabaam as a company does not know what a "best" champ is. This is obvious, especially after this post by them saying that Cull is too powerful and Ronin is ok. I have been "lucky" by pulling Ronin three times as a 5 star and he is never used outside of arena runs. He doesn't do anything well enough to get use. Cull does have great damage after he is ramped up, but his block proficiency is terrible. Even if you play him perfectly against end game content he loses health way too fast. I have him as a rank 4, but again, he never gets a spot on any of my teams because I have better options. Compared to Corvus, Ghost, IW Cap, Omega Red and a few others he lags far behind as an AQ/AW or questing champ. They obviously don't know how champions interact with the game if these are their conclusions. Now if they made a post saying that Ghost and Corvus will be re-balanced, then they have a point, and I have them both as max sig rank 5s, but not Cull.
Not a Cull player. Just saying that it's a little shady that Kabam told us explicitly that this would only impact champions not in the basic, but then would go back and adjust three champs in the basic.
I'm fine waiting on ranking up a champion to R5 until he/she enters the basic. It's tedious, but if I'm really terrified they'll get nerfed I'll wait. I'm not fine waiting forever because I'll never know when a champion is "safe" to rank up.
Can you point to where they said it would not affect those in basic? I am pretty sure you are taking their statement out of context.
It's posted in here several times. Do you actually read threads? Or just find ones you can easily disagree with?
I have yet to see it, why could you not link it?
Now please show me the disputed claim, that they will never make changes outside this cadence. You know that is what was stated right? The post does not cover that. Saying you will do something given conditions does not preclude you from doing that under other conditions as well. Now if they had stated they would ONLY do that during the cadence, but that is not what they said.
Comments
🐻
Not sure why people cannot see this.
This is a big oversimplification, but game players view games as if they are a golf course they are trying to beat. The course remains mostly fixed (yes, I know they change course layouts on occasion, so the example isn't great) and the player wants to keep coming back over and over, getting better at beating that course. The challenge is fixed, and the player judges their progress relative to the challenge.
However, almost all online games are designed as if they were graded on a curve. Your grade isn't determined by how well you do against the test, it is determined by how well you do against all the other players. Content is designed relative to the players: when the players do better that means the content was easier, and when the players do worse that means the content was harder, and adjustments are made. In our case when champions do better than intended that means they were designed too strong, and vice versa. The players' performance determines how good the champions actually are, and when they do especially well with them, that can be cause for a nerf.
The developers would say that if the players do way better with one champ than another, that means that champ was made too good, and beyond a certain threshold it has to be adjusted. The players would say if the players do way better with one champ than another, they should be rewarded for that performance and not punished. This is a fundamental difference in perspective, that I'm not sure how to resolve.
This isn't just limited to game development. If you've taken the SAT exams in the United States, you can compare your score with other people who took the test at the same time. You can't directly compare your score with other people who took the test at different times, because the people who make the test keep changing the test and the test's intrinsic difficulty, to try to normalize the scores over time. That means it is entirely possible that the test you took was significantly harder than the test someone two years ago took. Is that fair? It depends on what you think the purpose of the test is. If people are smarter today than yesterday, should they get better scores? A student might say yes. The test administrators would say no. They would say the purpose of the test is to highlight differences between all the students taking the test at the same time, not to reward one year's students with better scores if they are better test takers than any other year's students.
It works both ways. If a Champ is way too powerful, balancing can work the other way. I'm not saying that to create a fear of every strong Champ being adjusted. It entirely depends on the context of the data. The bottom line in this case is he was showing higher than any other, and that's higher than they intend any Champ to hit within the snapshot they collected.
Nerfing champions because they outdamage other champions is very shady - especially when we spend money for the CHANCE to get and dupe champions. It would be kind of ok if we were able to buy champs outright of had a system in place to rank down champs. Please reconsider these nerfs. It seriously impacts our ability to make good rank up decisions. Resources are still very hard to come by. People have spent a lot of money on this game to get awesome champs. Please, I urge you to make rank down tickets a permanent fixture if you're going to be rebalancing from now on.
This is completely separate from the fact that the kinds of processes Kabam is implementing now, with regard to things like post-release balancing passes, wasn't invented by Kabam. They've been around in the game development industry for long enough it is entirely possible the guy who came up with this great idea has already died of old age. Kabam isn't coming up with new ways to screw with the players, Kabam is in fact decades late to the party.
In fact, it was *the players* who were demanding that Kabam do this kind of thing, way back when Sentry was released (if not earlier). The idea was that Kabam wouldn't revisit a champ until enough data had been collected for the long term performance of a new champ, and it was the players that said that was too long: new champs should be revisited relatively soon after release and tweaked if the data said it should be. The problem is tweaking works both ways: if the data says a buff is warranted then that will happen, but if a nerf is warranted then that will happen instead. Players cannot demand that the developers only buff. That request simply isn't taken seriously by any dev.
Balance changes starting in OCTOBER
These changes will be made BEFORE the Champs come to basic crystals.
Kabam set a standard, and immediately changed said standard.
End of story.
You are wrong. They are wrong.
People complaining about spending money on the Cav crystals - it's not like you're not told that Cull could be looked at.
Also it's not like he's the only guy you're getting from the Crystal - don't tell me you won't be happy pulling a Corvus or a Domino or a Ghost from the Cav Crystal as well.
Also if you'd R5 him over the past month or so - again - you knew a review was coming, it's on you to impulsively rank him up without waiting a bit.
Kabam isn't the to be blamed for everything you do in the game, c'mon now.
I'm starting to think you guys are literally the actual biggest villain hiding behind the scene of this game.
When you compare these two characters you can see a lot of people using torch way more (both offensively and defensively) in AW , AQ , you see a lot of content creators using him to tackle different parts of the game. On the other hand Ronin is my particulately well liked but you see him rarely making an appearance or being used in wars, quests , even in arenas. Even in YouTube and other social media it’s hard to find recent content with him (other than when he was released)
Also in this particular case I believe he is possessed by way less people than Torch, Cull or even Ebony since he wasn’t as hyped as the others.
Again, I would love for Ronin just to be nudged (maybe just a bit more bleed damage, or a bit more AAR ) but more than that , I ask for clarity in the decisions
Thank you
If you look at the situation without emotion you'll see the logic.
If Kabam would be "brave" enough to provide this to show us what they see .. and why they want to change to something ... then they'd find the player base MUCH more understanding and open about it ...
(assuming, of course, the data actual makes sense)
heh