I guess Kabam cant face the logic that they should be playtesting these champs extensively before releasing them to the public. I dont understand how they can release a champ that vastly outdamages other champs in a way that they need to reduce his effectiveness. How is that not picked up in development?
So when a champ gets released, and someone spends $100 or $200 on your Crystal's because the damage seems great, and then you reduce his damage so he is on par with the other champs 3 months later, that somehow seems fair? "Oh, but we gave you your rank up materials back with a rank down ticket," doesnt cut it at that point if people spent actual cash to try to pull them out of a crystal. Even if they didnt get the champ and blew $100, the probably wouldnt have spent the $ to begin with had they known 3 months later you were going to whack it with a nerf bat.
Until you can get your act together and release balanced champs at the start and not have to do these nerfs 3 months later, then there should be absolutely no featured champion crystals available for sale. Funny how all of this comes out AFTER Kabam implements a way to make sure you cannot request a refund from Apple or Google without having consequences in game.
Doesn’t matter. They advertised a product. People bought it for months. They devalue that product right after all the avenues to spend are completed. They need to issue compensation. Cut and dry. His damage is too much? Don’t agree given his downfalls. But fine... compensation needs to be issued though. I didn’t even think she hulk tickets were needed!
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?
I think you're mistaking rebalances with Shulk. That was a very specific bug which was brought to light by a very specific piece of content being "cheesed". Not the same, really. Looking at the data in this case means looking at the numbers, not what content is being cleared. It's not about who used him in End-Game. Had it been something that jeopardized the level of content, it would have been looked at sooner. In this case, you have two Champs, one showing they underperform in the data, the other showing they overly perform. The two extremes highlight each other, and the goal isn't to neutralize all Champs. Only rebalance any noticeable extremities. Thus far, they're proposing exactly what they said they would. They're doing it retroactively in this case because of the overwhelming response about Maw. However, they can't do one and overlook the other. The data isn't just in 6.2, or LoL. It's not just about preventing people from breezing hard content. It's about balance for the health and longevity of the game, and being proactive in stopping issues down the road.
If they aren’t using end-game content in this collection, I would ask then what data points could be they using to make that call on Obsidian that a QA/QC team could have figured out on their own?
I'm saying they're not looking at End-Game exclusively. They're looking at data overall. Champs perform in more than one area in the game.
I am aware of that. In the grand scheme of it all, the comment to be made to kabam would be “show us the data!” Even though there is no way they will.
Is this even legal. This must fit the literal legal definition of a bait and switch scam one way or another. As a long time player and having spent around $1k hard cash on obtaining Cull since he became available and around $30k in total of this game if this is how decisions are made then I'm for real quitting. I wanted to love this game and it was literally my past time in the last 2 years but treating customers this way is just disgusting. I would also want to see your empirical data on Cull vs every other high damage champion you weighted against how the decision and scoring matrix concluded it should be Cull and not the likes of Corvus or Ghost. I also wonder if we can petition a complaint to Marvel to suspend their license to use Marvel based on unethical business practices and damaging of brand identity
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?
I think you're mistaking rebalances with Shulk. That was a very specific bug which was brought to light by a very specific piece of content being "cheesed". Not the same, really. Looking at the data in this case means looking at the numbers, not what content is being cleared. It's not about who used him in End-Game. Had it been something that jeopardized the level of content, it would have been looked at sooner. In this case, you have two Champs, one showing they underperform in the data, the other showing they overly perform. The two extremes highlight each other, and the goal isn't to neutralize all Champs. Only rebalance any noticeable extremities. Thus far, they're proposing exactly what they said they would. They're doing it retroactively in this case because of the overwhelming response about Maw. However, they can't do one and overlook the other. The data isn't just in 6.2, or LoL. It's not just about preventing people from breezing hard content. It's about balance for the health and longevity of the game, and being proactive in stopping issues down the road.
If they aren’t using end-game content in this collection, I would ask then what data points could be they using to make that call on Obsidian that a QA/QC team could have figured out on their own?
I'm saying they're not looking at End-Game exclusively. They're looking at data overall. Champs perform in more than one area in the game.
I am aware of that. In the grand scheme of it all, the comment to be made to kabam would be “show us the data!” Even though there is no way they will.
Calling them out to provide the data isn't going to do much, no. If you're asking if I believe they're just lying about it, I'd say I don't believe that. Not just on blind faith. There's no reason to believe that. Furthermore, the evidence suggests if they were looking at Maw, they were looking at other data. I think what we have is a case of people denying it's true because they don't agree it should be changed.
Please change ghost , corvus and domino damage they are doing more damage
Evidently not according to the data. Also, it stands to mention, what happens in the near future when people can R3 those 6* Culls?
Tell me who is going to even consider ranking him up this high?After this nerf corvus is overall better option by any means and people will rather wait to get corvus than rank cull.
Is this even legal. This must fit the literal legal definition of a bait and switch scam one way or another. As a long time player and having spent around $1k hard cash on obtaining Cull since he became available and around $30k in total of this game if this is how decisions are made then I'm for real quitting. I wanted to love this game and it was literally my past time in the last 2 years but treating customers this way is just disgusting. I would also want to see your empirical data on Cull vs every other high damage champion you weighted against how the decision and scoring matrix concluded it should be Cull and not the likes of Corvus or Ghost. I also wonder if we can petition a complaint to Marvel to suspend their license to use Marvel based on unethical business practices and damaging of brand identity
The practice of having months of arenas, cavaliers, and featured 5* 6* and then nerfing that champ after is despicable... regardless of how big or small.
Imagine waiting almost half a year to do these adjustments after people spended/grinder for their life for all that to be thrown away if this isn't greedy I Dont know what is and no of this would happen if Kabam just...TESTED THEIR FRICKING CHAMPS
Did anyone even know who Cull Obsidian was before Infinity War was released? The answer is no because his name in the comics was Black Dwarf. But for some reason he has a whole bunch of die hard fanatics who absolutely love him in this game. Hmmmm?
This is extremely disappointing. Coming from someone who spent money and resources to acquire and rank 5 cull obsidian, not even rank down tickets are enough if you’re going to nerf cull even in the slightest. Countless people have spent a big amount of money to pull this champ and now a few months later you want to nerf the champ we all spent money/units on? This is unacceptable. Do you guys even test champs before you release them? Are you going to refund everyone’s money that was wasted on this champ??
Comments
So when a champ gets released, and someone spends $100 or $200 on your Crystal's because the damage seems great, and then you reduce his damage so he is on par with the other champs 3 months later, that somehow seems fair? "Oh, but we gave you your rank up materials back with a rank down ticket," doesnt cut it at that point if people spent actual cash to try to pull them out of a crystal. Even if they didnt get the champ and blew $100, the probably wouldnt have spent the $ to begin with had they known 3 months later you were going to whack it with a nerf bat.
Until you can get your act together and release balanced champs at the start and not have to do these nerfs 3 months later, then there should be absolutely no featured champion crystals available for sale. Funny how all of this comes out AFTER Kabam implements a way to make sure you cannot request a refund from Apple or Google without having consequences in game.
Also, it stands to mention, what happens in the near future when people can R3 those 6* Culls?
🐻
🐻
🐻
🐻
You have essentially told us not to buy your featured crystals
Now I know not to EVER spend on any new featured champion crystals.