The game experienced a brief connectivity issue this morning. The team promptly fixed the issue and things are back to normal, thank you to everyone who passed along reports!
Upcoming Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw Balance Changes
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
2- Instead of rushing 2 champions a month why don't you guys try to take the time and think the champs thoroughly, test them fully and than release them
3- If you can make the changes about the champs whenever you want and however you want why can't the players have the option of ranking down or up the champs whichever they want. It should be free of charge and readily available
( Kabam Mike said not too long ago that players make the decision about which champs that they will rank up and use their resources very carefully. So basically when you rank up than deal with the consequences. If that is the case than once Kabam releases a champ whether it is overpowered or underpowered than they should suck it up and deal with it as well. And it is only fair)
4- With this mentality I believe from now on none of the champ is safe. Anything can happen to any champ. So why bother to rank up and invest
5- We were enjoying the game before you guys take over. Why did you do that?
6- If this is how you guys will operate from now on than why am I playing this game?
🐻
#justiceforronin
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.
🐻
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.