**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Upcoming Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw Balance Changes
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
They don't make any more money by doing this, but it's the right thing to do.
In principle, the goal of balancing champions is one I think the vast majority of the player base supports. In practice, I’m not sure how genuine Kabam is around this. My last 2 5* pulls are a duped Groot and SIM. Why is it more pressing to downgrade Cull than buff these and the plethora of older champs widely regarded as trash?
The answer probably has something to do with bottom line considerations. That’s fine. At the end of the day though, a happy player base is probably good for the bottom line and I think Kabam is making unforced errors that are alienating a lot of players. I’d suggest they focus more on fixing the old trashy champs, and taking more care in testing before release. I think the developers got too cute with a lot of the newer champs given how complicated they are relative to older champs...hard to keep straight all the synergies and various interactions. Maybe they need to simplify a bit?
Pretty good regen, very good power gain, stun, armour break, incinerate, regen reversal with sp1, doesnt need any ramp up, furys, poison immunity,high burst damage right out the gate
Cull has
High dmg, evade/auto block counter, low block prof, long and boring ramp up time parry projectiles stun and armour break and heal reversal
So really who is better... *cough hyperion cough*
However, I do not think that changing champs that are within their expectations is a smart move. Players have bought crystals to acquire this champ and have ranked him up. I believe that it is unfair to“rebalance” a champ that people wanted because of how he was advertised. If changes were to be made, it should have been done during the first few days that the champ was released. In addition, people have spent rank up materials based on the capabilities of this champ. It is arguable that this champ out-damages other high hitting champs after being ramped up, but completing his missions is not as easy as it sounds. Was this factored in? By the time he’s reached his full potential, you’d have to have spent some items to keep him at tip top shape to fight and by this time the player is probably on the boss fight. Obviously, it depends on the skill set of the player but why choose him to complete a quest when you have other champs that may not require the use of items to complete a quest? I am not limiting this argument to cull alone. I’m just making a point that other champs will receive this type of treatment, well after people spent money/time acquiring them.
If a champ is to be rebalanced, it should be because of a bug or technical issues not intended from the start. Modifying a champ that is working as advertised is absurd. Yes, we haven’t seen or heard how the “rebalancing treatment” will affect cull, but I’m worried about future champs that will get the same changes after the fact.
I did not spend any money obtaining cull. I’m only advocating for the players that did.
Overall, the concept of rebalancing champs is necessary to prevent the game from becoming stale. Hopefully, the team does reconsider the factors that are involved in each champ and gain a new perspective when “nerfing” champs that is functioning as intended. Also, it is appreciated by most that these types of changes are communicated and not done behind the scenes.
But that's besides the point. As you say, a player could argue that the term or even the entire agreement is unenforceable. That makes it void. And my example follows your line of reasoning: by declaring the contract void, the player has no right to play the game anymore. The player cannot argue that the terms of service allow him or her to play the game, but its terms are not enforceable on them. Either they accept the TOS and accept the terms, or they walk away from the TOS and it no longer applies to them, but they also don't have the right to access the game.
I agree suing is not the best avenue. I'm simply stating it is also ineffective, and the correct conversation should be on what's reasonable, not what's legal. The moment a player attempts to use the nuclear option, they are going to find they aren't actually the ones in possession of any of the nuclear weapons. All it does is give people the illusion they have leverage they don't actually have.
We could be spending the time asking for more details about the nature of the issue with Cull, or discussing alternatives that the devs could consider. In the current climate, I'm not sure it would do anything, but there's always the next one, and the next one. There will be others. If the only thing that happens is a bunch of accusations and threats, all we're doing is shutting ourselves completely out of the loop. The developers currently working on Cull don't have to listen to us, and almost certainly aren't reading this thread. They might be persuaded to listen to interesting ideas they could actually use, if the discussion went that way. But I honestly think people enjoy complaining more than trying to improve things.
To be frank, I think I would get better results if I wrote my thoughts on a postcard and sent it to Kabam's offices, than I would posting in the thread. It shouldn't be that way. The best place to focus feedback should be the forums, not the worst place.