Better Way to Release and Test Champs

RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Member Posts: 2,210 ★★★★★
in Suggestions and Requests
Since the balance update post, I've been thinking of a way Kabam could better release champs to get ahead of many of the issues we're now seeing.

This is not a thread to discuss the Cull/Maw changes, so please go to that thread if you want to talk about that.

I think I've come up with a pretty logical and possible solution, which would get people more involved in the game and excited about new champs. The biggest change would to delay crystal and arena dates for new champs for a month. I know that has some a bit sacred, but hear me out.

1 - Kabam creates a beta server for those in the CCP plus other high level players that experience with high level AW, AQ and Act 6. This server will have all available quests including Act 6 and LOL.

2 - Once a new update is out, those people will get the new champs in the beta. They'll already be in the EQ so there won't be any issues there. Those people will have a week to stream, make videos, discuss with the community uses, try out all the synergies, ect.

3 - After that week, the beta will close and Kabam will take all the info and tweak the champs over the next two weeks.

4 - The beta will open for one final week with the updated champs for those CCP people to review and discuss with the community.

5 - The champ arenas/crystals are then released in the next update.

$ - To adjust for the month of no new champ releases, add 5* Wolvy and SW arenas/crystals.
«1

Comments

  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    And what happens when the program misses something and an unbalanced champ gets through?
  • RaganatorRaganator Member Posts: 2,543 ★★★★★
    Kabam Miike said:

    I do like this idea, but the data collected from even the Top 300 players playing content for a week straight is nothing compared to the entire community playing content for an hour when it's released.

    I will pass this on though.

    I think the bottom line is that more testing needs to be done with champs before released and sold for large amounts of cash. Internal testing will never be sufficient. I won't say that champs are tested before release. But why not tap into the single greatest resource Kabam has - its community. No matter how many scenarios are tested internally by Kabam prior to release, the community has proven time and time again that they will image scenarios that Kabam likely did not. I don't know how many months in advance new champs are finalized before release, but moving that up a month and including the community is testing would avoid a lot of these problems.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Member Posts: 2,210 ★★★★★
    Also, endgame players might have different ideas of how and where to use a champ than those who are not at the endgame and can only theorize on what would be useful.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited September 2019
    This content has been removed.
  • RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Member Posts: 2,210 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I knew you'd be against that part. my point in just having endgame players in addition the the CCP players is that many people either who create the champs or are in the CCP are mid game players. It seems to be the endgame players who immediately think of a way to exploit a champ that some other might miss.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,573 ★★★★★
    RagamugginGunner said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I knew you'd be against that part. my point in just having endgame players in addition the the CCP players is that many people either who create the champs or are in the CCP are mid game players. It seems to be the endgame players who immediately think of a way to exploit a champ that some other might miss.
    I'm not saying End-Game shouldn't be used. I'm saying you need all ranges to gather significant feedback. The game is comprised of all ranges. If you want accurate data, you need to look at all areas. Unless you're designing for one demographic alone, changes affect all areas and are released to all demographics.
  • SantaGulkSantaGulk Member Posts: 72 ★
    Kabam Miike said:

    I do like this idea, but the data collected from even the Top 300 players playing content for a week straight is nothing compared to the entire community playing content for an hour when it's released.

    I will pass this on though.

    Then make the beta server scaled enough to involve more people.
  • Webby72Webby72 Member Posts: 255 ★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    RagamugginGunner said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I knew you'd be against that part. my point in just having endgame players in addition the the CCP players is that many people either who create the champs or are in the CCP are mid game players. It seems to be the endgame players who immediately think of a way to exploit a champ that some other might miss.
    I'm not saying End-Game shouldn't be used. I'm saying you need all ranges to gather significant feedback. The game is comprised of all ranges. If you want accurate data, you need to look at all areas. Unless you're designing for one demographic alone, changes affect all areas and are released to all demographics.
    As much as I do agree with the point you’ve made here, if a 3-5/6 star version is in the beta, the new champ can then be trialed in ALL areas of the game by endgame players, who are also more likely to understand the subtleties and nuances of a champion more than non-endgame players. That’s my view at least.
  • Incitatus666Incitatus666 Member Posts: 189 ★
    Kabam Miike said:

    I do like this idea, but the data collected from even the Top 300 players playing content for a week straight is nothing compared to the entire community playing content for an hour when it's released.

    I will pass this on though.

    But with the latter we are essentially being used as beta testers and many of us spend a lot of money to obtain a specific champion and we can no longer count on them staying the same way in the future. Obviously mistakes are made and a champ is released who is too OP or nearly useless; however, I believe this proposed method will greatly diminish this possible outcome. Additionally, it may significantly help the community out-lashes that result when reworking needs to be considered (i.e. the situation we find ourselves in now).
  • Lvernon15Lvernon15 Member Posts: 11,598 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I feel like the larger the samples the better, but if it’s a limited number there’s no denying that endgame players will (mostly) have a better grasp on their relative strength and are (probably) more likley to find bugs or show their potential under certain costly mastery setups
  • Incitatus666Incitatus666 Member Posts: 189 ★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I agree with you on this
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,573 ★★★★★
    Lvernon15 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I feel like the larger the samples the better, but if it’s a limited number there’s no denying that endgame players will (mostly) have a better grasp on their relative strength and are (probably) more likley to find bugs or show their potential under certain costly mastery setups
    You have everyone in the game from Day 1 to 6.3. You can't accurately represent how changes to Champions will affect all areas by using one perspective alone. Even Beta Testing with all demographics is just a small sample size of the macrocosm, but it's a more accurate one than just the Top Tier. I know you feel adamant about this, but the game doesn't center around the Top alone.
  • Incitatus666Incitatus666 Member Posts: 189 ★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lvernon15 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I feel like the larger the samples the better, but if it’s a limited number there’s no denying that endgame players will (mostly) have a better grasp on their relative strength and are (probably) more likley to find bugs or show their potential under certain costly mastery setups
    You have everyone in the game from Day 1 to 6.3. You can't accurately represent how changes to Champions will affect all areas by using one perspective alone. Even Beta Testing with all demographics is just a small sample size of the macrocosm, but it's a more accurate one than just the Top Tier. I know you feel adamant about this, but the game doesn't center around the Top alone.
    So what is your proposed method? Because what is going on now clearly is not working. Some spending thousands to buy a champ only to have him altered at a later date.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,573 ★★★★★
    Incitatus666 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lvernon15 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I feel like the larger the samples the better, but if it’s a limited number there’s no denying that endgame players will (mostly) have a better grasp on their relative strength and are (probably) more likley to find bugs or show their potential under certain costly mastery setups
    You have everyone in the game from Day 1 to 6.3. You can't accurately represent how changes to Champions will affect all areas by using one perspective alone. Even Beta Testing with all demographics is just a small sample size of the macrocosm, but it's a more accurate one than just the Top Tier. I know you feel adamant about this, but the game doesn't center around the Top alone.
    So what is your proposed method? Because what is going on now clearly is not working. Some spending thousands to buy a champ only to have him altered at a later date.
    Well, people will invest at their own will. I'm not sure there's any way to prevent the possibility of changes being made. It's always possible. More testing could minimize the possibility, but it's just a reality of a moving, changing game. Plus the fact that they've committed to reviewing Champs means it's a distinct possibility.
  • UfuomahUfuomah Member Posts: 37 ★
    I have a slightly different suggestion based off what kabam Mike said.
    Since you need a greater pool of players to really get the data you need then I would suggest kabam does 1 of the following
    1. Make a 2 or 3 star version of any upcoming new champ available to everyone so they can gather data off their use and gameplay.
    2. Run something similar to the content creators program but for a much wider pool of summoners to gain data.
    3. Gift every single summoner a new champ temporarily for a period of 2 to 3 days but make their use restricted so they can't be used on uncleared paths in events or on high tier quests.
    The purpose of all this is for kabam to get the data they need to quickly do whatever adjustments and changes are necessary
  • Incitatus666Incitatus666 Member Posts: 189 ★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Incitatus666 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lvernon15 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I feel like the larger the samples the better, but if it’s a limited number there’s no denying that endgame players will (mostly) have a better grasp on their relative strength and are (probably) more likley to find bugs or show their potential under certain costly mastery setups
    You have everyone in the game from Day 1 to 6.3. You can't accurately represent how changes to Champions will affect all areas by using one perspective alone. Even Beta Testing with all demographics is just a small sample size of the macrocosm, but it's a more accurate one than just the Top Tier. I know you feel adamant about this, but the game doesn't center around the Top alone.
    So what is your proposed method? Because what is going on now clearly is not working. Some spending thousands to buy a champ only to have him altered at a later date.
    Well, people will invest at their own will. I'm not sure there's any way to prevent the possibility of changes being made. It's always possible. More testing could minimize the possibility, but it's just a reality of a moving, changing game. Plus the fact that they've committed to reviewing Champs means it's a distinct possibility.
    The statement, "people invest at their own will" is not a sufficient one. When one purchases an exclusive crystal to receive and exclusive champion there is a commitment that Kabam ought to keep to; the product that these ppl are attempting to purchase is what has been advertised. The CCP are meant to advertise the champions and when they are released Kabam either notifies if things have been or will be change post CCP content, like in the case of Fury. This is not the same as a normal crystal, in order to be in possession of Cull right one needs to have either obtained him from the arena, or an exclusive featured crystal. One may be able to grind without spending cash (however very difficult in the modern meta, granted) but with crystals (excluding featured), 98% of the people who received him spent at least some money, probably closer to the hundreds of dollars range (I wont do the math out, but those numbers are correct given drop rates and what not).

    This means that a significant portion of the community who are in possession of a Cull have spent at least money into him and exclusively to obtain him. The company knows this, we all know this, when his featured crystal was released it was releasing a different champion then he will be in the future. That means those people who received him through those monetary methods deserve to keep the product they purchased. This is no different then buying a new car or some other tangible product. With regular crystals there is no increased drop rate for specific champion and while people hope to "target" one when they open normal crystals it is obviously not the same as a featured.
  • Incitatus666Incitatus666 Member Posts: 189 ★
    Raganator said:

    Please please please do not engage GW in this thread so that it remains productive.

    I am sorry, I usually refrain from getting into heated arguments, however, i believe what I wrote was productive and I want the mods to see it.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,573 ★★★★★
    Raganator said:

    Please please please do not engage GW in this thread so that it remains productive.

    Comments like this are not productive. Otherwise we're discussing the subject in a civilized manner.
    Incitatus666 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Incitatus666 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lvernon15 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I feel like the larger the samples the better, but if it’s a limited number there’s no denying that endgame players will (mostly) have a better grasp on their relative strength and are (probably) more likley to find bugs or show their potential under certain costly mastery setups
    You have everyone in the game from Day 1 to 6.3. You can't accurately represent how changes to Champions will affect all areas by using one perspective alone. Even Beta Testing with all demographics is just a small sample size of the macrocosm, but it's a more accurate one than just the Top Tier. I know you feel adamant about this, but the game doesn't center around the Top alone.
    So what is your proposed method? Because what is going on now clearly is not working. Some spending thousands to buy a champ only to have him altered at a later date.
    Well, people will invest at their own will. I'm not sure there's any way to prevent the possibility of changes being made. It's always possible. More testing could minimize the possibility, but it's just a reality of a moving, changing game. Plus the fact that they've committed to reviewing Champs means it's a distinct possibility.
    The statement, "people invest at their own will" is not a sufficient one. When one purchases an exclusive crystal to receive and exclusive champion there is a commitment that Kabam ought to keep to; the product that these ppl are attempting to purchase is what has been advertised. The CCP are meant to advertise the champions and when they are released Kabam either notifies if things have been or will be change post CCP content, like in the case of Fury. This is not the same as a normal crystal, in order to be in possession of Cull right one needs to have either obtained him from the arena, or an exclusive featured crystal. One may be able to grind without spending cash (however very difficult in the modern meta, granted) but with crystals (excluding featured), 98% of the people who received him spent at least some money, probably closer to the hundreds of dollars range (I wont do the math out, but those numbers are correct given drop rates and what not).

    This means that a significant portion of the community who are in possession of a Cull have spent at least money into him and exclusively to obtain him. The company knows this, we all know this, when his featured crystal was released it was releasing a different champion then he will be in the future. That means those people who received him through those monetary methods deserve to keep the product they purchased. This is no different then buying a new car or some other tangible product. With regular crystals there is no increased drop rate for specific champion and while people hope to "target" one when they open normal crystals it is obviously not the same as a featured.
    The comment that people invest at will means it's up to them if they choose to spend on something or not. Doing so means being aware of what they're spending on, and the conditions therein. Which are in the TOS. Getting what you spent on can't come at the cost of the overall health of the game.
    I sympathize. I do. I understand what you're saying. However, people also spent after 2 fixes, so they were aware things can change. Ultimately, if they need to change or fix something for the overall well-being of the game, they will do so.
  • RaganatorRaganator Member Posts: 2,543 ★★★★★
    edited September 2019
    Incitatus666 said:

    Raganator said:

    Please please please do not engage GW in this thread so that it remains productive.

    I am sorry, I usually refrain from getting into heated arguments, however, i believe what I wrote was productive and I want the mods to see it.
    I completely agree with the substance of your post. No apology needed. I just don't want to see yet another productive post get derailed. I think this thread could be a very valuable place for the community to share with Kabam ideas about improving the release of champs.
  • Incitatus666Incitatus666 Member Posts: 189 ★
    edited September 2019
    .
  • Incitatus666Incitatus666 Member Posts: 189 ★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Raganator said:

    Please please please do not engage GW in this thread so that it remains productive.

    Comments like this are not productive. Otherwise we're discussing the subject in a civilized manner.
    Incitatus666 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Incitatus666 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lvernon15 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I feel like the larger the samples the better, but if it’s a limited number there’s no denying that endgame players will (mostly) have a better grasp on their relative strength and are (probably) more likley to find bugs or show their potential under certain costly mastery setups
    You have everyone in the game from Day 1 to 6.3. You can't accurately represent how changes to Champions will affect all areas by using one perspective alone. Even Beta Testing with all demographics is just a small sample size of the macrocosm, but it's a more accurate one than just the Top Tier. I know you feel adamant about this, but the game doesn't center around the Top alone.
    So what is your proposed method? Because what is going on now clearly is not working. Some spending thousands to buy a champ only to have him altered at a later date.
    Well, people will invest at their own will. I'm not sure there's any way to prevent the possibility of changes being made. It's always possible. More testing could minimize the possibility, but it's just a reality of a moving, changing game. Plus the fact that they've committed to reviewing Champs means it's a distinct possibility.
    The statement, "people invest at their own will" is not a sufficient one. When one purchases an exclusive crystal to receive and exclusive champion there is a commitment that Kabam ought to keep to; the product that these ppl are attempting to purchase is what has been advertised. The CCP are meant to advertise the champions and when they are released Kabam either notifies if things have been or will be change post CCP content, like in the case of Fury. This is not the same as a normal crystal, in order to be in possession of Cull right one needs to have either obtained him from the arena, or an exclusive featured crystal. One may be able to grind without spending cash (however very difficult in the modern meta, granted) but with crystals (excluding featured), 98% of the people who received him spent at least some money, probably closer to the hundreds of dollars range (I wont do the math out, but those numbers are correct given drop rates and what not).

    This means that a significant portion of the community who are in possession of a Cull have spent at least money into him and exclusively to obtain him. The company knows this, we all know this, when his featured crystal was released it was releasing a different champion then he will be in the future. That means those people who received him through those monetary methods deserve to keep the product they purchased. This is no different then buying a new car or some other tangible product. With regular crystals there is no increased drop rate for specific champion and while people hope to "target" one when they open normal crystals it is obviously not the same as a featured.
    The comment that people invest at will means it's up to them if they choose to spend on something or not. Doing so means being aware of what they're spending on, and the conditions therein. Which are in the TOS. Getting what you spent on can't come at the cost of the overall health of the game.
    I sympathize. I do. I understand what you're saying. However, people also spent after 2 fixes, so they were aware things can change. Ultimately, if they need to change or fix something for the overall well-being of the game, they will do so.
    It is up to the people to spend or not but the company needs to realize that they are spending because of the specific product being offered. That being said, I think it is crucial to balance the game when needed, I will not go into specifics about this Cull case, that is beyond the scope of this current discussion. However, what I will say is that if changes are being made the company needs to address the vast majority of the community who own this champion by spending money and sufficiently compensating them and in this RDT are by no means out of the question and possibly even more because resources can be expensive. I don't think that using the community as beta testers is responsible and if this is the way things will be handled I can come aboard as long as they address it by making it clear to everyone we are are beta testers for the first 3 months and reassuring that people who purchase a new character will be appropriately repaid (like a return policy) if that champion is altered. I believe that is more than fair
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,573 ★★★★★
    Incitatus666 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Raganator said:

    Please please please do not engage GW in this thread so that it remains productive.

    Comments like this are not productive. Otherwise we're discussing the subject in a civilized manner.
    Incitatus666 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Incitatus666 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lvernon15 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I'm not opposed to your suggestion particularly, however I don't agree with the sample size being only the highest level. That's not a representation of all areas of the game.

    I feel like the larger the samples the better, but if it’s a limited number there’s no denying that endgame players will (mostly) have a better grasp on their relative strength and are (probably) more likley to find bugs or show their potential under certain costly mastery setups
    You have everyone in the game from Day 1 to 6.3. You can't accurately represent how changes to Champions will affect all areas by using one perspective alone. Even Beta Testing with all demographics is just a small sample size of the macrocosm, but it's a more accurate one than just the Top Tier. I know you feel adamant about this, but the game doesn't center around the Top alone.
    So what is your proposed method? Because what is going on now clearly is not working. Some spending thousands to buy a champ only to have him altered at a later date.
    Well, people will invest at their own will. I'm not sure there's any way to prevent the possibility of changes being made. It's always possible. More testing could minimize the possibility, but it's just a reality of a moving, changing game. Plus the fact that they've committed to reviewing Champs means it's a distinct possibility.
    The statement, "people invest at their own will" is not a sufficient one. When one purchases an exclusive crystal to receive and exclusive champion there is a commitment that Kabam ought to keep to; the product that these ppl are attempting to purchase is what has been advertised. The CCP are meant to advertise the champions and when they are released Kabam either notifies if things have been or will be change post CCP content, like in the case of Fury. This is not the same as a normal crystal, in order to be in possession of Cull right one needs to have either obtained him from the arena, or an exclusive featured crystal. One may be able to grind without spending cash (however very difficult in the modern meta, granted) but with crystals (excluding featured), 98% of the people who received him spent at least some money, probably closer to the hundreds of dollars range (I wont do the math out, but those numbers are correct given drop rates and what not).

    This means that a significant portion of the community who are in possession of a Cull have spent at least money into him and exclusively to obtain him. The company knows this, we all know this, when his featured crystal was released it was releasing a different champion then he will be in the future. That means those people who received him through those monetary methods deserve to keep the product they purchased. This is no different then buying a new car or some other tangible product. With regular crystals there is no increased drop rate for specific champion and while people hope to "target" one when they open normal crystals it is obviously not the same as a featured.
    The comment that people invest at will means it's up to them if they choose to spend on something or not. Doing so means being aware of what they're spending on, and the conditions therein. Which are in the TOS. Getting what you spent on can't come at the cost of the overall health of the game.
    I sympathize. I do. I understand what you're saying. However, people also spent after 2 fixes, so they were aware things can change. Ultimately, if they need to change or fix something for the overall well-being of the game, they will do so.
    It is up to the people to spend or not but the company needs to realize that they are spending because of the specific product being offered. That being said, I think it is crucial to balance the game when needed, I will not go into specifics about this Cull case, that is beyond the scope of this current discussion. However, what I will say is that if changes are being made the company needs to address the vast majority of the community who own this champion by spending money and sufficiently compensating them and in this RDT are by no means out of the question and possibly even more because resources can be expensive. I don't think that using the community as beta testers is responsible and if this is the way things will be handled I can come aboard as long as they address it by making it clear to everyone we are are beta testers for the first 3 months and reassuring that people who purchase a new character will be appropriately repaid (like a return policy) if that champion is altered. I believe that is more than fair
    If that's how you feel, I won't debate your opinion. I don't agree with Tickets for many reasons, and the last round opened up a Pandora's Box, but I'll let it go for this Thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.