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

1…3940424445…67

Comments

  • Justin2524Justin2524 Member Posts: 1,626 ★★★★
    DrZola said:

    Japam12345 said:

    DrZola said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Harry_hzy said:

    the 2,3 people like Lormif stop fighting for kabam, maybe you work for kabam, I don’t know. Your guys may still don’t understand why we are upset and disappointed? It is not about one champion nerf, or how to test or the data thing. It is about kabam is trying so hard to screw themselves and destroy this game. Players like me, why we disagree this idea? Because we like this game, we don’t want to see players abandon this game because kabam’s stupid decision. This decision is ridiculers, the one in kabam who made this decision is 100% no business sense. They are trying to make players know all the money we spend is for nothing. Players paid money for THAT CHAMPION KABAM SHOW TO US. Show some respect to the players, listen what we think and what we want.

    Just the opposite actually. They're not trying to destroy it. They're keeping it going. We do understand why people are upset. No one to the best of my knowledge has made the argument that people shouldn't feel a certain way. While I can't speak for anyone else, my point is there are things which are necessary for the health of the game. Those must be resolved. For that matter, there's no guarantee that a Champion will be the same as when you acquire them for the duration of the game, ever. In fact, they make the very clear stipulation that they have the right to modify their product whenever necessary.
    I keep hearing this phrase: “health of the game.”

    What exactly does that mean?

    I ask because I believe a rapid hype-to-nerf cycle is far more detrimental to the game than anything Cull Obsidian could ever do.

    Dr. Zola
    Kabam had already covered this.

    Having more and more OP champs meant the game maker has to come up with harder and harder content to catch up.

    The problem with that is people who don't spend enough to get Cull (or newer OP champs) means they're falling further and further behind.

    That's not good for the "health of the game".

    That's not a "balanced" game.

    That's a lopsided game.
    And who produces and sells these “more and more OP champs,” exactly?

    Dr. Zola
    That's exactly the point. You can't know EXACTLY how good the champ would be before for they're released.

    I'm sure they thought Maw was going to be a decent champ, but turned out he was not. His damage over time was supposed to be awesome but it was not.

    The Cull-Maw example clearly shows that re-tweaking system they're about to implement is a good thing.
  • DshuDshu Member Posts: 1,516 ★★★★
    edited September 2019
    Nabz034 said:

    @Kabam Miike

    I have a question...both the 5* and 6* Crystals contain champs like Ant man and Cyclops (both) who have literally three lines of data for there abilities. You guys are selling them as 5* and 6* champs for A while now.

    Shouldn’t the focus be on fixing this champs first before selling us new ones that apparently are broken?

    No one is buying crystals for these champs. Most players already have these champs as well so there is no monetary reward for improving them since they wont sell additional crystals at 300 units a shot. As a business it makes no sense to focus on these champs. On the flip side reducing the value of a champ they have already milked the profits from will encourage spending to get a better newer champ. Since there has been no mention of any change to cull other than reducing his attack we are left to assume that will be the only balance change there but of course a mod could jump in at any time and correct this misconception. This has also left players feeling none of the champs that they are purchasing feature crystals will be safe from a reduction in usefulness after the company has milked the crystals for all they can. Again a mod could feel free to correct this misconception at any time by giving some insight into what these balance changes might entail or they can leave us believing that the only balance they are looking for is in their profits.
    On a side note I'm not calling for or supporting a boycott. I just say let the buyer beware you may be very dissatisfied in 3 months when your shiny new champs get a rework and become arena fodder
  • Midknight007Midknight007 Member Posts: 770 ★★★
    XxLoganTDCxX said:

    Hey Kabam, look at the amount of disagree's you are getting on the original post and any post made by a mod in this thread.
    This is ridiculous. More people disagree then agree. Only FIVE people agree!

    Those are people that most likely agreed with the Ebony Maw rework and didn't read the rest. If the post was just on Ebony Maw, Kabam would have so many "Awesome" votes that they would have looked like company of the century. lol
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,726 ★★★★★
    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I mean we can argue ad nauseam that he isn't really that strong, but they obviously have the numbers to prove it, and we know many people Ranked him for the very same reasons, so all evidence points to the data being accurate.

    See this is the big fallacy at your end ..
    massive assumption that "the data must be accurate" .. even though you haven't seen it.

    I believe it's a very fair (and simple/straight forward) request to see the data ..

    The only thing we really need is something like:
    (and yes, I'm making these up to illustrate exactly what it is I (personally) am referring to when I ask to see "the data" ):

    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
    Masteries (for baseline, I guess, whatever)
    vs
    Maestro (act 4, final boss .. whatever his stats are).
    (are they conditional nodes? I forget .. if so, specify which ones are active).

    Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) (I know, #'s are fake .. I'm demonstrating a template here, not actual data).
    Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

    With 5 stacks of Armor break:
    Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
    Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).

    ... something like that ... in that format ... is what would be useful for us all to see "WOW, that's broken!!".
    or "oh, that's not too bad, here, let me show #'s for xxx champ in similar situation" ..

    or .. whatever ..

    as usual ... (both sides) are speculating grandly with no real facts/evidence to support their "theories" ..

    so let's start with you .. if you are so sure: "so all evidence points to the data being accurate" please, setup an example above, and demonstrate the numbers?

    Please. I'm asking politely, respectly ... in an attempt to understand the numbers.

    thank you.

    and before somebody comes on and challenges me to provide data .. It's not my responsibility to show data for somebody ELSE making a claim.

    Kabam made a claim .. please provide data to support. Thank you.
    GW (and others) have backed up and supported above claim, acclaiming to it's accuracy. Please provide data to support. Thank you.

    I will provide data once I have a baseline to compare to .. once I see the data we're talking about Cull .. then (and only then) can we (the ones in disagreement) go setup a similar test case to demonstrate the opposite.

    simple enough, even a "logician" could figure that one out ;)
    GroundedWisdom said:


    Transparency is about building trust. They've been transparent.

    Not entirely .. not without presenting the data as I described above, no, they are not being completely transparent.
    Yes, they gave fair heads up that he will change .. Thank you .. that's a great start .. however, it's mostly meaningless without the data to support it.
    GroundedWisdom said:


    If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.

    false assumption, as there is yet any evidence to support the "theory" .. (I'm calling it a theory from now on, until actual "proof" shows up to support it .. that seems fair :) )

    You're calling Kabam out on their own data. Good luck with that. Lol.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,726 ★★★★★
    CFree said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I mean we can argue ad nauseam that he isn't really that strong, but they obviously have the numbers to prove it, and we know many people Ranked him for the very same reasons, so all evidence points to the data being accurate.

    See this is the big fallacy at your end ..
    massive assumption that "the data must be accurate" .. even though you haven't seen it.

    I believe it's a very fair (and simple/straight forward) request to see the data ..

    The only thing we really need is something like:
    (and yes, I'm making these up to illustrate exactly what it is I (personally) am referring to when I ask to see "the data" ):

    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
    Masteries (for baseline, I guess, whatever)
    vs
    Maestro (act 4, final boss .. whatever his stats are).
    (are they conditional nodes? I forget .. if so, specify which ones are active).

    Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) (I know, #'s are fake .. I'm demonstrating a template here, not actual data).
    Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

    With 5 stacks of Armor break:
    Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
    Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).

    ... something like that ... in that format ... is what would be useful for us all to see "WOW, that's broken!!".
    or "oh, that's not too bad, here, let me show #'s for xxx champ in similar situation" ..

    or .. whatever ..

    as usual ... (both sides) are speculating grandly with no real facts/evidence to support their "theories" ..

    so let's start with you .. if you are so sure: "so all evidence points to the data being accurate" please, setup an example above, and demonstrate the numbers?

    Please. I'm asking politely, respectly ... in an attempt to understand the numbers.

    thank you.

    and before somebody comes on and challenges me to provide data .. It's not my responsibility to show data for somebody ELSE making a claim.

    Kabam made a claim .. please provide data to support. Thank you.
    GW (and others) have backed up and supported above claim, acclaiming to it's accuracy. Please provide data to support. Thank you.

    I will provide data once I have a baseline to compare to .. once I see the data we're talking about Cull .. then (and only then) can we (the ones in disagreement) go setup a similar test case to demonstrate the opposite.

    simple enough, even a "logician" could figure that one out ;)
    GroundedWisdom said:


    Transparency is about building trust. They've been transparent.

    Not entirely .. not without presenting the data as I described above, no, they are not being completely transparent.
    Yes, they gave fair heads up that he will change .. Thank you .. that's a great start .. however, it's mostly meaningless without the data to support it.
    GroundedWisdom said:


    If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.

    false assumption, as there is yet any evidence to support the "theory" .. (I'm calling it a theory from now on, until actual "proof" shows up to support it .. that seems fair :) )

    You're calling Kabam out on their own data. Good luck with that. Lol.
    He’s also calling you out on your fallacious argument.
    My fallacious argument? No. I'm going on the information provided. As far as this Forum is concerned, their comments are about as close to fact as we can get. We won't be seeing their internal metrics anytime soon. They may or may not post a list of what aspects they looked at and how he scored, but I doubt it. Even that wouldn't suffice for people. They'd just argue they weren't looking at the right things. Anything I've said thus far has been logical and educated based on the facts provided here. By all means, you're free to claim hanging chads.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,726 ★★★★★
    You're either asking to see the code, or asking to see the process they came to their decision. Neither of which are things any of us have the right to demand. You're operating out of a Logical Fallacy. The entire basis for your argument is there is no proof. You're free to do so but as far as we're concerned, the proof is in what they say.
  • Lou_FerrignoLou_Ferrigno Member Posts: 14 ★
    As someone who “whaled out” to pull cull as a 6* not once but twice and was extremely happy to take him to r2, I waited patiently while he was broken then fixed/broken again, then finally fixed. I believe this is total bs to change him after he was performing “as intended”. He shouldn’t even be being looked at since he was out before the announcement and even in the basic pool. All kabam has done with this rebalancing junk is make me keep my wallet in my pocket and for that I thank you. Never again will I gamble on a fgmc for a champ to use for 6 months and then move to the basement of my roster.
  • dot_dittodot_ditto Member Posts: 1,442 ★★★★
    For crystal clarity, I'll re-post this in a post by itself .. if anyone has suggestions on a better template, etc, or whatever, I'm all ears :) (or eyes, I guess . hehe)

    Suggested Data Template for demonstration purposes:
    *Disclaimer: as this is only a suggested template, the numbers are fake, not real.
    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
Masteries (for baseline, etc.)
vs
Maestro (act 4, final boss .. ).
(clarify/list any nodes/conditional nodes, etc.).

Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) 
Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

With 5 stacks of Armor break:
Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).
    The above is a crystal clear example of the simple data we would like shown by Kabam (or whoever agress that Cull dmg is too high), clearly demonstrating the numbers so we can discuss.

    Thank you!
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,726 ★★★★★
    Exactly how much of that Template do you expect them to release? That could be a tremendous amount of information. Furthermore, what's the end goal of that?
  • dot_dittodot_ditto Member Posts: 1,442 ★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Exactly how much of that Template do you expect them to release? That could be a tremendous amount of information. Furthermore, what's the end goal of that?

    All of it .. there's nothing special about any of that data .. it gives a sample fight .. and demonstrates the dmg output for that fight.

    This provides a baseline to be used in comparison with other champions.

    Please use the template, and fill out data showing Cull's dmg output.

    thank you
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,726 ★★★★★
    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Exactly how much of that Template do you expect them to release? That could be a tremendous amount of information. Furthermore, what's the end goal of that?

    All of it .. there's nothing special about any of that data .. it gives a sample fight .. and demonstrates the dmg output for that fight.

    This provides a baseline to be used in comparison with other champions.

    Please use the template, and fill out data showing Cull's dmg output.

    thank you
    So you're asking them, or you're asking me? I'm not taking the time. If they say there's an issue, that suffices for me. It's their product. If you're asking them to release data on all Fights using your Template, I don't see that happening. You don't even know the comparisons they're making for that matter. I mean you can call their data out until the cows come home, but they will make their decisions based on what they think is best regardless. That may (and often does) include feedback. Not always. What it always includes is internal research.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    And.. .my previous comment got deleted. Let me put this in a nicer way, I would like to say that I believe this change to Cull with effect Kabam's bottom line in a negative way and therefore we will see changes due to it.

    I just want to have my opinion on record before it actually happens. I went into much more detail earlier but I guess I was too harsh.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,726 ★★★★★
    You've made your own Template up, requesting data from Kabam, then myself, and because neither will give you what you're asking for, that's the basis for your argument. Fallacy.
    You're calling them out, you're calling me out, everyone but your own theories. So far, all you've done is demand data and try to poke holes in facts with the absence of proof. The only thing is, you know very well the proof you're asking for is not coming. I don't have access to their data. You know this. They're unlikely to post it. You know this. Interesting that you're right by default like that huh?
    If you think that sordid outlook makes me a Troll, or it's the first time someone has taken that approach, you're not as correct as you think.

    If they say the data supports it, then I believe that. You're free to believe what you like. My experience is they don't really respond to being called out on THEIR facts, but best of luck with that approach.
  • CFreeCFree Member Posts: 491 ★★
    edited September 2019
    GroundedWisdom said:

    CFree said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I mean we can argue ad nauseam that he isn't really that strong, but they obviously have the numbers to prove it, and we know many people Ranked him for the very same reasons, so all evidence points to the data being accurate.

    See this is the big fallacy at your end ..
    massive assumption that "the data must be accurate" .. even though you haven't seen it.

    I believe it's a very fair (and simple/straight forward) request to see the data ..

    The only thing we really need is something like:
    (and yes, I'm making these up to illustrate exactly what it is I (personally) am referring to when I ask to see "the data" ):

    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
    Masteries (for baseline, I guess, whatever)
    vs
    Maestro (act 4, final boss .. whatever his stats are).
    (are they conditional nodes? I forget .. if so, specify which ones are active).

    Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) (I know, #'s are fake .. I'm demonstrating a template here, not actual data).
    Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

    With 5 stacks of Armor break:
    Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
    Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).

    ... something like that ... in that format ... is what would be useful for us all to see "WOW, that's broken!!".
    or "oh, that's not too bad, here, let me show #'s for xxx champ in similar situation" ..

    or .. whatever ..

    as usual ... (both sides) are speculating grandly with no real facts/evidence to support their "theories" ..

    so let's start with you .. if you are so sure: "so all evidence points to the data being accurate" please, setup an example above, and demonstrate the numbers?

    Please. I'm asking politely, respectly ... in an attempt to understand the numbers.

    thank you.

    and before somebody comes on and challenges me to provide data .. It's not my responsibility to show data for somebody ELSE making a claim.

    Kabam made a claim .. please provide data to support. Thank you.
    GW (and others) have backed up and supported above claim, acclaiming to it's accuracy. Please provide data to support. Thank you.

    I will provide data once I have a baseline to compare to .. once I see the data we're talking about Cull .. then (and only then) can we (the ones in disagreement) go setup a similar test case to demonstrate the opposite.

    simple enough, even a "logician" could figure that one out ;)
    GroundedWisdom said:


    Transparency is about building trust. They've been transparent.

    Not entirely .. not without presenting the data as I described above, no, they are not being completely transparent.
    Yes, they gave fair heads up that he will change .. Thank you .. that's a great start .. however, it's mostly meaningless without the data to support it.
    GroundedWisdom said:


    If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.

    false assumption, as there is yet any evidence to support the "theory" .. (I'm calling it a theory from now on, until actual "proof" shows up to support it .. that seems fair :) )

    You're calling Kabam out on their own data. Good luck with that. Lol.
    He’s also calling you out on your fallacious argument.
    My fallacious argument? No. I'm going on the information provided. As far as this Forum is concerned, their comments are about as close to fact as we can get. We won't be seeing their internal metrics anytime soon. They may or may not post a list of what aspects they looked at and how he scored, but I doubt it. Even that wouldn't suffice for people. They'd just argue they weren't looking at the right things. Anything I've said thus far has been logical and educated based on the facts provided here. By all means, you're free to claim hanging chads.
    None of that detracts from the fact your arguments involve a logical fallacy, even if it’s because you don’t have the data Kabam has. (An educated guess is still a guess.)
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,726 ★★★★★
    CFree said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    CFree said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I mean we can argue ad nauseam that he isn't really that strong, but they obviously have the numbers to prove it, and we know many people Ranked him for the very same reasons, so all evidence points to the data being accurate.

    See this is the big fallacy at your end ..
    massive assumption that "the data must be accurate" .. even though you haven't seen it.

    I believe it's a very fair (and simple/straight forward) request to see the data ..

    The only thing we really need is something like:
    (and yes, I'm making these up to illustrate exactly what it is I (personally) am referring to when I ask to see "the data" ):

    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
    Masteries (for baseline, I guess, whatever)
    vs
    Maestro (act 4, final boss .. whatever his stats are).
    (are they conditional nodes? I forget .. if so, specify which ones are active).

    Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) (I know, #'s are fake .. I'm demonstrating a template here, not actual data).
    Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

    With 5 stacks of Armor break:
    Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
    Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).

    ... something like that ... in that format ... is what would be useful for us all to see "WOW, that's broken!!".
    or "oh, that's not too bad, here, let me show #'s for xxx champ in similar situation" ..

    or .. whatever ..

    as usual ... (both sides) are speculating grandly with no real facts/evidence to support their "theories" ..

    so let's start with you .. if you are so sure: "so all evidence points to the data being accurate" please, setup an example above, and demonstrate the numbers?

    Please. I'm asking politely, respectly ... in an attempt to understand the numbers.

    thank you.

    and before somebody comes on and challenges me to provide data .. It's not my responsibility to show data for somebody ELSE making a claim.

    Kabam made a claim .. please provide data to support. Thank you.
    GW (and others) have backed up and supported above claim, acclaiming to it's accuracy. Please provide data to support. Thank you.

    I will provide data once I have a baseline to compare to .. once I see the data we're talking about Cull .. then (and only then) can we (the ones in disagreement) go setup a similar test case to demonstrate the opposite.

    simple enough, even a "logician" could figure that one out ;)
    GroundedWisdom said:


    Transparency is about building trust. They've been transparent.

    Not entirely .. not without presenting the data as I described above, no, they are not being completely transparent.
    Yes, they gave fair heads up that he will change .. Thank you .. that's a great start .. however, it's mostly meaningless without the data to support it.
    GroundedWisdom said:


    If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.

    false assumption, as there is yet any evidence to support the "theory" .. (I'm calling it a theory from now on, until actual "proof" shows up to support it .. that seems fair :) )

    You're calling Kabam out on their own data. Good luck with that. Lol.
    He’s also calling you out on your fallacious argument.
    My fallacious argument? No. I'm going on the information provided. As far as this Forum is concerned, their comments are about as close to fact as we can get. We won't be seeing their internal metrics anytime soon. They may or may not post a list of what aspects they looked at and how he scored, but I doubt it. Even that wouldn't suffice for people. They'd just argue they weren't looking at the right things. Anything I've said thus far has been logical and educated based on the facts provided here. By all means, you're free to claim hanging chads.
    None of that detracts from the fact your arguments involve a logical fallacy, even if it’s because you don’t have the data Kabam has. (An educated guess is still a guess.)
    Okay, sure. If you want to call it that. The closest we come to fact on here is the official comments they make. We can have our own evidence and our own perspective, but for all intents and purposes, when it comes to internal aspects, what they say is fact. I'm not even getting into AA or SS. Mistakes happen. Generally, none of us will have access to that data. That's a given. Unless you're data mining.
  • DshuDshu Member Posts: 1,516 ★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    CFree said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I mean we can argue ad nauseam that he isn't really that strong, but they obviously have the numbers to prove it, and we know many people Ranked him for the very same reasons, so all evidence points to the data being accurate.

    See this is the big fallacy at your end ..
    massive assumption that "the data must be accurate" .. even though you haven't seen it.

    I believe it's a very fair (and simple/straight forward) request to see the data ..

    The only thing we really need is something like:
    (and yes, I'm making these up to illustrate exactly what it is I (personally) am referring to when I ask to see "the data" ):

    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
    Masteries (for baseline, I guess, whatever)
    vs
    Maestro (act 4, final boss .. whatever his stats are).
    (are they conditional nodes? I forget .. if so, specify which ones are active).

    Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) (I know, #'s are fake .. I'm demonstrating a template here, not actual data).
    Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

    With 5 stacks of Armor break:
    Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
    Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).

    ... something like that ... in that format ... is what would be useful for us all to see "WOW, that's broken!!".
    or "oh, that's not too bad, here, let me show #'s for xxx champ in similar situation" ..

    or .. whatever ..

    as usual ... (both sides) are speculating grandly with no real facts/evidence to support their "theories" ..

    so let's start with you .. if you are so sure: "so all evidence points to the data being accurate" please, setup an example above, and demonstrate the numbers?

    Please. I'm asking politely, respectly ... in an attempt to understand the numbers.

    thank you.

    and before somebody comes on and challenges me to provide data .. It's not my responsibility to show data for somebody ELSE making a claim.

    Kabam made a claim .. please provide data to support. Thank you.
    GW (and others) have backed up and supported above claim, acclaiming to it's accuracy. Please provide data to support. Thank you.

    I will provide data once I have a baseline to compare to .. once I see the data we're talking about Cull .. then (and only then) can we (the ones in disagreement) go setup a similar test case to demonstrate the opposite.

    simple enough, even a "logician" could figure that one out ;)
    GroundedWisdom said:


    Transparency is about building trust. They've been transparent.

    Not entirely .. not without presenting the data as I described above, no, they are not being completely transparent.
    Yes, they gave fair heads up that he will change .. Thank you .. that's a great start .. however, it's mostly meaningless without the data to support it.
    GroundedWisdom said:


    If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.

    false assumption, as there is yet any evidence to support the "theory" .. (I'm calling it a theory from now on, until actual "proof" shows up to support it .. that seems fair :) )

    You're calling Kabam out on their own data. Good luck with that. Lol.
    He’s also calling you out on your fallacious argument.
    My fallacious argument? No. I'm going on the information provided. As far as this Forum is concerned, their comments are about as close to fact as we can get. We won't be seeing their internal metrics anytime soon. They may or may not post a list of what aspects they looked at and how he scored, but I doubt it. Even that wouldn't suffice for people. They'd just argue they weren't looking at the right things. Anything I've said thus far has been logical and educated based on the facts provided here. By all means, you're free to claim hanging chads.
    There has been no information provided other than the statement that their data shows he is out damaging other to champs. They made a statement about data not provided. Your argument is you believe their data but unless you have personally seen it 🤔 you are only going off the statement given. They have given exactly 2 peices of information.
    1 they believe his damage is too high
    2 they will be reducing his damage
    Unless you have some inside sources feeding you information from the game team what you are arguing is that you agree with their decision since only kabam employees have had access to the data and the sources it was gathered from. I kinda think it would be easier to argue this is a correct move if more information on the data was shared. It would also be nice to get some information from a kabam representative on this thread
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,726 ★★★★★
    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    CFree said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I mean we can argue ad nauseam that he isn't really that strong, but they obviously have the numbers to prove it, and we know many people Ranked him for the very same reasons, so all evidence points to the data being accurate.

    See this is the big fallacy at your end ..
    massive assumption that "the data must be accurate" .. even though you haven't seen it.

    I believe it's a very fair (and simple/straight forward) request to see the data ..

    The only thing we really need is something like:
    (and yes, I'm making these up to illustrate exactly what it is I (personally) am referring to when I ask to see "the data" ):

    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
    Masteries (for baseline, I guess, whatever)
    vs
    Maestro (act 4, final boss .. whatever his stats are).
    (are they conditional nodes? I forget .. if so, specify which ones are active).

    Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) (I know, #'s are fake .. I'm demonstrating a template here, not actual data).
    Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

    With 5 stacks of Armor break:
    Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
    Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).

    ... something like that ... in that format ... is what would be useful for us all to see "WOW, that's broken!!".
    or "oh, that's not too bad, here, let me show #'s for xxx champ in similar situation" ..

    or .. whatever ..

    as usual ... (both sides) are speculating grandly with no real facts/evidence to support their "theories" ..

    so let's start with you .. if you are so sure: "so all evidence points to the data being accurate" please, setup an example above, and demonstrate the numbers?

    Please. I'm asking politely, respectly ... in an attempt to understand the numbers.

    thank you.

    and before somebody comes on and challenges me to provide data .. It's not my responsibility to show data for somebody ELSE making a claim.

    Kabam made a claim .. please provide data to support. Thank you.
    GW (and others) have backed up and supported above claim, acclaiming to it's accuracy. Please provide data to support. Thank you.

    I will provide data once I have a baseline to compare to .. once I see the data we're talking about Cull .. then (and only then) can we (the ones in disagreement) go setup a similar test case to demonstrate the opposite.

    simple enough, even a "logician" could figure that one out ;)
    GroundedWisdom said:


    Transparency is about building trust. They've been transparent.

    Not entirely .. not without presenting the data as I described above, no, they are not being completely transparent.
    Yes, they gave fair heads up that he will change .. Thank you .. that's a great start .. however, it's mostly meaningless without the data to support it.
    GroundedWisdom said:


    If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.

    false assumption, as there is yet any evidence to support the "theory" .. (I'm calling it a theory from now on, until actual "proof" shows up to support it .. that seems fair :) )

    You're calling Kabam out on their own data. Good luck with that. Lol.
    He’s also calling you out on your fallacious argument.
    My fallacious argument? No. I'm going on the information provided. As far as this Forum is concerned, their comments are about as close to fact as we can get. We won't be seeing their internal metrics anytime soon. They may or may not post a list of what aspects they looked at and how he scored, but I doubt it. Even that wouldn't suffice for people. They'd just argue they weren't looking at the right things. Anything I've said thus far has been logical and educated based on the facts provided here. By all means, you're free to claim hanging chads.
    There has been no information provided other than the statement that their data shows he is out damaging other to champs. They made a statement about data not provided. Your argument is you believe their data but unless you have personally seen it 🤔 you are only going off the statement given. They have given exactly 2 peices of information.
    1 they believe his damage is too high
    2 they will be reducing his damage
    Unless you have some inside sources feeding you information from the game team what you are arguing is that you agree with their decision since only kabam employees have had access to the data and the sources it was gathered from. I kinda think it would be easier to argue this is a correct move if more information on the data was shared. It would also be nice to get some information from a kabam representative on this thread
    When do they ever provide their data in cases like these? I wasn't aware it was a group decision.
  • IronMaiden66IronMaiden66 Member Posts: 40 ★
    People have spent a lot of money trying to get this champion. I think that we should know why this champion is getting nerfed. All that’s been said is that he’s out damaging other champions? How? We have no idea how you’ve come to that conclusion. Give us some reasoning. People have spent so much money on this. All that money going to you, Kabam. Just at least give us more insight.
  • DshuDshu Member Posts: 1,516 ★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    CFree said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I mean we can argue ad nauseam that he isn't really that strong, but they obviously have the numbers to prove it, and we know many people Ranked him for the very same reasons, so all evidence points to the data being accurate.

    See this is the big fallacy at your end ..
    massive assumption that "the data must be accurate" .. even though you haven't seen it.

    I believe it's a very fair (and simple/straight forward) request to see the data ..

    The only thing we really need is something like:
    (and yes, I'm making these up to illustrate exactly what it is I (personally) am referring to when I ask to see "the data" ):

    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
    Masteries (for baseline, I guess, whatever)
    vs
    Maestro (act 4, final boss .. whatever his stats are).
    (are they conditional nodes? I forget .. if so, specify which ones are active).

    Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) (I know, #'s are fake .. I'm demonstrating a template here, not actual data).
    Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

    With 5 stacks of Armor break:
    Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
    Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).

    ... something like that ... in that format ... is what would be useful for us all to see "WOW, that's broken!!".
    or "oh, that's not too bad, here, let me show #'s for xxx champ in similar situation" ..

    or .. whatever ..

    as usual ... (both sides) are speculating grandly with no real facts/evidence to support their "theories" ..

    so let's start with you .. if you are so sure: "so all evidence points to the data being accurate" please, setup an example above, and demonstrate the numbers?

    Please. I'm asking politely, respectly ... in an attempt to understand the numbers.

    thank you.

    and before somebody comes on and challenges me to provide data .. It's not my responsibility to show data for somebody ELSE making a claim.

    Kabam made a claim .. please provide data to support. Thank you.
    GW (and others) have backed up and supported above claim, acclaiming to it's accuracy. Please provide data to support. Thank you.

    I will provide data once I have a baseline to compare to .. once I see the data we're talking about Cull .. then (and only then) can we (the ones in disagreement) go setup a similar test case to demonstrate the opposite.

    simple enough, even a "logician" could figure that one out ;)
    GroundedWisdom said:


    Transparency is about building trust. They've been transparent.

    Not entirely .. not without presenting the data as I described above, no, they are not being completely transparent.
    Yes, they gave fair heads up that he will change .. Thank you .. that's a great start .. however, it's mostly meaningless without the data to support it.
    GroundedWisdom said:


    If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.

    false assumption, as there is yet any evidence to support the "theory" .. (I'm calling it a theory from now on, until actual "proof" shows up to support it .. that seems fair :) )

    You're calling Kabam out on their own data. Good luck with that. Lol.
    He’s also calling you out on your fallacious argument.
    My fallacious argument? No. I'm going on the information provided. As far as this Forum is concerned, their comments are about as close to fact as we can get. We won't be seeing their internal metrics anytime soon. They may or may not post a list of what aspects they looked at and how he scored, but I doubt it. Even that wouldn't suffice for people. They'd just argue they weren't looking at the right things. Anything I've said thus far has been logical and educated based on the facts provided here. By all means, you're free to claim hanging chads.
    There has been no information provided other than the statement that their data shows he is out damaging other to champs. They made a statement about data not provided. Your argument is you believe their data but unless you have personally seen it 🤔 you are only going off the statement given. They have given exactly 2 peices of information.
    1 they believe his damage is too high
    2 they will be reducing his damage
    Unless you have some inside sources feeding you information from the game team what you are arguing is that you agree with their decision since only kabam employees have had access to the data and the sources it was gathered from. I kinda think it would be easier to argue this is a correct move if more information on the data was shared. It would also be nice to get some information from a kabam representative on this thread
    When do they ever provide their data in cases like these? I wasn't aware it was a group decision.
    You said you are going off the information provided. Just curious because it seems like you are going off blind faith. You don't even have a rebuttal to the lack of information just a statement asking when they ever release that. Well that would be what a quarter or more of these posts are asking them to do so they can understand what this data is showing since all but a select few can't seem to understand what makes him so game breaking and haven't been given any responses to this question
    I don't remember them saying game breaking. They said he was doing more than any other higher-end Champ.
    You might consider it blind faith. I don't. The difference between our opinions and theirs is, their opinions are the ones shaping the game, weighted by working on it and having access to the information and knowledge of their own goals. If you want to call trusting that blind faith, have at it. You either believe them, or you don't. I do.
    What you are missing there is while their opinion may shape the game the player base's opinion is what keeps them in business. Alienate your customers and your business doesn't last long. I'm not making threats just stating a simple fact about business. Also one would have to be either very young or very naive to believe all decisions are made for the betterment of the game. They are a for profit business so if they feel a decision would make them money they will do it. I don't fault them for it it's just business. You can blindly follow along believing the company has only your best interests at heart if you choose but I assure you that you are just another credit card number to them.
    On a side note. I did see a vid by a Youtubers who I'm sure was speaking out of frustration but remember. The mods are just doing a job and giving the response they have been told. While some responses and posts from mods are seen has stupid or illogical they are just the bottom of the corporate pyramid. It would be nice to hear from someone in the development or research department on the forum to give real insight into these changes
  • DshuDshu Member Posts: 1,516 ★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    CFree said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I mean we can argue ad nauseam that he isn't really that strong, but they obviously have the numbers to prove it, and we know many people Ranked him for the very same reasons, so all evidence points to the data being accurate.

    See this is the big fallacy at your end ..
    massive assumption that "the data must be accurate" .. even though you haven't seen it.

    I believe it's a very fair (and simple/straight forward) request to see the data ..

    The only thing we really need is something like:
    (and yes, I'm making these up to illustrate exactly what it is I (personally) am referring to when I ask to see "the data" ):

    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
    Masteries (for baseline, I guess, whatever)
    vs
    Maestro (act 4, final boss .. whatever his stats are).
    (are they conditional nodes? I forget .. if so, specify which ones are active).

    Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) (I know, #'s are fake .. I'm demonstrating a template here, not actual data).
    Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

    With 5 stacks of Armor break:
    Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
    Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).

    ... something like that ... in that format ... is what would be useful for us all to see "WOW, that's broken!!".
    or "oh, that's not too bad, here, let me show #'s for xxx champ in similar situation" ..

    or .. whatever ..

    as usual ... (both sides) are speculating grandly with no real facts/evidence to support their "theories" ..

    so let's start with you .. if you are so sure: "so all evidence points to the data being accurate" please, setup an example above, and demonstrate the numbers?

    Please. I'm asking politely, respectly ... in an attempt to understand the numbers.

    thank you.

    and before somebody comes on and challenges me to provide data .. It's not my responsibility to show data for somebody ELSE making a claim.

    Kabam made a claim .. please provide data to support. Thank you.
    GW (and others) have backed up and supported above claim, acclaiming to it's accuracy. Please provide data to support. Thank you.

    I will provide data once I have a baseline to compare to .. once I see the data we're talking about Cull .. then (and only then) can we (the ones in disagreement) go setup a similar test case to demonstrate the opposite.

    simple enough, even a "logician" could figure that one out ;)
    GroundedWisdom said:


    Transparency is about building trust. They've been transparent.

    Not entirely .. not without presenting the data as I described above, no, they are not being completely transparent.
    Yes, they gave fair heads up that he will change .. Thank you .. that's a great start .. however, it's mostly meaningless without the data to support it.
    GroundedWisdom said:


    If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.

    false assumption, as there is yet any evidence to support the "theory" .. (I'm calling it a theory from now on, until actual "proof" shows up to support it .. that seems fair :) )

    You're calling Kabam out on their own data. Good luck with that. Lol.
    He’s also calling you out on your fallacious argument.
    My fallacious argument? No. I'm going on the information provided. As far as this Forum is concerned, their comments are about as close to fact as we can get. We won't be seeing their internal metrics anytime soon. They may or may not post a list of what aspects they looked at and how he scored, but I doubt it. Even that wouldn't suffice for people. They'd just argue they weren't looking at the right things. Anything I've said thus far has been logical and educated based on the facts provided here. By all means, you're free to claim hanging chads.
    There has been no information provided other than the statement that their data shows he is out damaging other to champs. They made a statement about data not provided. Your argument is you believe their data but unless you have personally seen it 🤔 you are only going off the statement given. They have given exactly 2 peices of information.
    1 they believe his damage is too high
    2 they will be reducing his damage
    Unless you have some inside sources feeding you information from the game team what you are arguing is that you agree with their decision since only kabam employees have had access to the data and the sources it was gathered from. I kinda think it would be easier to argue this is a correct move if more information on the data was shared. It would also be nice to get some information from a kabam representative on this thread
    When do they ever provide their data in cases like these? I wasn't aware it was a group decision.
    You said you are going off the information provided. Just curious because it seems like you are going off blind faith. You don't even have a rebuttal to the lack of information just a statement asking when they ever release that. Well that would be what a quarter or more of these posts are asking them to do so they can understand what this data is showing since all but a select few can't seem to understand what makes him so game breaking and haven't been given any responses to this question
    I don't remember them saying game breaking. They said he was doing more than any other higher-end Champ.
    You might consider it blind faith. I don't. The difference between our opinions and theirs is, their opinions are the ones shaping the game, weighted by working on it and having access to the information and knowledge of their own goals. If you want to call trusting that blind faith, have at it. You either believe them, or you don't. I do.
    What you are missing there is while their opinion may shape the game the player base's opinion is what keeps them in business. Alienate your customers and your business doesn't last long. I'm not making threats just stating a simple fact about business. Also one would have to be either very young or very naive to believe all decisions are made for the betterment of the game. They are a for profit business so if they feel a decision would make them money they will do it. I don't fault them for it it's just business. You can blindly follow along believing the company has only your best interests at heart if you choose but I assure you that you are just another credit card number to them.
    On a side note. I did see a vid by a Youtubers who I'm sure was speaking out of frustration but remember. The mods are just doing a job and giving the response they have been told. While some responses and posts from mods are seen has stupid or illogical they are just the bottom of the corporate pyramid. It would be nice to hear from someone in the development or research department on the forum to give real insight into these changes
    If you're saying "We pay the bills.", that's not really an argument for changes that are necessary for balance. Yes, it's important to care about your customers. Yes, people spend. Yes, people matter. If you're saying people have the final say in decisions that affect the game overall based on that fact, and that it takes precedence over the actual data, I'm inclined to disagree.
    TL:DR - We don't control the game.
    In reality the customer base does have the final say. If the company alienates the customer base they have no revenue coming in and the game **** down. Again not calling for a boycott and not saying I'm against game balance. I'm simply replying to your statement and stating that they may want to open a two way conversation with their players since this thread hasn't had s response from a mod or anyone else from kabam since page 3 I think
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,726 ★★★★★
    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Dshu said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    CFree said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    dot_ditto said:

    GroundedWisdom said:


    I mean we can argue ad nauseam that he isn't really that strong, but they obviously have the numbers to prove it, and we know many people Ranked him for the very same reasons, so all evidence points to the data being accurate.

    See this is the big fallacy at your end ..
    massive assumption that "the data must be accurate" .. even though you haven't seen it.

    I believe it's a very fair (and simple/straight forward) request to see the data ..

    The only thing we really need is something like:
    (and yes, I'm making these up to illustrate exactly what it is I (personally) am referring to when I ask to see "the data" ):

    Cull 5* R4. Level 55. Sig 100 (5 charges)
    Masteries (for baseline, I guess, whatever)
    vs
    Maestro (act 4, final boss .. whatever his stats are).
    (are they conditional nodes? I forget .. if so, specify which ones are active).

    Light attack: 123 damage (456 crit) (I know, #'s are fake .. I'm demonstrating a template here, not actual data).
    Medium attack: 345 damage (789 crit).

    With 5 stacks of Armor break:
    Light attack: 456 damage (1023 crit)
    Medium attack: 789 damage (1400 crit).

    ... something like that ... in that format ... is what would be useful for us all to see "WOW, that's broken!!".
    or "oh, that's not too bad, here, let me show #'s for xxx champ in similar situation" ..

    or .. whatever ..

    as usual ... (both sides) are speculating grandly with no real facts/evidence to support their "theories" ..

    so let's start with you .. if you are so sure: "so all evidence points to the data being accurate" please, setup an example above, and demonstrate the numbers?

    Please. I'm asking politely, respectly ... in an attempt to understand the numbers.

    thank you.

    and before somebody comes on and challenges me to provide data .. It's not my responsibility to show data for somebody ELSE making a claim.

    Kabam made a claim .. please provide data to support. Thank you.
    GW (and others) have backed up and supported above claim, acclaiming to it's accuracy. Please provide data to support. Thank you.

    I will provide data once I have a baseline to compare to .. once I see the data we're talking about Cull .. then (and only then) can we (the ones in disagreement) go setup a similar test case to demonstrate the opposite.

    simple enough, even a "logician" could figure that one out ;)
    GroundedWisdom said:


    Transparency is about building trust. They've been transparent.

    Not entirely .. not without presenting the data as I described above, no, they are not being completely transparent.
    Yes, they gave fair heads up that he will change .. Thank you .. that's a great start .. however, it's mostly meaningless without the data to support it.
    GroundedWisdom said:


    If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.

    false assumption, as there is yet any evidence to support the "theory" .. (I'm calling it a theory from now on, until actual "proof" shows up to support it .. that seems fair :) )

    You're calling Kabam out on their own data. Good luck with that. Lol.
    He’s also calling you out on your fallacious argument.
    My fallacious argument? No. I'm going on the information provided. As far as this Forum is concerned, their comments are about as close to fact as we can get. We won't be seeing their internal metrics anytime soon. They may or may not post a list of what aspects they looked at and how he scored, but I doubt it. Even that wouldn't suffice for people. They'd just argue they weren't looking at the right things. Anything I've said thus far has been logical and educated based on the facts provided here. By all means, you're free to claim hanging chads.
    There has been no information provided other than the statement that their data shows he is out damaging other to champs. They made a statement about data not provided. Your argument is you believe their data but unless you have personally seen it 🤔 you are only going off the statement given. They have given exactly 2 peices of information.
    1 they believe his damage is too high
    2 they will be reducing his damage
    Unless you have some inside sources feeding you information from the game team what you are arguing is that you agree with their decision since only kabam employees have had access to the data and the sources it was gathered from. I kinda think it would be easier to argue this is a correct move if more information on the data was shared. It would also be nice to get some information from a kabam representative on this thread
    When do they ever provide their data in cases like these? I wasn't aware it was a group decision.
    You said you are going off the information provided. Just curious because it seems like you are going off blind faith. You don't even have a rebuttal to the lack of information just a statement asking when they ever release that. Well that would be what a quarter or more of these posts are asking them to do so they can understand what this data is showing since all but a select few can't seem to understand what makes him so game breaking and haven't been given any responses to this question
    I don't remember them saying game breaking. They said he was doing more than any other higher-end Champ.
    You might consider it blind faith. I don't. The difference between our opinions and theirs is, their opinions are the ones shaping the game, weighted by working on it and having access to the information and knowledge of their own goals. If you want to call trusting that blind faith, have at it. You either believe them, or you don't. I do.
    What you are missing there is while their opinion may shape the game the player base's opinion is what keeps them in business. Alienate your customers and your business doesn't last long. I'm not making threats just stating a simple fact about business. Also one would have to be either very young or very naive to believe all decisions are made for the betterment of the game. They are a for profit business so if they feel a decision would make them money they will do it. I don't fault them for it it's just business. You can blindly follow along believing the company has only your best interests at heart if you choose but I assure you that you are just another credit card number to them.
    On a side note. I did see a vid by a Youtubers who I'm sure was speaking out of frustration but remember. The mods are just doing a job and giving the response they have been told. While some responses and posts from mods are seen has stupid or illogical they are just the bottom of the corporate pyramid. It would be nice to hear from someone in the development or research department on the forum to give real insight into these changes
    If you're saying "We pay the bills.", that's not really an argument for changes that are necessary for balance. Yes, it's important to care about your customers. Yes, people spend. Yes, people matter. If you're saying people have the final say in decisions that affect the game overall based on that fact, and that it takes precedence over the actual data, I'm inclined to disagree.
    TL:DR - We don't control the game.
    In reality the customer base does have the final say. If the company alienates the customer base they have no revenue coming in and the game **** down. Again not calling for a boycott and not saying I'm against game balance. I'm simply replying to your statement and stating that they may want to open a two way conversation with their players since this thread hasn't had s response from a mod or anyone else from kabam since page 3 I think
    Sorry, I disagree. The Players don't have the final say concerning in-house decisions for the betterment of the game. I don't have any objections to people asking for clarification or dialogue. I'm just saying transparency doesn't mean running every decision they make by us for approval.
This discussion has been closed.