Upcoming Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw Balance Changes

Midknight007 · September 2019

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

KinkyWizard1 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Zuro said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Zuro said:
@GroundedWisdom are you gonna try to counter my argument
Zuro said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Zuro said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Zuro said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Zuro said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Zuro said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Harry_hzy 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.

see, you still don’t understand. What is the health game you are keep saying? I think more player want to spend money, then kabam can make money, then maybe they wants to use some profit to develop this game, that is health game. If most players don’t spend money anymore or abandon this game, what is the point of balance or game health
If they don't resolve problems that will break the game down the road, there isn't anything left to spend on. The health of the game isn't about money.
Cull won't break the game down the road he would probably last like 2 fight before you have to revive him
Who's to say what will and will not break the game? Only them. They're the ones with the goals, the data, and the experience on this particular game. I was speaking in the general sense, not necessarily saying he's going to break the game. Having a Champ that does much more Damage than other Top Champs has an effect later on. One that creates much more work for them, and less balance for the rest of us.
Kabam has still never disclosed what too much damage is because from what I've seen Cull ain't the only Champ who can hit extremely high numbers so what are they even getting at here let alone of his weakness like fisticuffs, limber, bleed, poison, etc.
Apparently, they have disclosed that too much is what he's doing, and that's a comparative analysis towards what others do. As to whether that's too much total, or too much too fast, I'm unsure.
There is no way it's too much too fast since there are way more other Champs that can get extremely high numbers way faster than Cull and even in total he is similar to numerous Champs like namor, nick fury, domino, or even hela I wouldnt say he out damages any of them as all of them share similar numbers damage wise
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.
Those numbers are irrelevant when you put Cull in a realistic situation no way he is destroying Champs in act 6. All they do is analyze the numbers but not the situations that he is in so it's not a fair evaluation
The numbers aren't irrelevant at all. That's the very gauge they're using. What you're saying is he's not too much because you can't use him for one piece of content. Not at all what this is about. This is about the fact that he's out damaging any other Champ among the Top.
It's not just one piece of content he is bad at he is bad in most of the variants against certain nodes he is also roadblocked in some of the paths in this EQ and so on so it's not just one piece of content

Counter what? You're arguing he's bad in areas, and their comment was that his Damage was more than others. They didn't claim he was good at everything.
Exactly he is balanced enough you know how rare it is to actually reach his high damage potential due to all these counters
If he was balanced enough, we wouldn't be in this Thread discussing it.
Laughable. This shows a serious disregard for logic. It is poorly argued. I promise I do not mean that as an insult. Merely pointing out the blatantly fallacious nature of such an assumption. The reason this thread exists, and the only reason it exists, is because they say he is unbalanced. This does not make it true. The evidence is there.

People wouldn’t be arguing that the Earth is flat unless it is. People wouldn’t be arguing that vaccines cause autism on various forums unless it did.

You dabble in some dangerous black and whites. Scary stuff.

That puts an abrupt end to any further discussion.

Take care.
Actually I call it stating the obvious. If Kabam felt he was balanced, they never would have made the Announcement concerning him. This isn't some arbitrary thing they pulled out of their hats. They're not just making frivolous changes. If they say he's doing more than any other higher-end Champ, that's very indicative of the fact that they find that imbalanced.
It is obvious that if Kabam felt he was balanced we wouldn't be discussing this. It is also completely irrelevant. It is also possible that looking at raw data doesn't always result in correct assessments regarding game play.

Wrong...
"...he is able to end fights before even high-level Opponents can do any meaningful damage to him."

Meaningful damage leave the impression that Kabam isn't seeing enough pots or revives being used when people are using Cull and he is fully charged. The only imbalance that is being considered is the company's profit margins. It is not to make a more challenging experience and to make a better game health. The only health of the game that is being considered is the balance sheet of the checkbook.

Justin2524 · September 2019

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.

Dshu · 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

Sugoi_Dubai · September 2019

Have no idea how Kabam says Cull is overpowered. He is useless in Aw and aq. He only shines in single player monthly events. His block proficiency is horrible. I am in top 10 aq and master alliance. No one uses him on high level play.

One thing this taught me, is to not spend on crystals anymore. I spent 12 odins to get 6 star Cull and dupe him, took him to r2.

This is the last time I spend on crystals.

dot_ditto · September 2019

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

)

XxLoganTDCxX · September 2019

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!

Midknight007 · September 2019

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

Stagedear85 · September 2019

I have 4 new 5 star 2019 champs at rank 3 and I'm actually scared to rank them up because tier 2 alpha and tier 5 basic are hard to come by and you only get but so much without spending on deals so to waste these on a champ you love just to hear kabam want to rebalance them is a concern we all should have. what's also annoying is we wont know until 3 months after these champs are released if they're going to be rebalance aka nerf. if the champ is good I say wait but if the champ is average you can rank up because their rebalance will be a buff while the good champ will be a nerf. They're taking the fun out of the Game and sooner than later they will see that a lot of the top players and spenders will look for something else to play because their passion and drive to play MCOC is no longer there.

GroundedWisdom · September 2019

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.

GroundedWisdom · September 2019

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.

GroundedWisdom · September 2019

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_Ferrigno · September 2019

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_ditto · September 2019

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!

GroundedWisdom · September 2019

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_ditto · September 2019

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

GroundedWisdom · September 2019

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.

KILLMФИGЕЯ · September 2019

TEST YOUR DAMN CHAMPS! First you nerf a champ that’s been out for years (she hulk) who’s had that ability since day one, even AFTER you buffed and “re-tested’ her but just because she can take down the biggest money grabbing boss in the game, you nerf her? Clearly showing your true colours. Now you nerf a champ that costs items and units to ramp up in end game content seem pretty counter intuitive no? Instead of keeping him as he is and people spending to use him, you nerf him and now the community hates yo cause of it and you most likely lots a lot of top spenders lol 👍

dot_ditto · September 2019

GroundedWisdom said:
I'm going on the information provided.

Again, please provide this information, or a link to it.

Thank you!

Tell me, is everyone incorrect but yourself?

again, trying to change the topic ..
I've not made any claims about anyone being correct or not.

I've said it since page 1 ... (or whereever I was on first post

)

I'm undecided .. I have no idea if Cull needs changing or not, since I haven't yet seen any data proving so.

I asked Kabam for more information on that regard, and you lept to their defence, and for the next almost 40 pages, spoke "on their behalf".

*shrug*

So yeah, I'm calling you on it .. pretty simple .. an no fallacy being made .. you can keep using word salad all you want to misdirect ... but I'm just going to keep asking you backup your claims.

You made a claim .. please support it.

It's not about anyone being right or wrong ... it's about seeing the data, so we can review it and make our own decisions.

TheTalents · September 2019

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.

GroundedWisdom · September 2019

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.

CFree · 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.)

GroundedWisdom · September 2019

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.

Dshu · 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.

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

GroundedWisdom · September 2019

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.

IronMaiden66 · September 2019

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.

Dshu · September 2019

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

Dshu · September 2019

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

GroundedWisdom · September 2019

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.

Upcoming Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw Balance Changes

Comments