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
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.
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.
Again, your fundamental assumption is that Kabam is correct. If the closest we can get to fact is the information provided by Kabam, then there is no point debating anything they decide to do. If your starting assumption is that Kabam is correct and then you argue from that, it isn't surprising that you don't seem to ever waiver or change your mind and generally conclude that Kabam's position is the right one. But we all have the statements from Kabam. It is unnecessary to keep asserting them. People are arguing from game experience and your response is essentially "Kabam's data says 'x' so 'x' is correct."
So which would you side with? People with years of experience working on a product who also have access to all the information, or people who are upset at the very idea of changing anything? One side is operating on emotion. The other side is operating out of experience and access to data.
Again, if you take it as an axiom that Kabam is right and the players are wrong, there isn't much point discussing. In the matter of whether or not Cull is out performing in a game breaking way, I'll take the opinion of the most experienced players in the game over devs looking at data who don't actually play the game. It could be that people that use Cull know his limitations and where he shines and don't use him in situations where he isn't good. More balanced champs get used all over the place with varying degrees of success. Cull destroys some fights. Could that skew the data? Kabam's data made Cyclops into a meme when we were told that he was among the most effective champs. I don't think the players are always right and Kabam is always wrong. But Kabam has been known to be wrong. But all this is moot. You have made it clear that your position is based on the premise that Kabam is correct. We can't really have a debate about whether or not Cull is balanced if you are taking it for granted that he is not.
Sure, they've been wrong. So have we. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether or not their data represents the statement they made. Do you honestly and truly believe they would make an Announcement, knowing how this community would react, if their data was wrong in any way? The simple truth is, they examined it, and made an assertion. Cull is scoring higher than any other higher-end Champ. This suggests at least two things. One, that they examined some type of criteria in comparison. Two, that they see this as enough of a discrepancy to revisit him. The argument that they're wrong is just nonsensical. What they see is a problem for them. We can debate if they're right or wrong, we can debate whether we think it's a problem, we can debate whether we think he's balanced or not, we can debate whatever aspect we like. We can't really debate whether what they found is accurate or not. We don't know what they were looking at, what they were comparing, what their goals are, what their limits are. They may disclose that or they may not. On the plainest level, do I believe they found what they found and that their assertion is accurate? Absolutely. They wouldn't bring it to the Announcement stage if not.
Cull is probably the most impractical Champs in this game even if he does "too much damage" it still so rare to even reach that damage potential since he has so many weaknesses and trash stats so it seems pretty balanced to me so...WHY NERF HIM
Kabam shouldn't have to change these products because they are supposed to be finished. Selling unfinished products is poor business. We have all abode to the ToS since we play the game but still doesn't mean it's fair that they do that.
It's not only fair, it's necessary to keep the game alive and well. Using the fact that people pay money isn't a way to stop them from making unwanted but necessary decisions for the game. With a game like this, there's no such thing as a perfect release. That's just a fact. It's constantly improving, changing, and growing. It's not a Final Sale product like Console Games. It's a complex system with many interdependent and moving parts.
Changing the game as necessary for the betterment of the contest itself is definitely a positive thing. Changing products you sell for money like champs or crystals after many have already purchased them is not okay.
If they refrained from making necessary changes just because people spent money towards things, the game would die a miserable death.
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
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.
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.
Again, your fundamental assumption is that Kabam is correct. If the closest we can get to fact is the information provided by Kabam, then there is no point debating anything they decide to do. If your starting assumption is that Kabam is correct and then you argue from that, it isn't surprising that you don't seem to ever waiver or change your mind and generally conclude that Kabam's position is the right one. But we all have the statements from Kabam. It is unnecessary to keep asserting them. People are arguing from game experience and your response is essentially "Kabam's data says 'x' so 'x' is correct."
So which would you side with? People with years of experience working on a product who also have access to all the information, or people who are upset at the very idea of changing anything? One side is operating on emotion. The other side is operating out of experience and access to data.
Again, if you take it as an axiom that Kabam is right and the players are wrong, there isn't much point discussing. In the matter of whether or not Cull is out performing in a game breaking way, I'll take the opinion of the most experienced players in the game over devs looking at data who don't actually play the game. It could be that people that use Cull know his limitations and where he shines and don't use him in situations where he isn't good. More balanced champs get used all over the place with varying degrees of success. Cull destroys some fights. Could that skew the data? Kabam's data made Cyclops into a meme when we were told that he was among the most effective champs. I don't think the players are always right and Kabam is always wrong. But Kabam has been known to be wrong. But all this is moot. You have made it clear that your position is based on the premise that Kabam is correct. We can't really have a debate about whether or not Cull is balanced if you are taking it for granted that he is not.
Sure, they've been wrong. So have we. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether or not their data represents the statement they made. Do you honestly and truly believe they would make an Announcement, knowing how this community would react, if their data was wrong in any way? The simple truth is, they examined it, and made an assertion. Cull is scoring higher than any other higher-end Champ. This suggests at least two things. One, that they examined some type of criteria in comparison. Two, that they see this as enough of a discrepancy to revisit him. The argument that they're wrong is just nonsensical. What they see is a problem for them. We can debate if they're right or wrong, we can debate whether we think it's a problem, we can debate whether we think he's balanced or not, we can debate whatever aspect we like. We can't really debate whether what they found is accurate or not. We don't know what they were looking at, what they were comparing, what their goals are, what their limits are. They may disclose that or they may not. On the plainest level, do I believe they found what they found and that their assertion is accurate? Absolutely. They wouldn't bring it to the Announcement stage if not.
The data is neither right or wrong. It is what it is. The interpretation of the data may or may not be correct. Players using Cull have responded with reasons why they believe Kabam to be incorrect. The debate would be to interact with those reasons. Taking up the position that Kabam has stated what they stated so the players must be wrong is essentially spam.
Kabam shouldn't have to change these products because they are supposed to be finished. Selling unfinished products is poor business. We have all abode to the ToS since we play the game but still doesn't mean it's fair that they do that.
It's not only fair, it's necessary to keep the game alive and well. Using the fact that people pay money isn't a way to stop them from making unwanted but necessary decisions for the game. With a game like this, there's no such thing as a perfect release. That's just a fact. It's constantly improving, changing, and growing. It's not a Final Sale product like Console Games. It's a complex system with many interdependent and moving parts.
Changing the game as necessary for the betterment of the contest itself is definitely a positive thing. Changing products you sell for money like champs or crystals after many have already purchased them is not okay.
If they refrained from making necessary changes just because people spent money towards things, the game would die a miserable death.
But it wasn't a necessary and even then we wouldn't have needed Champs to be changed if they actually tested their champs
Kabam shouldn't have to change these products because they are supposed to be finished. Selling unfinished products is poor business. We have all abode to the ToS since we play the game but still doesn't mean it's fair that they do that.
It's not only fair, it's necessary to keep the game alive and well. Using the fact that people pay money isn't a way to stop them from making unwanted but necessary decisions for the game. With a game like this, there's no such thing as a perfect release. That's just a fact. It's constantly improving, changing, and growing. It's not a Final Sale product like Console Games. It's a complex system with many interdependent and moving parts.
Changing the game as necessary for the betterment of the contest itself is definitely a positive thing. Changing products you sell for money like champs or crystals after many have already purchased them is not okay.
If they refrained from making necessary changes just because people spent money towards things, the game would die a miserable death.
But it wasn't a necessary and even then we wouldn't have needed Champs to be changed if they actually tested their champs
Who says it isn't necessary? Us or them? Testing isn't going to stop problems from happening. We might as well accept that.
This is a battle that will be an epic fail. Either they will approve with block proficiency which they never said they would do with their original post to appease us or they'll try the fan base and lose money on featured crystals especially. One way or the other we will find out when the Vision crystals come out.
Note that Kabam never said what they will change in Cull exactly. Just that he is up for rebalance. In
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
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.
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.
Actually players DO have the final say. They can say "NO" to a change and force Kabam to rework said change.
Example: First they said they won't do RTD for She-Hulk, then they changed their mind based on community outrage. Example from the past: After they nerfed god tier champs in 12.0, public outcry (especially whales) forced them to redo the god tier champs.
Sorry but you are wrong on that one. Customer is the one who dictates what Kabam can and can't do.
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
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.
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.
Again, your fundamental assumption is that Kabam is correct. If the closest we can get to fact is the information provided by Kabam, then there is no point debating anything they decide to do. If your starting assumption is that Kabam is correct and then you argue from that, it isn't surprising that you don't seem to ever waiver or change your mind and generally conclude that Kabam's position is the right one. But we all have the statements from Kabam. It is unnecessary to keep asserting them. People are arguing from game experience and your response is essentially "Kabam's data says 'x' so 'x' is correct."
So which would you side with? People with years of experience working on a product who also have access to all the information, or people who are upset at the very idea of changing anything? One side is operating on emotion. The other side is operating out of experience and access to data.
Again, if you take it as an axiom that Kabam is right and the players are wrong, there isn't much point discussing. In the matter of whether or not Cull is out performing in a game breaking way, I'll take the opinion of the most experienced players in the game over devs looking at data who don't actually play the game. It could be that people that use Cull know his limitations and where he shines and don't use him in situations where he isn't good. More balanced champs get used all over the place with varying degrees of success. Cull destroys some fights. Could that skew the data? Kabam's data made Cyclops into a meme when we were told that he was among the most effective champs. I don't think the players are always right and Kabam is always wrong. But Kabam has been known to be wrong. But all this is moot. You have made it clear that your position is based on the premise that Kabam is correct. We can't really have a debate about whether or not Cull is balanced if you are taking it for granted that he is not.
Sure, they've been wrong. So have we. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether or not their data represents the statement they made. Do you honestly and truly believe they would make an Announcement, knowing how this community would react, if their data was wrong in any way? The simple truth is, they examined it, and made an assertion. Cull is scoring higher than any other higher-end Champ. This suggests at least two things. One, that they examined some type of criteria in comparison. Two, that they see this as enough of a discrepancy to revisit him. The argument that they're wrong is just nonsensical. What they see is a problem for them. We can debate if they're right or wrong, we can debate whether we think it's a problem, we can debate whether we think he's balanced or not, we can debate whatever aspect we like. We can't really debate whether what they found is accurate or not. We don't know what they were looking at, what they were comparing, what their goals are, what their limits are. They may disclose that or they may not. On the plainest level, do I believe they found what they found and that their assertion is accurate? Absolutely. They wouldn't bring it to the Announcement stage if not.
The data is neither right or wrong. It is what it is. The interpretation of the data may or may not be correct. Players using Cull have responded with reasons why they believe Kabam to be incorrect. The debate would be to interact with those reasons. Taking up the position that Kabam has stated what they stated so the players must be wrong is essentially spam.
So because I'm not questioning their capabilities to process their own data, I'm spamming? Bit one-sided there, bud.
This is a battle that will be an epic fail. Either they will approve with block proficiency which they never said they would do with their original post to appease us or they'll try the fan base and lose money on featured crystals especially. One way or the other we will find out when the Vision crystals come out.
Note that Kabam never said what they will change in Cull exactly. Just that he is up for rebalance. In
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
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.
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.
Actually players DO have the final say. They can say "NO" to a change and force Kabam to rework said change.
Example: First they said they won't do RTD for She-Hulk, then they changed their mind based on community outrage. Example from the past: After they nerfed god tier champs in 12.0, public outcry (especially whales) forced them to redo the god tier champs.
Sorry but you are wrong on that one. Customer is the one who dictates what Kabam can and can't do.
Mkay. Sure. We'll see how far that one goes. Once is a grace. Twice is pushing it. Every change is manipulation.
Kabam shouldn't have to change these products because they are supposed to be finished. Selling unfinished products is poor business. We have all abode to the ToS since we play the game but still doesn't mean it's fair that they do that.
It's not only fair, it's necessary to keep the game alive and well. Using the fact that people pay money isn't a way to stop them from making unwanted but necessary decisions for the game. With a game like this, there's no such thing as a perfect release. That's just a fact. It's constantly improving, changing, and growing. It's not a Final Sale product like Console Games. It's a complex system with many interdependent and moving parts.
Changing the game as necessary for the betterment of the contest itself is definitely a positive thing. Changing products you sell for money like champs or crystals after many have already purchased them is not okay.
If they refrained from making necessary changes just because people spent money towards things, the game would die a miserable death.
But it wasn't a necessary and even then we wouldn't have needed Champs to be changed if they actually tested their champs
Who says it isn't necessary? Us or them? Testing isn't going to stop problems from happening. We might as well accept that.
That is 100% your opinion and not a factual statement.
That's not my opinion. That's a fact of the game. Unless you'd like them to shut down access to the servers and spend an infinite time testing every scenario. Then we wouldn't have to worry about it. Game wouldn't run.
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
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.
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.
Again, your fundamental assumption is that Kabam is correct. If the closest we can get to fact is the information provided by Kabam, then there is no point debating anything they decide to do. If your starting assumption is that Kabam is correct and then you argue from that, it isn't surprising that you don't seem to ever waiver or change your mind and generally conclude that Kabam's position is the right one. But we all have the statements from Kabam. It is unnecessary to keep asserting them. People are arguing from game experience and your response is essentially "Kabam's data says 'x' so 'x' is correct."
So which would you side with? People with years of experience working on a product who also have access to all the information, or people who are upset at the very idea of changing anything? One side is operating on emotion. The other side is operating out of experience and access to data.
Again, if you take it as an axiom that Kabam is right and the players are wrong, there isn't much point discussing. In the matter of whether or not Cull is out performing in a game breaking way, I'll take the opinion of the most experienced players in the game over devs looking at data who don't actually play the game. It could be that people that use Cull know his limitations and where he shines and don't use him in situations where he isn't good. More balanced champs get used all over the place with varying degrees of success. Cull destroys some fights. Could that skew the data? Kabam's data made Cyclops into a meme when we were told that he was among the most effective champs. I don't think the players are always right and Kabam is always wrong. But Kabam has been known to be wrong. But all this is moot. You have made it clear that your position is based on the premise that Kabam is correct. We can't really have a debate about whether or not Cull is balanced if you are taking it for granted that he is not.
Sure, they've been wrong. So have we. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether or not their data represents the statement they made. Do you honestly and truly believe they would make an Announcement, knowing how this community would react, if their data was wrong in any way? The simple truth is, they examined it, and made an assertion. Cull is scoring higher than any other higher-end Champ. This suggests at least two things. One, that they examined some type of criteria in comparison. Two, that they see this as enough of a discrepancy to revisit him. The argument that they're wrong is just nonsensical. What they see is a problem for them. We can debate if they're right or wrong, we can debate whether we think it's a problem, we can debate whether we think he's balanced or not, we can debate whatever aspect we like. We can't really debate whether what they found is accurate or not. We don't know what they were looking at, what they were comparing, what their goals are, what their limits are. They may disclose that or they may not. On the plainest level, do I believe they found what they found and that their assertion is accurate? Absolutely. They wouldn't bring it to the Announcement stage if not.
The data is neither right or wrong. It is what it is. The interpretation of the data may or may not be correct. Players using Cull have responded with reasons why they believe Kabam to be incorrect. The debate would be to interact with those reasons. Taking up the position that Kabam has stated what they stated so the players must be wrong is essentially spam.
So because I'm not questioning their capabilities to process their own data, I'm spamming? Bit one-sided there, bud.
What data? Where have they stated what data this was? For all we know it was sales data from the cull crystal or data pulled from a fight in act 1 using a 6* rank 5 cull. Nobody knows what data they used and they aren't talking to the community. Data can be interpreted however you want depending upon where said data came from
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
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.
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.
Again, your fundamental assumption is that Kabam is correct. If the closest we can get to fact is the information provided by Kabam, then there is no point debating anything they decide to do. If your starting assumption is that Kabam is correct and then you argue from that, it isn't surprising that you don't seem to ever waiver or change your mind and generally conclude that Kabam's position is the right one. But we all have the statements from Kabam. It is unnecessary to keep asserting them. People are arguing from game experience and your response is essentially "Kabam's data says 'x' so 'x' is correct."
So which would you side with? People with years of experience working on a product who also have access to all the information, or people who are upset at the very idea of changing anything? One side is operating on emotion. The other side is operating out of experience and access to data.
Again, if you take it as an axiom that Kabam is right and the players are wrong, there isn't much point discussing. In the matter of whether or not Cull is out performing in a game breaking way, I'll take the opinion of the most experienced players in the game over devs looking at data who don't actually play the game. It could be that people that use Cull know his limitations and where he shines and don't use him in situations where he isn't good. More balanced champs get used all over the place with varying degrees of success. Cull destroys some fights. Could that skew the data? Kabam's data made Cyclops into a meme when we were told that he was among the most effective champs. I don't think the players are always right and Kabam is always wrong. But Kabam has been known to be wrong. But all this is moot. You have made it clear that your position is based on the premise that Kabam is correct. We can't really have a debate about whether or not Cull is balanced if you are taking it for granted that he is not.
Sure, they've been wrong. So have we. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether or not their data represents the statement they made. Do you honestly and truly believe they would make an Announcement, knowing how this community would react, if their data was wrong in any way? The simple truth is, they examined it, and made an assertion. Cull is scoring higher than any other higher-end Champ. This suggests at least two things. One, that they examined some type of criteria in comparison. Two, that they see this as enough of a discrepancy to revisit him. The argument that they're wrong is just nonsensical. What they see is a problem for them. We can debate if they're right or wrong, we can debate whether we think it's a problem, we can debate whether we think he's balanced or not, we can debate whatever aspect we like. We can't really debate whether what they found is accurate or not. We don't know what they were looking at, what they were comparing, what their goals are, what their limits are. They may disclose that or they may not. On the plainest level, do I believe they found what they found and that their assertion is accurate? Absolutely. They wouldn't bring it to the Announcement stage if not.
The data is neither right or wrong. It is what it is. The interpretation of the data may or may not be correct. Players using Cull have responded with reasons why they believe Kabam to be incorrect. The debate would be to interact with those reasons. Taking up the position that Kabam has stated what they stated so the players must be wrong is essentially spam.
So because I'm not questioning their capabilities to process their own data, I'm spamming? Bit one-sided there, bud.
What data? Where have they stated what data this was? For all we know it was sales data from the cull crystal or data pulled from a fight in act 1 using a 6* rank 5 cull. Nobody knows what data they used and they aren't talking to the community. Data can be interpreted however you want depending upon where said data came from
Since when are they required to divulge their data when making changes?
45 pages and still no “official” response from kabam since page one face it everyone it sucks but they clearly don’t care about the community’s opinion on the subject. Do what you feel but I have lost all faith in this game at this point this company routinely ignores its player base because it’s profitable and as a company that’s what they care about if they become unprofitable they may care in the mean time I will continue to play the game without spending or ranking new champs until I finish doing their beta testing for them
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
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.
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.
Again, your fundamental assumption is that Kabam is correct. If the closest we can get to fact is the information provided by Kabam, then there is no point debating anything they decide to do. If your starting assumption is that Kabam is correct and then you argue from that, it isn't surprising that you don't seem to ever waiver or change your mind and generally conclude that Kabam's position is the right one. But we all have the statements from Kabam. It is unnecessary to keep asserting them. People are arguing from game experience and your response is essentially "Kabam's data says 'x' so 'x' is correct."
So which would you side with? People with years of experience working on a product who also have access to all the information, or people who are upset at the very idea of changing anything? One side is operating on emotion. The other side is operating out of experience and access to data.
Again, if you take it as an axiom that Kabam is right and the players are wrong, there isn't much point discussing. In the matter of whether or not Cull is out performing in a game breaking way, I'll take the opinion of the most experienced players in the game over devs looking at data who don't actually play the game. It could be that people that use Cull know his limitations and where he shines and don't use him in situations where he isn't good. More balanced champs get used all over the place with varying degrees of success. Cull destroys some fights. Could that skew the data? Kabam's data made Cyclops into a meme when we were told that he was among the most effective champs. I don't think the players are always right and Kabam is always wrong. But Kabam has been known to be wrong. But all this is moot. You have made it clear that your position is based on the premise that Kabam is correct. We can't really have a debate about whether or not Cull is balanced if you are taking it for granted that he is not.
Sure, they've been wrong. So have we. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether or not their data represents the statement they made. Do you honestly and truly believe they would make an Announcement, knowing how this community would react, if their data was wrong in any way? The simple truth is, they examined it, and made an assertion. Cull is scoring higher than any other higher-end Champ. This suggests at least two things. One, that they examined some type of criteria in comparison. Two, that they see this as enough of a discrepancy to revisit him. The argument that they're wrong is just nonsensical. What they see is a problem for them. We can debate if they're right or wrong, we can debate whether we think it's a problem, we can debate whether we think he's balanced or not, we can debate whatever aspect we like. We can't really debate whether what they found is accurate or not. We don't know what they were looking at, what they were comparing, what their goals are, what their limits are. They may disclose that or they may not. On the plainest level, do I believe they found what they found and that their assertion is accurate? Absolutely. They wouldn't bring it to the Announcement stage if not.
The data is neither right or wrong. It is what it is. The interpretation of the data may or may not be correct. Players using Cull have responded with reasons why they believe Kabam to be incorrect. The debate would be to interact with those reasons. Taking up the position that Kabam has stated what they stated so the players must be wrong is essentially spam.
So because I'm not questioning their capabilities to process their own data, I'm spamming? Bit one-sided there, bud.
What data? Where have they stated what data this was? For all we know it was sales data from the cull crystal or data pulled from a fight in act 1 using a 6* rank 5 cull. Nobody knows what data they used and they aren't talking to the community. Data can be interpreted however you want depending upon where said data came from
Since when are they required to divulge their data when making changes?
You are defending the accuracy of their data! What data are you defending. Again you are just going in circles blindly defending them. Where are the mods who can actually give us some answers? You defend them with no defense
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
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.
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.
Again, your fundamental assumption is that Kabam is correct. If the closest we can get to fact is the information provided by Kabam, then there is no point debating anything they decide to do. If your starting assumption is that Kabam is correct and then you argue from that, it isn't surprising that you don't seem to ever waiver or change your mind and generally conclude that Kabam's position is the right one. But we all have the statements from Kabam. It is unnecessary to keep asserting them. People are arguing from game experience and your response is essentially "Kabam's data says 'x' so 'x' is correct."
So which would you side with? People with years of experience working on a product who also have access to all the information, or people who are upset at the very idea of changing anything? One side is operating on emotion. The other side is operating out of experience and access to data.
Again, if you take it as an axiom that Kabam is right and the players are wrong, there isn't much point discussing. In the matter of whether or not Cull is out performing in a game breaking way, I'll take the opinion of the most experienced players in the game over devs looking at data who don't actually play the game. It could be that people that use Cull know his limitations and where he shines and don't use him in situations where he isn't good. More balanced champs get used all over the place with varying degrees of success. Cull destroys some fights. Could that skew the data? Kabam's data made Cyclops into a meme when we were told that he was among the most effective champs. I don't think the players are always right and Kabam is always wrong. But Kabam has been known to be wrong. But all this is moot. You have made it clear that your position is based on the premise that Kabam is correct. We can't really have a debate about whether or not Cull is balanced if you are taking it for granted that he is not.
Sure, they've been wrong. So have we. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether or not their data represents the statement they made. Do you honestly and truly believe they would make an Announcement, knowing how this community would react, if their data was wrong in any way? The simple truth is, they examined it, and made an assertion. Cull is scoring higher than any other higher-end Champ. This suggests at least two things. One, that they examined some type of criteria in comparison. Two, that they see this as enough of a discrepancy to revisit him. The argument that they're wrong is just nonsensical. What they see is a problem for them. We can debate if they're right or wrong, we can debate whether we think it's a problem, we can debate whether we think he's balanced or not, we can debate whatever aspect we like. We can't really debate whether what they found is accurate or not. We don't know what they were looking at, what they were comparing, what their goals are, what their limits are. They may disclose that or they may not. On the plainest level, do I believe they found what they found and that their assertion is accurate? Absolutely. They wouldn't bring it to the Announcement stage if not.
The data is neither right or wrong. It is what it is. The interpretation of the data may or may not be correct. Players using Cull have responded with reasons why they believe Kabam to be incorrect. The debate would be to interact with those reasons. Taking up the position that Kabam has stated what they stated so the players must be wrong is essentially spam.
So because I'm not questioning their capabilities to process their own data, I'm spamming? Bit one-sided there, bud.
No, you are spamming because you aren't engaging in the debate about how Cull is actually performing, and since you don't have Kabam's data, you can't bring that to the table. All you are doing is maintaining that Kabam knows what they are doing, that they have the data, and they must be correct. Kabam has their data and they have stated their position. What players bring to the table is actual game experience. Discussion and debate on the part of players would be demonstrating how Kabam's interpretation doesn't fit the gaming experience, as many have done, or demonstrating how Kabam's interpretation does fit the gaming experience, as you have not attempted to do. The way to add to the discussion and show why Kabam is in the right would be as a gamer using arguments about the game. Simply assuming that Kabam must be right since they have the data, and saying as much in various ways, is spam.
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
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.
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.
Again, your fundamental assumption is that Kabam is correct. If the closest we can get to fact is the information provided by Kabam, then there is no point debating anything they decide to do. If your starting assumption is that Kabam is correct and then you argue from that, it isn't surprising that you don't seem to ever waiver or change your mind and generally conclude that Kabam's position is the right one. But we all have the statements from Kabam. It is unnecessary to keep asserting them. People are arguing from game experience and your response is essentially "Kabam's data says 'x' so 'x' is correct."
So which would you side with? People with years of experience working on a product who also have access to all the information, or people who are upset at the very idea of changing anything? One side is operating on emotion. The other side is operating out of experience and access to data.
Again, if you take it as an axiom that Kabam is right and the players are wrong, there isn't much point discussing. In the matter of whether or not Cull is out performing in a game breaking way, I'll take the opinion of the most experienced players in the game over devs looking at data who don't actually play the game. It could be that people that use Cull know his limitations and where he shines and don't use him in situations where he isn't good. More balanced champs get used all over the place with varying degrees of success. Cull destroys some fights. Could that skew the data? Kabam's data made Cyclops into a meme when we were told that he was among the most effective champs. I don't think the players are always right and Kabam is always wrong. But Kabam has been known to be wrong. But all this is moot. You have made it clear that your position is based on the premise that Kabam is correct. We can't really have a debate about whether or not Cull is balanced if you are taking it for granted that he is not.
Sure, they've been wrong. So have we. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether or not their data represents the statement they made. Do you honestly and truly believe they would make an Announcement, knowing how this community would react, if their data was wrong in any way? The simple truth is, they examined it, and made an assertion. Cull is scoring higher than any other higher-end Champ. This suggests at least two things. One, that they examined some type of criteria in comparison. Two, that they see this as enough of a discrepancy to revisit him. The argument that they're wrong is just nonsensical. What they see is a problem for them. We can debate if they're right or wrong, we can debate whether we think it's a problem, we can debate whether we think he's balanced or not, we can debate whatever aspect we like. We can't really debate whether what they found is accurate or not. We don't know what they were looking at, what they were comparing, what their goals are, what their limits are. They may disclose that or they may not. On the plainest level, do I believe they found what they found and that their assertion is accurate? Absolutely. They wouldn't bring it to the Announcement stage if not.
The data is neither right or wrong. It is what it is. The interpretation of the data may or may not be correct. Players using Cull have responded with reasons why they believe Kabam to be incorrect. The debate would be to interact with those reasons. Taking up the position that Kabam has stated what they stated so the players must be wrong is essentially spam.
So because I'm not questioning their capabilities to process their own data, I'm spamming? Bit one-sided there, bud.
No, you are spamming because you aren't engaging in the debate about how Cull is actually performing, and since you don't have Kabam's data, you can't bring that to the table. All you are doing is maintaining that Kabam knows what they are doing, that they have the data, and they must be correct. Kabam has their data and they have stated their position. What players bring to the table is actual game experience. Discussion and debate on the part of players would be demonstrating how Kabam's interpretation doesn't fit the gaming experience, as many have done, or demonstrating how Kabam's interpretation does fit the gaming experience, as you have not attempted to do. The way to add to the discussion and show why Kabam is in the right would be as a gamer using arguments about the game. Simply assuming that Kabam must be right since they have the data, and saying as much in various ways, is spam.
No. You're saying I'm spamming because I'm not in agreement that there's a problem with their data. There's a huge difference between spamming and just not agreeing. The same could be said for the other side of the argument. Experience is claimed but you don't even know what they were looking at. All I see is people questioning the data because they don't like their findings.
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!
That is not even remotely close to the kinds of reports game operators are looking at. This basically assumes that the point of the datamining reports is to simply confirm that the champion is working exactly as he was designed, essentially confirming what calculation could just as easily determine. I think this is the source over the confusion over why people wonder why you can't just look at the champions without resorting to data mining.
A simpler example would better illustrate the point. Who's more survivable: Wolverine or Kamala Khan? Obviously, Wolverine. Who'd argue otherwise? But that's in theory. Wolverine has more survivability on paper. If the data showed that Wolverine died on average every four fights and Kamala died on average every five fights, normalized so they are fighting the same comparable sets of fights, then Kamala is more survivable.
You could argue that that can't possibly be right, that the data must be misleading. That maybe people take more risks with Wolverine thinking his healing will save them, and that's why he dies more often. And that's probably the explanation. BUT, that's irrelevant. You might define "survivability" to be all these theoretical things like health and healing and so on. But a game operator that runs a data driven game would say that the DEFINITION of survivability is "survives more often." The players determine who's more survivable by playing the champs and dying less often. Period.
When they say that Cull does "too much damage" that's too ambiguous for me to know what specific stat or set of stats they are looking at. But it isn't how much damage he does per hit or how much theoretical DPS he can generate with a MLLLM combo. It is going to be a stat that shows what players are actually doing with him in the game. Like maybe the average Cull fight lasts 15 seconds compared to the overall average for all champs of 30 seconds., in the set of situations X, where this is true for a wide range of different X. Something like that.
And as I said: the specific "bins" that game operators look at, and which metrics they use within each bin, is highly proprietary. I don't know any game operator that reveals this information. Without the bin definitions or the metric calculation formulas, the raw data won't be useful. It won't mean anything to you if Kabam says Cull scores 184.6 compared to Ghost scoring 107.14. If you ask for the data, that's all you'd get, if you could ever get them to give it to you, which you can't. But what's the formula for those numbers, and which players and which content is averaged into it, is basically impossible to squeeze out of a game operator.
If you force me to guess, I would guess that "too much damage" is probably "ends fights quicker" and the report they are looking at has a list of champions with a number representing the average length of time of all the fights within the same basket of comparison. And Cull is way up there, and second place is way below. But I can think of at least a dozen other stats it could be, so that guess is at best vague. But I'm 100% certain that it is nothing like what you're envisioning above. It isn't about the format. It is about the embedded assumption that the data is about the champ, and not about the player performance when using the champ, which you cannot predict without knowing how all the players in the game behave.
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
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.
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.
Again, your fundamental assumption is that Kabam is correct. If the closest we can get to fact is the information provided by Kabam, then there is no point debating anything they decide to do. If your starting assumption is that Kabam is correct and then you argue from that, it isn't surprising that you don't seem to ever waiver or change your mind and generally conclude that Kabam's position is the right one. But we all have the statements from Kabam. It is unnecessary to keep asserting them. People are arguing from game experience and your response is essentially "Kabam's data says 'x' so 'x' is correct."
So which would you side with? People with years of experience working on a product who also have access to all the information, or people who are upset at the very idea of changing anything? One side is operating on emotion. The other side is operating out of experience and access to data.
Again, if you take it as an axiom that Kabam is right and the players are wrong, there isn't much point discussing. In the matter of whether or not Cull is out performing in a game breaking way, I'll take the opinion of the most experienced players in the game over devs looking at data who don't actually play the game. It could be that people that use Cull know his limitations and where he shines and don't use him in situations where he isn't good. More balanced champs get used all over the place with varying degrees of success. Cull destroys some fights. Could that skew the data? Kabam's data made Cyclops into a meme when we were told that he was among the most effective champs. I don't think the players are always right and Kabam is always wrong. But Kabam has been known to be wrong. But all this is moot. You have made it clear that your position is based on the premise that Kabam is correct. We can't really have a debate about whether or not Cull is balanced if you are taking it for granted that he is not.
Sure, they've been wrong. So have we. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether or not their data represents the statement they made. Do you honestly and truly believe they would make an Announcement, knowing how this community would react, if their data was wrong in any way? The simple truth is, they examined it, and made an assertion. Cull is scoring higher than any other higher-end Champ. This suggests at least two things. One, that they examined some type of criteria in comparison. Two, that they see this as enough of a discrepancy to revisit him. The argument that they're wrong is just nonsensical. What they see is a problem for them. We can debate if they're right or wrong, we can debate whether we think it's a problem, we can debate whether we think he's balanced or not, we can debate whatever aspect we like. We can't really debate whether what they found is accurate or not. We don't know what they were looking at, what they were comparing, what their goals are, what their limits are. They may disclose that or they may not. On the plainest level, do I believe they found what they found and that their assertion is accurate? Absolutely. They wouldn't bring it to the Announcement stage if not.
The data is neither right or wrong. It is what it is. The interpretation of the data may or may not be correct. Players using Cull have responded with reasons why they believe Kabam to be incorrect. The debate would be to interact with those reasons. Taking up the position that Kabam has stated what they stated so the players must be wrong is essentially spam.
So because I'm not questioning their capabilities to process their own data, I'm spamming? Bit one-sided there, bud.
What data? Where have they stated what data this was? For all we know it was sales data from the cull crystal or data pulled from a fight in act 1 using a 6* rank 5 cull. Nobody knows what data they used and they aren't talking to the community. Data can be interpreted however you want depending upon where said data came from
Since when are they required to divulge their data when making changes?
They’re not required. We are asking for it.
We are asking them to engage in the community and show some semblance of respect by sharing the methods and data they are using to come to decisions affecting the game that many of us have put so much time and effort into. Not only does this promote transparency, trust, and confidence, but it promotes a partnership ultimately leading to improved game moral and less resentment. It inspires confidence in rank ups and money spent, as we are able to intelligently grow our accounts based on a system we understand.
I question anybody who sees this as a bad thing.
It is a curious thing, that some players do not find it appealing to work towards the satisfaction of all players. It strengthens the foundation of the game.
Some do not wish to empathize or understand people’s frustration, regardless of a fundamental difference in approach and philosophy.
How are we having an argument about data no one has seen you can’t possibly know if it’s right or wrong without seeing hence not defend a point of view kabam needs to tell us where and when they got their data otherwise I have no reason to believe what they do or that they even have data. They made the claim and thereby have to prove it I don’t have to blindly accept it.
Comments
Example: First they said they won't do RTD for She-Hulk, then they changed their mind based on community outrage.
Example from the past: After they nerfed god tier champs in 12.0, public outcry (especially whales) forced them to redo the god tier champs.
Sorry but you are wrong on that one. Customer is the one who dictates what Kabam can and can't do.
A simpler example would better illustrate the point. Who's more survivable: Wolverine or Kamala Khan? Obviously, Wolverine. Who'd argue otherwise? But that's in theory. Wolverine has more survivability on paper. If the data showed that Wolverine died on average every four fights and Kamala died on average every five fights, normalized so they are fighting the same comparable sets of fights, then Kamala is more survivable.
You could argue that that can't possibly be right, that the data must be misleading. That maybe people take more risks with Wolverine thinking his healing will save them, and that's why he dies more often. And that's probably the explanation. BUT, that's irrelevant. You might define "survivability" to be all these theoretical things like health and healing and so on. But a game operator that runs a data driven game would say that the DEFINITION of survivability is "survives more often." The players determine who's more survivable by playing the champs and dying less often. Period.
When they say that Cull does "too much damage" that's too ambiguous for me to know what specific stat or set of stats they are looking at. But it isn't how much damage he does per hit or how much theoretical DPS he can generate with a MLLLM combo. It is going to be a stat that shows what players are actually doing with him in the game. Like maybe the average Cull fight lasts 15 seconds compared to the overall average for all champs of 30 seconds., in the set of situations X, where this is true for a wide range of different X. Something like that.
And as I said: the specific "bins" that game operators look at, and which metrics they use within each bin, is highly proprietary. I don't know any game operator that reveals this information. Without the bin definitions or the metric calculation formulas, the raw data won't be useful. It won't mean anything to you if Kabam says Cull scores 184.6 compared to Ghost scoring 107.14. If you ask for the data, that's all you'd get, if you could ever get them to give it to you, which you can't. But what's the formula for those numbers, and which players and which content is averaged into it, is basically impossible to squeeze out of a game operator.
If you force me to guess, I would guess that "too much damage" is probably "ends fights quicker" and the report they are looking at has a list of champions with a number representing the average length of time of all the fights within the same basket of comparison. And Cull is way up there, and second place is way below. But I can think of at least a dozen other stats it could be, so that guess is at best vague. But I'm 100% certain that it is nothing like what you're envisioning above. It isn't about the format. It is about the embedded assumption that the data is about the champ, and not about the player performance when using the champ, which you cannot predict without knowing how all the players in the game behave.
We are asking them to engage in the community and show some semblance of respect by sharing the methods and data they are using to come to decisions affecting the game that many of us have put so much time and effort into. Not only does this promote transparency, trust, and confidence, but it promotes a partnership ultimately leading to improved game moral and less resentment. It inspires confidence in rank ups and money spent, as we are able to intelligently grow our accounts based on a system we understand.
I question anybody who sees this as a bad thing.
It is a curious thing, that some players do not find it appealing to work towards the satisfaction of all players. It strengthens the foundation of the game.
Some do not wish to empathize or understand people’s frustration, regardless of a fundamental difference in approach and philosophy.
So it has been, and so it shall be.