**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Upcoming Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw Balance Changes
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.