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.
That's not remotely demonstrating that players have the final say. That's demonstrating that players can make suggestions that Kabam sometimes follows. If players had the final say, they wouldn't need to convince Kabam of anything. They could simply dictate to Kabam what they should do and Kabam would be compelled to follow that instruction. The players do not have that sort of power over the developers. The delusion that they do only diverts them from avenues that might work into avenues that generally won't.
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.
Lol you are so wrong again. They are monitoring this thread; sound arguments from here will be taken into consideration when deciding what to do with Cull. Same as with 12.0: they put out the change, listened to people on forums and youtube, and then reworked the change accordingly.
The problem with 12.0 was nobody expected such a harsh change and the boycott hit them hard. Now they announce the change three months in advance, but they don't say what exactly will change. If they already knew, they would say it.
Like I said, wrong again. But I wouldn't expect anything else from a Kabam dog.
If you're implying that people can have anything they want with enough kicking and screaming, I'm inclined to point out that's the problem with entitlement mentality in general.
Yes that's what I'm implying, just switch "kicking and screaming" with "not spending anymore". We've seen time and time again a change forum didn't like, but because the revenue was steady, Kabam didn't rework the change. Beside revenue, another factor that can force Kabam into reworking the change is also enough people on app store and google play rating the game with only 1 star.
It's really strange for you to not know this while being on forums practically 24/7.
Time and time again? I can think of a small number of times. Let's back it up either way. You think they just give in because people threaten? No. Those cases involved changes significant enough to rethink the effects on Players. It's not just about people holding their breath to get their own way. It's about the gravity of what's going on. 12.0 was one such instance. War was another. You can't even include Shulk because those changes went through as planned. They offered the opportunity to Rank Down because it came as a surprise. I'm not sure why you're under the impression that the game is controlled by manipulation, but I wouldn't be so disrespectful to spit in the face of compromise.
Anything that relies on sales and promotion to maintain its existence and thrive participates in manipulation to some degree.
Since my previous comment got deleted I will state this in the nicest way possible. I think we're arguing back and forth with others players that believe playing this game is simply a privilege so we should accept anything that Kabam does regardless of how random it may seem.
I disagree with this notion but respect everyone that feels differently. At the end of the day we would like a good fair product. In the case of Cull I think a percentage of his damage taken away will be just fine as long as Kabam announces they will increase his sustainability. I think the hair on fire would significantly die down and we can have a more constructive conversation.
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.
That's not remotely demonstrating that players have the final say. That's demonstrating that players can make suggestions that Kabam sometimes follows. If players had the final say, they wouldn't need to convince Kabam of anything. They could simply dictate to Kabam what they should do and Kabam would be compelled to follow that instruction. The players do not have that sort of power over the developers. The delusion that they do only diverts them from avenues that might work into avenues that generally won't.
Players do have the final say.
If EVERY SINGLE player uninstalls this game tomorrow, kabam will be out of business and the developers will be laid off.
The customers do have the final say.
That's silly. All you're saying is everyone individually has the final say on what their own actions are. If every single player stopped playing, there'd be no game anymore. But if Kabam stopped running the game, there'd be no game anymore either. Which of those is the "final" say?
You're right about one thing though. To us this is a game. It might be a time consuming, expensive game for some. But it is still a game. For the Kabam developers, it is their livelihood. So they are always going to do what they think is in the best interests of the long term health of the game. They don't get a cut of the profits from offers. They just get a paycheck. And if they think something is in the best interests of the game and you disagree, there's nothing you can say to force them to do what you want, because they won't jeopardize their livelihood on a player's guess. If they are going down, they are going down on their guesses, not yours.
As would everyone else here when it comes to their future.
I think we're arguing back and forth with others players that believe playing this game is simply a privilege so we should accept anything that Kabam does regardless of how random it may seem.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. My customers are not privileged to have me servicing them. But neither do they dictate to me what my business is. There's a very clear delineation between my customers and my company. Before we take a customer on, we define what our responsibilities are, and what are operating limits are. Once those are defined, I decide how those responsibilities are executed. They decide if they want my services or not. But they don't tell me how to do my job.
Kabam like every game operator out there makes a game. They do so in a particular way, and they aren't going to open their doors and let all the players roam the offices telling their employees what to do. They aren't going to simply implement every suggestion they are given. They will listen to suggestions, but at the end of the day they are going to do what they think is best for the game. Players have to decide whether to play or not, and whether to spend money or not. They can comment, they can make suggestions, but they will never have control over the game. That isn't because the players aren't respected, that's because respect doesn't imply control.
Within those boundaries there's a lot of room for improvement in communication. But anyone who believes that those boundaries don't exist, or think that the only proof of respect is obedience, isn't going to get anywhere.
You don't have to accept every decision Kabam makes. You just have to accept they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
I think we're arguing back and forth with others players that believe playing this game is simply a privilege so we should accept anything that Kabam does regardless of how random it may seem.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. My customers are not privileged to have me servicing them. But neither do they dictate to me what my business is. There's a very clear delineation between my customers and my company. Before we take a customer on, we define what our responsibilities are, and what are operating limits are. Once those are defined, I decide how those responsibilities are executed. They decide if they want my services or not. But they don't tell me how to do my job.
Kabam like every game operator out there makes a game. They do so in a particular way, and they aren't going to open their doors and let all the players roam the offices telling their employees what to do. They aren't going to simply implement every suggestion they are given. They will listen to suggestions, but at the end of the day they are going to do what they think is best for the game. Players have to decide whether to play or not, and whether to spend money or not. They can comment, they can make suggestions, but they will never have control over the game. That isn't because the players aren't respected, that's because respect doesn't imply control.
Within those boundaries there's a lot of room for improvement in communication. But anyone who believes that those boundaries don't exist, or think that the only proof of respect is obedience, isn't going to get anywhere.
You don't have to accept every decision Kabam makes. You just have to accept they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
I'm on Kabam's side because I play the game. I'm just giving them a heads up that this isn't the way to address the "game imbalances." You may disagree and they do ultimately have the final decision but I personally want a fun game overall so if they could properly paint the picture of what about removing Cull's damage makes it optimal for the future I'm open to listening but that hasn't happened yet.
I think we're arguing back and forth with others players that believe playing this game is simply a privilege so we should accept anything that Kabam does regardless of how random it may seem.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. My customers are not privileged to have me servicing them. But neither do they dictate to me what my business is. There's a very clear delineation between my customers and my company. Before we take a customer on, we define what our responsibilities are, and what are operating limits are. Once those are defined, I decide how those responsibilities are executed. They decide if they want my services or not. But they don't tell me how to do my job.
Kabam like every game operator out there makes a game. They do so in a particular way, and they aren't going to open their doors and let all the players roam the offices telling their employees what to do. They aren't going to simply implement every suggestion they are given. They will listen to suggestions, but at the end of the day they are going to do what they think is best for the game. Players have to decide whether to play or not, and whether to spend money or not. They can comment, they can make suggestions, but they will never have control over the game. That isn't because the players aren't respected, that's because respect doesn't imply control.
Within those boundaries there's a lot of room for improvement in communication. But anyone who believes that those boundaries don't exist, or think that the only proof of respect is obedience, isn't going to get anywhere.
You don't have to accept every decision Kabam makes. You just have to accept they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
Well, that is a bit naive, the only thing that dictates to a company like Kabam on how to move forward is the market and the directives they will receive from Marvel, and in both the user has an important impact
The best interest for a game is what makes it popular and with a large number of users that could become customers.
So when they have market models such as selling champions and rank up resources, but those champions change ... well ... customers will not be happy if there is no compensation (even if it is for the "good" of the game) and explanation about how and why.
Customers are selfish by default because they want as much as they can for the money invested and now, so if nerfing champions will become a thing, Kabam will have angry customers and that will have an impact on the market and, therefore, on Decision making, BUT if nothing like that happend, well if you dont like it then take your money somewhere else.. I guess time will say.
I just want to know how kabam can justify selling $10 crystals for what is essentially an unfinished product at this point how is that a good business model for them? How does it promote trust and clarity in the community? How would it compel someone to spend money on u it’s to buy crystals and obtain a champ that is not complete? I know I would not buy units for that it just doesn’t seem smart to me
I think we're arguing back and forth with others players that believe playing this game is simply a privilege so we should accept anything that Kabam does regardless of how random it may seem.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. My customers are not privileged to have me servicing them. But neither do they dictate to me what my business is. There's a very clear delineation between my customers and my company. Before we take a customer on, we define what our responsibilities are, and what are operating limits are. Once those are defined, I decide how those responsibilities are executed. They decide if they want my services or not. But they don't tell me how to do my job.
Kabam like every game operator out there makes a game. They do so in a particular way, and they aren't going to open their doors and let all the players roam the offices telling their employees what to do. They aren't going to simply implement every suggestion they are given. They will listen to suggestions, but at the end of the day they are going to do what they think is best for the game. Players have to decide whether to play or not, and whether to spend money or not. They can comment, they can make suggestions, but they will never have control over the game. That isn't because the players aren't respected, that's because respect doesn't imply control.
Within those boundaries there's a lot of room for improvement in communication. But anyone who believes that those boundaries don't exist, or think that the only proof of respect is obedience, isn't going to get anywhere.
You don't have to accept every decision Kabam makes. You just have to accept they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
While a business cant allow customers to determine every aspect of what they do. There you are absolutely correct. Players running the halls telling designers what to do would never work. Im also fairly certain someone is reading these posts. Where I think your post is missing the mark here is how do the players know they are listening to suggestions. How do players know this information is getting back to the design team and not just being read by a mod looking to stop tos violations while the game team waits for it to blow over. This thread has had no response from kabam since the initial post. Also as a business you cant survive if you alienate your customers by making hugely unfavorable decisions that impact them especially where money is concerned. I could care less about cull obsidian being changed myself since he isn't a champ I use. What is extremely worrisome is the president it sets that champs which have value for high damage or utility can be adjusted down once the company has reaped the rewards from the crystal sales. As far as cull goes it could also have been handled better had the post not just listed his attack as the only change being made to him. Who knows outside of kabam if he will be better overall after the rework but the way it was stated in the post sounded pretty depressing. Perhaps as well as testing champs before release they should proofread their posts to see if it will be interpreted poorly due to wording.
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.
That's not what I am saying at all. We don't have access to their data. It has zero to do with whether or not you agree with them. This thread exists because many believe that they have misinterpreted their data and the actual Cull isn't what they say he is. Arguments about his design and how it plays have been made. You have repeatedly stated that Kabam's data is all we have to go on, it's the closest we have to the truth, they know their game best, etc. It's the equivalent of saying "Nah uh". Arguing that Kabam's data, which you don't have, and their interpretation thereof is correct is merely stating your belief and has nothing to do with the arguments being made on the other side. Doing so more than once with nothing new to add is spam. People have argued about his sustainability, lack of utility in most difficult content, non existence in high tier war attack due to his issues, the high cost of achieving his massive damage potential, etc. If you have anything to offer as counter arguments for these points, well and good. Simply maintaining that Kabam is correct because they are 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.
That's not what I am saying at all. We don't have access to their data. It has zero to do with whether or not you agree with them. This thread exists because many believe that they have misinterpreted their data and the actual Cull isn't what they say he is. Arguments about his design and how it plays have been made. You have repeatedly stated that Kabam's data is all we have to go on, it's the closest we have to the truth, they know their game best, etc. It's the equivalent of saying "Nah uh". Arguing that Kabam's data, which you don't have, and their interpretation thereof is correct is merely stating your belief and has nothing to do with the arguments being made on the other side. Doing so more than once with nothing new to add is spam. People have argued about his sustainability, lack of utility in most difficult content, non existence in high tier war attack due to his issues, the high cost of achieving his massive damage potential, etc. If you have anything to offer as counter arguments for these points, well and good. Simply maintaining that Kabam is correct because they are is spam.
Well since you are not adding anything new either, are you spamming??? I'm spamming as well??
I think we're arguing back and forth with others players that believe playing this game is simply a privilege so we should accept anything that Kabam does regardless of how random it may seem.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. My customers are not privileged to have me servicing them. But neither do they dictate to me what my business is. There's a very clear delineation between my customers and my company. Before we take a customer on, we define what our responsibilities are, and what are operating limits are. Once those are defined, I decide how those responsibilities are executed. They decide if they want my services or not. But they don't tell me how to do my job.
Kabam like every game operator out there makes a game. They do so in a particular way, and they aren't going to open their doors and let all the players roam the offices telling their employees what to do. They aren't going to simply implement every suggestion they are given. They will listen to suggestions, but at the end of the day they are going to do what they think is best for the game. Players have to decide whether to play or not, and whether to spend money or not. They can comment, they can make suggestions, but they will never have control over the game. That isn't because the players aren't respected, that's because respect doesn't imply control.
Within those boundaries there's a lot of room for improvement in communication. But anyone who believes that those boundaries don't exist, or think that the only proof of respect is obedience, isn't going to get anywhere.
You don't have to accept every decision Kabam makes. You just have to accept they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
I realize it’s just hyperbole, but I dont think anyone is literally advocating we all be able to roam the halls at Kabam and take straw polls on every game decision. If so, I missed it, but that would be an overreach.
I do see people asking to get a better sense of the data that purportedly drives the urge to squelch Cull. That seems pretty reasonable. If there’s such a tremendous disparity in the data, I can’t imagine it would be hard to figure out a way to show that to the community. Who knows? It might actually change some minds.
Personally, I don’t care. Game data can be manipulated like any other data. What does concern me is an “adjustment” program that feels like it foists the burden of testing content on the community without oversight of the game team or meaningful protection for paying customers. Long term, that’s not good for the “health of the game.”
Where I think your post is missing the mark here is how do the players know they are listening to suggestions. How do players know this information is getting back to the design team and not just being read by a mod looking to stop tos violations while the game team waits for it to blow over.
At the end of the day, ultimately you don't. If you don't trust the developer, there's no way to prove they are in fact listening. The only thing I think you can do is try to raise the signal to noise ratio as high as possible, to increase the probability that the devs see the most important things. They can't read everything on the forums. They probably can't even read every post in this one thread. So every single poster has to decide what their priority is when posting. Are you exercising your right to speak, or are you trying to ensure the most important ideas are heard.
I try to present my position in such a way that not only is it responsive to whomever I'm replying to, but it is worth the developers' time to read. Sometimes they take notice. It isn't often: there are thousands of posters on the forums so you can't expect the developers to pay attention to you or me or any one person more than a small amount. But I think it happens often enough that it is the best option available to me. Everyone else has to decide for themselves how to maximize the probability of being heard. But you can never be sure that the person or people you're trying to communicate with actually cares what you have to say.
This is not easy. You're taking a leap of faith. And I don't claim to consistently follow my own advice either. But the only answer I have to your question above is that I don't know, but I behave as if they are listening, because if they are listening that's the right thing to do and if they aren't listening nothing I do matters anyway.
I think we're arguing back and forth with others players that believe playing this game is simply a privilege so we should accept anything that Kabam does regardless of how random it may seem.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. My customers are not privileged to have me servicing them. But neither do they dictate to me what my business is. There's a very clear delineation between my customers and my company. Before we take a customer on, we define what our responsibilities are, and what are operating limits are. Once those are defined, I decide how those responsibilities are executed. They decide if they want my services or not. But they don't tell me how to do my job.
Kabam like every game operator out there makes a game. They do so in a particular way, and they aren't going to open their doors and let all the players roam the offices telling their employees what to do. They aren't going to simply implement every suggestion they are given. They will listen to suggestions, but at the end of the day they are going to do what they think is best for the game. Players have to decide whether to play or not, and whether to spend money or not. They can comment, they can make suggestions, but they will never have control over the game. That isn't because the players aren't respected, that's because respect doesn't imply control.
Within those boundaries there's a lot of room for improvement in communication. But anyone who believes that those boundaries don't exist, or think that the only proof of respect is obedience, isn't going to get anywhere.
You don't have to accept every decision Kabam makes. You just have to accept they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
I realize it’s just hyperbole, but I dont think anyone is literally advocating we all be able to roam the halls at Kabam and take straw polls on every game decision. If so, I missed it, but that would be an overreach.
I do see people asking to get a better sense of the data that purportedly drives the urge to squelch Cull. That seems pretty reasonable. If there’s such a tremendous disparity in the data, I can’t imagine it would be hard to figure out a way to show that to the community. Who knows? It might actually change some minds.
Personally, I don’t care. Game data can be manipulated like any other data. What does concern me is an “adjustment” program that feels like it foists the burden of testing content on the community without oversight of the game team or meaningful protection for paying customers. Long term, that’s not good for the “health of the game.”
Dr. Zola
This right here seems to be a reasonable and thoughtful human. Well stated.
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.
100% correct .. well said. It's not hard to provide some of the information to demonstrate it .. especially if it's "so obvious" as some are saying .. *shrug*
Very simple request ... very honest request .. very understandable request.
I think we're arguing back and forth with others players that believe playing this game is simply a privilege so we should accept anything that Kabam does regardless of how random it may seem.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. My customers are not privileged to have me servicing them. But neither do they dictate to me what my business is. There's a very clear delineation between my customers and my company. Before we take a customer on, we define what our responsibilities are, and what are operating limits are. Once those are defined, I decide how those responsibilities are executed. They decide if they want my services or not. But they don't tell me how to do my job.
Kabam like every game operator out there makes a game. They do so in a particular way, and they aren't going to open their doors and let all the players roam the offices telling their employees what to do. They aren't going to simply implement every suggestion they are given. They will listen to suggestions, but at the end of the day they are going to do what they think is best for the game. Players have to decide whether to play or not, and whether to spend money or not. They can comment, they can make suggestions, but they will never have control over the game. That isn't because the players aren't respected, that's because respect doesn't imply control.
Within those boundaries there's a lot of room for improvement in communication. But anyone who believes that those boundaries don't exist, or think that the only proof of respect is obedience, isn't going to get anywhere.
You don't have to accept every decision Kabam makes. You just have to accept they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
Well, that is a bit naive, the only thing that dictates to a company like Kabam on how to move forward is the market and the directives they will receive from Marvel, and in both the user has an important impact
If that's true, then it should always be true, and have always been true. So where we are now should be due to the fact that the players have led us here by their influence on the game and on Marvel, however that might be.
So all you have to do is figure out why the vast majority of the players led us here, and then convince most or all of them why they should change their influence to what you want.
The problem with the statement "the players have the final say" is not that players individually have zero influence. The problem is rather that "the players" don't exist as a singular bargaining group, and never have, and never will. It is very easy to get a mob of people to all agree they don't like something. But you will never get them to agree on what it ought to be instead. And that's not because of a failing of those people, its because people genuinely want different things. But even this fact is extremely difficult to acknowledge. Everyone assumes that people are different, yes, but not in the ways they think are important. Players might quibble, but of course everyone agrees that X should happen.
Unanimity is illusory, but it appears that way because singling out what's wrong is step one. Everyone can get on board step one. But it is step two, when the discussion shifts to what the correct alternative is, that unanimity disappears. Try starting a thread on the problems of alliance war, or synergies, or quest difficulty. It'll be very easy to get people to agree all those things are broken. Try getting agreement on how to fix it.
If "the players" were really of a hive mind, they would indeed wield immense power. You could say that about the entire world of game players in general: "the players" could get rid of lootboxes, make all games free to play, eliminate grind, sentence all the spawn campers to death: nothing would be out of reach. But the differences between game players is enormous, and part of the problem is few people acknowledge this to be true.
Where I think your post is missing the mark here is how do the players know they are listening to suggestions. How do players know this information is getting back to the design team and not just being read by a mod looking to stop tos violations while the game team waits for it to blow over.
At the end of the day, ultimately you don't. If you don't trust the developer, there's no way to prove they are in fact listening. The only thing I think you can do is try to raise the signal to noise ratio as high as possible, to increase the probability that the devs see the most important things. They can't read everything on the forums. They probably can't even read every post in this one thread. So every single poster has to decide what their priority is when posting. Are you exercising your right to speak, or are you trying to ensure the most important ideas are heard.
I try to present my position in such a way that not only is it responsive to whomever I'm replying to, but it is worth the developers' time to read. Sometimes they take notice. It isn't often: there are thousands of posters on the forums so you can't expect the developers to pay attention to you or me or any one person more than a small amount. But I think it happens often enough that it is the best option available to me. Everyone else has to decide for themselves how to maximize the probability of being heard. But you can never be sure that the person or people you're trying to communicate with actually cares what you have to say.
This is not easy. You're taking a leap of faith. And I don't claim to consistently follow my own advice either. But the only answer I have to your question above is that I don't know, but I behave as if they are listening, because if they are listening that's the right thing to do and if they aren't listening nothing I do matters anyway.
I agree with you here and I'd like to believe that someone is listening. It would be nice to occasionally get a response from a mod that even some of our concerns are being given to the design team and not falling on deaf ears.
I think we're arguing back and forth with others players that believe playing this game is simply a privilege so we should accept anything that Kabam does regardless of how random it may seem.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. My customers are not privileged to have me servicing them. But neither do they dictate to me what my business is. There's a very clear delineation between my customers and my company. Before we take a customer on, we define what our responsibilities are, and what are operating limits are. Once those are defined, I decide how those responsibilities are executed. They decide if they want my services or not. But they don't tell me how to do my job.
Kabam like every game operator out there makes a game. They do so in a particular way, and they aren't going to open their doors and let all the players roam the offices telling their employees what to do. They aren't going to simply implement every suggestion they are given. They will listen to suggestions, but at the end of the day they are going to do what they think is best for the game. Players have to decide whether to play or not, and whether to spend money or not. They can comment, they can make suggestions, but they will never have control over the game. That isn't because the players aren't respected, that's because respect doesn't imply control.
Within those boundaries there's a lot of room for improvement in communication. But anyone who believes that those boundaries don't exist, or think that the only proof of respect is obedience, isn't going to get anywhere.
You don't have to accept every decision Kabam makes. You just have to accept they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
Well, that is a bit naive, the only thing that dictates to a company like Kabam on how to move forward is the market and the directives they will receive from Marvel, and in both the user has an important impact
If that's true, then it should always be true, and have always been true. So where we are now should be due to the fact that the players have led us here by their influence on the game and on Marvel, however that might be.
So all you have to do is figure out why the vast majority of the players led us here, and then convince most or all of them why they should change their influence to what you want.
The problem with the statement "the players have the final say" is not that players individually have zero influence. The problem is rather that "the players" don't exist as a singular bargaining group, and never have, and never will. It is very easy to get a mob of people to all agree they don't like something. But you will never get them to agree on what it ought to be instead. And that's not because of a failing of those people, its because people genuinely want different things. But even this fact is extremely difficult to acknowledge. Everyone assumes that people are different, yes, but not in the ways they think are important. Players might quibble, but of course everyone agrees that X should happen.
Unanimity is illusory, but it appears that way because singling out what's wrong is step one. Everyone can get on board step one. But it is step two, when the discussion shifts to what the correct alternative is, that unanimity disappears. Try starting a thread on the problems of alliance war, or synergies, or quest difficulty. It'll be very easy to get people to agree all those things are broken. Try getting agreement on how to fix it.
If "the players" were really of a hive mind, they would indeed wield immense power. You could say that about the entire world of game players in general: "the players" could get rid of lootboxes, make all games free to play, eliminate grind, sentence all the spawn campers to death: nothing would be out of reach. But the differences between game players is enormous, and part of the problem is few people acknowledge this to be true.
If something is true, it will remain true if its nature does not change and the conditions that make it true remain valid, but that may change over time, there is no eternal truth.
In sociology you can study a particular population (such as users of a game), such as physics, study a mass, it is composed of thousands of particles that move in different directions, but as a result of their interaction, the mass moves in only one direction, and for this you don't need unanimity, you just need a relevant group that pushes more
So, if that group pushes enough, then maybe Kabam does something about this lack of test.
Nice, I’ve pulled a 5* ebony maw 3 times and always thought he was a cool character, has some killer animation and looks right....just was a little bummed on his attack rate, he was a little (if a lot) underpowered, always thought a thing with his position in Thanos click would be a bad motor scooter for attack and defense. I’m really happy you guys are giving him a better boost then what he has going for him....after the change, maybe I’ll get a lot more playtime with him. I’ll keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best 🤞🏻👍🏻.
What does concern me is an “adjustment” program that feels like it foists the burden of testing content on the community without oversight of the game team or meaningful protection for paying customers. Long term, that’s not good for the “health of the game.”
Dr. Zola
The entire free to play games industry is founded on the premise "give as little value as possible for cash purchases." That seems like a suicidal business model, but that's a surface evaluation. The constellation of consequences that logically follow from that apparently insane premise have created the most profitable business model for games in all of history.
It may seem like balancing based on player performance in effect means no one can evaluate anything based on how it is designed, because external unpredictable factors can ultimately change it at any time, but the logical consequences of that premise are just as non-trivial and ultimately beneficial. At least, that's my opinion based on studying this issue for a very long time before ever playing this game.
There's probably two Ph.Ds and a game design book in there somewhere.
The Ph.D I would pick is the subject of playerbase self selection. The short version is that when we talk about games like this having "players" and "paying customers" that implies those are relatively static groups. But in fact there's constant turnover in both. The players and paying customers of tomorrow may not even have heard of the game yet today. Every decision you make must balance serving your current players and customers without cutting off your future stream of players and customers. And things beneficial to current players and customers can be detrimental to future players and customers.
The game you make has to attract the kind of players you need to make the game you need to make to attract the kind of players you need to make the game you need to make.
The long term health of the game isn't about making current players and customers happy, it is actually more about making sure this constraint is met. Making the current players and customers happy is a short term gain. But most of those players and customers won't be here in the future, because that's the nature of free to play games. You have to make them happy *and* make future players happy, and the kind of game you make to make current players happy "chooses" who those future players will even be, because the game you make will only attract certain kinds of people.
Actually, I forgot I hate school. So someone else can do that Ph.D.
Nice, I’ve pulled a 5* ebony maw 3 times and always thought he was a cool character, has some killer animation and looks right....just was a little bummed on his attack rate, he was a little (if a lot) underpowered, always thought a thing with his position in Thanos click would be a bad motor scooter for attack and defense. I’m really happy you guys are giving him a better boost then what he has going for him....after the change, maybe I’ll get a lot more playtime with him. I’ll keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best 🤞🏻👍🏻.
What does concern me is an “adjustment” program that feels like it foists the burden of testing content on the community without oversight of the game team or meaningful protection for paying customers. Long term, that’s not good for the “health of the game.”
Dr. Zola
The entire free to play games industry is founded on the premise "give as little value as possible for cash purchases." That seems like a suicidal business model, but that's a surface evaluation. The constellation of consequences that logically follow from that apparently insane premise have created the most profitable business model for games in all of history.
It may seem like balancing based on player performance in effect means no one can evaluate anything based on how it is designed, because external unpredictable factors can ultimately change it at any time, but the logical consequences of that premise are just as non-trivial and ultimately beneficial. At least, that's my opinion based on studying this issue for a very long time before ever playing this game.
There's probably two Ph.Ds and a game design book in there somewhere.
The Ph.D I would pick is the subject of playerbase self selection. The short version is that when we talk about games like this having "players" and "paying customers" that implies those are relatively static groups. But in fact there's constant turnover in both. The players and paying customers of tomorrow may not even have heard of the game yet today. Every decision you make must balance serving your current players and customers without cutting off your future stream of players and customers. And things beneficial to current players and customers can be detrimental to future players and customers.
The game you make has to attract the kind of players you need to make the game you need to make to attract the kind of players you need to make the game you need to make.
The long term health of the game isn't about making current players and customers happy, it is actually more about making sure this constraint is met. Making the current players and customers happy is a short term gain. But most of those players and customers won't be here in the future, because that's the nature of free to play games. You have to make them happy *and* make future players happy, and the kind of game you make to make current players happy "chooses" who those future players will even be, because the game you make will only attract certain kinds of people.
Actually, I forgot I hate school. So someone else can do that Ph.D.
There's a far bit of difference between offering as little value as still marketable for cash (which I agree with as it makes it incredibly expensive for someone to gain any sort of measurable advantage on a non spender) and selling flat out unfinished products. If champion acquisition were easier or cheaper yeah then it's not that big of a deal selling champs and then adjusting them months later. As it stands, its INCREDIBLY expensive to obtain newer champions on a regular basis. If you're going to charge that high of a premium for these champs they need to work correctly on release. I'm aware there will be bugs and whatnot that cant be caught in testing but there is absolutely no reason that things like base stats should have to be altered after release. That's ridiculous
I do want to ask you'll something I'm not here to argue with any of you. I want to know your honest opinions. let's have a meaningful discussion about this. What can Kabam do to fix this situation? What would you do if you were running Kabam to try to get the community calmed back down?
Rank down tickets? Refunds of units? Upping his block proficiency since they're bringing his damage output down?
I also want to thank you @GroundedWisdom for addressing me earlier with respect and telling me how you felt and not laughing at me or calling me stupid basically just for asking some questions.
For the 10000th time, Kabam had said that Cull WILL REMAIN ONE OF THE TOP DAMAGE DEALER IN THE GAME.
Just wait and see what the resulting re-tweak is then go from there.
Tell me about: Cyclops Dr. Strange Pure skill
Last I checked the first two are nerfed to the ground and pure skill doesn't work.
I am somewhat twisted in this matter, cull is not one of my favourite Champions because of his poor utility. However, I have used units to get a chance on him because of his insane damage. His featured ”cav” crystal has been announced several times since his release, more common than other champs considered being worse than him.
If he is getting the nerf in damage, please add some utility on him. The ramp up makes him not worth to use right now, since other ramp up champs have more utility. E.g VTD, aegon
Also people who say that Cull is over powered have no idea what they are talking. He is useless in aw and aq. Only good for monthly events, takes quite a bit to ramp up. Uses health pots like crazy because of his low block proficiency. Has no immunities.
Quite a few nodes can neuter him. Poison, bleed, limber, shock etc
Why not just make champs that can counter balance those champs rather than constantly nerfing champs?
When you have a Champion that wildly outdamages other Champions, and we start making content to counter that specific Champion, this harshly punishes every other Champion in game, and every Summoner that does not have that Champion.
Do you agree
*we are your beta testers *you dont try first your own chmpion before release to be sure if he maybe disbalances the game *you dont care how do we feel about unfairness from your side *you dont run your own right politics..You monitor us and counter our emotional state
My advices
*first try well your product..then sell it *if Ou sold it already...respect your customer and take his fair opinion seriously
Example
BMW sells me a car with V12 800BHP Calls me three months later and tells me they have to change my motor to 5.0 v8 because my car is way to powerfull and it was not intended from their side
So..why do i care..i saw the product..i liked that..i paid and bought
Kabam designed Cull, kabam programmed cull , kabam then marketed Cull through the CCP as this insanely overpowered champ to sell featured cavaliers multiple times.
Worst thing is for me it’s not even about cull, I have cull at R3, his block proficiency is terrible and for me he’s not much use in half the game, so I decided on other rank ups.
BUT what happens next month and the month after, who’s next ? What’s next ?
Your also nerfing/fixing champs that are awful, on what planet is Ultron and daredevil breaking the game with a few chained heavy attacks 😂
The only reason champs are getting reworked is to make kabam money ....I used to spend daily and I haven’t spent a penny since this announcement dropped.
Also if your balancing the champs in the game I’m guessing this time next year I’ll be able to take my iron patriot on another run the 6.2.6 🥴
the heavy attack chain isnt a nerf for gods sake its the fix for an unintended mechanic and outside of She Hulk they dont have much of a usage for it (breaking Maw's focus is the other one)
My only request is you consider the impact of rebalancing. I know rank down tickets are considered on a case by case basis but I think more is needed.
1. If the champ is awakened with a gem, this wont be recovered given the current way in which it's done 2. Sig stones to make the awakened ability better are also not currently returned
Any change, no matter how slight will impact the players. Therefore, as its been said before, its disincentivising players to get characters. It's like buying a Ferrari that goes 100mph then being told there is a limiter being put n for it to go 70mph. Yes everything else stays the same, but if we knew it would be 70mph top speed we may have chosen to get another car.
Comments
Welcome to planet Earth.
I disagree with this notion but respect everyone that feels differently. At the end of the day we would like a good fair product. In the case of Cull I think a percentage of his damage taken away will be just fine as long as Kabam announces they will increase his sustainability. I think the hair on fire would significantly die down and we can have a more constructive conversation.
You're right about one thing though. To us this is a game. It might be a time consuming, expensive game for some. But it is still a game. For the Kabam developers, it is their livelihood. So they are always going to do what they think is in the best interests of the long term health of the game. They don't get a cut of the profits from offers. They just get a paycheck. And if they think something is in the best interests of the game and you disagree, there's nothing you can say to force them to do what you want, because they won't jeopardize their livelihood on a player's guess. If they are going down, they are going down on their guesses, not yours.
As would everyone else here when it comes to their future.
Kabam like every game operator out there makes a game. They do so in a particular way, and they aren't going to open their doors and let all the players roam the offices telling their employees what to do. They aren't going to simply implement every suggestion they are given. They will listen to suggestions, but at the end of the day they are going to do what they think is best for the game. Players have to decide whether to play or not, and whether to spend money or not. They can comment, they can make suggestions, but they will never have control over the game. That isn't because the players aren't respected, that's because respect doesn't imply control.
Within those boundaries there's a lot of room for improvement in communication. But anyone who believes that those boundaries don't exist, or think that the only proof of respect is obedience, isn't going to get anywhere.
You don't have to accept every decision Kabam makes. You just have to accept they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
The best interest for a game is what makes it popular and with a large number of users that could become customers.
So when they have market models such as selling champions and rank up resources, but those champions change ... well ... customers will not be happy if there is no compensation (even if it is for the "good" of the game) and explanation about how and why.
Customers are selfish by default because they want as much as they can for the money invested and now, so if nerfing champions will become a thing, Kabam will have angry customers and that will have an impact on the market and, therefore, on Decision making, BUT if nothing like that happend, well if you dont like it then take your money somewhere else.. I guess time will say.
As far as cull goes it could also have been handled better had the post not just listed his attack as the only change being made to him. Who knows outside of kabam if he will be better overall after the rework but the way it was stated in the post sounded pretty depressing. Perhaps as well as testing champs before release they should proofread their posts to see if it will be interpreted poorly due to wording.
I do see people asking to get a better sense of the data that purportedly drives the urge to squelch Cull. That seems pretty reasonable. If there’s such a tremendous disparity in the data, I can’t imagine it would be hard to figure out a way to show that to the community. Who knows? It might actually change some minds.
Personally, I don’t care. Game data can be manipulated like any other data. What does concern me is an “adjustment” program that feels like it foists the burden of testing content on the community without oversight of the game team or meaningful protection for paying customers. Long term, that’s not good for the “health of the game.”
Dr. Zola
I try to present my position in such a way that not only is it responsive to whomever I'm replying to, but it is worth the developers' time to read. Sometimes they take notice. It isn't often: there are thousands of posters on the forums so you can't expect the developers to pay attention to you or me or any one person more than a small amount. But I think it happens often enough that it is the best option available to me. Everyone else has to decide for themselves how to maximize the probability of being heard. But you can never be sure that the person or people you're trying to communicate with actually cares what you have to say.
This is not easy. You're taking a leap of faith. And I don't claim to consistently follow my own advice either. But the only answer I have to your question above is that I don't know, but I behave as if they are listening, because if they are listening that's the right thing to do and if they aren't listening nothing I do matters anyway.
Very simple request ... very honest request .. very understandable request.
So all you have to do is figure out why the vast majority of the players led us here, and then convince most or all of them why they should change their influence to what you want.
The problem with the statement "the players have the final say" is not that players individually have zero influence. The problem is rather that "the players" don't exist as a singular bargaining group, and never have, and never will. It is very easy to get a mob of people to all agree they don't like something. But you will never get them to agree on what it ought to be instead. And that's not because of a failing of those people, its because people genuinely want different things. But even this fact is extremely difficult to acknowledge. Everyone assumes that people are different, yes, but not in the ways they think are important. Players might quibble, but of course everyone agrees that X should happen.
Unanimity is illusory, but it appears that way because singling out what's wrong is step one. Everyone can get on board step one. But it is step two, when the discussion shifts to what the correct alternative is, that unanimity disappears. Try starting a thread on the problems of alliance war, or synergies, or quest difficulty. It'll be very easy to get people to agree all those things are broken. Try getting agreement on how to fix it.
If "the players" were really of a hive mind, they would indeed wield immense power. You could say that about the entire world of game players in general: "the players" could get rid of lootboxes, make all games free to play, eliminate grind, sentence all the spawn campers to death: nothing would be out of reach. But the differences between game players is enormous, and part of the problem is few people acknowledge this to be true.
If something is true, it will remain true if its nature does not change and the conditions that make it true remain valid, but that may change over time, there is no eternal truth.
In sociology you can study a particular population (such as users of a game), such as physics, study a mass, it is composed of thousands of particles that move in different directions, but as a result of their interaction, the mass moves in only one direction, and for this you don't need unanimity, you just need a relevant group that pushes more
So, if that group pushes enough, then maybe Kabam does something about this lack of test.
The RDT on She-hulks is a good example
It may seem like balancing based on player performance in effect means no one can evaluate anything based on how it is designed, because external unpredictable factors can ultimately change it at any time, but the logical consequences of that premise are just as non-trivial and ultimately beneficial. At least, that's my opinion based on studying this issue for a very long time before ever playing this game.
There's probably two Ph.Ds and a game design book in there somewhere.
The Ph.D I would pick is the subject of playerbase self selection. The short version is that when we talk about games like this having "players" and "paying customers" that implies those are relatively static groups. But in fact there's constant turnover in both. The players and paying customers of tomorrow may not even have heard of the game yet today. Every decision you make must balance serving your current players and customers without cutting off your future stream of players and customers. And things beneficial to current players and customers can be detrimental to future players and customers.
The game you make has to attract the kind of players you need to make the game you need to make to attract the kind of players you need to make the game you need to make.
The long term health of the game isn't about making current players and customers happy, it is actually more about making sure this constraint is met. Making the current players and customers happy is a short term gain. But most of those players and customers won't be here in the future, because that's the nature of free to play games. You have to make them happy *and* make future players happy, and the kind of game you make to make current players happy "chooses" who those future players will even be, because the game you make will only attract certain kinds of people.
Actually, I forgot I hate school. So someone else can do that Ph.D.
Cyclops
Dr. Strange
Pure skill
Last I checked the first two are nerfed to the ground and pure skill doesn't work.
If he is getting the nerf in damage, please add some utility on him. The ramp up makes him not worth to use right now, since other ramp up champs have more utility. E.g VTD, aegon
Here. Nerf this guy instead.
Quite a few nodes can neuter him. Poison, bleed, limber, shock etc
its the fix for an unintended mechanic
and outside of She Hulk they dont have much of a usage for it (breaking Maw's focus is the other one)
1. If the champ is awakened with a gem, this wont be recovered given the current way in which it's done
2. Sig stones to make the awakened ability better are also not currently returned
Any change, no matter how slight will impact the players. Therefore, as its been said before, its disincentivising players to get characters. It's like buying a Ferrari that goes 100mph then being told there is a limiter being put n for it to go 70mph. Yes everything else stays the same, but if we knew it would be 70mph top speed we may have chosen to get another car.