There's alot of drivers for kabam to make this game last, rebalancing is a must. They wanted to do this even at the expense of ppls reducing their spending on new champs after their disclaimer of "no one is safe". Is it unfair to all players who pay to play or grind to get those champs? Absolutely. This should have happened in 12.0, not right now. Really short sighted on their part.
With current model to use new champs to counter old champs, the system balance will runaway and lose control. Proper compensation should be given similar to 12.0 if this is the route they want to keep players to fundtheir pay cheque, not case by case bs.
Their stance is pretty definitive. Sometimes I am baffled that they leave this up for discussion, more often than not they will implement whatever announced changed and that's it.
If people want change, everybody knows what needs to be done, just a quick view of the past will give you the answer, on what has worked in previous occasions.
Honestly agree completely. People complain of toxic atmosphere on the forums. It’s posts like these, with no input from the mods but rather two factions going after each other’s throats for 1500+ posts, that is one of the major causes of strife between the community or at certain members. If the mods have nothing o add to the conversation, just shut this one down.
The primary purpose of the forums is for the players to discuss the game with other players. When you post your primary readership is other players, and your respondents will overwhelmingly be other players. Whatever other purposes you think the forums are meant for, discussion threads primarily exist to serve this purpose. When it comes to "productive discussion" what the forums are intended to produce are exchange of ideas between the players, not game changes.
Collectively the players have the right to discuss a topic in a manner that encourages the developers to observe the discussion, and they also have the right to discuss a topic in a manner that devolves into an argument that no outside observer would be interested in. The moderators can shut down discussion threads that do not appear to lead to any valid topic of discussion or that are covered by other threads, but they cannot shut down discussion threads that cover official topics like the upcoming Cull and Ebony changes, as that topic is a valid topic of discussion.
If Cull out damages all other high damage champs and you "tune" him so he no longer out damages them, doesn't that mean that the second highest damage champ now out damages all the others and by definition becomes over powered and requires a tuning???
The problem Kabam is describing is almost certainly not that Cull outdamages (however that is defined) all other champions, but rather that he does so outside some internal metric. The way these metrics are defined are often relative not absolute. In other words, there might be a rule that says champions are allowed to be as much as 80% higher than the average for some damage metric. If that's the case, in this hypothetical example Domino could be 79% higher than the average champ and Cull 81%, and Cull would need to be rebalanced and Domino perfectly fine, even though the difference between the two was difficult to see.
I'm not saying that's the case here, only that rebalancing doesn't generally involve one thing being highest: something has to be highest. It is that they exceed some maximum allowable number, and that number is usually computed relative to the average performance of all other things. Cull can be adjusted to honor that requirement and still end up being the highest damage champ in the game in theory.
Technically speaking, although every game developer in the world calls this "rebalancing" it is not technically a balancing operation: it is a conformance operation. But game developers do not distinguish between balancing (which involves adjusting one or more things to honor a required relationship) and conformance (which involves adjusting one thing to conform to a set of boundary conditions). It's a shame game developers do not both think about and discuss these changes more accurately, because the semantics have a real side effect: when a dev says Cull needs to be rebalanced, they imply that Cull does more damage than something else, and that's wrong. But then players start wondering who Cull is being compared to. If they explained Cull was being changed to conform to the design rules players might still be just as upset, but they wouldn't be led down the false path of thinking that he's being incorrectly compared to some other champ. He's not, and all arguments attempting to show how that comparison is wrong are literally falling on deaf ears, because he isn't being compared to any other particular champ at all.
Until Kabam presents the data that they used to come to this conclusion I'm inclined not to worry about where they're getting their data from. All I know is that he will hit less hard which has 0 benefit to the player base and makes them angry if anything.
Even the ones that are on Kabam's side of the argument aren't saying they're happy about Cull receiving less damage.
I was responding to a poster that wondered if Cull is being "rebalanced" because he's the highest, won't that simply mean that the second highest becomes the highest. That's not true, because Cull isn't being changed to deliberately not be the highest any more. This has nothing to do with where they get their data from, or whether their data methodology is reasonable.
And this attitude about Kabam being required to show some sort of proof their data is correct is laudable, but the playerbase is fighting up a hill almost no playerbase of any MMO has ever succeeded at winning in. The absolute best example of players getting access to data and methodology I'm aware of comes from Eve Online, and that is both an enormous special case situation (Eve Online is both run by quants and has a playerbase that is dominated by quants) and still didn't get what the players here seem to be asking for. If Eve's players can't get it, I feel safe in saying MCOC's players are not even going to get close.
I will definitely take a screen shot of this post and see if kabam changes their tune on this one. I predict around round 2 of the Vision (Arkas) crystals their tune will change. One of two things will happen, they will either improve Cull defensively so they will be meeting the communities needs or they'll back track the 6 month re-visit character buff/nerf all together.
You think that it won't happen I will. Friendly bet will do since we no longer can give items.
I don't think they will "back track" champion revisits. I would be very surprised if they did, as that only makes faster what they have been doing since day one. But as to "improving Cull defensively so they will be meeting the communities needs" I'm not sure how that relates at all to demands for the players to show data. I have no position at all as to whether that will or will not happen.
Once the developers open the door to performing a revisit of a champion like Cull, it opens the door to performing other tweaks besides ones that directly address the trigger. For example, if there are internal design rules that govern how offense and defense are combined in a champion, the developers could conclude that lowering offense as required to meet the top offensive constraint then mandates an increase in defense to honor a different design constraint. That happens often when things like this are revisited, so I would make no bet on whether defense is touched or not touched when the devs change Cull.
I also don't mind if you hold me to my position, at least insofar as it is my actual position. I rather wish it was possible for everyone to be held to all of their positions, so anyone could easily tell who was saying what, when, when deciding how much credibility to give to what they are saying now.
I believe and I have commented previously, that it is very important that each new inclusion in the game and especially characters and nodes, are correctly tested in all areas of the game. that they take the necessary time so that these failures and future errors do not exist and that subsequently they do not have to make adjustments that harm the game and its players. It is simply taking the necessary precautions and avoiding future problems. Of course, avoiding so many problems and errors in the future is complicated, but it can be avoided if they agree and have strong guidelines.
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.
Just got around to this...fair points all, but something I would point out is that this isn’t exactly a new approach.
The business model you describe sounds a lot like one that has long been a staple of used car lots, door-to-door salesmen and back lot jewelers: give as little value as possible and keep relying on another crop of suckers to walk through the door.
The idea that sectors of the mobile gaming industry may have married a variant of that model with popular cartoons and addictive content shouldn’t be a revelation.
What I think is novel, however, is the notion that a company can sell/lease a product and change it unilaterally just a few months post-release under the premise that it’s unable to reliably test that product (as Miike has more or less suggested).
It is understandable if the game has gotten too complex to make sure content gets vetted thoroughly. MCoC has come a long way from 2014. There are probably several ways the community would be willing to collaborate with the team to help make products work as intended prior to their release.
But if good QA under the current release schedule is difficult—and recent issues with bugged introductions, erroneous descriptions and unintended interactions (fresh off a beta) suggest it might be—then the answer should be easy: if it isn’t ready, don’t sell it.
I’m hopeful Cull ultimately improves, but that isn’t the core issue for me. Regardless of what happens here, I’m adamantly opposed to a process that, in my opinion, virtually promises more incomplete or unfinished content with little to no recourse for the players.
I spent more than $30,000 USD on this game. Thanks Kabam, you help me to stop spending money on this game. I will still play, but I am a free player now. Good job kabam, help me quit gambling
So do y’all plan on giving everyone who spent money to get cull there money back ? Say the people that spent 500-1000$ to pull this champ and then carried him to rank 5. You gonna refund them their money ? Highly doubt it, how about the time people spent to get him in arena can you give that back as well ? Didn’t think so, I’ve been apart of this game since the month it came out and I’ve always loved it but y’all keep this up y’all will lose a ton of people including me. What if you paid your car off then the dealership came and took it and gave you a suckier one that you didn’t want. Wouldn’t like that would ya? I understand balance I really do but all cull has is damage, take that away and he has nothing. Doesn’t have immunities, no utility, takes forever to ramp up. That is all, do the right thing please. I’ve enjoyed the game for a long time.
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.
Just got around to this...fair points all, but something I would point out is that this isn’t exactly a new approach.
The business model you describe sounds a lot like one that has long been a staple of used car lots, door-to-door salesmen and back lot jewelers: give as little value as possible and keep relying on another crop of suckers to walk through the door.
The idea that sectors of the mobile gaming industry may have married a variant of that model with popular cartoons and addictive content shouldn’t be a revelation.
What I think is novel, however, is the notion that a company can sell/lease a product and change it unilaterally just a few months post-release under the premise that it’s unable to reliably test that product (as Miike has more or less suggested).
It is understandable if the game has gotten too complex to make sure content gets vetted thoroughly. MCoC has come a long way from 2014. There are probably several ways the community would be willing to collaborate with the team to help make products work as intended prior to their release.
But if good QA under the current release schedule is difficult—and recent issues with bugged introductions, erroneous descriptions and unintended interactions (fresh off a beta) suggest it might be—then the answer should be easy: if it isn’t ready, don’t sell it.
I’m hopeful Cull ultimately improves, but that isn’t the core issue for me. Regardless of what happens here, I’m adamantly opposed to a process that, in my opinion, virtually promises more incomplete or unfinished content with little to no recourse for the players.
Dr. Zola
A lot of people compare the free to play model with bad business practices because they see the items that are sold as the "product." But you have to remember that it is the game that is the product, not the items in it, and Kabam gives that product away for free.
The free to play model isn't about finding "suckers." It is about giving something away completely for free and finding people willing to pay for that completely free thing just to get a slightly better version. The model isn't like "back lot jewelers." It is actually closer to the old shareware model, where developers gave the software away for free hoping people would be willing to pay for a better version of that thing.
Plus, I'm going to keep repeating this as often as it is ignored. While QA can always be better, no level of QA that can possibly exist can prevent downstream balance changes, because downstream balance changes in a data driven online game are determined by the players, not the design. For downstream balancing to be avoided, it is not enough for QA to predict how well something *can* perform. They would have to predict with precision how players who don't even exist as players yet *will* perform when using those things. That's beyond human capability.
Not everyone agrees with the entire model, of course. The sad part isn't that many players disagree with the model, it is the belief that there are alternatives. Every game you think does this differently, almost certainly doesn't. I remember when people were saying how Netmarble's purchase of Kabam was going to change fundamental things about how the game operates for the better, and now people think the Netmarble purchase fundamentally changed how the game operates for the worse, and in fact the Netmarble purchased fundamentally changed none of those things, because no one does this differently: not Kabam, not Netmarble, not anyone.
I'm honestly not sure why you think anything Kabam is doing in this regard is "novel." It isn't just novel, it is predictable. I'll go farther, it isn't just predictable, it has been predicted. Most of this stuff I've been saying is standard practice in the MMO world for pretty much my entire time on the forums, because this is so un-novel it is ancient history. I'm pretty sure when Sentry came out I actually explicitly stated that waiting for the long term datamining before adjusting entities wasn't how most MMOs did it these days: there's usually a post release balancing pass, and then everything goes into general population where everything is periodically reviewed overall.
Kabam has two options, not one. They can try to do what you think is right, or they can do what everyone else does and accept that the players who can't accept it will eventually stop playing. All they have to do is count on the fact that there are far more players willing to accept games that operate under these parameters than there are players who are unwilling.
In the end, I think Kabam's data on Cull Obsidian might have been skewed because of that time when Cull's damage output was WAY ABOVE what it was supposed to be. I think that if Kabam took that data out of the picture, they'd see that Cull is a much more balanced champion than they thought he was, and doesn't need this rework.
In the end, I think Kabam's data on Cull Obsidian might have been skewed because of that time when Cull's damage output was WAY ABOVE what it was supposed to be. I think that if Kabam took that data out of the picture, they'd see that Cull is a much more balanced champion than they thought he was, and doesn't need this rework.
It would still be good if they kept completely transparent with us and shared (some) of those results with us. As stated, it's a pretty reasonable request ... showing what numbers are setting off the red flags.
I suppose generally speaking, people aren't comfortable with reducing anything. People tend to want to add Abilities rather than alter existing ones. The problem is, sometimes it's necessary when realigning Champs.
We never asked for Human torch buff..did we! If they see the current meta and buff the trash champs that take 500 hits to kill winter soldier in ROL, it's their generosity. Champion buffs are needed due to meta changes but the problem here is CULL nerf is just one sided. Increase his block and do good communication and we are all good. Communication is the key. Even after 50+ pages of comment, we haven't heard much from developers. I will still keep my patience.
So do y’all plan on giving everyone who spent money to get cull there money back ? Say the people that spent 500-1000$ to pull this champ and then carried him to rank 5. You gonna refund them their money ? Highly doubt it, how about the time people spent to get him in arena can you give that back as well ? Didn’t think so, I’ve been apart of this game since the month it came out and I’ve always loved it but y’all keep this up y’all will lose a ton of people including me. What if you paid your car off then the dealership came and took it and gave you a suckier one that you didn’t want. Wouldn’t like that would ya? I understand balance I really do but all cull has is damage, take that away and he has nothing. Doesn’t have immunities, no utility, takes forever to ramp up. That is all, do the right thing please. I’ve enjoyed the game for a long time.
the money will not be returned because the adjustment will be 3 months later to avoid asking for a refund by apple since its refund policy is 90 days for what the apple users said
Interesting speculation, but I don’t think that’s why the re-evaluation occurs at 3 months.
It's floating around somewhere but there was something Miike said about how we find things faster than they do even if he had the entire office doing nothing but testing all day.
While I think that is a valid point I also think the fact that 2-3 champs are rushed out every month is reaching it's tipping point. Maybe revisiting the frequency of their release should be looked into.
This rebalancing stuff is getting ridiculous. This game is complex enough without its creators changing the champion parameters as they see fit. I am getting very tired of this.
I suppose generally speaking, people aren't comfortable with reducing anything. People tend to want to add Abilities rather than alter existing ones. The problem is, sometimes it's necessary when realigning Champs.
We never asked for Human torch buff..did we! If they see the current meta and buff the trash champs that take 500 hits to kill winter soldier in ROL, it's their generosity. Champion buffs are needed due to meta changes but the problem here is CULL nerf is just one sided. Increase his block and do good communication and we are all good. Communication is the key. Even after 50+ pages of comment, we haven't heard much from developers. I will still keep my patience.
We didn't ask for any of the rebalances, aside from Maw. They committed to revisiting them every 3 months to adjust any issues in performance. These aren't necessarily buffs for changes to the Meta. It doesn't change a great deal in 3 months. I'd say they're more fine tuning so that they don't end up with some extreme imbalances later on. Also, we don't know anything that's changing with Cull yet. All we know is they said something about his Damage. We can't really say it's one-sided because we don't know the proposed changes.
If Kabam is Decreasing Cull's damage output a little bit, we not only want better block proficiency, we also want some immunities, otherwise he will only be useful in very limited content in the game.
So do y’all plan on giving everyone who spent money to get cull there money back ? Say the people that spent 500-1000$ to pull this champ and then carried him to rank 5. You gonna refund them their money ? Highly doubt it, how about the time people spent to get him in arena can you give that back as well ? Didn’t think so, I’ve been apart of this game since the month it came out and I’ve always loved it but y’all keep this up y’all will lose a ton of people including me. What if you paid your car off then the dealership came and took it and gave you a suckier one that you didn’t want. Wouldn’t like that would ya? I understand balance I really do but all cull has is damage, take that away and he has nothing. Doesn’t have immunities, no utility, takes forever to ramp up. That is all, do the right thing please. I’ve enjoyed the game for a long time.
the money will not be returned because the adjustment will be 3 months later to avoid asking for a refund by apple since its refund policy is 90 days for what the apple users said
I hadn't even thought about that, but I do believe that is their refund policy. If that can be confirmed, this is even more nefarious. It would be awfully coincidental to just happen to make the evaluation period the same as the deadline for a refund. That looks like a conscious decision. I can't say I'm surprised.
Actually, Apple's refund policy is all sales are final. (cf: https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html re: "All Transactions are Final"). Apple allows customers to request refunds for purchases under a limited set of circumstances, as outlined in their refund request support page: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204084. The only official grounds for requesting a refund fall into the categories of the customer not receiving the item purchased or the item not functioning as the vendor states. Since Kabam states that champions are subject to change, changing them falls into the category of functioning as the vendor states.
As far as I'm aware, there is no written policy that states only purchases within the last 90 days are eligible for refund, even though a lot of websites seem to think there is. This limitation appears to be a function of how the refund request system itself works. Apple doesn't offer a refund request option for purchases older than 90 days. As in, the button itself is literally not there. But that seems to be an implicit, not an explicit limitation. If the purchase was made more than 90 days ago, you'd have to contact Apple directly to request a refund. For example, if you were to buy a one year option for some application and the vendor just stopped giving it to you with no explanation after six months, you might still be able to request a refund from Apple.
Refunds are made at the sole discretion of Apple: they are not required to offer refunds under any circumstances. But that also means they can offer refunds even in circumstances outside of their refund system's options, if it deems necessary.
So do y’all plan on giving everyone who spent money to get cull there money back ? Say the people that spent 500-1000$ to pull this champ and then carried him to rank 5. You gonna refund them their money ? Highly doubt it, how about the time people spent to get him in arena can you give that back as well ? Didn’t think so, I’ve been apart of this game since the month it came out and I’ve always loved it but y’all keep this up y’all will lose a ton of people including me. What if you paid your car off then the dealership came and took it and gave you a suckier one that you didn’t want. Wouldn’t like that would ya? I understand balance I really do but all cull has is damage, take that away and he has nothing. Doesn’t have immunities, no utility, takes forever to ramp up. That is all, do the right thing please. I’ve enjoyed the game for a long time.
the money will not be returned because the adjustment will be 3 months later to avoid asking for a refund by apple since its refund policy is 90 days for what the apple users said
Interesting speculation, but I don’t think that’s why the re-evaluation occurs at 3 months.
It occurs at three months for the simple reason that the shorter the period after release that the review occurs, the less representative the data is. Beyond a certain point the review is both increasingly meaningless, and also increases the chances that the future downstream data (say, from a year after release) shows problems the earlier one didn't, forcing Kabam to change the champion twice rather than once. Even three months is pretty short, because champions haven't even had much of a chance (if any) to drop from basic crystals yet.
I would think a response of great detail and further explanation of the cull changes is necessary when there are this many posts in the forum. The majority of cull users would like a detailed answer and I for obe do not want the game to collapse. So please do a better job and give us a more detailed reponse with exact and specific information. 1. Explain how cull is game breaking when he is not the top choice of champ for any content in the game. 2. If you lower his damage, why not give him more block profiency so cull users may not feel completely used and upset. 3. Does this mean that any champ with high damage output will be getting tweaked also? This is a very pivotal time in the game. I feel like people will be not desire to buy crystals for new champs if this will be the new norm. I personally like many aspects of the game but if everyone becomes free to play i dont see how the game will have a future. My advice is leave him alone because he is actually just a fun champ to use and not very practical. 4. This change to cull is not about cull himself but instead every champ in the game that people decide to rank up to top ranks.
As a concerned player, i would love to see some detailed answers to the numerous posts that are in here. As a whole u can see that the majority of players in here disagree with your assessment of cull and would urge you to reconsider your position or at a minimum give him something else to make up for lower damage ouput.
So do y’all plan on giving everyone who spent money to get cull there money back ? Say the people that spent 500-1000$ to pull this champ and then carried him to rank 5. You gonna refund them their money ? Highly doubt it, how about the time people spent to get him in arena can you give that back as well ? Didn’t think so, I’ve been apart of this game since the month it came out and I’ve always loved it but y’all keep this up y’all will lose a ton of people including me. What if you paid your car off then the dealership came and took it and gave you a suckier one that you didn’t want. Wouldn’t like that would ya? I understand balance I really do but all cull has is damage, take that away and he has nothing. Doesn’t have immunities, no utility, takes forever to ramp up. That is all, do the right thing please. I’ve enjoyed the game for a long time.
the money will not be returned because the adjustment will be 3 months later to avoid asking for a refund by apple since its refund policy is 90 days for what the apple users said
Interesting speculation, but I don’t think that’s why the re-evaluation occurs at 3 months.
It occurs at three months for the simple reason that the shorter the period after release that the review occurs, the less representative the data is. Beyond a certain point the review is both increasingly meaningless, and also increases the chances that the future downstream data (say, from a year after release) shows problems the earlier one didn't, forcing Kabam to change the champion twice rather than once. Even three months is pretty short, because champions haven't even had much of a chance (if any) to drop from basic crystals yet.
You don't know the reason why Kabam choose 3 months any explanation is on speculation on your part. It's really 6 months when you break it down. It is 3 month announcement, even though Cull is far past 3 months and you get the changes 3 months later for a total of 6 months.
Comments
With current model to use new champs to counter old champs, the system balance will runaway and lose control. Proper compensation should be given similar to 12.0 if this is the route they want to keep players to fundtheir pay cheque, not case by case bs.
Collectively the players have the right to discuss a topic in a manner that encourages the developers to observe the discussion, and they also have the right to discuss a topic in a manner that devolves into an argument that no outside observer would be interested in. The moderators can shut down discussion threads that do not appear to lead to any valid topic of discussion or that are covered by other threads, but they cannot shut down discussion threads that cover official topics like the upcoming Cull and Ebony changes, as that topic is a valid topic of discussion.
Once the developers open the door to performing a revisit of a champion like Cull, it opens the door to performing other tweaks besides ones that directly address the trigger. For example, if there are internal design rules that govern how offense and defense are combined in a champion, the developers could conclude that lowering offense as required to meet the top offensive constraint then mandates an increase in defense to honor a different design constraint. That happens often when things like this are revisited, so I would make no bet on whether defense is touched or not touched when the devs change Cull.
I also don't mind if you hold me to my position, at least insofar as it is my actual position. I rather wish it was possible for everyone to be held to all of their positions, so anyone could easily tell who was saying what, when, when deciding how much credibility to give to what they are saying now.
The business model you describe sounds a lot like one that has long been a staple of used car lots, door-to-door salesmen and back lot jewelers: give as little value as possible and keep relying on another crop of suckers to walk through the door.
The idea that sectors of the mobile gaming industry may have married a variant of that model with popular cartoons and addictive content shouldn’t be a revelation.
What I think is novel, however, is the notion that a company can sell/lease a product and change it unilaterally just a few months post-release under the premise that it’s unable to reliably test that product (as Miike has more or less suggested).
It is understandable if the game has gotten too complex to make sure content gets vetted thoroughly. MCoC has come a long way from 2014. There are probably several ways the community would be willing to collaborate with the team to help make products work as intended prior to their release.
But if good QA under the current release schedule is difficult—and recent issues with bugged introductions, erroneous descriptions and unintended interactions (fresh off a beta) suggest it might be—then the answer should be easy: if it isn’t ready, don’t sell it.
I’m hopeful Cull ultimately improves, but that isn’t the core issue for me. Regardless of what happens here, I’m adamantly opposed to a process that, in my opinion, virtually promises more incomplete or unfinished content with little to no recourse for the players.
Dr. Zola
The free to play model isn't about finding "suckers." It is about giving something away completely for free and finding people willing to pay for that completely free thing just to get a slightly better version. The model isn't like "back lot jewelers." It is actually closer to the old shareware model, where developers gave the software away for free hoping people would be willing to pay for a better version of that thing.
Plus, I'm going to keep repeating this as often as it is ignored. While QA can always be better, no level of QA that can possibly exist can prevent downstream balance changes, because downstream balance changes in a data driven online game are determined by the players, not the design. For downstream balancing to be avoided, it is not enough for QA to predict how well something *can* perform. They would have to predict with precision how players who don't even exist as players yet *will* perform when using those things. That's beyond human capability.
Not everyone agrees with the entire model, of course. The sad part isn't that many players disagree with the model, it is the belief that there are alternatives. Every game you think does this differently, almost certainly doesn't. I remember when people were saying how Netmarble's purchase of Kabam was going to change fundamental things about how the game operates for the better, and now people think the Netmarble purchase fundamentally changed how the game operates for the worse, and in fact the Netmarble purchased fundamentally changed none of those things, because no one does this differently: not Kabam, not Netmarble, not anyone.
I'm honestly not sure why you think anything Kabam is doing in this regard is "novel." It isn't just novel, it is predictable. I'll go farther, it isn't just predictable, it has been predicted. Most of this stuff I've been saying is standard practice in the MMO world for pretty much my entire time on the forums, because this is so un-novel it is ancient history. I'm pretty sure when Sentry came out I actually explicitly stated that waiting for the long term datamining before adjusting entities wasn't how most MMOs did it these days: there's usually a post release balancing pass, and then everything goes into general population where everything is periodically reviewed overall.
Kabam has two options, not one. They can try to do what you think is right, or they can do what everyone else does and accept that the players who can't accept it will eventually stop playing. All they have to do is count on the fact that there are far more players willing to accept games that operate under these parameters than there are players who are unwilling.
While I think that is a valid point I also think the fact that 2-3 champs are rushed out every month is reaching it's tipping point. Maybe revisiting the frequency of their release should be looked into.
As far as I'm aware, there is no written policy that states only purchases within the last 90 days are eligible for refund, even though a lot of websites seem to think there is. This limitation appears to be a function of how the refund request system itself works. Apple doesn't offer a refund request option for purchases older than 90 days. As in, the button itself is literally not there. But that seems to be an implicit, not an explicit limitation. If the purchase was made more than 90 days ago, you'd have to contact Apple directly to request a refund. For example, if you were to buy a one year option for some application and the vendor just stopped giving it to you with no explanation after six months, you might still be able to request a refund from Apple.
Refunds are made at the sole discretion of Apple: they are not required to offer refunds under any circumstances. But that also means they can offer refunds even in circumstances outside of their refund system's options, if it deems necessary.
I would think a response of great detail and further explanation of the cull changes is necessary when there are this many posts in the forum. The majority of cull users would like a detailed answer and I for obe do not want the game to collapse. So please do a better job and give us a more detailed reponse with exact and specific information.
1. Explain how cull is game breaking when he is not the top choice of champ for any content in the game.
2. If you lower his damage, why not give him more block profiency so cull users may not feel completely used and upset.
3. Does this mean that any champ with high damage output will be getting tweaked also?
This is a very pivotal time in the game. I feel like people will be not desire to buy crystals for new champs if this will be the new norm.
I personally like many aspects of the game but if everyone becomes free to play i dont see how the game will have a future. My advice is leave him alone because he is actually just a fun champ to use and not very practical.
4. This change to cull is not about cull himself but instead every champ in the game that people decide to rank up to top ranks.
As a concerned player, i would love to see some detailed answers to the numerous posts that are in here. As a whole u can see that the majority of players in here disagree with your assessment of cull and would urge you to reconsider your position or at a minimum give him something else to make up for lower damage ouput.