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