Upcoming Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw Balance Changes

1555658606167

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,567 ★★★★★
    You don't have to agree with my points. You don't get to say if I stay or not. Sorry.
  • This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,567 ★★★★★
    I'm here to talk about what we're here to discuss. That's it. Aside from being sidetracked on a discussion about Quake, that's what I've been doing. We don't always have to agree in these discussions. In fact, it's a guarantee people won't always agree. However, I'm not going to be ousted from the conversation based on a disagreement. It's the equivalent of saying, "We don't like you. Go away.". Not happening. If I choose to leave a discussion, so be it. If Moderation asks me to walk away, great. What I'm not going to do is allow people to push me out. It's not personal for me. I'm fully capable of agreeing or disagreeing without attacking someone's character. So I'm sorry, but telling me to leave is not going to result in anything. This isn't Survivor.
  • SDPSDP Member Posts: 1,622 ★★★★

    I'm here to talk about what we're here to discuss. That's it. Aside from being sidetracked on a discussion about Quake, that's what I've been doing. We don't always have to agree in these discussions. In fact, it's a guarantee people won't always agree. However, I'm not going to be ousted from the conversation based on a disagreement. It's the equivalent of saying, "We don't like you. Go away.". Not happening. If I choose to leave a discussion, so be it. If Moderation asks me to walk away, great. What I'm not going to do is allow people to push me out. It's not personal for me. I'm fully capable of agreeing or disagreeing without attacking someone's character. So I'm sorry, but telling me to leave is not going to result in anything. This isn't Survivor.

    You’ve already made your point clear. Everyone knows how you feel about it. Why persist in saying it over and over again?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,658 Guardian
    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    ChuckFN said:

    People are upset because they spend alot of money on this game especially for new champions.
    I cant buy Crystal's or spend units grinding for a new champion without fear of them getting changed for the worse.

    Years ago I had a conversation with an employee who was not contributing to the company 401k because they were afraid of market conditions: basically they were afraid the market would go down and they would lose money. I explained to them that there was a risk they were not considering: the risk that by sitting permanently on the sidelines they would be falling behind their retirement goals and forced to work until they died.

    There's a risk associated with pursuing or ranking up champions that will never go away, because at some point downstream things will change. The champ may get nerfed. Or, even if it is never touched the devs may simply decide to make content that champ is not good at. They don't have to touch Starlord to safeguard his damage, for example.

    But there's also a risk associated with not doing anything, and that risk is you don't get to use those champs or use ranked up versions of those champs. The players who aren't afraid will get those benefits ahead of you. There's no safe choice: you have to decide which risk you want to take.

    No matter what they do to Cull, this will be true. No matter whether they keep their review policy or change it, this will be true. They aren't ever going to promise you that they will never change anything. And you shouldn't believe any dev that makes that promise: they are lying. They won't likely even be there forever to keep that promise.
    I think there’s a needed distinction here between more organic shifts (for example, the shift away from bleed dominant champs, the shift away from mystic wars) and more artificial, programmed shifts (for example, building in a fudge factor for screwing up a champ’s introduction).

    And I wish people would stop beating up the “nothing can ever change” straw man. Give him a break—I’ve yet to see anyone argue that the game should stay 100% static.

    I don’t expect us to agree on this one. But it’s qualitatively different from my perspective.

    Dr. Zola
    To quote the post I replied to: "I cant buy Crystal's or spend units grinding for a new champion without fear of them getting changed for the worse." I reply to what people say, not what other people claim they said. I allow for reasonable interpretation, but there is no such reasonable alternate interpretation here.

    Because in fact, lots of people have directly stated multiple times that in their opinion, if players spend money for a champion then Kabam should not make any deleterious changes to that champion without refunding them. You can't call the position a straw man when it is the actual stated position of many people commenting.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Can we please get back to Cull? To sit here and have whole conversations about people's feelings is highly annoying. GW position has not changed. He doesn't care how much you spend or how arbitrary a champion decision is, Kabam is justified no matter the change. If you don't like it tough but lets get out of the feelings rabbit hole.

    Back to the topic, Cull can be made better actually with these changes if block proficiency is improved. It would really help if Kabam would announce that though.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,567 ★★★★★

    You don't have to agree with my points. You don't get to say if I stay or not. Sorry.

    I'm here to talk about what we're here to discuss. That's it. Aside from being sidetracked on a discussion about Quake, that's what I've been doing. We don't always have to agree in these discussions. In fact, it's a guarantee people won't always agree. However, I'm not going to be ousted from the conversation based on a disagreement. It's the equivalent of saying, "We don't like you. Go away.". Not happening. If I choose to leave a discussion, so be it. If Moderation asks me to walk away, great. What I'm not going to do is allow people to push me out. It's not personal for me. I'm fully capable of agreeing or disagreeing without attacking someone's character. So I'm sorry, but telling me to leave is not going to result in anything. This isn't Survivor.

    Who the hell are you talking to now?
    Well I'd say, but the comments were removed, and I'm quite content getting back to the subject. Although I don't think there's much else to say for now.
  • This content has been removed.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Ace_03 said:

    The best move is to extend the introduction of new champions to the basic pull by 2 months, that way the champion is released, 3 months go by, maybe even 4 or 5, they can announce whatever changes (up or down) and then the champ goes in on the 6th month.

    This way there is no rage or anger when f2p players or mild spenders unwillingly get these champions, cause they would have already been re-balanced. Anyone who goes in arena for them, or spends crystals, does so at their own peril.

    Clearly this is the direction they are going, it's their game and they adjust it as they see fit. But I rather not be stuck with a champion on a rebalancing period, I rather get the champion already fixed, not get a champion and then wonder for 2-3 months if they are going to nerf them in any way, shape or form.

    It's not a good feeling, you can't control what champions you pull, what items, what rank up materials... the 20% featured 5* crystal was taken away, now even if you get the champ by some RNG miracle, use awakening gems, signature stones, gold, rank up materials, everything; you aren't guaranteed most of that back.

    It used to be that, you could strategize using your roster to its fullest potential, get that 1 champ that could change it all for you, that 1 ability, now most of our rosters are not allowed in the most lucrative (in the long run) content in the game (act 6) but you also have gates that limit your roster even more.

    Now you can also take that "1 champ that could change it all for you, with that 1 ability" and change them whenever you deem necessary? This game is already built on enough RNG.

    Stop and think what you are doing, you are making the community miserable for an extended period of time, literally sucking the joy out of this game, I can't believe it's gotten to this point.

    I wish I could travel to 2016 post the willpower and BP nerfs and just keep the structure we had at the time, back when this game brought a smile to my face, not a constant frown of indignity and distrust.

    Everything you said makes sense but people waiting to buy crystals outside of whales that will buy them anyway is simply bad for business. This is why I think their strategy will be readjusted and we're waiting on an announcement to address this issue. If nothing was going to change this thread would've been closed a week ago because it has been derailed multiple times.
  • This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,567 ★★★★★
    According to what their intentions are in the Announcement, it's also not that drastic. They're minor adjustments. Not major changes. I mean, if people want to wait until they know what's changing, it's up to them. As DNA suggested, the downside is you miss out on months of use.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    The bugs and over heating is stuff that we all know Kabam is not doing purposefully. They're just slow to fix those type of issues at times it seems. This is more of a She Hulk rank down ticket situation where they're deciding to take this action all on their own and have complete control of the situation. We're not asking to get compensation, we're saying change your strategy on new champs. Two totally different instances and why would you hurt your bottom line on purpose?

    Unless they feel like this is good for the game in the future that we can't possibly see yet similar to 12.0 but in no scenario in this game is Cull is a more than an above average champ. Not terrible but not great either is where he lands so if he can get adjusted Namor who's actually an excellent champ has no shot of staying the same is the worry among others.
  • This content has been removed.
  • dot_dittodot_ditto Member Posts: 1,442 ★★★★
    Ryanhun said:

    Just ignore them, if no reaction they will leave on them here own.


  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Member Posts: 2,195 ★★★★★
    Ryanhun said:

    Just ignore them, if no reaction they will leave on them here own.

    The problem with that is that there is ALWAYS someone who engages, and often they are quoted which bypasses the ignore feature.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,658 Guardian

    Everything you said makes sense but people waiting to buy crystals outside of whales that will buy them anyway is simply bad for business. This is why I think their strategy will be readjusted and we're waiting on an announcement to address this issue.

    If they don't change their strategy and all evidence says the game continues to maintain the same amount or more players and the same amount or more revenue, would that convince you the strategy was actually good for business and the complaints about it were not actually representative of the playerbase as a whole?

    This is an interesting analog to the Cull situation. Players are saying Cull doesn't need to be changed, while Kabam says they have data that says he should be. Many players believe that means the data must be wrong. If the players are also saying these kinds of changes are bad for business but Kabam gets data that says it has no negative impact on player engagement or player spending, should they act on the vocal feedback or trust their monetization and engagement data instead?
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Everything you said makes sense but people waiting to buy crystals outside of whales that will buy them anyway is simply bad for business. This is why I think their strategy will be readjusted and we're waiting on an announcement to address this issue.

    If they don't change their strategy and all evidence says the game continues to maintain the same amount or more players and the same amount or more revenue, would that convince you the strategy was actually good for business and the complaints about it were not actually representative of the playerbase as a whole?

    This is an interesting analog to the Cull situation. Players are saying Cull doesn't need to be changed, while Kabam says they have data that says he should be. Many players believe that means the data must be wrong. If the players are also saying these kinds of changes are bad for business but Kabam gets data that says it has no negative impact on player engagement or player spending, should they act on the vocal feedback or trust their monetization and engagement data instead?
    If this doesn't effect Kabam monetarily than there is no incentive to change at all. Seeing as though I have quit spending and some other I know have done the same along with the forum outcries I doubt it but I could be wrong.

    Regardless I don't think people having trust issues with Kabam is still good for business. Outside of a few forum guys I don't know anyone that is okay with the Cull changes, at best I've heard lets wait and see but Kabam hasn't presented any information that anything other than damage will be changed.

    People are very committed to this game but the reason for the forum outcry isn't about Cull it is precedent. They tough Namor or any fan favorite champion that is actually good, it would just be forum outcry.
This discussion has been closed.