Discussion on the Balance Changes Feedback Thread

jackstar0

This seems like a stealthy "slow the matches" change akin to when the health bump came across the 3*s.

Not wild about it. Boosts should boost. Making the new max the old max isn't really fair to people still climbing.

Buret0

We are already ISO poor. Now you want us to pay ISO for the benefit of using covers to get our characters back to how strong they were before you introduced champions?

Am I wrong about this?

lukewin

MarvelMan wrote:

To be back on topic.......One change I think is pretty bad is that in the first node for DPDQ the 2* character can no longer be one shotted by Juggs. Yeah, its just one more match but its change from before and an annoyance.

I would offer feedback, but I didn't really pay attention to the damage that my characters were doing before, and what they're doing now. I did notice the change that is quoted above though. Maybe by not releasing all the changes that were made to balance everyone, Demiurge will hope that only noticeable changes get brought up and only worrying about changing those. Pretty sure if we got a side by side picture of how people were balanced, there'd be more people being vocal about nerfs despite it not being noticeable in actual play. I'm actually not against this way of doing it. I would think they've got numbers about how often characters are being used, and make balancing changes based on those numbers. If any changes were too severe/noticeable, then they'll readjust.

EDIT to add - I think it might be too early for any of us to notice. If they're stronger at lower levels, weaker in the middle, and the same at higher levels, what is the lower/middle/higher based off, max characters or max Champions? I don't think anyone is playing with low leveled characters often enough to notice they got stronger.

alphabeta

Forgive me but the very existence of this thread worries me

My question is in two parts?

Don't they already know what has changed?

If no - ****

If yes - why ask unless the only things you're going to fix are those that get complained about?

Ludaa

It's not our job to have or give hard data. Was this game just unearthed from a secret chamber inside a pyramid? Devs have the details, all we have are a bug and some guesses. Can we also stop pretending posts from HiFi count as dev posts? The actual devs abandoned this forum long ago, and left poor HiFi to interpret what I'm sure are infrequent replies to his emails.

Boommike

aesthetocyst wrote:

Never pay for anything you can get better for free. Crowdsourcing is excellent leverage.

___________________

RE: The OP ... cannot give any feedback until the nature of the "bug" affecting buffs and or championed levels is detailed. How is what we are seeing different than what was intended?

The only intelligent feedback we can give at this point are anecodtal reports and ask whether what we are reporting it what was intended.

We have yet to hear a design intent regarding championing.

What did the devs want to do, what effects did they think necessary, in order to incorporate championing into the game?
What specific changes were intended to achieve those effects?
What should we be seeing?

We can't provide feedback regarding the changes without know what was intended.

Can only ask questions.

Need answers.

What was intended?
What in their understanding, is the nature of the "bug"?

and

alphabeta wrote:

Forgive me but the very existence of this thread worries me

My question is in two parts?

Don't they already know what has changed?

If no - ****

If yes - why ask unless the only things you're going to fix are those that get complained about?

Why on earth why should we be providing data (that I agree with JVReal on: why are we doing it in the first place?) when we haven't been communicated with?
The best quote? "We have yet to hear a design intent regarding championing."
I love the new feature. And we can speculate on it's intent all day ("Help with transitioning" "Help with unused covers" "Adds to the high end-end game") but why can't we be tinykittying told?!?! Why does this development/producing team remain so infuriatingly tight-lipped?? PLEASE COMMUNICATE WITH US. Forum trips when I encounter Red name posts and replies are much much better than those filled with AI cheating and meme thread (I love the meme threads; but not the primary reason I come to this site).

CaptainFreaky

Malcrof wrote:

Many of the posts in this thread have valid constructive points, but we need hard data. If someone would like to create a thread on their general opinions of the change, i would prefer to move posts to that. The other option is rafting them (poof, gone), which is not preferred.

Ummm...not to complain (or state the obvious), but don't the dev's have a table that shows EXACTLY what values (match damage, health, ability damage, scaling) changed? If they don't, well, shame on them for being crude coders. Aren't the dev's always asking us to provide feedback on how we FEEL about changes, rather than writing a before & after forensic report on numbers?

PS - Sorry, I didn't include math in this post. I'm not trying to distract or be a pest, I just honestly wanna understand cause the OP asked for feedback on "What do you like, what don't you like, suggestions, etc" which sounds like what the devs typically ask. Hard data is always nice, but given that the devs are basically just sitting on the hard data and won't share, it doesn't seem like data is essential.

DrStrange-616

Malcrof wrote:

Many of the posts in this thread have valid constructive points, but we need hard data. If someone would like to create a thread on their general opinions of the change, i would prefer to move posts to that. The other option is rafting them (poof, gone), which is not preferred.

Why do you need hard data? The devs have all of the data, don't they? What's change and what hasn't isn't up for interpretation. It's simply numbers. Numbers that they already have. So what data do you want from us and why?

chamber44

Malcrof wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

Many of the posts in this thread have valid constructive points, but we need hard data. If someone would like to create a thread on their general opinions of the change, i would prefer to move posts to that. The other option is rafting them (poof, gone), which is not preferred.

Why do you need hard data? The devs have all of the data, don't they? What's change and what hasn't isn't up for interpretation. It's simply numbers. Numbers that they already have. So what data do you want from us and why?

They want examples of what you like and don't.. use specific chars, and numbers if possible..

Doom's trap tiles are a good example.. the damage they used to do vs the damage they now do, dislike the change.. etc.. Chars who you would like changed back or one's that were changed for the better, give specific examples...

Here was one i posted:

Malcrof wrote:

LDaken, @ 173, has yet to even get +1 to his strike tiles. Do they scale at all?

Simple, straight forward, this character's strikes seem to not scale at all, which may be a bug, and something i think should be changed.

unless i'm missing something, why would any of us like any type of nerf at all? why would we want Doom (to continue your example) to do less?

DrStrange-616

Since I didn't have the PC stats memorized, I'd only be guessing and have to hunt stuff down. Why don't you provide me with the before and after stats, and I'll tell you which ones I like and which ones I don't. So much easier for everyone and they'll get commentary on all of the changes not just the ones we happen to piece together using our super duper forensic abilities.

Stax the Foyer

Malcrof wrote:

Not all went down, in fact, Champion Psylocke is starting to do the type of damage she should have been doing all along, very positive change, the uppage in match damage to 4*s across the board, a common complaint , that 3*s shouldn't be tanking over 4*s, another very positive change, the power increase in match damage is more clear now at each * level.

Also, Champion She-Hulk has become a certified tank now, her health is increasing nicely, aoe damage could be upped some (it did not go down, and is scaling slowly ,but her tiles she steals are being strengthened more.

No hidden meanings here, just let us know which characters and abilities you have noticed changed in, and which are positive and which are negative. If you have exact numbers, please use them!

This post makes it sound like there was a balance pass done, where different characters within tiers were adjusted relative to one another. Was that the case? If so, I don't feel like that was communicated in any of the flurry of last-minute announcements about the patch.

Had that happened, some people may have been much more selective about who to champion.

Unknown

Am I actually reading this thread correctly? The developers are asking us to gather data on the changes they made?

Oh man, you couldn't make this stuff up...

DBC

JVReal

aesthetocyst wrote:

Drummerboycroy wrote:

Am I actually reading this thread correctly? The developers are asking us to gather data on the changes they made?

Oh man, you couldn't make this stuff up...

DBC

Well, no, it looks like the mods are asking for community feedback, preferably documented feedback, to relay to the publisher (D3), to relay to the developer (Demiurge).

A developer which recently confirmed to the publisher, who in turns confirmed to the players, the existence of a bug.

Where's there's one unintended / undesirable development, there may be another?

I immediately thought of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-SieCU11r4
30 seconds in...

Buret0

aesthetocyst wrote:

chamber44 wrote:

unless i'm missing something, why would any of us like any type of nerf at all? why would we want Doom (to continue your example) to do less?

... because you constantly run into him in some or another game mode at some ridiculously high level, so such nerf benefits you more than a buff would?

Heh.


Hey, how 'bout we get the AI toons on different scaling curves than the player toons? Exponential growth for players, exponential decay for AI, of course

If and when lightning rounds start expanding their rosters we might stop seeing him boosted so damn much.
I'm so sick of the same two sets of lightning round mandatory and boosted characters.

Pylgrim

DayvBang wrote:

Basically every post in this thread that refers to boosted character changes is invalid due to the bug.

I'm not sure we can get valid feedback yet with so many players focusing on how boosted characters changed.

What?? Don't you understand that the problem is that we don't know the nature of the bug!? Boosted characters are the only indication we have right now about how characters may look when fully championed, as it will probably be months before someone gets one. Are boosted characters' values different from unboosted champions of similar levels? Is that the bug? We don't know and we have no way to guess whether it is a correct assumption. So, as asked, we are giving feedback on what we can see based on the appallingly sparse information we've received.

Linkster79

I don't have any hard data, the developers have all the numbers they need. Any form of extensive play testing on their test servers should have shown any real life damage points at any levels.

My feedback however is this. I like the champion feature, I like it a lot and has breathed a little bit of life back into the game, however I was perhaps falsely under the impression our characters would have scaled in the exact manner that the opponents we have faced in so many story events over the years have scaled. Yes it meant that a max championed team could have punched above its weight and tangled with the tier above. That's what I was most looking forwards to.

I still hold out hope for tiered versus events and champions could be something that really mixes the individual tiers up.

TLCstormz

Drummerboycroy wrote:

Am I actually reading this thread correctly? The developers are asking us to gather data on the changes they made?

Oh man, you couldn't make this stuff up...

This. Exactly this.

biryon

JVReal wrote:

I immediately thought of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-SieCU11r4
30 seconds in...

Funny you should post that, I was also reminded of a classic movie scene.


The devs should be giving us details on the changes, not the other way around.

Bowgentle

Is this some kind of bizarre social experiment?

We're supposed to give feedback on things without knowing what we should be looking at?

Sure, if stuff isn't brought up then it probably was an OK change, but why are we left in the dark about what changed?

Championing and the rest of the changes is the one time you would expect detailed patchnotes.

Next time just write "We changed stuff.", because that's about as informative as what we've been told up until now.

DrStrange-616

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Since I didn't have the PC stats memorized, I'd only be guessing and have to hunt stuff down. Why don't you provide me with the before and after stats, and I'll tell you which ones I like and which ones I don't. So much easier for everyone and they'll get commentary on all of the changes not just the ones we happen to piece together using our super duper forensic abilities.

So much this.

I couldn't tell you the ability damage numbers on all these characters at various levels. Nor would I particularly notice on someone like Nick Fury whose damage numbers on yellow aren't even in the game description. Is his yellow + green doing more now? Less? I'm not leveling him by one, playing a match, leveling by one, playing another match, etc...to figure out if he's scaling ok. Even if I were, I have no data to compare it to.

It does appear that a 166 2* does the same match damage as a 166 3*, which does the same as a 166 4*, which if it could scale that low, would probably be roughly 1/2 what a 166 5* would do. Balancing the bottom 3 tiers against themselves and leaving 5* at FU levels isn't good for balance.

Why was my post quoted above removed? It's a fair question and a much more logical way to go about getting feedback.

Cypr3ss

DrStrange-616 wrote:

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Since I didn't have the PC stats memorized, I'd only be guessing and have to hunt stuff down. Why don't you provide me with the before and after stats, and I'll tell you which ones I like and which ones I don't. So much easier for everyone and they'll get commentary on all of the changes not just the ones we happen to piece together using our super duper forensic abilities.

So much this.

I couldn't tell you the ability damage numbers on all these characters at various levels. Nor would I particularly notice on someone like Nick Fury whose damage numbers on yellow aren't even in the game description. Is his yellow + green doing more now? Less? I'm not leveling him by one, playing a match, leveling by one, playing another match, etc...to figure out if he's scaling ok. Even if I were, I have no data to compare it to.

It does appear that a 166 2* does the same match damage as a 166 3*, which does the same as a 166 4*, which if it could scale that low, would probably be roughly 1/2 what a 166 5* would do. Balancing the bottom 3 tiers against themselves and leaving 5* at FU levels isn't good for balance.

Why was my post quoted above removed? It's a fair question and a much more logical way to go about getting feedback.

Might I suggest its because they're not actually looking for feedback, more the appearance of looking for feedback... and we can't have logic getting in the way of appearances.

Regards,
Cypr3ss.