Taken down by the author. Simply because good people shouldn’t take the blame for what bad people make them do.
Of course they got greedy. Gem sale in the same week as introducing a grossly overpriced event. They’ve created an artificial and unnecessary demand for a “sale” item.
I don’t think it’s a bug, it’s greed. I see that as proof that they had other plans and willfully made the reward requirements what they are. Of course, they can always fall back on that being beta screenshots and not final product.
The real issue is the cowardice of not being able to say, “yes, we indeed intended to screw you over.”
I am starting to think they actually are taking advantage of this covid-19 pandemic.
I thought it was just a single employee laughing at people dying. (I have the screen shots to prove that.) Seeing them add 90% to the requirement from their own help section?
Lets see how deep they dig the hole trying to explain this.
So it would be appear they indeed figured out how many points would be reasonable for a guild to complete to be in line with other guild events, and just added a huge amount to it for the opening week. I’m fine with them doing this, its the deception I dislike. How much do you want to bet it will be back to 33,052 for final stage next month?
I wrote that article and took the screenshots.
I took the screenshots on our test server while the event was still being balanced and the different kind of World Events were still being tested. The numbers go up and down during testing and can change a LOT as you can see. We also didn’t only test Council of Chiefs on the test server but a whole gamut of events that this new system can run so the numbers were different for those different world events as well.
At the time I took those screenshots the scoring system was different again and there was actually a second much lower point value item we were collecting on the test server in addition to the rarer skulls, so for that test the lower scoring made sense.
As we’ve said, the events in future will also be tweaked based on the feedback and data collected from this current Council of Chiefs event.
If based on the data and feedback it seems we should lower the requirements they will be for similar events in future.
I’m sorry the screenshots in the article aren’t accurate, that’s 100% on me, and honestly I just died on the inside when I came and saw this thread. I feel like I let you guys down with the inaccuracy of the screenshots and how mad I’ve made you because of it.
I’m sorry for the confusion, I’ll go and update the article now.
In regards to the tip saying buy up to Tier III for the Weapon, I’ll change that to a higher Tier to avoid causing future confusion or disappointment. These events will be different every week so I can’t say for sure what Tier the Weapon would be in every week but I’d prefer to list a higher Tier and have it be lower in game than the other way around for this reason.
It was a hard article to write due to how every event will be different and I’m sorry for the confusion and frustration it caused. I tried to make it as helpful as possible and I just put the images there for illustrative purposes to show the different screens and I didn’t think (although it’s obvious in retrospect) that the numbers in the images would be taken as gospel because I was thinking about all World Events when I was writing this article, not just Council of Chiefs, but Council of Chiefs is all you’ve seen so far so of course you will look at those images harder.
This was a genuine mistake and I’m sorry for that.
Ought to be more sorry that the cost of completing this event is between $2700 and $3700 guild-wide worth of gems as compared to $1000 as usual. I can see we’ll never get a straight answer regarding the intentions behind it. You gouged us, period. Choices have consequences. Unfortunately more for us than you.
Lower than 10 points a skull.
They should be tweaked immediately. Not next month. Y’all have lost most of the once impartial credibility of “Making things right in future”. The Delves/Faction Assaults have cost the devs that trust.
I’m sure your beta testers already provided that feedback. Unless folks like @Macawi were given lower portal reward numbers as well. (Sorry for the random tag but I think you’re one of the few testers who can say their piece without tearing into the devs about it.)
I believe these words to be sincere. But if I’m correct about 505 being the string pullers. You’re actually upset because of the blowback that I+2 may receive because of it. And for that I apologise. Be mindful that the shit they pull like raising the portal points Requirements is 100% greedy on their end. And like cowards they hide behind your development team. I get that they pay you to be customer service. But they continually disservice you by throwing you out to the fire. They are 100% supervisors for doing it.
That’s a key sentiment. If you’re having trouble trying to explain an event. Perhaps that’s a great sign that’s way too convoluted to be released in a match 3 game.
Considering that 99% of the information matches the final product. And considering Mr. Fawkner said once upon a time that all guild events would be doable by purchasing Tier 4. You are damn right it should be taken as gospel.
I can’t help but feel this week was a continuation on the beta. To see… How the community would react to the extra tier cost. You have a beta… Both professional and amateur levels. You are more than able to collect feedback by previewing patches. By the time the product goes live… The testing should be done…for good.
Y’all are on the clock. One that you put yourself on. You have until cob today week to correct Council of Blunders portal reward points to something actually fair to the company and your customers.
Otherwise next month…I… And a litany of others will be happy to advise folks all the ways they can use their time more efficiently than participation in the Weak-Ass Events. At least we finally have a better name for them than “World Event”.
Thank you for your time. And I’m sorry this is all falling on you. You’re a good person Kafka. I wish 505 Games was more worried about treating good people good. And less worried about the good they can do for their shareholders bank accounts.
Thank you, but I think that this statement is an honest mistake, although highly appreciated.
No pun intended, I am not being sarcastic here.
I’d avoid specifying a tier at all, just something along the lines of “Look out for tiers that may offer a new weapon!”.
I can verify Kafka’s statements on this one.
When the external beta testers played the Council of Chiefs event in the version that it appeared on beta, there were two collectables at the time, orc skulls and wolf pelts. Skulls were worth 10 and pelts 1.
Obviously, the final version on the live servers only had the orc skulls in it, which is likely the result of the feedback from beta testers on how the functionality of multiple different randomly dropping currencies in the same event was seriously confusing to follow. The mess right now with the randomness of orc skulls is bad enough as it is already, let alone if there were two different and independent random currencies dropping in the event right now.
I’m going to take a not-so-wild educated guess and say that the second world event type that was externally beta tested will also be somewhat different from how it appeared on beta when it makes its way to the live servers eventually.
For 30k-ish points to close the last portal?
So does the live version have less point opportunities and a higher score requirement? Or is this amount of skulls we get considered boosted from beta and have a hyper inflated score requirement as a result?
A different scoring system was used for the event on beta, as the event was constructed differently than the version on live. Points earned per round are much higher on live than it was on beta, so the inflation of score targets would be expected. All that said, reward target thresholds generally fall into the “balancing” part of the patch. So, I’m dubious that the scoring targets shown on beta were anywhere near representative of the final version that appeared on the live server and no such statements were made by the devs (as with any beta) that anything that appears on beta is what will appear on the live servers eventually.
Devil’s advocating myself here though, one of the new specific feedback questions asked to beta testers was the perception of time needed to clear events. Skimming the beta posts across everyone, we generally felt that the timing was similar and appropriate to current non-world events. It’s possible that the reward targets may have been intentionally raised on the live version of this event based on a perception that the scoring was too easy than what the devs wanted out of the event. Absolutely no way to prove or disprove that thought though, as any such adjustment in that regard would have occurred outside of the beta testing environment.
This thought crossed my mind as well, but I didn’t want to be the first beta tester to vocalize it.
I was going to say that. I mean, I agree … I said “this feels okay.”
(Of course that is no longer the case.)
LOL I only play this game for the sole purpose of creating DEADLY teams, nothing more. LOL
I’d actually like to see that proof. I don’t intend to say, “I don’t believe you” with this request. I’m looking for this last nail to get driven into my decision making this week
This post has been deleted by me. It contained screenshots of some incredibly stupid comments made by an Infinity+2 employee.
Apparently clear evidence to the immature attitude of a serious pandemic and cracking jokes about it is no big deal to some.
If Sirrian wants to view the screenshots. I’m sure he can get a message to me through the game or forum.
I’ll post it elsewhere, so it is public.
Holy crap on a cracker. That is massively Not Cool.
Also, corona can be carried by someone who never ends up showing symptoms. They have no way to know it “isn’t in AUS yet”.
 For clarification’s sake - I don’t feel she’s laughing about anyone dying. I just think it was a comment made in very poor form when a lot of people are already preoccupied/worried.