Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, elit eget consectetuer adipiscing aenean dolor

Are we listening to the user base at all?

I was under the impression that devour was a particularly hated mechanic since it completely changed the dynamic of the game in a very random sort of way. Death Mark was similar, so this was the first step in ignoring the players who said “hey, this mechanic sucks.” It’s not exactly the same, but it’s close enough.

Progress was made in adding Impervious as a trait (and Indigestible to some degree). Further progress was made in removing Great Maw’s third trait, which broke the game in many cases (especially when you started with the patented “you lose” board).

Months later, though, significant steps backwards have been taken, and here we are again. Devour is back - Kruarg, though largely unused, still has the same problems as Great Maw. Kerberos had his devour chance doubled, which I believe precisely nobody asked for or would have possibly thought was a good idea. Death Mark is still there in a broken sense. Guardians were added, with seemingly little consideration to exactly how they would affect the game (Courage). The same bugs have existed for months (death/stun/spawn) without being fixed, and instead of making progress in a positive direction, we’re simply adding more bugs. If we aren’t, then we’re going backwards and reinventing horrible ideas that died a well-deserved death (Glade Warden/Centaur and Skeleton has been replaced by Orion/Courage).

Sometimes I wonder if these things are even tested at all. Why even make changes if you are relying on the user base to test? What that has ended up meaning is bugs are found and exploited, making the game unenjoyable.

It’s disappointing. This was once a very good game. Playing wasn’t a chore, and I gave the devs more than a little bit of money for what I thought was a job well done. I haven’t done so in probably six months, which is right around the time the quality of this game dropped off considerably.

5 Likes

For me when they added troops that spawn other troops upon death, that’s when the game became even more of a grind. That seems roughly around the same time you’re saying. I think there has to be a cap on number of extra troops spawned allowed. I miss the times of going into a fight knowing you only have to kill 4 troops to get a win.

So not only is the meta “kill as fast as you can to avoid annoying traits/spells,” but now it’s “don’t worry there’s a chance you didn’t really kill that thing.”

(Not about the wargs, I could care less since it’s more of the same)

1 Like

I think it’s too easy to get filled with negativity when things get a little rough due the recent events.
The game improved a lot too, but the perception of those improvements are really skewed as people forget that the game is on a continuous state of change.

2 Likes

I’m probably in the minority but I don’t mind the devour troops; I rarely get eaten and I use both devour (Kraken) and Death Mark (Death) in my main PVP Souls team for a nice bonus whenever they proc (which is less often than you’d think).

Just because I don’t have a problem with the mechanics doesn’t mean I don’t understand why others do, however; I’d rather they not get rid of them because I like a little uncertainty in my games. Maybe they just need a little tweaking.

4 Likes

Pretty much my point of view. Since I play explore day-in, day-out, I don’t have such problems at all. But I understand the frustration of the PVP players and I’m confident that those bugs will be quickly fixed (And I really hope so).

I’m with the Original Poster on this… the game has not been going in the right direction in my opinion. Others may disagree with me I’m sure…

However since the new PvP, the Devour Trait and now in the semi-infinite wargs, just makes me dislike the game. I have not played PvP much since 2.0, and refuse to play those tedious/long winded games that I simply dislike.

I loved the Centuar/Skeleton, even with the trueshot teams, there were still teams that countered them well. Now if you don’t have the latest and greatest troops, PvP will be a sluggish slow process.

Anyone whos in the Top guilds will probably disagree with me, but I have yet to get 1, just 1 Mythic base troop. I have been playing over a year and since Mythics has been released, probably opened 1000’s of Glory+ keys, at least 150+ VIP keys. I enjoyed the original Puzzle Quest, and even PQ2 a little. This is what brought me here.

I hope the dev’s make real changes to the game, introduce other methods into playing, and stop leaning 100% into PvP, not every Match-3 player wants that.

2 Likes

It is also odd to me that everyone raged about both (a) Devour and (b) how frustrating RNG is, and then Kerberos got a buff to the RNG of his Devour. It would also be great if they did more to shake up the meta and kill the mana-drain-super-obnoxious-defense-team strategy that prevails. Real life has gotten in the way of my gaming recently, but I also find myself less compelled to play.

That said, inflammatory title is inflammatory.

1 Like

The main issue with PVP is that defenders are currently encouraged to field teams, that drag on matches and/or kill the attacker’s fun. That is not healthy at all. As long as that issue stays PVP will always have this kind of problem.

The question is… how to solve this?

5 Likes

By introducing the event system they are about to implement?
Idc how will it work and will it work, but the whole reason they are introducing it is to shake up the meta, and make it more prone to constant changing.

1 Like

This is my main beef. Everybody knows that defense wins are few and far between, so the objective for defense teams has become “let’s see how much grief I can cause people who attack me”.

I see both sides of the argument and I’m somewhat in the middle. I’m definitely frustrated with some things but overall, I’m still enjoying the game quite a bit.

5 Likes

I’m really interested in that, since they also said that it doesn’t only affect PVP (if I recall right)

1 Like

I think the bugs are just aggravating the situation and the opinions of everyone. 50% chance to devour an enemy for Kerberus doesn’t seems too much trouble, i understand that not everyone likes uncertainty and much less the effect Devour, but in this case i feel it’s aimed to instill that little “goosebump” when Kerberus fires and you wonder if it will eat your troops or not, also everything released to deal with Great Maw will also work for Kerberus.

But again, i understand that not everyone will enjoy it and personally i too would like a new effect for Kerberus’s spell instead of just increasing the devouring chance.

1 Like

I spent 17 years in game development until I went crazy around 2010. What I know is this: Listening to players is great but players know how to play games not make them - leave the game design to the game designers.

Personally I am feeling a degree of tedium in PvP that I have not felt in months, but I have confidence that this is being addressed and will resolve well.

Venting frustration is fine but let’s not totally trash this game/team - feel that it’s unfair and unwarranted. My personal feeling is that despite many annoyances this game is more varied, playable, and plain fun than it has ever been.

11 Likes

People have to understand helping a game develop is not just about praising it. There has to be 2 sides. This thread is just putting it on the table so to speak, the troops are going in a direction some feel isn’t good for the overall game.

The OP made a well thought out post. He’s not trashing anyone.

The devs are good people, we know that. This isn’t about their character. It’s about the game.

2 Likes

I agree with you but I just don’t understand why this is? What do players get out of griefing others? Are they hoping people quit mid match? Isn’t it more likely people will just skip their teams and fight someone else? If so, then doesn’t that hurt them just as much as everyone else because they’re not getting as many defensive battles which means less Revenges and less Wins?

Am I missing something? I tend to field defensive teams that are either 1) good at winning but still appealing to fight or 2) teams really good at losing (to get more Revenges).

The phrase you’re looking for is “constructive criticism” which is much more important than praise to the well-being of any business. Praise gives you the warm and fuzzies but is otherwise useless for a business (well, it can help with marketing, too); but constructive criticism is essential to any business’ survival.

2 Likes

I have also been in game development for 10+ years as well…

I see the imbalance, and it seems instead of making a game that used to be based on strategy, is now based more upon the latest bugged troops. Or lets devour all the other team instead of having to defeat them.

Also when a match 3 game lasts 15 minutes for the “average” player (due to lack of troops), and 45 seconds for the player who has every card… there needs some balance.

Just voicing my opinion before I get too frustrated and leave. I have enjoyed the Explore mode, which takes up about 90% of my time anymore. PvP < 10% and occasional Treasure Map here and there.

That’s what hoped when I fielded an annoying RNG team. However I felt bad for it and switched to something more… manageable.

2 Likes

Perhaps the issue is that the PVP on this game is “too soft”. It’s unlike other games where losing means a lot, and maybe people still carry this “outside mentality” to GoW as well.

I honestly think they’re wanting people to quit and move on. Many of the top PVP players do exactly that because it’s all about quantity of matches, not quality of matches.