To correct something to a reward point from a mistake to one they likely already cleared with their publisher far, far in advance, not that long. To convince said publisher that the rewards they already cleared were a mistake because they don’t understand the game economy or player psychology nearly as well as they think they do? Far longer. I wouldn’t hold my breath on anything too earth-shattering as far as reward table given this, but I do expect them to make some kind of adjustment after they have given it a cycle. This iteration feels like they intentionally highballed time commitment/costs while lowballing rewards so that they would have some wiggle room to meet the playerbase, because, lets be honest, no reward point that one side was willing to give would have been “enough” for a great majority of people here.
Or, like half a dozen other people have already said: give it time. But also manage your expectations. What I’m hoping for at this point is mostly a bit less on the hard time commitment side, while proxy-buffing orbs by various means (fixing major orb of growth recipe to not require 20 orbs of growth, add different ways to spend the low value orbs like wisdom and growth for endgamers, etc.). And fixing the weapons, but that seems to be irritating me far more than others, probably because I’m looking at it with a designers eye.
I’d bet money they haven’t futureproofed this content out to even a single repetition of any given troop type or kingdom. So many of this games systems seem to only exist try to correct for something that wasn’t properly futureproofed in the first place. It bothers me a little.
Yeah, realtalk: I make no attempt to hide I’m very frustrated with the state of the game and how haphazardly everything seems to be implemented.
I like the devs and hate to feel like I openly disrespect them, but that we charge forwards and implement new things while so many broken windows are scattered about seems foolish. It seems especially so when any new content we do get either arrives broken or regresses something else.
I wish we’d have a release that was nothing but code quality. This happened at a previous employer once. The flagship software spent several years on a treadmill where new features were valued so highly little time was spent on bugfixes. A couple of releases later, revenue dropped notably. Customer feedback indicated they had tried upgrading, but encountered so many reliability issues they were not interested in updating for several years. This lit a fire under management’s pants and an entire release was dedicated to bug fixing and adding instrumentation to identify the most important bugs. It turned out the #1 crashing bug, affecting more than 55% of users, had been lingering for more than 5 years because the developers considered it “too rare to be of note.”
My worry is GoW is in the “attrition” phase of an F2P game, where they expect to lose a ton of veteran players but make up for it by accepting a crowd of new hopefuls. Problem with this plan: if the new hopefuls show up and find out large swaths of the content don’t work, they won’t convert to veterans.
I make no attempts to hide from newbies what it means when every one of them comes to discord and asks why all of a sudden they face powerful opponents in Arena: the devs decided that’s a mode for endgamers to farm trophies, not a mode for new players to sidestep “I haven’t leveled much”. That’s the only thing a six-month thread where the only “fix” has been “we temporarily broke Runic Blade” can mean to me.
It strongly affects where my monthly video game budget goes. Right now it’s not pointed at Deathknight Armor. It’s pointed at Celeste, and Skyrim, and lots of other ways to trick out my new Switch, a platform where broken games are fixed.
I can already say that Anonymous will not complete the invasion event this week.
We will never require from our members to put any money in the game nor tell them what to do with their ressources. And even less to get crappy rewards.
I am not sure for who the last stages have been intended - if there has been any thought put in their elaboration - but the #1 guild is not rich enough to complete them.
I dislike Invasion for the same reasons I dislike Raids. Namely, this infernal goddamn store.
We have to throw Gems at getting these throw-away troops.
We have to throw Gems at sigils to keep up with the guild getting the rewards.
And the fights are all going to be the same! Regardless of the number of options we have (quite a few this week), we have no reason to diversify - we’re going to settle on what we feel is the most effective team, and just use that all week. And the enemy team composition is also going to be [roughly] the same - all week.
Guild Wars, for all its faults (to be honest I didn’t mind most of them, personally), maintained a level of variety that we will never see in these other modes. This, like Raids, is just going to be “this is the best team now use it, thank me at the end of the week”.
The single greatest difference from Raids is that these towers are not nearly as threatening as Zuul’Goth. Sure, maybe I should wait until the end of the week before saying so, but… “NOT instantly kill a troop” seems pretty docile by comparison.
I like the fact that the devs haven’t said one thing about all our suggestions, just taking it all in.
But they’ll come here and talk about streaming and whatever else. Let’s hope the silence means something important or else they really don’t care at all.
I think there is hope that they’ll figure all this out by the next time around and if not, we’ll just have to pvp or whatever it is ppl like to do waiting for guild wars every three weeks.
Not the last update, and frankly…I don’t understand why. No reason whatsoever was given to me. I didn’t mind at all spending extra time doing the testing.
Numbers of tower kills required appear to be a data-entry error at this point. I pinged the devs on it when I posted in the other thread, so I just hope it can be noticed and resolved. After looking at the full numbers required, theres no way they are correct, even as a “cash grab”. The only reasonable assumption is that number of kills required for each reward stage is intended to be the total amount of kills required to *finish that reward stage. That would put us at needing a full guild of t4 purchases with within a fraction of a percent of perfect plays to close out all reward stages. Still more costly than raids given comparable perfect battles and tier purchases, but it makes the numbers look actually sort of realistic.
It was pointed out by Salty that there wasn’t enough time to do a beta test for 3.3. This was, strangely, after a paragraph that discussed how players should be understanding of delays. I don’t understand what the point of that was, given that most of us seem to agree the updates are rushed, and could do with more time being spent on quality assurance.
I’m not a firm believer in that “rigorously tested” part.
I think we all would have been ok with even a month delay or longer, being rushed for a deadline just leaves us all with a crappy product that we used to love, but now is turning sour.
No one ever does their best work while being rushed.
To be fair @Santandrix, I spoke too soon. There was a post made yesterday that I had not yet seen.
Apparently our services will be used again. A step in the right direction that I commend the dev team for.
