Even within the forum I suspect polls such as mine skew negative simply because people who are upset tend to be more vocal. TBH it’s why I created the poll in the first place though I did my best to not let my own negative reaction seep into the poll itself (though I’ve obviously not let that stop me from voicing my opinion here in the polls correspondence lol). The only question is how much does that skew the poll? No real way to tell, unfortunately.
All in all, not much we say or do is a big factor to the Devs. Feedback has limited value.
At the very least, @Sirrian disagrees with you regarding the worthlessness of forum feedback.
Edit: For those who can’t access, pasted Sirrian’s post below:
Here’s our design principle for changes… we look at three things:
- Player Feedback
- Data Analytics
- Dev Feedback/Experience
When any of the TWO things agree, we pay attention and look for a solution. It helps filter out three potential problems that cause issues when making changes:
- Noisy minority feedback (where data and our experience tell us a different story to a vocal minority)
- Misreading analytics (most devs have at least one horror story about misunderstood data… if your community & your gut instinct disagree with the data, you should be disregarding the data, as you’re misinterpreting it)
- Human/Dev Error - usually caused by by a cognitive bias on OUR side, where once of us has an agenda, and really wants a thing/direction for the game… if the data AND players tell you you’re wrong… you’re wrong)
1 Like
I never said feedback had no value, just limited value. How much overall do you think it is?
I don’t think it’s possible to assign a numeric value to the weight of feedback. I suspect the team is internally reviewing their decision in light of the vocal response, even if it is a minority opinion.
That’s a highfalutin ideal. Reality is that the graph has spoken.
Youre still running with that one then
I agree on both points, never attempted to assign a numeric value either because of the futility.
You make things sound so absolute. “The graph has spoken,” and so have the players. Nothing is set in stone.
For the record, since it bears repeating: I’m slightly negative on the change, because I think it addressed the problem incorrectly. I don’t think “gathers xxx resource” is an interesting game mechanic, and I’d much rather have a closer-to-uniform payout regardless of troop composition.
1 Like
I keep the fog lights on. The graph shows a reduction in Valkyrie; there are no plans to change Valkyrie again. Pretty straightforward
There are no plans to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean that feedback can’t change their minds.
I think the question at this stage is why we shouldn’t remove soul generation completely. The players win, it is our ideal situation, what do the devs lose with that?
Some small level of soul sales lost vs. a potentially increased retention
“Voiced my opinion here in the polls correspondence”
Say @ogunther just how old are you my brotha?
Dear diary, it is the 2016th year of our lord…
My dude grew up with the typewriter being the pinnacle of technology.
3 Likes
Funny thing about the graph, though… it is a very small cross section taken at the time when the changes are still controversial. Personally, I’ve used Valk way more in the last few days than in the last few months just because I’m testing out the changes to see where we stand. What I’m mostly seeing from the graphs is that a good chunk of people that had both Valk and TDS started using TDS instead of Valk. Of those that stopped using Valk, it also look like a good chunk of them were feeding Queen Mab, who saw another simultaneous hit in usage (probably also in part because Valk got Mana Shield) or just using her in some tacked on team where she didn’t belong, while those using Khorvash barely wavered and will likely continue to use Valk with him.
I’m also not seeing an inkling of any of the other soul generation “options” or the new necromancy “options” on this chart. Keeper of Souls even dropped off in usage from the last graph. People didn’t just stop farming souls because Valk might give a bit less in PvP, but it is very possible they dropped their blue PvP team altogether or temporarily and then just took to explore for soul farming instead. I am also seeing is a couple troops on the list that would only be used in PvP because of sheer availability - Lance Knight and Autumnal Imp - which kind of calls into question as to what, exactly, the graph represents. Less Valk usage immediately following a controversial change? Safe to say, yes. More actual (long term) variety by proxy for a large percentage of the playerbase? Yet to be determined.
Numbers can’t encompass how old I am. Either that or I’ve just forgotten how to count that high.
1 Like
I use Valk as a feeder troop to Mab. The souls generated by her were a very welcome by-product. I’m really annoyed now that I need to create and use a soul farming teaming outside of PVP, because I used to have it all wrapped up in a pretty bow and box of one team. So now this means more time in the game for me, more work, quicker burn out, due to doing double duty of PVP and soul farming to keep up with leveling my troops. So as much as I adore this game, let’s see how long until people start burning out because they have to do twice as much. Or they do the same amount of time in the game, but it’s split between soul farming and PVP and they stop progressing and get aggravated and leave. I know extreme examples, but I see the glass dumped over and spilled on the floor. Lol
To make the same amount of souls you did before on each battle you will need basically just one extra cast of Valk’s spell. Just that.
1 Like
Honestly I think this is the worst idea since the task “tweaks” for the console
1 Like
Hmmm…Ivar…I said twice as much work and you said you have to cast Valk exactly one more time than before, right? Last time I checked 1+ 1 = 2, hence twice as much work.
But that isn’t really the point because you took my quote out of context. Not surprising though, since going by your logic, my point is still made. So thank you.
He means one more time per fight, not one more time per cast. So if you had to cast it, say, 4 times for max souls before, now you have to cast it 5 times.
Even though valk has changed, i am not sure if she is worst, necromancy is amazing but not overpowered. I want to know the breakdown of souls of level 20 troops that can make souls and how much their soul generation is affected by necromancy from another troop. (Hit me with some hard math i can solve) (oxymoronic i know)