Producer Letter 3/6 discussion topic

EejEej Member, Moderator, Boss Fight
Rather than unlocking the Letter post - I am making a thread dedicated to comments/conversation/feedback about the contents of the Letter.

Linked Producer Letter 3/6 post
Tagged:
«134

Comments

  • I'm curious about developer thoughts in regard to the below statement:

    "The PvP battles will, on average, last between 2 and 3 rounds."

    This seems counter-intuitive given the wait length of many (most) 2nd/3rd abilities is longer than this term. Was the overall design philosophy of pvp that these abilities would be rarely utilized? Is the possibility of a "tank" meta (ie: Kai/emily furance astrid bauble that is starting to rise in appearance) frowned upon by developers given how long the matches can often take.

    It would seem to me that the best length of matches would be where all abilities could be used. When all abilities are used, more meaningful choices are made which raises the skill cap required.
  • bvs72bvs72 Member
    Thanks EeJ. I did see that your phrase "in a sec." is using the Star Trek popular culture reference "if we go by the book. like Lieutenant Saavik, hours could seem like days." But at least "in a sec." is much faster than soon. :)
    Your information is much appreciated.
  • NateDogeNateDoge Member
    This all sounds great Eej. I'm super glad you brought up the soft wall in pvp. That's been the biggest issue for me so far at 70. But pretty much all the changes you bring up are welcome for me. This post has really assuaged my personal concerns with the future of this game. Thanks!
  • DrocasDrocas Member
    dam you guys have a lot of work to do. Those are big lists :)
    The EMPIRE :: The Aegis of Athena
    KuK1uXt.png
  • phontonxphontonx Member
    I look forward to longer PvP battles!

    I would really love to see two things happen regarding PvP:
    1) whoever attacks first is determined by a "coin" toss.
    2) the defender's abilities charge as "normal", as opposed to all special attacks being charged out of the gate. (to Matt's point)
    10328949?gid=

  • MattCauthronMattCauthron Member
    edited March 6
    phontonx wrote: »
    I look forward to longer PvP battles!

    I would really love to see two things happen regarding PvP:
    1) whoever attacks first is determined by a "coin" toss.
    2) the defender's abilities charge as "normal", as opposed to all special attacks being charged out of the gate. (to Matt's point)

    Both of your suggestions would increase the attackers win rate substantially. Your 2nd suggestion might make it nearly impossibly for any defense to ever win.

    Edit: Also, thinking about it your first suggestion would be super frustrating to BOTH parties. Imagine I bring Zen to cleans Kai drench, but then I go first with Zen first slot and now he is useless and my hero gets drenched. Just a bad idea all around : /
  • phontonxphontonx Member
    edited March 6
    phontonx wrote: »
    I look forward to longer PvP battles!

    I would really love to see two things happen regarding PvP:
    1) whoever attacks first is determined by a "coin" toss.
    2) the defender's abilities charge as "normal", as opposed to all special attacks being charged out of the gate. (to Matt's point)

    Both of your suggestions would increase the attackers win rate substantially. Your 2nd suggestion might make it nearly impossibly for any defense to ever win.

    Edit: Also, thinking about it your first suggestion would be super frustrating to BOTH parties. Imagine I bring Zen to cleans Kai drench, but then I go first with Zen first slot and now he is useless and my hero gets drenched. Just a bad idea all around : /

    I think if the balance the heroes well, then you would have to plan better with the coin toss and build all around better teams. In the case of Zen, you would have to think about that before you brought him in: what if I don't go 1st or, what if I go 1st. Instead of: this hero will open and drench me, then I will cleanse him and pound the crap out of him. If they balanced attack and defense better I think it would work well.... but hey, what do I know....


    Edit: the 2nd comment was actually based off your earlier post "It would seem to me that the best length of matches would be where all abilities could be used. When all abilities are used, more meaningful choices are made which raises the skill cap required." Maybe I misunderstood your implementation idea, but I'm not sure how else to do it. There are only two options: everyone charged up or normal charge times.
    10328949?gid=

  • MattCauthronMattCauthron Member
    edited March 6
    phontonx wrote: »
    phontonx wrote: »
    I look forward to longer PvP battles!

    I would really love to see two things happen regarding PvP:
    1) whoever attacks first is determined by a "coin" toss.
    2) the defender's abilities charge as "normal", as opposed to all special attacks being charged out of the gate. (to Matt's point)

    Both of your suggestions would increase the attackers win rate substantially. Your 2nd suggestion might make it nearly impossibly for any defense to ever win.

    Edit: Also, thinking about it your first suggestion would be super frustrating to BOTH parties. Imagine I bring Zen to cleans Kai drench, but then I go first with Zen first slot and now he is useless and my hero gets drenched. Just a bad idea all around : /

    I think if the balance the heroes well, then you would have to plan better with the coin toss and build all around better teams. In the case of Zen, you would have to think about that before you brought him in: what if I don't go 1st or, what if I go 1st. Instead of: this hero will open and drench me, then I will cleanse him and pound the crap out of him. If they balanced attack and defense better I think it would work well.... but hey, what do I know....

    So just to spell this out clearly: You think a system that would promote 50% coin flips on whether you win or lose would be healthy for the game? Myself (And a large portion of the community) are already angry enough about MK 25% coin flips deciding games. This would make the situation substantially worse.

    And if your answer is to "plan around it", that literally implies only bringing a team that doesn't care about attack order which would typically be a very tanky outlast team. That would lower strategic gameplay significantly while raising levels of frustration to phone smashing levels (MK already does a perfectly fine job of this on his own).

    Edit to your edit: I should note I'm not trying to come across as condescending. Merely trying to point out what a negative impact idea 1 would have on the game. As for my statement in regard to not being able to use abilities, idea 2 would make this even worse in my opinion. With that change then nobody would get to use the other abilities!! I more meant balancing pvp length (And maybe ability turn wait length) around the idea that all/most abilities would see use.
  • ExaltedExalted Member
    Just be careful when you ll fix those heroes. People will start complain bout reptiles.. and so on.. People will never satisfied enough untill they hit legend 1 with zero effort.. Then they will tell is boring and they ll qq. Sometimes you dont have to listen to fanbase ( WoW did and now is dying).
  • Exalted wrote: »
    Just be careful when you ll fix those heroes. People will start complain bout reptiles.. and so on.. People will never satisfied enough untill they hit legend 1 with zero effort.. Then they will tell is boring and they ll qq. Sometimes you dont have to listen to fanbase ( WoW did and now is dying).

    haha Wow is dying. I've been hearing that one since Burning Crusasde! I personally really enjoyed this expansion. I think WoW has improved every single expansion (Unless you were a no life college kid with unlimited free time... aka myself in the burning crusade. The glory days :D)
  • graddersgradders Member
    It was a long post, so apologies if I missed it, but one huge issue is that a single rune can add more bonuses than moving a hero up a star. I just upgraded Ember from 4 to 5 star which is a LOT of aether, but her stats improved marginally. Perhaps this will be addressed with rune amendments but it is a massive problem. I can't see the point in spending gems on tokens when runes make the biggest difference. I also read somewhere else that you were going to look at 5 and 6 star stats?
  • I wanted to comment on this statement as well, "The PvP battles will, on average, last between 2 and 3 rounds."

    Care to share any data on how long they are currently lasting, especially at different levels and leagues? My suspicion is that it's probably already somewhere around 2 to 3 rounds. Many of my fights involve the Furnace, which drags the fight out, even though the outcome was decided on round 1.

    I'm not a statistician, but I caution against only looking at the average. By itself it can be misleading.
  • Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't really WANT longer PvP battles. Its not just the attacking team winning in one round. Sometimes its the defending team in one round. I don't know that I want a PvP match to last five minutes...
  • Exalted wrote: »
    Just be careful when you ll fix those heroes. People will start complain bout reptiles.. and so on.. People will never satisfied enough untill they hit legend 1 with zero effort.. Then they will tell is boring and they ll qq. Sometimes you dont have to listen to fanbase ( WoW did and now is dying).

    haha Wow is dying. I've been hearing that one since Burning Crusasde! I personally really enjoyed this expansion. I think WoW has improved every single expansion (Unless you were a no life college kid with unlimited free time... aka myself in the burning crusade. The glory days :D)


    True story...I had just graduated around when burning crusade came out. A few weeks after we managed to get Sunstrider on farm, he dropped ashes of al'ar. I won the /random for it (was too rare to use dkp). About two weeks later, I was offered my first job and so quit the game. Sorry again, old guild :(

  • FoozleFoozle Member
    I'm curious about developer thoughts in regard to the below statement:

    "The PvP battles will, on average, last between 2 and 3 rounds."

    This seems counter-intuitive given the wait length of many (most) 2nd/3rd abilities is longer than this term. Was the overall design philosophy of pvp that these abilities would be rarely utilized? Is the possibility of a "tank" meta (ie: Kai/emily furance astrid bauble that is starting to rise in appearance) frowned upon by developers given how long the matches can often take.

    It would seem to me that the best length of matches would be where all abilities could be used. When all abilities are used, more meaningful choices are made which raises the skill cap required.

    Agree 100%. If battles are intended to last 2 to 3 rounds, then it doesn't afford the opportunity for the offense to use abilities beyond the first one. At the same time I'm not sure extending battles to 7 or 8 rounds is the answer as people will find that tedious. Perhaps you could consider having the offense have their first ability available in round 1, 2nd ability available in round 2 and 3rd ability available in round 3. To avoid the offense winning every match, you can buff defensive stats to make up for the change the offense.

    Not sure it can be balanced and there might be a better way to do so, but I do think that if pvp is where the focus is going forward you should structure things so that the offense can generally use most abilities.

  • MalphiusMalphius Member
    I'm curious about developer thoughts in regard to the below statement:

    "The PvP battles will, on average, last between 2 and 3 rounds."

    This seems counter-intuitive given the wait length of many (most) 2nd/3rd abilities is longer than this term. Was the overall design philosophy of pvp that these abilities would be rarely utilized? Is the possibility of a "tank" meta (ie: Kai/emily furance astrid bauble that is starting to rise in appearance) frowned upon by developers given how long the matches can often take.

    It would seem to me that the best length of matches would be where all abilities could be used. When all abilities are used, more meaningful choices are made which raises the skill cap required.

    You can always use Ekko to bring those 2nd and 3rd abilities to fruition. Oh wait nvm MK
    malphius
  • I'm a little concerned on the whole "ideal PvP match lasts 2-3 rounds" thing. There's a huuuuuuuuge difference between 2-3 competitive rounds and "shade opened by one shotting the wrong person" or "MK and aria both dodged" or "my team is dead except for furnace and he takes an extra round to kill". I just hope you guys understand that we want longer meaningful matches, not longer matches that were still decided in round 1 but lasted a bit longer because you toned down damage some.
  • PardonPardon Member
    Exalted wrote: »
    Just be careful when you ll fix those heroes. People will start complain bout reptiles.. and so on.. People will never satisfied enough untill they hit legend 1 with zero effort.. Then they will tell is boring and they ll qq. Sometimes you dont have to listen to fanbase ( WoW did and now is dying).
    If WoW is World of Warriors that game is dying because they NEVER listened to players.
    Anyway you're right that all the people are never happy but some actual situations makes almost everyone unhappy
  • Filling out teams, mushroom heroes confirmed!!!
  • UofMBishUofMBish Member
    Love the insight into your thought process!

    I echo the opinion of others that I would like to see stars matter more and runes less than they do today.

    An idea that came to mind when reading this, Maybe consider a player not being attacked in PVP, either by the attacker refreshing or attacking one of the other opponents, as a partial defense "win." Players would get rewarded for building strong defenses, rather than just making a strong one look weak, and they would be pushed along to a higher league, alleviating some of the soft cap issues for lower levels.

    Also, I do like the often mentioned idea of having an option of attacking an easy, medium, and hard opponent with rewards set accordingly. Being able to still win, albeit with lower rewards, at our soft cap would help quite a bit I believe.

  • YykkilYykkil Member
    edited March 7
    In regards to your developer posts about the 'soft ceilings' of PvP, my own experience is mostly frustration when I reach Warlord III, because at that point it's almost consistently level 70s.

    The current rewards are much better than before the great PvP overhaul, yet I can't help but feel stagnant when raid tickets are just sitting there doing nothing - there has to be something (meaningful) to spend them on.

    The most interesting facet to me is the balance of heroes - I believe certain hero abilities downright need to be changed, such as Shade's immunity to all debuffs for dark teams. I'm really curious and dare I say excited to see how the balancing aspect is handled.
    9807918
  • UofMBishUofMBish Member
    If we are looking to balance MK with a counter rather than a nerf, wouldn't buffing dwarves be an obvious choice? I find them to be fairly worthless in both PVP and PVE, which is a shame as there is opportunity for some effective synergies with that team.
  • HompipahHompipah Member
    What is the lead time for these to happen?
    The grass isn't necessarily any greener on the other side... sometimes it's just the flowers are in different places.
    Jr. Complainer @ Society of Bosses
  • RenlyRenly Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    edited March 7
    @eej My biggest question after reading this is: Why should I still spend money on this game? How can I trust that any of my future purchases won't at some point down the line be reduced significantly given DB's recent track record (Shade, Koros, Superior Runes, Zen/Kozar, etc.).

    Amidst rebalancing efforts new heroes will be introduced - which considering DB's track record - will further disrupt the meta and shift the entire game towards that new hero. Again, considering DB's recent track record, said hero will be nerfed at some point down the line, devaluing any time or money I put into this hero. So what gives? How can I be reassured that this viscous cycle will not continue happening?


    A few other quick thoughts and concerns...

    1. Does Shade really need a nerf? I think his massive attack output with Haunted Past is fine, considering its a single hero attack. The real challenge is if you let him live to rounds 2+, and if he's stacked for attack, he should be easy to kill before he becomes an issue.

    2. While I agree MK could use a nerf, I don't necessarily want to see Death Blossom be nerfed. I think the biggest problem is his insane amount of dodge. Have the devs actually looked at his dodge %? There is truly no way his dodge is only 25%. I am fine with the removal of Tenacity, but want to reinforce that the true problem lies with the fact that there are just some matches where he simply cannot be hit.

    3. Superior Runes - it sounds like a nerf is incoming for superior runes. This is problematic for a number of reasons..

    (a) They cost a fortune in gems (and honor). If I'm going to start receiving less in terms of stats, I would expect the price to max tune one to be reduced significantly.

    (b) The signaling of a nerf means I am better off sinking every gem I get my hands into Superior runes before they are nerfed. Assuming existing superior runes won't be nerfed (like the triple attack stat runes floating around DB weren't), this will just make those with a large inventory of pre-nerf superior runes that much stronger.

    (c) Assuming (b), those still coming up the ranks will suffer an inherent and perpetual disadvantage as their own Superior runes will be doing less. New level 70s who hope to compete in Legend and Top 100 will always be at a disadvantage statistics wise, and have to make up what they lack in rune capability through raw skill and strategy.

    4. Dwarves? Seriously, nothing on this front?

    *edit* Thank you for taking the time to put this together Eej. Your transparency over the past few weeks has been very refreshing.
    IGN: Renly
    DB Guru | OG Potato | Rightful Heir to the Iron Throne


    “What I say is that, if a man really likes potatoes, he must be a pretty decent sort of fellow.”
    ― A.A. Milne



  • ApocalyptusApocalyptus Member
    edited March 7
    Good to see someone who comtemplates the scenarios & feedback at hand (yes I am talking about you @Eej.)
    I just might have to keep an eye on you along with the forum monitoring that I do time & time again.

    Until then. May the Undead guide your path.
    Hail Synchronicity, For we shall march on, "Forward Together", for we are like family!

    yik0077dp16y.png
  • ExaltedExalted Member
    edited March 7
    Exalted wrote: »
    Just be careful when you ll fix those heroes. People will start complain bout reptiles.. and so on.. People will never satisfied enough untill they hit legend 1 with zero effort.. Then they will tell is boring and they ll qq. Sometimes you dont have to listen to fanbase ( WoW did and now is dying).

    haha Wow is dying. I've been hearing that one since Burning Crusasde! I personally really enjoyed this expansion. I think WoW has improved every single expansion (Unless you were a no life college kid with unlimited free time... aka myself in the burning crusade. The glory days :D)

    You can't understand what i'm saying.. If you played Vanilla then you ll know that the communicaty killed the beauty of questing and world pvp by asking flying mounts in order to diminish distances. Then again they ask for faster entry in dungeons and they made queues so now you only see people outside of auction or bank. After that people complain about uber bosses and they make them easy enough. Now WoW is just one month grind and you 're ready for Mythic raids (there is no fun to it). All of this cause developers listen to young kids who want an easy game. From 10 mil users from vanilla down to 2 mil. (fact 2016 -1.093.154 - EU
    922.579- US
    314.605 - Asia
    2.330.338 -worldwide )
    So now i gave my honest opinion for a game where it has strong fan base community just not to lose cause of some people who want an easy enviroment and zero challenge. (sorry for my bad english, it's not my foreign language)
  • My only concern, and I've seen this happen in almost every game I've played, is that I, who comes to the game after the beta, and is a little slower than the top crowd, always find myself JUST getting to enjoy the fruits of higher levels and accomplishment about the time that the developers decide to nerf the top features because they believe that the current group of most-endowed aren't challenged enough or are having it too easy.

    I've been playing for, probably, a year, and am just now about to hit 70. I am very sure that by the time I am able to use superiors, they will be nerfed, when I finally get shade, shade will be nerfed, and when I finally figure out on my own some of the advanced synergies that the top guilds have figured out and shared among each other, they will be balanced.

    I have no problem whatsoever being in the "second tier" of players, but I do tired of the feeling that something is always nerfed or rebalanced just before I get there.

    I'm the tortoise, not the hare, but I always, inevitably, end up at the finish line, too. I just hate it if I get there and everyone has turend off the lights and gone home.
  • Please, please, please, do NOT put a hard level limit on anything. Hard level limits are ridiculous. If I'm too weak to win at my level, then I fail and I come back with a different team or I wait until I level up more, our get better runes.

    If the devs feel a hard level limit is required, then they have failed. Example, if it's recommended to be level 60 for a dungeon and a level 45 player beats it easily, something needs to be changed: 1) change the level recommendation, 2) make the dungeon harder, 3) reduce the affect runes have, 4) adjust the difficulty of the dungeon mobs based on the stars and runes of the player entering the dungeon.

    Level limits for PvP is just as ridiculous. We shouldn't look to have a soft wall in PvP. Players should be matched by level and/or power. At level 50, I should never be matched with a level 70, unless his defense (under a specific algorithm) shows that we are both equal power. Even if I make it to warlord+.

    Don't based leagues or tiers on level. Let all levels have a chance to finish at the top in their own "bracket" (for lack of a better word). Adjust the league and tier rewards based on the player level.

    The number of raids and trophies needed to move up will separate hard core pvpers from casual pvpers.

    ====================================

    I love the idea of longer raids.

    First, fast heroes should do much less damage and be harder to hit. A big, strong, slow dude should only need to make contact once or twice to kill a little fast person. The fast person should need to make several hits to kill the tank.

    Second, the above is about individual attacks. Aoe attacks should always do less damage than individual attacks. That's the trade-off. You hit more targets and do less damage to each.

    =====================================

    Runes, maybe something like this:

    Superior rune increases should be roughly equal to 6 stars, greater equal to 5 stars, and so on.

    So, if one star on Rogar increases his attack by 100, than a superior attack rune, with only one attack stat on it and 3 stars on that rune, it should raise his attack by about 600. (This idea just hit me and I haven't looked into current runes, so if I'm at the current numbers or above, then lower it to be more correct.)

    Just and idea, needs some work.

  • @RyleeGrace I don't understnad your comment, you seems to argue against both a hard and a soft wall, what do you want?
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.

© 2015 Big Fish Games. Inc., Big Fish, the Big Fish logo, and Dungeon Boss are
trademarks of Big Fish Games, Inc., used with permission www.bigfishgames.com