Producer Letter 3/6 discussion topic

24

Comments

  • Wolfreich wrote: »
    @RyleeGrace I don't understnad your comment, you seems to argue against both a hard and a soft wall, what do you want?

    No wall. Allow everyone the chance to reach the top through dedication and continuous raiding. Hitting any kind of wall encourages me to stop raiding until the next season begins. The game should never encourage a player to stop playing the game for any reason.

    While I know that continuous raiding ability encourages pay to play players to spend more, and I'm not a p2p player, it was much more fun having the option to keep raiding whenever I chose, instead of being forced to wait for the next season to start because I topped out.
  • UofMBish wrote: »
    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.

    Hate the dwarves. Kill em all.

    qakvrul0sa2f.png
  • phontonxphontonx Member
    I can say this about longer raids: I recently created an F2P alt account due to my current boredom with my max account (well kinda F2P, I wanted VIP1 rewards so I spend $5). The initial raids went several rounds and a lot of them were "nail-biters" where abilities were able to be used even twice in some raids! It was the most fun I've had in PvP since I played the game! Then, as I leveled up and started coming across 3* monsters like koros, MK, Icepick all with lesser runes, the fun factor went downhill fast! Now it's the same boat as my max account, maybe worse. Point is, the early raids where hero balance seemed good, there were no runes and raids lasted several "nail-biting" rounds was a lot of fun!
    10328949?gid=

  • LossencLossenc Member
    • Ensure that SKL matters in healing and buff bonuses, and affects the resistance of debuffs/status effects in an attacker SKL vs. defender SKL ratio. E.g. that SKL helps apply/resist debuffs.

    Is no one going to mention that we now know what SKL is supposed to do?
  • tphilly5tphilly5 Member
    I would go much slower with all these changes. The mud is just starting to settle in the water and you want to stir it all up again. PVP is much better than it was before the league changes. The matches require strategy again and are not just one shot kills. I am seeing a wider spread in heroes being used. The matchmaking seems straightened out and players can find where they want to compete. The soft ceiling for lower levels is a problem, but people will eventually level up. Let the whales fight other whales. No idea why it would be fun for them to do anything else. One way to get different teams is to put a weekly limit on how much a hero could be used. This could be applied to defenses also. It is finally getting better though so go slow.
  • DrocasDrocas Member
    @eej any plan on updating VIP rewards?
    The EMPIRE :: The Aegis of Athena
    KuK1uXt.png
  • FatCat69FatCat69 Member
    @RyleeGrace The idea of the hard wall in this sense wouldn't be to stop people from playing once they get to a specific point, but rather to stop lower level people from wading into the deep end.

    Someone who is level 55 is never going to make it all the way to Legend I, no matter how dedicated they are, because they're going to be stopped in their tracks by heavily runed level 70s with much larger rosters/arsenals once they wade into the deeper waters. Not only will they not be able to win much, if anything, but they're going to be a big old target and attacked more heavily than others in their bracket because, "hey! Guaranteed win!"

    Right now we have a soft wall. People play until they're overmatched and things become ludicrous and then the others pound them back down to a lower league. Right now, people will put up a one man defense, put down the game and walk away for a while because they are allow to go farther than they should. They are essentially being discouraged from play by that soft wall.

    If there was a hard wall that prevented people under 60 from wading into the free-for-all and just kept them in the lower tiers, they might still be able to play regularly and continue to do their quests and earn honor.

    What you're asking for with "no walls" would theoretically be possible with the following setup:

    1. Matchmaking would need to be changed to use a pool of candidates from a range of levels rather than based on current league/tier status.
    2. With six leagues, let's say that at Recruit, you're being matched up with people at your level and five below. At Brawler, matches would be for four levels below and up to one above. At Champion, three below and two above. All the way to Legend where you're only being matched up with players that are your level or higher, up to five levels higher than yourself.
    3. Finally, runes and rewards would be nerfed to provide lower powered runes and lesser payout for lower level players. (Basically, its great that you want to put in the time and do a ton of PVP but if we are going to make your matchups easier, there's no way a low level player deserves a five star Greater Champion rune for getting to Legend I.)

    Lots of options. Just depends on what they want to build. I do like the idea of having a separation between laddered and non laddered play. That would allow everyone to compete for the same prizes in the same environment but yet still have easier PVP available once you do hit the soft wall of Level 70s and still need to do your quests. :)
  • FatCat69 wrote: »
    @RyleeGrace The idea of the hard wall in this sense wouldn't be to stop people from playing once they get to a specific point, but rather to stop lower level people from wading into the deep end.

    Someone who is level 55 is never going to make it all the way to Legend I, no matter how dedicated they are, because they're going to be stopped in their tracks by heavily runed level 70s with much larger rosters/arsenals once they wade into the deeper waters. Not only will they not be able to win much, if anything, but they're going to be a big old target and attacked more heavily than others in their bracket because, "hey! Guaranteed win!"

    Right now we have a soft wall. People play until they're overmatched and things become ludicrous and then the others pound them back down to a lower league. Right now, people will put up a one man defense, put down the game and walk away for a while because they are allow to go farther than they should. They are essentially being discouraged from play by that soft wall.

    If there was a hard wall that prevented people under 60 from wading into the free-for-all and just kept them in the lower tiers, they might still be able to play regularly and continue to do their quests and earn honor.

    What you're asking for with "no walls" would theoretically be possible with the following setup:

    1. Matchmaking would need to be changed to use a pool of candidates from a range of levels rather than based on current league/tier status.
    2. With six leagues, let's say that at Recruit, you're being matched up with people at your level and five below. At Brawler, matches would be for four levels below and up to one above. At Champion, three below and two above. All the way to Legend where you're only being matched up with players that are your level or higher, up to five levels higher than yourself.
    3. Finally, runes and rewards would be nerfed to provide lower powered runes and lesser payout for lower level players. (Basically, its great that you want to put in the time and do a ton of PVP but if we are going to make your matchups easier, there's no way a low level player deserves a five star Greater Champion rune for getting to Legend I.)

    Lots of options. Just depends on what they want to build. I do like the idea of having a separation between laddered and non laddered play. That would allow everyone to compete for the same prizes in the same environment but yet still have easier PVP available once you do hit the soft wall of Level 70s and still need to do your quests. :)

    I'm a little confused by your comments. It seems you only read some of what I posted, then commented with things agreeing with what I already posted.
  • EejEej Member, Administrator, Moderator, Boss Fight
    I am editing the quote to highlight the points that I am addressing.
    The goals you list and overarching direction you describe are not new. They are mostly sensible targets that I'm sure have been in place for the history of this game and virtually every other game of similar style. Balance, diversity, cost benefit. But why are we to believe that you will now start addressing those issues, when very, very recent history shows us the opposite.

    Examples: attack stacking is not a new problem, yet you release Koros and exacerbate it even more. Diversity in the PvP meta is not a new problem, but you continue to trot out "game breaker" heroes that end up being used by virtually everyone in PvP. Rune strength is not a new problem, yet you make all the best rewards (leagues, top 100, winterfest, etc) ever more powerful with increasingly stacked stats. You've continually chosen to work against the very goals you profess to have

    I can appreciate that this appears to be a binary state - either we have/are or have not/are not trying to adhere to those goals, but from my direct experience it's not.
    • The cycle of design/intent to execution to result in LIVE can result in an outcome that was intended to resolve a problem but, in fact, introduced another.
    • In addition, between the lead time of resolving a larger systemic issue, we still need to provide rewards that are meaningful to you, the player, to spend effort towards in activities.

    The perception that we "choose to work against the goals we profess" is unfortunate - for everyone.
    • If given the benefit of the doubt, it means our execution of intent is regularly off the mark in its reception.
    • If not given the benefit, it leads to the belief that we have some sort of sinister motive.

    I don't have an easy or simple answer here.

    Either you are telling us what we want to hear but don't intend to honor those plans, or else something very recently has changed your mind on the overall direction (since, as outlined above, even up to recent weeks you have continued to exacerbate the very problems you tell us you are working to fix).
    Given the lip service we've gotten in the past, why should we think that this time is different and we really will see these changes in direction? Has revenue dropped to the point that you're more willing to listen to us? Has development team personnel changed recently and led to a general change in vision?

    There are easier ways to "tell you what you want to hear". I think the difference between recent time and previous, is that rather than be opaque about our intent - we're being transparent. It means that when we deliver something counter to our intent - it's easy to measure. That's always going to be a telling moment for a game/service and its community. What level of error in execution are you willing to tolerate? Do you believe it's genuine transparency?

    In terms of why has it changed - we needed cover community and the forums with Joveth's departure. Since I had previous experience managing both, the act of doing so became the "forcing function" for clearly understanding that a change was needed. (I am sure Joveth would have appreciated that opportunity happening much sooner than it did)

    The only way we move forward is demonstrate via action - and while there have been misses, I'd like to think that the recent pattern demonstrates better attention to feedback and that the community has stronger influence.

    As far as contrition... I intended for the change in communications and resulting outcomes so far to be a demonstrable act in that regards



  • Thank you for the reply, @Eej. I do want to stress that the openness and clarity of the last few weeks is a huge deal, and a massive "thank you" is appropriate.

    I didn't mean to sound completely critical or that I believe you have some sinister motive. Just that we all recognize the sometimes competing pulls of the business side and "fun" side of things. I think we've often felt like the business side has won more often than is balanced. Which isn't nefarious, just the reality of mobile gaming.

    As you've stated before, we get so worked up about this stuff because we're passionate about the game. We want to feel like the people making the game are equally as passionate. When something doesn't work well, we want to know you're as pissed about it not working as we are (and thrilled when it does work well). A lot of us have been playing for over a year and spent hundreds of dollars, which is insane for a mobile game when you think about it. We feel as invested as I'm sure you guys do. We've felt burned on that investment too often in the past, but I think your posts are a great first step in alleviating some of those hard feelings. I do agree recent in game changes have balanced out more towards the good than the bad. I look forward to, as you say, seeing the proof in the results over the coming months.
  • tphilly5tphilly5 Member
    If you set up all these different leagues why should levels even matter? Would it be fair to have people from Legend1 attack people from Champion3 just because they are within 5 levels. A level 70 with tons of runes and epics should not be battling a level 65 that is not as into runes and epics. Isn't that what the Leagues are for?
  • RexobRexob Member
    edited March 7
    Eej wrote: »
    The only way we move forward is demonstrate via action - and while there have been misses, I'd like to think that the recent pattern demonstrates better attention to feedback and that the community has stronger influence.
    I've averaged over 100 daily Raids every PS but the second...I think this is the 7th week now - still not fixed. How hard is it to impose a lockout limit of sorts so player X isn't rotated 100+ times in a single 24hr period?

    IGN: N00BST4R
  • FatCat69FatCat69 Member
    Who do you have up as a defense? Selwyn Balog Takumi and Jabber?
  • In regards to addressing the meta balance, consider the perspective of someone who's buying into a virtual good only to see that virtual good in a constant state of flux. As someone who has very mistakenly and regrettably PAID REAL MONEY for this game - particularly certain heroes that have been or will be nerfed - I'm beating a dead horse in saying this one more time: the direction of the game should NOT include a plan to further reduce specific hero effectiveness, but rather increase the effectiveness of heroes that are no longer viable in the meta.

    Seriously, this declaration to "evaluate" specific heroes and hit them with the nerf bat really makes me wonder why I would ever reconsider spending money on any newly released heroes.
  • PardonPardon Member
    The main thing to fix is the PvP. I call out everybody to say that is enjoying this system.
    I am not enjoying at all, neither do all the people I am talking with.
    The only reason why we are still doing is it is because of the rewards (that are also unbalanced as the only good are Legenda 1 and top 100) that let you get a good rune, considering that the crafting system sucks (you never know what you get and when you have it you never know after having made the 12 tries and spent almost 1.200 gems if you get a legendary).
    Some improvements have been done (8 instead of 4 and 2 hours and a half) but still it's not possible to think that you have to win almost 40 fights every day to get in Legenda 1, considering that now the most of them are very challenging and with very big uncertainty.
  • I am enjoying the current PVP environment, never PVPed so much as i have this last season and having a blast. I'm not Legend I, soooo close, Next season i will definitely make Legend I. I have actually spent money on Ella's honor for more tickets to feed my obsession with the new seasons. overall I'm very happy with the direction PVP is going.

    So there's one person.
  • I like the new PvP, however, I'm not happy with any idea of locking people out of any tier or league just because of their player level, whether it's a hard or soft ceiling.

    Again, if all my matches are people close to my same power, then I should never hit a wall, and my matches will not be super easy either.

    Currently, it is easy to manipulate the system by simply staying in a lower tier and getting easier matches. Sure, it's less rewards, but it's not a significant difference.

    I just don't understand why matchmaking is so difficult to code. Simply match based on a combination of power or level.
  • graddersgradders Member
    Just reading one person saying they like PvP annoys me. Why is it costing me 189,000 gold to refresh and quite often one or two of those 'new' opponents are the very same people? What is the point of bleeding me dry of gold to offer teams I can't beat? It's difficult to believe how bad this is. I play Clash Royale and there every single hero is useful, and is used, so fights are varied. Here I just see MK, Shade, Kozar or the same metas - Emily, Leo Koros and furnace or the Viperia team. You buffed monsters and beasts. Do I ever see any? No. The buff still made them useless in PvP. And I don't believe the suggested changes are doing anywhere near enough to address this.

    The top players play in the most effective way possible, but it bypasses what must have been intentioned. They craft about 40 top quality runes and equip them on 8 or less heroes. They spend gold equipping and unequipping runes. That's the smart way to play. Leave a solid defence team and then decide what to do that day. Collect superior rune shards from boss island - kit out an autorun team. Repeat. Collect shards and create another top quality rune. Then do some PvP fights - select a winning team - say Koros and unkillable Emily and win 8 fights in a row. Then unequip those runes and autorun totem island. etc. It costs less than refreshes. Do all the gold islands and buy gold from honor.

    I don't blame them. But it means that to win you basically ignore 90% of the heroes and no need for pve, no need for tokens (tokens are worthless compared to runes).

    There's no variety, and no fun. 90% of heroes are redundant. If these changes don't make 90% of heroes useful then it will have failed. I expect to be severely disappointed.

  • kpung07kpung07 Member
    Has there been an outline of the changes for next season/pre-season? I really hope they reduce the amount of trophies for the Legend I tier
    6446728
  • @gradders

    I'm really curious where your 90% of heroes numbers comes from? There are 70 heroes total. In the past week alone I have seen the following heroes used:

    Torchy, Emily, Icebloom, MK, Lupina, Kobal, Rogar, SB, Willow, Shade, Astrid, Furnace, Leo, Aria, Zen, Viperia, Cobressa, Kai, Julius, Valkin, Ponti, Therand, Kozar, Alex, Indigo, Grog-gnog, Bauble, Ember, Koros, and Vrexx.

    That's a total of THIRTY heroes. And unless my math is off that's 42% of the heroes. Now if I look at the heroes I used for PvE in the past week I'd also have to add: Bovus, Pignius, Yorick, Hansuke, Igorok, Brom, Nub, Zurk, Daeris and ekko. An additional 10 heroes were used, making my % of roster used in the last week 57%

    So once again, I'm reallllly curious where that 90% unused heroes number comes from. I would also challenge you to list a meta where more heroes were used than the one we currently have.

  • @MattCauthron I wholeheartedly agree. I have to admit i haven't seen nearly all of those but on my count about 21.5% of heroes were represented well in PVP. Guess this comes down to where in the brackets you fall.
  • Wolfreich wrote: »
    @MattCauthron I wholeheartedly agree. I have to admit i haven't seen nearly all of those but on my count about 21.5% of heroes were represented well in PVP. Guess this comes down to where in the brackets you fall.

    For reference I've been between ranks 30 and 20 the majority of the week. These include heroes seen both on attack and defense. Some do have more niche uses (Therand vs Bauble, Rogar vs Aria) that not many people use, but they are used by top players all the same.
  • @MattCauthron Yeah i'm fell out of top 100 on Tuesday morning and just can't compete that that level :) Here is to next season.
  • graddersgradders Member
    @MattCauthron there may have been a bit of hyperbole and I didn't mean 'ever' but generally, but even taking @Wolfreich figures of 20% that's pretty terrible. And I do think where you are in the leagues matters. From your list I have never used and very seldom seen Rogar, Julius and Therand. And many of those heroes are only used in the same set ups. Krexx, cobressa,viperia etc. And, yes, you can use other heroes in pve but you don't need to - you can get through nearly any over with the dead team.

    In a sense you make my point. I'm sure that the idea of the game was to have as many of the heroes as possible and use them at different times. But top players don't. They really do only use about 8 - 12 heroes. One for pve - say dead team, and one for defence pvp, one for attack pvp, often with overlap. Then just switch runes and take the cost.

    So you might see more than 8 heroes, because not every top player uses the same 8, often dependent on which epic they invested in, but they are winning the game with a really limited squad.

    So my point was that the best way to play is to invest in 8 heroes and rune them to hell, and switch to suit. You don't need a wide range. A fiuly runed up furnace, Emily, Leo and Koros will pretty much kill anything. That's a bad model. I want variable defences that mean variable attacks, utilising everyone. That would mean you can't just rely one a small squad. Imagine if you had to consider every passive, every buff and work out which combo of the 70 heroes was required to win? It would be so much better.
  • MattCauthronMattCauthron Member
    edited March 8
    @gradders

    I'm curious which bracket you are pvping in? A well runed Furnace, Emily, Leo, Koros would actually defeat very few of the defenses I commonly see. I probably use that team 1 in 20 fights (And I'm always happy when I can because it means someone has a really poor defense!) I actually need a relatively large roster of well runed heroes in order to counter everything. Yes, Julius, Therand, and Rogar are niche but they are useful none the less. It is your choice (your being generic) not to use them.

    And just because the reptiles have synergy with each other doesn't mean all three of them count as one hero as you seem to imply. I've seen a myriad of variations of reptile teams, many which have to be approached differently. Perhaps at lower brackets you can faceroll teams with a well runed same team, but in the upper brackets this is simply not the case. If PvP were as easy as you seem to imply, I wouldn't be in multiple line chats literally discussing pvp strategy ALL day as we are constantly seeing new defense lineups that require different strategies.
  • @gradders

    I'm really curious where your 90% of heroes numbers comes from?
    ...
    I would also challenge you to list a meta where more heroes were used than the one we currently have.

    I'm guessing there's a bit of hyperbole involved, but he said 90% were redundant, not useless. Sure lots of heroes get used, but do they need to be used? Could most fights be done more effectively with a smaller core of heroes?

    It's probably also useful in PvP to talk about the offensive and defensive metas separately. On defense, using an uncommon hero that makes people stop and think can be beneficial. On offense however I think the redundancy issue becomes much more apparent. I used more than 10% of my roster on offense this season, but with a lot of those fights I was playing around or trying something out. I didn't need to use that many heroes and would have won more and had smoother fights if I had just stuck with my core heroes.

    As for meta diversity, I'm personally not seeing it. It still feels pretty much the same to me since the introduction of Koros. The meta varies a lot by league and level, so without having lots of data available I'd hesitate to make any claims about the meta as a whole. This is where data would be really helpful.

    @Eej, care to share any data on the meta at various leagues and levels, both before and after hero changes? Are people sticking with the changed heroes after the updates, or is there a spike in use that falls back down? What kind of numbers are you targeting for what you would consider a diverse meta?
  • @SquidProQuo What you are saying implies an issue with runes, and not hero balance. It means that rune stats are weighted so heavily that the individual abilities become trivial. Perhaps my runes are simply not as strong as yours, because I definitely could not run the same team every time or I would get destroyed. My experience comes from mostly 5 star heroic greater runes. The experience of someone with mostly 5 star superior legendary runes may differ from mine (Where they can easily destroy more teams with the same heroes).

    Perhaps if rune power was toned down, hero abilities and synergies would become more important and force variation to be required. Personally, I'm still seeing more variation than I ever have before. I know this is true for others I have talked to.
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