Producer Letter 3/6 discussion topic

13

Comments

  • @gradders I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but if you make sweeping statements like 90% of heroes aren't used it creates the perception that your argument is flawed and then it gets rejected, even if has merit.

    I think that in a game like DB (similar to Pokemon, Digimon, heck Magic the Gathering) where you collect a set of things and use things to win games. There will be tiers of Collectables. the lower more common heroes will be less useful/powerful than the higher tiers. And that is by design, you gain more tokens/advancement avenues for them, etc. Thus the higher tier characters will be used more often, that makes up in my mind 20% of the scope (heck MTG is way worse at this). So having an expectation that all things in the game should be equal does it somewhat of an injustice, as getting tokens for Rogar (the first character you get in the game) is a whole ton easier then getting tokens for Ignius or Zen. Thus Ignius or Zen should be better than Willow. Whilst this is true for the most part what you don't want is a power creep aspect, which I think is what we are experiencing right now. I would like the upper tier characters placed on the same power scale, thus Viperia, Hagrim, Grog and Kozar are all equal yet different enough to serve alternate means, I want Jabber, selwyn and abigail to suck when compared to those heroes.

    I rambled a bit, i hope that makes sense.

    Basically tiered levels of Hero Power is great as long as newer characters don't unbalance that (which it is, IMO).
  • graddersgradders Member
    @Wolfreich yep. It was sweeping and I didn't really carefully pick a percentage, and 20 to 30 percent of heroes are used a lot and 60 to 70 only a little would be less hyperbolic, and more accurate! A graph of each hero, and how frequently used in pvp, would be fascinating, but I suspect it would look like y= 1/x squared. That is, a few heroes with huge usage and then steep drop off and a long tail of little usage.

    And you're right that points are missed by exaggeration because one of the major points i was trying to make is that you can be more successful by using a small squad and swapping runes than having a broad squad. It costs about 200,000 to swap a top rune and 190,000 for one end of the day refresh. I think top players are looking at a defence, seeing that from a small pool of heroes it's beatable if they swap two or three runes and win.

    I'm warlord Ii (someone asked) and I dispute that furnace, emily leo koros won't win. With 5 superior tactics runes on emily she's virtually unkillable and with 5 superior Attack runes on Koros he will kill just about everything. It's an easy and lazy way of winning, most of the time.

    I like thinking about whom to use. Dwarfs cos they don't miss, therand cos he breaks armour, etc. There are tactics again Bauble and his apssive emaning misses first round, That's startegy. That's interesting. And all I want is that all 70 are brought into that thought process

  • MattCauthronMattCauthron Member
    edited March 8
    @gradders

    I 100% assure you that Koros, Emily, Leo, Furnace does not consistently beat 80-90% of the defenses at the top. If a defense can't reliably beat that lineup, it's a failed defense immediately which is why almost no one runs defenses beat by that lineup. There is an actual team that can tackle most teams currently however.

    Kai/Shade Furnace Astrid/Emily Bauble. They have enough synergy to be completely immune to a LOT of damage. This is probably more what you are referring to. There are still plenty of defenses out there that I can't use this line up for however. It is my go to when I'm unsure what to do.

  • @MattCauthron I'm not saying that I run the same team every time, just that I have about 6-10 heroes runed well enough to be competitive when I start getting to hard matchups. If I'm interested in winning and keeping a streak going, I'm looking for matchups that I know I can beat with one of my competitive lineups. I don't have that great of runes, but I have consolidated my best runes on my core heroes.

    While rune and hero balance is a problem, I think it's a bit orthogonal to the redundancy issue. No matter what runes and balance is like, if you're looking to maximize AOE damage in a fight, there will probably be 1 or 2 heroes that do it the best, making all the other AOE heroes a bit redundant. Same thing with single target attacks, there will probably always be a handful of heroes that do it best. Sure, there will probably be heroes that are situationally better, but I have a hard time believing they'll get the hero balance tuned to the point that redundancy goes away.

    The more I think about rune and hero balancing, the less sure I am that it will actually improve things. I've been playing a level 34 alt for the last 2 weeks. I have very few runes and a limited roster. The meta there is wildly diverse. Given my league and tier, runes haven't come into play much. Yet I still find myself using pretty much the same heroes every time and most fights are still decided on turn 1 even though they last 3+ rounds.
  • graddersgradders Member
    @MattCauthron I believe you. The meta changes at different levels. And I saw a post from bvs72 about Bauble being unkillable. The problem with Warlord is you get to fight people in Legend... but at a certain level, so not really seen that team. I don't have Shade so pretty impossible for me to counter.
    Anyway, I hear changes coming in today? Might make a difference but I'm pessimistic
  • Thanks for the letter @Eej, but I’m still skeptical

    However, most uncertainty is currently in the form of a coin flip that either wins or loses you the match.

    This is my biggest concern with the game right now. I raised this point at the last summit. When losing a match is determined in the opening round to a coin flip that you can't control... nothing about that match felt fun.

  • shiggity80shiggity80 Member
    edited March 9
    Thanks for the letter @Eej, but I’m still skeptical

    However, most uncertainty is currently in the form of a coin flip that either wins or loses you the match.

    This is my biggest concern with the game right now. I raised this point at the last summit. When losing a match is determined in the opening round to a coin flip that you can't control... nothing about that match felt fun.

    If they toned down MK's dodge and made no other changes to PvP, I actually would be somewhat satisfied lol

    Case in point: I had Viperia, Zen, and Koros left vs his MK at less than half health. My guys were mostly good on HP. Didn't matter. MK dodges Vipera's death bites, koros regular attack, zen doesn't do enough damage, and then he gets tenacity to do VP and Nerve Damage, killing VP and Koros. Zen doesn't survive for much longer after that.
  • FatCat69FatCat69 Member
    edited March 9
    SquidProQuo hit the nail on the head. What makes PVP fun? People do like to be challenged but they also like to win.

    The old system of easy/medium/hard made it so that the player had options and could stretch themselves and go for a challenge if they felt like it, but could also coast and or take the easy win if they just wanted to relax or needed to get a challenge done.

    You took one complaint ("I never find any challenging teams to fight.") and built an entire battle system around it. And now we definitely have the challenge, but we've totally lost the fun.

    Go back to those halcyon days. Keep the ladder, but give us more options for our raids. Go back to an easy/medium/hard setup. Figure out a way to make the mechanisms you built (like the winning streak counter) work with an easy/medium/hard setup.

    Use both the level and the league/tier information to your advantage. Look for a similarly leveled competitor in the current or higher league/tier for hard, the current or less tier for medium, and a lower tier for easy. Make that work by scaling rewards.

    Thankfully, it should be easy. But do it quickly because you're definitely losing your player base due to burnout and disappointment.
    9gJSaHl.gif
  • InnovInnov Member
    Mr @eej, or whoever can answer: How exactly is player "power" taken into account when matchmaking is decided? How do you decide the player "power"? Is it the defence team power? The average roster power?
    If I have a perfect defence (lvl 70, fully ascended, full synergy, perfect runes) and all my other characters are bad (many not even 70, many not even fully ascended, lesser or no runes), how powerful am I? This "power" thing is bugging me because it doesn't seem to be so right. The order of heroes in defence and the synergy play a HUGE role in defence/attack as everyone knows but it is not taken into account for the team power, right?
  • bvs72bvs72 Member
    I think it is time to hear again from Bill "The Boss" Jackson. He did such a good job of explaining how breaking the portals so that we could collect Aether in anticipation of something to buy. I am sure he can again calm the masses with his words of wisdom.
  • Innov: player power is not considered. They simply take the 20 active players closest to you in trophies. Pool of opponents -- solved!

    It's complete BS because theoretically the player pools at the top should be huge. You have three whole tiers of players to draw from!

    In reality, their implementation sucks. They have such a small player pool that we see the same people over and over again. And since that player pool only includes active players, the trophy counts for those players tend to rise with yours, keeping your little echo chamber of combat together all the way up.

    Great design. Totes. :(
    9gJSaHl.gif
  • InnovInnov Member
    FatCat69 wrote: »
    Innov: player power is not considered. They simply take the 20 active players closest to you in trophies. Pool of opponents -- solved!

    Well that contradicts what's been said in Mr @eej letter:
    "In terms of actual per battle competition - our goal was to focus your choice of opponents based on the League you were in with the ideal being players of similar Level and power."

    So....which one is true?
  • Innov wrote: »
    FatCat69 wrote: »
    Innov: player power is not considered. They simply take the 20 active players closest to you in trophies. Pool of opponents -- solved!

    Well that contradicts what's been said in Mr @eej letter:
    "In terms of actual per battle competition - our goal was to focus your choice of opponents based on the League you were in with the ideal being players of similar Level and power."

    So....which one is true?

    I can't answer your question, but the only thing I can say is true is that DB gone and F'ed up PvP...going on 7 weeks now. They said PS4 would be the last, but they are so clueless as to how to get it working that we had to keep the "pre-season" tag going.

    Another thing that I don't get is why they are calling these seasons "Pre-Seasons". It's not like our stats/items/rewards will reset when the official 1st Season comes out. These past 5 Pre-Seasons are actually real seasons that they are just tweaking (for the worse it seems). A true pre-season would be done on another server where you could test it out, and none of the rewards from that test server would be transferred to the real game server.
  • At that point y'all will fit within the Top 100.

    Literally, everyone wins!
    9gJSaHl.gif
  • EejEej Member, Moderator, Boss Fight
    FatCat69 wrote: »
    Innov: player power is not considered. They simply take the 20 active players closest to you in trophies. Pool of opponents -- solved!

    It's complete BS because theoretically the player pools at the top should be huge. You have three whole tiers of players to draw from!

    <snip>

    Power rating is currently not considered - but the rest of that explanation is some sort of assumption misleadingly stated as fact. Note: if you're going to speculate - please state that you're doing so.

    Matchmaking attempts to match within your current League in a player level-threshold - except in Warlord and Legend leagues, where those thresholds are removed.
    • Activity was previously prioritized over inactivity but that is no longer the case - it looks for players within your League (and threshold where appropriate) and draws from the pool of those with the lowest number of attacks against them.
    • In the case of Leagues with small populations like Legend and Warlord leagues - the same names will appear frequently.




  • echonapechonap Member
    Eej wrote: »
    it looks for players within your League (and threshold where appropriate) and draws from the pool of those with the lowest number of attacks against them.

    Accounts whose defense are the most difficult wind up getting skipped more. As a result, they wind up showing up more frequently? This is why half your player base is on the ledge. Everybody is being given difficult challenge after difficult challenge after difficult challenge, with no easy options. The only ones who are happy are the top 100 that can compete at the highest level. Everybody else is just set up for disappointment.
    zntCIcd.gif
  • Zombie8uZombie8u Member
    edited March 13
    Eej wrote: »
    FatCat69 wrote: »
    Innov: player power is not considered. They simply take the 20 active players closest to you in trophies. Pool of opponents -- solved!

    It's complete BS because theoretically the player pools at the top should be huge. You have three whole tiers of players to draw from!

    <snip>

    Power rating is currently not considered - but the rest of that explanation is some sort of assumption misleadingly stated as fact. Note: if you're going to speculate - please state that you're doing so.

    Matchmaking attempts to match within your current League in a player level-threshold - except in Warlord and Legend leagues, where those thresholds are removed.
    • Activity was previously prioritized over inactivity but that is no longer the case - it looks for players within your League (and threshold where appropriate) and draws from the pool of those with the lowest number of attacks against them.
    • In the case of Leagues with small populations like Legend and Warlord leagues - the same names will appear frequently.




    @Eej @joel Can we please find a way to get more players into legend then? This is getting old.

    Here is one idea/problem: It takes too many trophies to get into legend 1-3. It's always the same people for most of the week.

    http://forum.dungeonboss.com/discussion/54193/pvp-tiers-still-need-adjustments#latest
  • EejEej Member, Moderator, Boss Fight
    echonap wrote: »
    Eej wrote: »
    it looks for players within your League (and threshold where appropriate) and draws from the pool of those with the lowest number of attacks against them.

    Accounts whose defense are the most difficult wind up getting skipped more. As a result, they wind up showing up more frequently? This is why half your player base is on the ledge. Everybody is being given difficult challenge after difficult challenge after difficult challenge, with no easy options. The only ones who are happy are the top 100 that can compete at the highest level. Everybody else is just set up for disappointment.

    I have a broader post on some imminent PvP Seasons systemic changes - and I previewed our current proposal in the last Guild Summit. See the quick summary for topic 3 here Guild Summit 4 - Summary.

    More info forthcoming.
  • OBVIOUSLY I'm speculating and simplifying. I don't work for Big Fish and have no real knowledge of the mechanism you're using.

    My point / complaint was more that you seem to be giving us very small pools of opponents which makes PVP zero fun. Instead of delivering what you indicated -- "Warlord and Legend leagues are a free for all!" -- as if our pool of opponents is the entire three tier league when in reality we see the same handful of opponents over and over and over again.
    9gJSaHl.gif
  • dooddood Member
    edited March 13
    From my point of view, none of the upcoming suggested changes are going to fix anything. In fact, I believe things will deteriorate further. Matchup difficulty based on roster power leaves the game open to manipulation to attract easier opponents....a path many other apps have taken and suffer from.... the term sandbagging comes to mind.

    I am one of quite a few players in The Wire that have now quit the game....and there are several teetering on the edge ready to follow.

    The fun is gone for me....the game has become too tedious, time consuming and frustrating....an ever ending cycle of solutions becoming problems....when I can even stay logged in to the server.

    From someone who has always been a good income source for Big Fish, I bid everyone adios and good luck
  • bvs72bvs72 Member
    @FatCat69 - let me explain, BF is smart. We are dumb. We are to stupid to be given the facts and are forced to make assumptions. Your assumption about a pool of 20 players is wrong. PvP is now gambling. It is obvious that 21 is the magic number. Behave yourself and go buy some more gems.
  • seanluckyseanlucky Member, Dungeon Boss Guru, Volunteer Moderator
    edited March 13
    @FatCat69 I would also like an official response on the overuse of fire materials in Epic recipes.
    But in regards to matchmaking, they're still monitoring and adjusting that, with it working more as intended now than before.
    And the awkward Chest collection is something that will be fixed in the next (minor) client update, aimed by the end of this month.
    -These were addressed in the guild summit 4, which will be summarized in the forum post here, soon (tm).
  • FatCat69FatCat69 Member
    edited March 14
    Thank you, Sean.
    Post edited by FatCat69 on
    9gJSaHl.gif
  • Seems like a simple solve to me - take the attackers MAX power and pit him against teams that are +-20% of that power (regardless of tier). Doesn't solve the one shot problem, but at least makes the matches fun.
  • thezlady wrote: »
    Seems like a simple solve to me - take the attackers MAX power and pit him against teams that are +-20% of that power (regardless of tier). Doesn't solve the one shot problem, but at least makes the matches fun.

    Considering this is what happens to me all day, I can attest with 100% surety that it in no way makes the matches "fun". Tedious, laborious, and frustrating would all be words I would use to describe the top end ladder pvp. But the word fun would not enter my vernacular.
  • YCATYCAT Member
    I enjoyed this thread so far, kudos to you Eej for doing more to be responsive. I'm also quite sure you are quickly realizing just how thankless that the job is. So, thank you.

    That said, how many other updates have been promised that would fix things? And I am only referring to the last couple months. We are all accustomed to the politically appeasing lies. We hear them every day from a very young age and on. One of those "promises" coming thru is much like buying a lotto ticket that actually at least triples your money. So few and far between that it just makes a safer bet to assume they are all losers, at least then you're not disappointed. It doesn't make you feel better, but it at least removes a bit of that "I just stood here and let him kick me in the balls" personal resentment type feeling we all get when our faith is spit back into our faces.


    I'm not taking jabs at you Eej, even thou that is most likely exactly how it looks.
  • thezlady wrote: »
    Seems like a simple solve to me - take the attackers MAX power and pit him against teams that are +-20% of that power (regardless of tier). Doesn't solve the one shot problem, but at least makes the matches fun.

    Considering this is what happens to me all day, I can attest with 100% surety that it in no way makes the matches "fun". Tedious, laborious, and frustrating would all be words I would use to describe the top end ladder pvp. But the word fun would not enter my vernacular.

    OK - maybe this wouldn't work for the upper tiers, but for me at 65 with a max power team of 14,750 it would be nice to be paired against 20,000+ point teams.
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