What do you think Kabam will do in response to all this backlash about revive nerf?

shut_up_heather

Unknown

This content has been removed.

winterthur

Whatever they do, I may benefit as I don't revive farm. 😁

Lpoo

Better rewards and/or lower energy costs for Apothecary

I can’t see them dropping the apothecary, they developed it and created it. Buff the revive drop rate from it and increase the cap is a fine compromise

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Chobbly

The Apothecary will launch because at this stage it's probably already passed through the development phases and is in a staging environment or something similar to that ready to launch. Barring minor tweaks, the Apothecary is probably ready to go.

Likewise, the change to Acts 1-3 have probably been coded/scripted and tested, and likewise will be ready to go.

I suspect that the most realistic thing to hope for is a change to the Apothecary quest and an increase in items. And maybe an increase to the general inventory limits.

Sorry if this isn't sunshine and rainbows, but that'll be the reality methinks.

DNA3000

The developers were fully aware there would be a strong backlash to these changes, and decided to do them in spite of that fact, because sometimes you just have to do unpopular things.

When the devs want to do something and there's a big backlash, players can sometimes convince the devs to change direction. But when the devs need to do something, no amount of backlash will cause them to change direction, and we're not really in a position to argue with them over what their development and operational needs are.

Chobbly

DNA3000 said:

The developers were fully aware there would be a strong backlash to these changes, and decided to do them in spite of that fact, because sometimes you just have to do unpopular things.

When the devs want to do something and there's a big backlash, players can sometimes convince the devs to change direction. But when the devs need to do something, no amount of backlash will cause them to change direction, and we're not really in a position to argue with them over what their development and operational needs are.

That's absolutely true. The developers won't have just decided to do this, in fact they probably didn't decide much of anything at all. Someone else will most likely have requested a change for business reasons and analysts will have looked into this change. The developers probably had a request passed to them and implemented what they were told. They may have had some input on how it could be done, but it's not fair to blame the devs.

At least that's how it works in most software houses.

doctorb

Laugh in our faces and tell us to deal

What exactly is revive farm and where do I get it

BigBlueOx

DNA3000 said:

The developers were fully aware there would be a strong backlash to these changes, and decided to do them in spite of that fact, because sometimes you just have to do unpopular things.

When the devs want to do something and there's a big backlash, players can sometimes convince the devs to change direction. But when the devs need to do something, no amount of backlash will cause them to change direction, and we're not really in a position to argue with them over what their development and operational needs are.

They may need to do something, but do they have to do it in this exact way?

Seems like hitting a nail with a sledgehammer right now to me. Might want to get a better tool for the job

Bugmat78

BigBlueOx said:

DNA3000 said:

The developers were fully aware there would be a strong backlash to these changes, and decided to do them in spite of that fact, because sometimes you just have to do unpopular things.

When the devs want to do something and there's a big backlash, players can sometimes convince the devs to change direction. But when the devs need to do something, no amount of backlash will cause them to change direction, and we're not really in a position to argue with them over what their development and operational needs are.

They may need to do something, but do they have to do it in this exact way?

Seems like hitting a nail with a sledgehammer right now to me. Might want to get a better tool for the job

Correct - also given how long the content being trivialised has been out (months), and how long they knew about the revive farming (Nov 2021) they had plenty time to get genuine feedback from the community particularly the CCP members who all were seemingly blindsided and come up with a better solution than what's been slated to go through in a few weeks.

KingInBlack

Laugh in our faces and tell us to deal

They'll do what they already planned to, why would they care what their customers think 😄

GinjabredMonsta

None of the above

Ironman3000

Laugh in our faces and tell us to deal

They released this knowing we'd freak out, then they'll slightly increase the Apothecary and we'll just have to eat it.

Zilliaxer

Laugh in our faces and tell us to deal

shut_up_heather said:

I think they don't care about it

Giuliameij

Better rewards and/or lower energy costs for Apothecary

I think (hope) they will bump up the revives slightly. Give the easy difficulty a garanteed revive also. This way you get your 2 revives a day at a lower energy cost than previously. For the tradeoff that you can only get 2 a day.

KennyPL

Laugh in our faces and tell us to deal

Same thing they did with control issues... pretend it doesn't exist and ignore it.

TyEdge

Boost inventory to 25, extend expiration to 30 days.

SirGamesBond

Laugh in our faces and tell us to deal

DNA3000 said:

The developers were fully aware there would be a strong backlash to these changes, and decided to do them in spite of that fact, because sometimes you just have to do unpopular things.

When the devs want to do something and there's a big backlash, players can sometimes convince the devs to change direction. But when the devs need to do something, no amount of backlash will cause them to change direction, and we're not really in a position to argue with them over what their development and operational needs are.

Atleast they shouldn't lie about helping player base. Let the fact remain fact. I would support when a hard decision is backed with big kahonas.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Shiroihara

Let's make the distinction between "developers of the game", i.e. Kabam and software developers.
Software developers don't decide anything other than when it comes to the technical aspect. Stakeholders and other higher uppers make the decisions.
Kinda tired, as a developer, of seeing everyone badmouthing them on the forums when they have very little to do with this type of thing.

Mauled

Laugh in our faces and tell us to deal

Sadly I'm going to assume that they'll crack on anyway. If we're lucky the Apothecary won't be the totally pathetic quest that it currently looks to be.

I should think that pretty much everyone involved in the development of the game knew this would go down like a lead balloon but were given their marching orders. It's times like this when I wonder if there's a special screaming pillow next to Miike's desk when he gets given these instructions and is told to try and package it so that it's loosely acceptable to the player base.

If we're very lucky this will provide Kabam with the opportunity to rebalance the potions and revive economy so that players are more inclined to use revives and potions in conjunction rather than the far more efficient 20% revive system that's currently in place.

Lv1 Health Pot - 10% heal
Lv2 Health Pot - 20% heal
Lv3 Health Pot - 30% heal
Lv4 Health Pot - 40% heal
Lv5 Health Pot - 50% heal
Lv6 Health Pot - 60% heal

This would balance the potion economy perfectly and make all potions relevant to players of all progression points and remove the dichotomy that boosting is actually bad if you can't one shot the opponent and have to heal as a result.

SirGamesBond

Laugh in our faces and tell us to deal

Shiroihara said:

Let's make the distinction between "developers of the game", i.e. Kabam and software developers.
Software developers don't decide anything other than when it comes to the technical aspect. Stakeholders and other higher uppers make the decisions.
Kinda tired, as a developer, of seeing everyone badmouthing them on the forums when they have very little to do with this type of thing.

I don't blame miike or Jax or the game developers.
But I have been blaming "the new higher upp" who was appointed last January by netmarble.