General Game Feedback [Merged Threads]

16162646667118

Comments

  • cookiedealercookiedealer Posts: 178

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    I enjoyed Dave's interview, but if I have one critique of it, it is that Dave approached it as a Q&A, where he tried to ask as many important questions as he could so he could get as many responses to those questions as he could. Maybe that format was dictated by Kabam itself, or maybe that was Dave trying to serve as many questions from as many players as possible. But I think while this serves the issues, it doesn't serve the greater problem of dialog. If Dave had picked one topic and tried to deep dive it, the back and forth dialog could have served as a template of how to engage the players in more than just statements. I'm not saying there was none of that in Dave's interview, but it was sparse relative to the more Q&A structure.

    I think Dave was mostly trying to get through as many questions as he could, but when he tried to deep dive into questions like the gold one, Kabam side stepped repeatedly. They refused to really answer it. That showed exactly why there is a big disconnect between us and the developers. Dave brought up crystals and they were basically like, "Yeah, you can do that" before moving on. They didn't want to say that if you wanted to get more gold you should just spend more. It looked like even Dave got slightly annoyed by that.
    This opens a completely different can of worms, but I will just say that the whole point of having a more focused dialog is that when the only thing you're scheduled to do is discuss a single topic, both sides are compelled to do better to clarify their points. But more importantly, a lot of apparently simple issues are actually way more complex than they seem, and the "gold issue" is one of those. There are a lot of different aspects of how gold functions as in-game currency that would take a very long time to lay out and untangle. You're not going to get a satisfactory answer in four minutes.
    I agree with you in principal, but unfortunately with the history of poor at best communication, I doubt that Kabam would have answered completely even if the interviewer went in and said "We're going to talk strictly for 20 minutes about the gold issue." I also want to make it clear I'm not faulting the forum moderators here, they can only do so much. I know they are waiting on the producers to give them something to respond with.
    Maybe, but if you want communication to improve, you have to at least try to create the circumstances where it can improve. If you believe the other party can improve, if you're wrong you've lost nothing; if you're right you've gained a lot. But if you believe the other party will never improve, that tends to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    Perhaps this is just the way I'm wired, but I've been writing about stuff like this for maybe four years now. I don't usually get any more feedback from Kabam on my posts than anyone else does. I don't have access to the CCP program because frankly I don't have the time to build a platform like the content creators do (which is a highly underappreciated amount of effort, by the way). All I have are messages in a bottle, and generally I have to have faith that they are landing somewhere and getting read (granted, sometimes I have hints). Or maybe faith is the wrong word. I behave as if they are listening, because if they are I want them to hear something useful, and if they aren't then it doesn't matter anyway.

    I can only control one side of the situation, and part of that control is making sure communication doesn't fail because I assumed it would fail and acted accordingly. If it fails, I want to be certain I didn't contribute to that failure. So I have to assume Kabam acts in good faith, not because I would bet they always act in good faith but because that's the only way to ensure I'm not part of the problem.
    You aren't wrong, I've just seen the promise of better communication way too often from Kabam to believe it will get better. I've just hit the point of if it happens, cool, if not, I'm not surprised.
    Ultimately, it's the oversee game team that decides how quickly and open they want to communicate with the playerbase when it relates to balance and community feedback. What adjustments/balances they want to make, what additions/future designs/changes to masteries/nodes/maps/crystals/content etc.

    Forum mods and people who actively read suggestions/requests/complaints might not be part of deciding open lines of communication, but just the playerbases' message bearer/regulator.

    Do we know who makes these decisions, because I sure don't..
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,132 ★★★★★
    I think it's important to differentiate between communication and negotiation. Communication is always a work in progress, and I'm a huge supporter of it. The more all sides understand each other, the better. However all too often, if people don't get the outcome they want, they say that the other side isn't even listening at all. Listening and hearing one side doesn't automatically mean everything that's wanted will come to pass. Sometimes changes come from it, sometimes they don't. That's not to say nothing will come from this Thread. I have no idea on that front. I just think it's important to remember. Communication is all about keeping a dialogue. Not getting something out of it.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,132 ★★★★★
    edited May 2020
    Timone147 said:

    I fundamentally disagree with that point @GroundedWisdom. It’s not flat out a negotiation but right now we are wanting a dialogue between kabam on what we(the consumer/customer) want to see from kabam(the company).

    Imagine if my company I work for looked at our communication with our customers we try to have sell our products this way.

    Imagine if we looked at feedback from what our consumers didn’t like or wanted to see different about our product this way.

    Now you are right not everything can be incorporated but yes part of the communication is to get something out of it. That something is a change to the product you are hoping to see. Change to what you are getting from the person supplying the product. If everyone was asking for X from our product and we decide that we know better or if our customers want us to deliver a service and we refuse they will likely move on.

    So yes customer/ consumer and the parent company communications do have a gives and gets relationship and yes it is fair to expect something out of the communication. Why would we bother with communication if that wasn’t the case.

    Then you're not really talking about communication. That's negotiation. That's communication with a goal in mind. Communication is simply an open dialog so that both, or all, sides can understand each other. The only thing it involves exchanging is information. When you’re talking about wanting better communication, you're talking about information. More of it, and/or in a way that's digestible and sufficient for an understanding to be reached. That's the only real goal of communication, understanding through knowledge shared.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,132 ★★★★★
    Timone147 said:

    Again I don’t think it a flat out negotiation though I would argue even that’s a form of communication.

    Another analogy for example is a protest. This is a way for a large community of like minded people to communicate there opinions. This is intended to get a dialog going to spark change.

    Again it’s a way of communicating with an intent in mind. But it isn’t a negotiation as there isn’t anything being leveraged to spark that change.

    Communication with intent is not just negotiations. That is too narrow of a description. Most forms of communication have some sort of intent for the people in the conversation trying to get something out of it. You can be making a point for the intent of getting something changed without active negotiation.

    Now in the case of a dialog we would get more of the rational for why changes aren’t going to happen versus a response similar to what I tell my children which is basically because I said so. Some more active dialog with the community I think would be helpfu. Taking into account what your consumers want and trying to put that into the game is a healthy environment for a community.

    The subject I responded to was better communication. Better communication means better communication. Communication has only one intent. Which is why I made the distinction. People sometimes mistake communicating with getting something out of it, and that isn't what it's about. It's about presenting more information in a way that better communicates the sides involved. Once we start saying, "We want better communication so we can have more of a say in what they do.", that becomes something else, and it cheapens the process. Cooperation is another thing entirely. Better ways to communicate means they offer more information, more in-depth, in a way that helps us better understand. So many times I've heard the word transparency brought up here when what people really want is a say in their decisions. That's not transparency.
  • winterthurwinterthur Posts: 6,021 ★★★★★
    Ughzy said:

    I have checked this thread every day since it started. Feel much the same to what many here have posted. But it is bonkers that kabam has effectively been silent to what is being said.

    - Don't expect things to change right away.
    Even if we love your idea, it will be several months before anything changes. If we choose to impliment something, we need to plan out the new feature, create specification sheets, assign programming resources, test it several times, and finally release it. By the time the feature is in place, it will probably have been tweaked and modified in many ways, and you might not even recognize it.
  • StevieManWonderStevieManWonder Posts: 4,379 ★★★★★

    I'm frustrated like 99% of the people here.

    I have 7 paths left in 6.4, but am forced to pause on exploration because of T2A and T5B overflow, which means I have to let revives and energy refills expire. Why are inventory limits for rank-up resources even a thing when most people have trash 6* champs? Nobody should have to face these arbitrary blockers in their progression. I see zero incentive to continue when the options are either explore Act 6 and use the overflowing resources on the 6* cyclops I'll pull, or just do nothing until I luck out and pull a good champ.

    I have 15 paths left in 6.4 and have recently found that I am not incentivized to finish it because I’m tired of having to grind arena like crazy to get the units to do it. It’s only recently that I realized why 6.4 exploration sucks so much when it’s arguably the best chapter in the act and it’s because so many of the lanes are massive unit suckers and for FTP or mostly FTP players like me have to spend an enormous amount of time in arena just to complete a few paths. Example, last week I did three paths: Diss Track in 6.4.4 (which was pretty easy), Vivified in 6.4.5 (which was an absolute nightmare), and Pull/Selective Timestream (which was difficult because most of the defenders had specials that are impossible to fully dodge). Those three combined cost me 2,600 units, mostly on the Vivified path and on the 6.4.5 Hydra Adaptiod boss whose attack is 40k. I still have three paths left 6.4.5 and I’m really not looking forward to grinding out the units to do it again (though I have the three easiest paths left). A lot of the paths were not designed to be cleared without items, even if you are a skilled player and that’s a big issue. A lot of the paths, even if you play really well, you’re gonna have to revive.
  • kubricknolankubricknolan Posts: 78
    edited May 2020
    Okay so i have a simple idea to make the champion acquisition from basic 5*/6* crystal more viable:


    Make a new type of basic crystal and limit the pool to the champs that released or buffed in the last 3 years.


    Excluding the latest champs from the last 3 months because of the featured crystals of course. This is roughly 80 champs out of 170+ which is less than half. These are reasonable odds at this point. And they can update the pool every 3 or 6 months like how they do it now.This is necessary considering the game is 5 and a half years old at this point. And it would save us from pulling a lot of bad champs that released in the first 2 years of the game.

    And people who still want to acquire those old champs for collection purposes can still have the current basic crystal to try their luck.
  • ChobblyChobbly Posts: 181 ★★
    I think it's fair to say that the number of replies on this thread shows how much people care about the game, and are invested in it whatever their level. I imagine many mobile devs could only dream of having such a big user base.

    Some of the suggestions, like to Acts 6 and 7, would fix many issues for a significant subset of players, but boosting old champs first could arguably have the widest impact, benefiting all players. Just a Rating boost to all 2015 champions (barring Colossus and Hulkbuster) would be a start.

    Hopefully we will get an answer soon on what can be done to improve the general player experience, accepting that there may be elements to this (staff time, parent company expectations, etc) that we aren't aware of.
  • RogerRabsRogerRabs Posts: 548 ★★★★
    Chobbly said:

    I think it's fair to say that the number of replies on this thread shows how much people care about the game, and are invested in it whatever their level. I imagine many mobile devs could only dream of having such a big user base.

    Some of the suggestions, like to Acts 6 and 7, would fix many issues for a significant subset of players, but boosting old champs first could arguably have the widest impact, benefiting all players. Just a Rating boost to all 2015 champions (barring Colossus and Hulkbuster) would be a start.

    Hopefully we will get an answer soon on what can be done to improve the general player experience, accepting that there may be elements to this (staff time, parent company expectations, etc) that we aren't aware of.

    I think a pure ratings boost to old champions would end up doing more harm than good unfortunately. They would still lack utility which would keep them behind the newer, better options. So ultimately people still won't really use them on attack but now they'd be more difficult on defense.
  • ChobblyChobbly Posts: 181 ★★
    RogerRabs said:


    I think a pure ratings boost to old champions would end up doing more harm than good unfortunately. They would still lack utility which would keep them behind the newer, better options. So ultimately people still won't really use them on attack but now they'd be more difficult on defense.

    I suspect you may be right, there's not a lot which can be done about the lack of utility of some of the early champions. It might soften the blue of pulling a 5* or 6* Juggernaut or Iron Patriot somewhat though. It might also help tide players over until they get better champs.

    The newer options may always be first but would be nice if the old champs could be a less than ideal but still acceptable second, and not just left on the bench for Arena.
  • StevieManWonderStevieManWonder Posts: 4,379 ★★★★★

    I'm shocked to my core at the fact that AW Season 18 is just going on without any changes to rewards. It's absurd.

    Why are you shocked? Kabam is very unlikely to change season rewards for a while
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,132 ★★★★★
    It hasn't been that long since Season Rewards have been changed.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,994 ★★★★★

    I'm shocked to my core at the fact that AW Season 18 is just going on without any changes to rewards. It's absurd.

    Just go to an alliance where wars are itemless. It makes war stress free, best decision I made when I switched alliances.
  • Amadeo01Amadeo01 Posts: 187 ★★

    I'm shocked to my core at the fact that AW Season 18 is just going on without any changes to rewards. It's absurd.

    Just go to an alliance where wars are itemless. It makes war stress free, best decision I made when I switched alliances.
    Well, my alliance (plat 3 tier 3) runs off-season item free (and I assume most alliances do the same). But running item free basically means 2 options: (1) only go up one side of the map in hopes that you'll have enough healthy champs to clear the minis/boss, or (2) go and try to take assigned lanes for practice, but with little to no hope of clearing the boss.
  • LunaeLunae Posts: 371 ★★★
    VisaQ said:

    My issue with this act 7 beta, is its the same as act 6... The content is so champion specific, and you never know when you may land 1 of the champs you need to complete the content. It needs to be set up so that you can use more than 10 champs to beat it.

    Yeah the RNG based progression feel really bad. Either You get the "required" champion and be able to move on or You stuck. Also 2weeks without response from Kabam i wonder if it will take 2 years to implement any solutions.
    Is it though? I understand being stuck on a boss from not having the right champions, but unless a players done exploration on 6.1 and 6.2 they still have all of act 6 to chip away at doing whatever paths they can until they do have all the right champions to 100%.

    Act 6 completion isn’t impossible and can be achieved relatively cheaply with some revives and units, which shouldn’t be a problem, unless players are spending them all on cav crystals, since units and items are much easier to come by now. I surprisinly got through act 6 completion with a handful of items, I dont even think I used units outside of energy refills.
Sign In or Register to comment.