Alliance Quest Miniboss and Sentinel Refresh - April 2018 - Discussion Thread [Updated April 13]

Summoners,

We've just announced a small refresh of Alliance Quests that will start April 2nd. This will include new Minibosses, and a farewell to our Symbioid friends!

Read all about it, then ask your questions!

UPDATE:
We've just posted an update in regards to your feedback on Alliance Quests. This post includes some adjustments to Sentinels and Alliance Quests that will be coming with the next series (Starting April 18th). Take a look right here: http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/62626/upcoming-adjustments-to-alliance-quests-april-18th-2018

Comments

Spart3n

Live testing at its best. Thanks Kabam you always know how to please the players. Just take my money. You guys should start slowly removing rewards too. no one will notice

Midnightfox

More and more junk thrown at us. I think I’m just about done with kascam. Ridiculous. How about real answers.

shchong2

Count me in that I will STOP buying alliance revive and alliance potion.
I used to buy in the past AQs and I used to join all AQ fights.
Count me in that I'll STOP joining higher map unless I'm too free and nothing better to do.
Thanks for making AQ alot less enjoyable and literally a piece of **** now! Awesome job done Kabam! You nailed it! Like nails in the coffin.
I would rather focus on AW, and my arena grinding, as well as daily & month quests.

Last weekend, my alliance just lost 10 people literally overnight, of which 5 retired (veteran players who had 5* R4 and 5* R5 Blade) who enjoyed AQ/AW until recently. Bcos of that, we had to merge with another alliance, which also lost a dozen or so active and veteran players. Why? they felt now AQ is a painful obligation that they cannot commit to, and it become a huge burden to a point it is better they take a sabbatical. And do people come back after stopping for few weeks? Likely NOT. Is this good for Kabam's business? Ask a 5 year old kid.

This is NOT a rant. This is only to state the actual fact I saw and faced first hand, right in my own alliance. Due to people quitting over AQ and the game itself, everyone in the alliance is directly impacted! This is totally a very bad week right at the end of first AQ weekend. Very bad week, left very bad taste in our mouths!!!

Chimpyboy

As we start week 2 it's off to a bad start already. I've started thinking about just stepping back and joining a more chill alliance until this cluster gets sorted out one way or another.

unknown

This content has been removed.

shchong2

Chimpyboy wrote: »

As we start week 2 it's off to a bad start already. I've started thinking about just stepping back and joining a more chill alliance until this cluster gets sorted out one way or another.

Happened to my alliance last weekend, and a few other alliances I knew of (I'm still in touch with many of my friends from previous alliances, and many of them are still actives and are all over multiple alliances). Since "somebody" is monitoring the data, I'm glad folks are using their ACTION to speak out loud. Action will turn into NUMBERS and DATA. Let see if someone is too blind to interpret?

shchong2

Primmer79 wrote: »

Why was there an extra move added on route 7 map 5? @Kabam Miike

Oh, wasn't paying attention, didn't notice there's an extra move added on route 7 map 5 .... which tier of map 5 may I ask? Wasn't really comparing the map before and after.

Primmer79

shchong2 wrote: »

Primmer79 wrote: »

Why was there an extra move added on route 7 map 5? @Kabam Miike

Oh, wasn't paying attention, didn't notice there's an extra move added on route 7 map 5 .... which tier of map 5 may I ask? Wasn't really comparing the map before and after.

Tier 1, route 7 of map 5. Right before it merges with route 8. new, empty node.

BigDaddyJoe

Mattylo

Primmer79 wrote: »

shchong2 wrote: »

Primmer79 wrote: »

Why was there an extra move added on route 7 map 5? @Kabam Miike

Oh, wasn't paying attention, didn't notice there's an extra move added on route 7 map 5 .... which tier of map 5 may I ask? Wasn't really comparing the map before and after.

Tier 1, route 7 of map 5. Right before it merges with route 8. new, empty node.

Hmmmm could have swore that the sentinels was gonna be the only change before the "complete refresh". I guess they just assume adding another hour to our lives on a pointless move is good for business. Im pretty sure this is just a troll move by the Devs for all the backlash they are getting since doing this to their players adds no additional income; only frustration.

DNA3000

DarkestDestroyer wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

DarkestDestroyer wrote: »

Stephen_Lynch wrote: »

My alliance is a 15 million rated alliance we have been doing map 5x5 for past year 100% every time. You added Sentinels and all of a sudden we struggled to get through the first section without using pots and day 4 had a BG not finish. We also have had 4 people quit the game and 5 more waiting until the end of our war we are in to finish. But no you didn’t make it harder. You just killed Wolverine because he heals too much and you don’t get enough people buying alliance pots. Be honest @Kabam Miike this is a way to increase difficulty. I know there are counters. But symbiods don’t need counters. There for you did increase the difficulty and you know you did. Get rid of the stupid sentinels. They are annoying as hell. I did the halls of healing everyday and stocked up knowing it was going to be rough. I maybe use 1-3 pots on day 4 and 5. I use all 15 pots day 2 and 3. Only fights I lost on were sentinels that can hit me even when I’m blocking and all there many other annoying abilities.

@Stephen_Lynch you can still use wolverine and regen against them you know?

They hardly have any health it’s a simple fight.

I’m so mind blown by all the outrage

Its now an observable fact that the combined changes to AQ have made it a huge quantum leap harder for a large percentage of the players. Precisely why it is happening is debatable, but that it is in fact a huge difficulty jump is no longer debatable. The question now is what to do about it. If you don't understand how it could be more difficult, that's simply a fundamental limitation of your ability to engage in the details of the situation.

I'm saying this as someone whose alliance materially benefitted from the change. We jumped over 200 places in AQ standing last week even though we scored fewer points. That doesn't impact my ability to see that the change would have a large negative impact on players as a whole. And as Kabam's official position was and still amazingly is that there was no intent to increase difficulty beyond novelty, it is entirely understandable that players would be upset about a change that clearly went completely overboard what it was described to do.

If the devs say a change will do X, and it actually does something completely different than X, and that change materially harms the playing experience of a large percentage of the players, and the devs refuse to even acknowledge this is actually happening I would expect those players to react strongly negatively. I don't see how anyone's mind could be blown by the obvious and predictable. It is doubly annoying when the devs were so obviously wrong it is difficult to invent an excuse that allows for that level of wrong to happen by accident.

Dude just because they can’t bleed or be poisoned doesn’t make them more difficult to fight.

Yeah the mini bosses are slightly difficult but when there are 10 people with 3 champs each it’s easy to defeat them, they all have various counters, NC is bugged so he won’t evade.

I mean instead of trying to sound clever why not give a solution? What is it you want done?

Dude I mentioned a couple times what I think should have been done. Given how much stronger the Sentinels are than the critters they replaced, they should have been dialed down. The game arbitrarily sets the difficulty of each node based on a prestige calculation that translates prestige X into rank this level that sig whatever for each node. I say arbitrary because difficulty is relative: there's no specific math formula that says when prestige is this the node should be that, but we're all used to a certain difficulty level curve that has been around for a long time. If the intent was to introduce novelty without increasing difficulty (or only increasing it a little) then when they introduce all of the features of the Sentinels, and describing the Sentinels as just bleed and poison immune is intellectually dishonest, they should lower the node numbers to balance.

Or if that's too many words for you, when they swap out an 8k Symbiod, it shouldn't be with an 8k Sentinel. It should probably be a 5k or 6k Sentinel. A 6k Sentinel is still a significantly more dangerous foe than an 8k Symbiod, but the lowered PI (which translates into lower attack and health) would give players more of a chance to adjust to all of the actual novel differences of the Sentinels, of which bleed and poison immunity is just the most obvious, but not actually the source of most of the difficulty.

You keep saying the Sentinels and the minibosses have counters, as if that matters at all. Everything has counters. The Collector has counters. Saying something has counters says exactly nothing about its difficulty. It says less than nothing, because it implies something false, while saying nothing materially relevant.

DNA3000

Kabam Lyra wrote: »

Hi all!

I just wanted to thank you for your continued feedback. I know you are all anxious for updates from us, and I totally understand why as we are going into a new AQ week. But please hang in there and be patient as the Game Team is looking at and analyzing the behind the scenes data that has been gathered so far. When we have any more meaningful information to share with you about the changes, we will. Thanks!

What I've been saying since the change was announced to now is that the damage will be, or is already, done. My feedback was this change should have never happened in its current form because the process the devs use, which game developers call "iteration" and players would understand better as "do whatever, change it whenever" causes harm you cannot undo. If it causes people to spend a ton more potions, you could compensate them for that in theory but in practice Kabam never really does in an equitable way. If it causes alliances to fragment, you can't unring that bell without a time machine.

What I'm saying is that a change like this can't be done casually as was done, and what I want changed is the *process*. You can change AQ, but that won't address my concern. I want the way AQ is managed to be changed. How likely is it that the devs are reviewing that problem and attempting to devise a solution to it?

Kabam Lyra

Hi all!

We have addressed the issue with the extra node on Path 7 of Map 5 in another thread. This was not an intentional change and we are currently investigating. Any additional comments or concerns about this issue can be posted in the other thread. Thank you!

Blitzkilla420

Kabam Lyra wrote: »

Hi all!

I just wanted to thank you for your continued feedback. I know you are all anxious for updates from us, and I totally understand why as we are going into a new AQ week. But please hang in there and be patient as the Game Team is looking at and analyzing the behind the scenes data that has been gathered so far. When we have any more meaningful information to share with you about the changes, we will. Thanks!

please just tell us that a change is in the works and that you will up the rewards for us cause you want to keep the players happy as any business model should be customers are always right and keep your lifeline (the players, customers) happy

but a response finally from kabam is nice to see, although slow, but yes just DONT keep us in the dark

Vincew80

Kabam Lyra wrote: »

Hi all!

I just wanted to thank you for your continued feedback. I know you are all anxious for updates from us, and I totally understand why as we are going into a new AQ week. But please hang in there and be patient as the Game Team is looking at and analyzing the behind the scenes data that has been gathered so far. When we have any more meaningful information to share with you about the changes, we will. Thanks!

The game team could’ve saved themselves, as well as everyone playing, a lot of headache by actually testing the new AQ out themselves before dumping it on the consumer. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who actually plays that AQ is much more difficult & it was insulting that anyone from Kabam said otherwise. Please do everyone a favor & actually test running through each & every path with champs that the average player has & not some dream team you THINK will make AQ just as easy as before. Surely it wouldn’t be too bad if we could hand pick the 5 star champs we need but us actual players don’t have that luxury & were stuck with what we got. It’s just plain silly that it’s taking you guys looking over behind the scenes data to confirm this was a terrible idea for the overall gameplay experience. BTW, even with the increased difficulty Kabam somehow managed to make it an extremely dull experience at the same time. Symbiods were boring enough even with different move sets...

KnightZero

DNA3000 wrote: »

You keep saying the Sentinels and the minibosses have counters, as if that matters at all. Everything has counters. The Collector has counters. Saying something has counters says exactly nothing about its difficulty. It says less than nothing, because it implies something false, while saying nothing materially relevant.

This is literally the truest thing written here. Lot of people just keep talking about counters being available, yet never address the main issue which is the difficulty that the players are facing. And don't get me started on those who say Sentinels are easy while using a 5/65 Blade or high ranking champs. I have a couple 4/55 champs and Sentinels aren't a major pain until Day 4/5, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

Blooregarde

Kabam DK wrote: »

Mcord117 wrote: »

Kabam DK wrote: »

Batty_Numppo wrote: »

What is Morningstar’s curse buff?

When you block one of her hits, she will gain a soul (her persistent charges)

Wait, what??? So why not just give her 5 charged to start the fight? Unreal

The goal with the Oppressive Curse buff is to give Morningstar ways to gain Souls (otherwise she'd never gain ANY) while also providing a way for skilled players to avoid giving them to her. If you intercept her, she'll never gain any. If you don't, you'll need a bleed immune Champion

@Kabam DK I just wanted to inquire a little more for clarity on the post you made above. You stated that the point of the Oppressive Curse buff was to allow a way for Morningstar to gain souls, and that if you intercepted her, she'd never gain any, thus never needing a bleed immune champ. However, based on screenshots of the Morningstar in Map 5 that I've seen, it seems that she has her signature ability active, which from your Spotlight, indicates that she will always start with 1 soul, which will allow her to bleed you when hit. So even if you always intercept and never block, you'd need a bleed immune champion regardless. So really you're just limited to the bleed immune champs for her? Is this correct? Unless we should take a non-bleed immune champ and take unnecessary damage despite playing flawlessly and never blocking?

Blooregarde

Kabam DK wrote: »

Mcord117 wrote: »

Kabam DK wrote: »

Batty_Numppo wrote: »

What is Morningstar’s curse buff?

When you block one of her hits, she will gain a soul (her persistent charges)

Wait, what??? So why not just give her 5 charged to start the fight? Unreal

The goal with the Oppressive Curse buff is to give Morningstar ways to gain Souls (otherwise she'd never gain ANY) while also providing a way for skilled players to avoid giving them to her. If you intercept her, she'll never gain any. If you don't, you'll need a bleed immune Champion

Hi @Kabam DK , I just wanted to inquire a little more about this comment you made. You had indicated that the whole point of the Oppressive Curse buff is to allow Morningstar a way to gain Souls, and that if we intercepted she'll never gain any at all...and further added that if we don't, we'll need a bleed immune champion (thus implying), if we played flawlessly, we wouldn't require a bleed immune champion. However, from the screenshots I've seen of Morningstar on Map 5, it seems that she's awakened, and by being awakened, she automatically starts with at least 1 Soul, no matter what, and 1 Soul is all she needs to inflict bleed onto the enemy at a 50% chance. Does this not make your comment incorrect? Or are we able to bring champions that are not bleed immune and should be able to play flawlessly and take 0 damage? I think it would be nice if this was clarified to avoid having members of the MCoC community bringing champs that are ill-suited for Morningstar and end up using more resources than intended due to incorrect information?

I've attached an image to confirm that she is awakened.

DNA3000

Blooregarde wrote: »

Kabam DK wrote: »

Mcord117 wrote: »

Kabam DK wrote: »

Batty_Numppo wrote: »

What is Morningstar’s curse buff?

When you block one of her hits, she will gain a soul (her persistent charges)

Wait, what??? So why not just give her 5 charged to start the fight? Unreal

The goal with the Oppressive Curse buff is to give Morningstar ways to gain Souls (otherwise she'd never gain ANY) while also providing a way for skilled players to avoid giving them to her. If you intercept her, she'll never gain any. If you don't, you'll need a bleed immune Champion

Hi @Kabam DK , I just wanted to inquire a little more about this comment you made. You had indicated that the whole point of the Oppressive Curse buff is to allow Morningstar a way to gain Souls, and that if we intercepted she'll never gain any at all...and further added that if we don't, we'll need a bleed immune champion (thus implying), if we played flawlessly, we wouldn't require a bleed immune champion. However, from the screenshots I've seen of Morningstar on Map 5, it seems that she's awakened, and by being awakened, she automatically starts with at least 1 Soul, no matter what, and 1 Soul is all she needs to inflict bleed onto the enemy at a 50% chance. Does this not make your comment incorrect? Or are we able to bring champions that are not bleed immune and should be able to play flawlessly and take 0 damage? I think it would be nice if this was clarified to avoid having members of the MCoC community bringing champs that are ill-suited for Morningstar and end up using more resources than intended due to incorrect information?

I've attached an image to confirm that she is awakened.

Your analysis sounds correct to me. Ordinarily, Morningstar should start the fight with one soul if she is awakened, and one soul is all she needs to inflict bleed 50% of the time an attack makes physical contact. Whether you intercept her or not, you will need a bleed immune champion as far as I can see. @Kabam DK statement about needing a bleed immune champion if you don't intercept appears to be misleading, as interception appears to have no bearing on Morningstar's ability to inflict bleed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Blooregarde

DNA3000 wrote: »

Blooregarde wrote: »

Kabam DK wrote: »

Mcord117 wrote: »

Kabam DK wrote: »

Batty_Numppo wrote: »

What is Morningstar’s curse buff?

When you block one of her hits, she will gain a soul (her persistent charges)

Wait, what??? So why not just give her 5 charged to start the fight? Unreal

The goal with the Oppressive Curse buff is to give Morningstar ways to gain Souls (otherwise she'd never gain ANY) while also providing a way for skilled players to avoid giving them to her. If you intercept her, she'll never gain any. If you don't, you'll need a bleed immune Champion

Hi @Kabam DK , I just wanted to inquire a little more about this comment you made. You had indicated that the whole point of the Oppressive Curse buff is to allow Morningstar a way to gain Souls, and that if we intercepted she'll never gain any at all...and further added that if we don't, we'll need a bleed immune champion (thus implying), if we played flawlessly, we wouldn't require a bleed immune champion. However, from the screenshots I've seen of Morningstar on Map 5, it seems that she's awakened, and by being awakened, she automatically starts with at least 1 Soul, no matter what, and 1 Soul is all she needs to inflict bleed onto the enemy at a 50% chance. Does this not make your comment incorrect? Or are we able to bring champions that are not bleed immune and should be able to play flawlessly and take 0 damage? I think it would be nice if this was clarified to avoid having members of the MCoC community bringing champs that are ill-suited for Morningstar and end up using more resources than intended due to incorrect information?

I've attached an image to confirm that she is awakened.

Your analysis sounds correct to me. Ordinarily, Morningstar should start the fight with one soul if she is awakened, and one soul is all she needs to inflict bleed 50% of the time an attack makes physical contact. Whether you intercept her or not, you will need a bleed immune champion as far as I can see. @Kabam DK statement about needing a bleed immune champion if you don't intercept appears to be misleading, as interception appears to have no bearing on Morningstar's ability to inflict bleed.

When DK made that comment, I presumed that she would be not awakened and thus not starting with 1 soul, so then if you were to play and always intercept and not block, you wouldn't need a bleed immune champ. So either DK's comment was incorrect/misleading, or Morningstar shouldn't be awaken? No?

Primmer79

Kabam DK wrote: »

Mcord117 wrote: »

Kabam DK wrote: »

Batty_Numppo wrote: »

What is Morningstar’s curse buff?

When you block one of her hits, she will gain a soul (her persistent charges)

Wait, what??? So why not just give her 5 charged to start the fight? Unreal

The goal with the Oppressive Curse buff is to give Morningstar ways to gain Souls (otherwise she'd never gain ANY) while also providing a way for skilled players to avoid giving them to her. If you intercept her, she'll never gain any. If you don't, you'll need a bleed immune Champion

GG Kabam. Either more bugs or more lies. This is why we have trust issues.

Backtothegrind

Mr. Kabam,

I must say I enjoy playing! However, you guys are really hitting the next level of money grabbing your loyal players. Without increasing the AQ rewards for a significantly harder AQ map you are effectively losing confidence. I understand the changes and welcome them but now most players have to completely change there attack teams and do not have the resources available to upgrade to competitive levels because you have negated the 'old guard'. This is nothing more than a cash grab from you. How about some rank down tickets to off set?

I get it - you need to get paid and pay to keep the game running but if you completely kill off the hard earned champs that cannot compete in AQ anymore, you are telling us that you don't want us to finish anything without paying to play. BS! Increase the rewards if we are to spend resources to finish a map!

On another note- Kabam always changes the content to a harder platform. Why do you not ever add masteries or player levels? You are killing us on energy now so we have to spend to even complete an event. Are you serious? 70 max energy at level 60 with multiple events going on! Laughable!

Now on to my biggest rant- Your just up and gunna add nodes and suck us dry for some more energy! LMAO! Who's running that code writing circus and are they suffering from CSS ( Chronic Severe Stupidity) ? I would like to know where the cash is going that allows that kind of decision/screw up?

Respectfully,

Backtothegrind

DNA3000

Blooregarde wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Blooregarde wrote: »

Kabam DK wrote: »

Mcord117 wrote: »

Kabam DK wrote: »

Batty_Numppo wrote: »

What is Morningstar’s curse buff?

When you block one of her hits, she will gain a soul (her persistent charges)

Wait, what??? So why not just give her 5 charged to start the fight? Unreal

The goal with the Oppressive Curse buff is to give Morningstar ways to gain Souls (otherwise she'd never gain ANY) while also providing a way for skilled players to avoid giving them to her. If you intercept her, she'll never gain any. If you don't, you'll need a bleed immune Champion

Hi @Kabam DK , I just wanted to inquire a little more about this comment you made. You had indicated that the whole point of the Oppressive Curse buff is to allow Morningstar a way to gain Souls, and that if we intercepted she'll never gain any at all...and further added that if we don't, we'll need a bleed immune champion (thus implying), if we played flawlessly, we wouldn't require a bleed immune champion. However, from the screenshots I've seen of Morningstar on Map 5, it seems that she's awakened, and by being awakened, she automatically starts with at least 1 Soul, no matter what, and 1 Soul is all she needs to inflict bleed onto the enemy at a 50% chance. Does this not make your comment incorrect? Or are we able to bring champions that are not bleed immune and should be able to play flawlessly and take 0 damage? I think it would be nice if this was clarified to avoid having members of the MCoC community bringing champs that are ill-suited for Morningstar and end up using more resources than intended due to incorrect information?

I've attached an image to confirm that she is awakened.

Your analysis sounds correct to me. Ordinarily, Morningstar should start the fight with one soul if she is awakened, and one soul is all she needs to inflict bleed 50% of the time an attack makes physical contact. Whether you intercept her or not, you will need a bleed immune champion as far as I can see. @Kabam DK statement about needing a bleed immune champion if you don't intercept appears to be misleading, as interception appears to have no bearing on Morningstar's ability to inflict bleed.

When DK made that comment, I presumed that she would be not awakened and thus not starting with 1 soul, so then if you were to play and always intercept and not block, you wouldn't need a bleed immune champ. So either DK's comment was incorrect/misleading, or Morningstar shouldn't be awaken? No?

It is possible Morningstar was awakened incorrectly. We already know the map has one bug on it, it is entirely possible it has two. The Morningstar bug if it is a bug frankly is more understandable. Both bugs combined whisper "intern" in my ear.

BigDaddyJoe

Howard isn’t that bad

Midnightfox

Clap clap. Kabam always outdoing themselves on bugs. Guess what since it’s not beneficial to the players they are gonna keep it all aq. Yay! Now if that bug had benefitted us the game would have went down for emergency maintenance and be fixed promptly. This is why people are walking away and no one trusts anything the mods say. Ridiculous that as always we have to bend over and take it.

Jesse0013

Just wish they would listen to a concerned player base

shchong2

Midnightfox wrote: »

Clap clap. Kabam always outdoing themselves on bugs. Guess what since it’s not beneficial to the players they are gonna keep it all aq. Yay! Now if that bug had benefitted us the game would have went down for emergency maintenance and be fixed promptly. This is why people are walking away and no one trusts anything the mods say. Ridiculous that as always we have to bend over and take it.

Well said, thanks for voicing this out! I know not everyone will agree, but I guess many will.

DNA3000

Midnightfox wrote: »

Clap clap. Kabam always outdoing themselves on bugs. Guess what since it’s not beneficial to the players they are gonna keep it all aq. Yay! Now if that bug had benefitted us the game would have went down for emergency maintenance and be fixed promptly. This is why people are walking away and no one trusts anything the mods say. Ridiculous that as always we have to bend over and take it.

To be honest, I think if the bug deleted an unoccupied node the devs would be similarly slow to make changes even though that would be a small net benefit.

There's a germ of truth to the notion that bugs that benefit the players are acted upon faster than bugs that hurt the players. How fast and how dramatically the devs take steps to address a bug generally involve what that bug's overall impact on the game is, especially in terms of resource management. A bug that hands tons of resources to the players is going to have a much higher priority than a bug that withholds resources from players. And that's because of a simple if harsh truth: when the game has an exploitable bug that can convert into tons of resources allowing that bug to persist will rapidly unbalance the game because players will quickly gravitate to that exploit if left unchecked. But when a bug exists that withholds resources from the players, all that tends to do is globally slow everyone down, which isn't as big a threat to game balance.

Game developers don't explain this very well, or at all. And it translates into honestly predictable suspicions surrounding their motives when they act to stamp out bugs in obviously different ways for different bugs that have nothing to do with the effort involved to address them.

shchong2

DNA3000 wrote: »

Midnightfox wrote: »

Clap clap. Kabam always outdoing themselves on bugs. Guess what since it’s not beneficial to the players they are gonna keep it all aq. Yay! Now if that bug had benefitted us the game would have went down for emergency maintenance and be fixed promptly. This is why people are walking away and no one trusts anything the mods say. Ridiculous that as always we have to bend over and take it.

To be honest, I think if the bug deleted an unoccupied node the devs would be similarly slow to make changes even though that would be a small net benefit.

There's a germ of truth to the notion that bugs that benefit the players are acted upon faster than bugs that hurt the players. How fast and how dramatically the devs take steps to address a bug generally involve what that bug's overall impact on the game is, especially in terms of resource management. A bug that hands tons of resources to the players is going to have a much higher priority than a bug that withholds resources from players. And that's because of a simple if harsh truth: when the game has an exploitable bug that can convert into tons of resources allowing that bug to persist will rapidly unbalance the game because players will quickly gravitate to that exploit if left unchecked. But when a bug exists that withholds resources from the players, all that tends to do is globally slow everyone down, which isn't as big a threat to game balance.

Game developers don't explain this very well, or at all. And it translates into honestly predictable suspicions surrounding their motives when they act to stamp out bugs in obviously different ways for different bugs that have nothing to do with the effort involved to address them.

What DNA3000 said is very true, and this is how we normally trust dev from any company. When I played Clash Royale, when there's a bug NOT being fixed for 2 months, we NEVER suspect it is bcos the company want to grab cash. It is naturally to think the dev is working behind the scene, and they have a plan to validate their fix, and there's a plan to roll out a complete fix. However, can we apply the same trust here, after what we have seen in v12.0 and sooooooo many things from now and then that I don't even want to mention anymore? TRUST is NOT given, TRUST IS TO BE EARNED!

This AQ maybe a crisis like the v12.0 saga, but make no mistake, a crisis can be turned into an opportunity if handled correctly and properly. Any smart company will probably quickly step out of the crisis shadow and sincerely and transparently admit mistake and keep everyone posted on the progress of their fix. And honour their promise with a timely and robust fix. This is how a smart company may turn a crisis into an opportunity, an opportunity form them to earn trust from its player base and an opportunity to expand its player base bcos now folks know they can count on the sincerity, the integrity and the pro-activeness of this company.

Or maybe I'm just being naive

LOL .... Talking about trust in this capitalist world and in this online gaming in virtual world?