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

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

mostlyharmlessn

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

They listened to feedback. That doesn't mean they could stop everything. They had to gather data to make adjustments. Once things are set in place, you wouldn't really find a total rollback. History shows this. They take the feedback as the data as apply it to the template implemented.

Had they listened they would never have pushed the server side update for AQ.

Had it been a client side update that would be a different story, there's a lot more moving parts and dealing with the play/app stores.

It makes me cring that there's no roll back plan for any software updates or a way to block a push to production. That's just dangerous development practices, but I digress.

mostlyharmlessn wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

They listened to feedback. That doesn't mean they could stop everything. They had to gather data to make adjustments. Once things are set in place, you wouldn't really find a total rollback. History shows this. They take the feedback as the data as apply it to the template implemented.

Had they listened they would never have pushed the server side update for AQ.

Had it been a client side update that would be a different story, there's a lot more moving parts and dealing with the play/app stores.

It makes me cring that there's no roll back plan for any software updates or a way to block a push to production. That's just dangerous development practices, but I digress.

There's a difference between taking in feedback and obeying orders. They haven't removed Sentinels. They're adjusting them. Their intentions weren't to have it as difficult. There was no way for us to gauge that until it went live. They're making adjustments to be closer to what they wanted.

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

mostlyharmlessn wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

They listened to feedback. That doesn't mean they could stop everything. They had to gather data to make adjustments. Once things are set in place, you wouldn't really find a total rollback. History shows this. They take the feedback as the data as apply it to the template implemented.

Had they listened they would never have pushed the server side update for AQ.

Had it been a client side update that would be a different story, there's a lot more moving parts and dealing with the play/app stores.

It makes me cring that there's no roll back plan for any software updates or a way to block a push to production. That's just dangerous development practices, but I digress.

Their intentions weren't to have it as difficult. There was no way for us to gauge that until it went live.

Anyone with half a brain could read about the changes and say it would be harder. Apparently, this means everyone in the whole world, minus a few of the forum white knights and 100% of the development team.

Really. Based on what? Fighting them in EQ with Nodes on them? Based on their Immunity? They're going to be "harder" is not a quantitative analysis to adjust anything on. There's usually a reaction to every change. "Oh, well since the reaction is that it will be harder, we've decided not to go through with it.". Doesn't exactly fly. They need something to go on to make adjustments.

Based on their design of course. They are demonstrably and objectively harder to fight than a symbioid, and this has subsequently been shown to be true by all the losses in the latest AQ. Everyone who said they would be harder to fight has been proven correct, because the devs have now adjusted them down to an easier to fight level.

You're just validating what I just said.

SomeoneElse

Wrong. You can read the descriptions and easily determine that the challenge will be more difficult. They are designed to adapt to repetitive actions, something no other character in the game has done so far. Each type has countermeasures built in that must taken into account. It is much more difficult than the simple symboids. Anyone should be able to figure that out without any data collection. They fully intended the make AQ more difficult for us without increasing the rewards. It was a bad decision, and they went way too far. The backlash is completely warranted.

Lol no I'm not. I'm validating what we all said BEFORE the AQ. We said they'd be harder. The mods said they wouldn't. They were harder. Now they're not.
Is English not your native tongue?

If they intended to make it that much harder, they wouldn't have made changes at all. That's just conspiracy. They didn't intend for the difficulty to be increased as much as it was. Their response was prompt enough after going live to support that, and their revisions wet timely enough to support that as well. There's really no use in debating why they let it go live. It's pretty clear. That's the Champ they wanted to swap with. The added difficulty wasn't intended, which is why they're adjusting it. It's not really that complex.

Snizzbar wrote: »

Lol no I'm not. I'm validating what we all said BEFORE the AQ. We said they'd be harder. The mods said they wouldn't. They were harder. Now they're not.
Is English not your native tongue?

Yes before they went live the comment was made they shouldn't be that much harder. That was the plan. Didn't pan out as planned. Not sure what you're asking for. If you would like validation yourself, congrats. You called it. If you're expecting them to turn over their decision-making processes to the Players, you may be short-handed.

SomeoneElse

That makes no sense whatsoever. Calling everything a conspiracy theory is a red herring designed to distract us from the real issues plaguing this game. They only responded so quickly because the backlash was massive and they saw what a huge detremental impact it was having just in the first week. Taking over every major thread just to be contrary for attention is far worse than ranting.

It's a conspiracy theory plain and simple and its based on conjecture. The evidence and comments made support that they never intended to make it that much more difficult. They responded to let people know they were aware and gathering data and feedback. You're asserting they planned it and you have no basis for that.

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

You're asserting they planned it and you have no basis for that.

Who said that? All we're saying is that we knew the sentinels would be harder to fight. No one mentioned a plan except you. From my point of view, what the devs did was the very worst sort of unplanned changes with very predictable consequences. Predictable to everyone except the devs themselves. How hard is that to understand?

Snizzbar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

You're asserting they planned it and you have no basis for that.

Who said that? All we're saying is that we knew the sentinels would be harder to fight. No one mentioned a plan except you. From my point of view, what the devs did was the very worst sort of unplanned changes with very predictable consequences. Predictable to everyone except the devs themselves. How hard is that to understand?

SomeoneElse wrote: »

Wrong. You can read the descriptions and easily determine that the challenge will be more difficult. They are designed to adapt to repetitive actions, something no other character in the game has done so far. Each type has countermeasures built in that must taken into account. It is much more difficult than the simple symboids. Anyone should be able to figure that out without any data collection. They fully intended the make AQ more difficult for us without increasing the rewards. It was a bad decision, and they went way too far. The backlash is completely warranted.

Pretty sure it was clear what I was responding to.

SomeoneElse

Snizzbar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

You're asserting they planned it and you have no basis for that.

Who said that? All we're saying is that we knew the sentinels would be harder to fight. No one mentioned a plan except you. From my point of view, what the devs did was the very worst sort of unplanned changes with very predictable consequences. Predictable to everyone except the devs themselves. How hard is that to understand?

Don’t bother. Purposefully misrepresenting what people say to make a point is par for the course. It weakens the argument, not strengthens it.

"They fully intended to make AQ more difficult for us without increasing the rewards."

Care to point out how I misrepresented that? You made the comment. I'm sure you're fully aware of what you were implying.

TheBlackDefense

To think kabam forums said "we are not at the time or place to make a full AQ revamp" but seem to be right enough to change the champs and then knock out 2 different sets of champions out of AQ with their changes and the have the audacity to say there hasn't been a difficulty change. Then say " we understand that this tales out your bleed and poison champs, but the sentinels are highly vulnerable to armor break" when they're about 3 good armor break champs and 2 of those 3 are Iron Fist. And the nail in the coffin is a large portion of the community is saying they should just increase rewards. And kabam look at it as if it was completely impossible like adding superman into the roster..... either I smell a cash grab or kabam grabbing cash

Kromestone

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

"They fully intended to make AQ more difficult for us without increasing the rewards."

Care to point out how I misrepresented that? You made the comment. I'm sure you're fully aware of what you were implying.

The reason kabam listened and changed their stance was because, the backlash was massive and people weren't interested in playing AQ any more and their intended game plan of milking the player base was failing, simple.

Speeds80

There is still a massive thing we have overlooked, swiping back should not build charges, I’m having to bait l1s until I build up dozens of charges, and to evade the l1s I need to use 2-3 swipes back, it’s still bs, they are an unfair mechanic

Kromestone wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

"They fully intended to make AQ more difficult for us without increasing the rewards."

Care to point out how I misrepresented that? You made the comment. I'm sure you're fully aware of what you were implying.

The reason kabam listened and changed their stance was because, the backlash was massive and people weren't interested in playing AQ any more and their intended game plan of milking the player base was failing, simple.

You have this confused with 12.0. Neither of which were intended to milk anyone. That's the only response people have here. "Kabam is trying to milk the Players!". Gets redundant after a while.

Speeds80

So does the naievity of someone that thinks that a $200m company doesn’t make every major change with the intention of keeping or increasing profits, this is a ceo run company, not a gamer design run game anymore gw. That’s not sinister it’s just real life, incentives, bonuses, everything is done to increase profit, you seem to think that everything they do is to increase enjoyment, like limiting potion sales, making harder... yes harder minibosses and sentinel(oids) these aren’t clumsy oh we had no idea it would actually be harder decisions, anyone who plays the game seriously knew instantly it was going to be harder, without playing them, just because of their abilities and the fact that syms were very very easy. This company does have a history of overdoing every small change they are trying to implement, Its obvious to everyone that aq had become a little easy/ stale and this was designed to shake things up a bit, but they clearly overdid it and again it’s clear and obvious it has retired a lot of people from 5x5 alliances, I find them a very frustrating fight, l2 block damage is massive, l1 is tedious to bait and builds charges, this change is very welcome but my alliance will play by ear whether we are going to go back to 5x5, war seasons and this and the controls issues rife in the game have a lot of people talking retirement in my alliance, lost 5 already this week which was more than we turned over last few months.

Just because it's a business doesn't mean their every decision and change is a sinister plot to milk people for all they're worth.

Vincew80

Kromestone wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

"They fully intended to make AQ more difficult for us without increasing the rewards."

Care to point out how I misrepresented that? You made the comment. I'm sure you're fully aware of what you were implying.

The reason kabam listened and changed their stance was because, the backlash was massive and people weren't interested in playing AQ any more and their intended game plan of milking the player base was failing, simple.

Completely agree that was their goal & I don’t think them simply reducing the difficulty of sentinels was the right answer either. Sentinels are so boring & repetitive, it’s ridiculous kabam could think it would make aq more fun. I’m currently sitting at the 2nd MS close to 90% health on my lowest health champ & it’s still not the least little bit enjoyable. Goal #1 should’ve been fixing all the existing problems & making a consistent gaming experience & then testing changes on their own to see if they make the game more fun.

mostlyharmlessn

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

mostlyharmlessn wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

They listened to feedback. That doesn't mean they could stop everything. They had to gather data to make adjustments. Once things are set in place, you wouldn't really find a total rollback. History shows this. They take the feedback as the data as apply it to the template implemented.

Had they listened they would never have pushed the server side update for AQ.

Had it been a client side update that would be a different story, there's a lot more moving parts and dealing with the play/app stores.

It makes me cring that there's no roll back plan for any software updates or a way to block a push to production. That's just dangerous development practices, but I digress.

There's a difference between taking in feedback and obeying orders. They haven't removed Sentinels. They're adjusting them. Their intentions weren't to have it as difficult. There was no way for us to gauge that until it went live. They're making adjustments to be closer to what they wanted.

You are right there is a difference.

Taking feedback they would have done a testing phase like LC/RH proposed update, and not a push to production without user acceptance testing.

There's absolutely no need to go live with a change like this without player based testing. They proved post 12.0 they have the capability to do UAT. If they are doing UAT and still released these changes then their player sample is severely flawed.

This was a situation is the same as the update to AW where the player based looked at the proposed changes, pointed out flaws in the plan which were ignored. The result was an absurd change that had alliances placing no to few defenders and winning.

Blitzkilla420

guys seriously just stick to the topic on hand. this is how threads get closed when we derail eachother by baiting.

the fact is kabam thought these changes to aq were gonna make it fun and flat-out it didnt.

the community, rightfully so, lashed out and kabam had to listen to nerf the sentinels cause these sentinels were overpowered and well they should listen to the customer as any successful company should.

moving forward they need to keep doing this: LISTENING TO THE CUSTOMER WHEN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SAME THING

and

WORKING FAST ON FIXING BUGS.