Sentineloids: A Great Moment for Kabam (Yes, Seriously)

13»

Comments

  • BitterSteelBitterSteel Posts: 3,185 ★★★★★
    KhanMedina wrote: »
    I'm not thanking someone for fixing something that they broke.

    Exactly, I won’t say thank you to kabam for getting something wrong, and fighting that wrong. But I will say that they fixed it a lot faster than they usually do for something that doesn’t benefit the community. Props to the speed at which they fixed their mistake.
  • ShrimkinsShrimkins Posts: 1,480 ★★★★
    KhanMedina wrote: »
    I'm not thanking someone for fixing something that they broke.

    It's not about thanking them. It's about giving them credit where credit is due. They made a mistake, owned up to it, and fixed it in a relatively timely manner.

    Of course we would all prefer them to not make mistakes but that seems unlikely.
  • mostlyharmlessnmostlyharmlessn Posts: 858 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    There are game changes for which your analysis of the situation would be entirely valid. In my opinion, this is not one of them.

    I have to agree with DNA3000 here.

    There are entire portions of standard development processes which are there to prevent exactly this situation. This doesn't just apply to games.

    This leaves really only simple conclusions:

    A: They are not actually doing testing
    B: Their testing methodologies are severely flawed - 12.0 flawed.
    C:They did and wanted to force this change on us anyway and didn't care till a lot of people got angry and alliances stopped running certain maps.
    D.: They got exactly what they wanted which was to neuter champs like Wolverine, and do it in such a way that when they caved a little they would receive praise like the first post here. (The look, we broke a bunch of stuff on a lot of you, but we acted fast so we're awesome.)

    It's just over a year since the 12.0 debacle, you would think they would have been a lot more sensitive to the impact any change would actually have on the day to day player by now.

    As far as their fix? Well that remains to be seen

    IMHO given how Sentinels work, it would seem they do not belong thrown about on the map as much as they are, or should be set as bosses/mini bosses.
  • mostlyharmlessnmostlyharmlessn Posts: 858 ★★★
    funny how my last comment, which I had to edit because the interpreter changed something I wrote to an emoji, now needs approval....
  • GwendolineGwendoline Posts: 945 ★★★
    funny how my last comment, which I had to edit because the interpreter changed something I wrote to an emoji, now needs approval....

    Needing approval pops up for me when I've made a lot of comments/editted them. I always assumed it was in place to prevent people from spamming.
  • mostlyharmlessnmostlyharmlessn Posts: 858 ★★★
    Gwendoline wrote: »
    funny how my last comment, which I had to edit because the interpreter changed something I wrote to an emoji, now needs approval....

    Needing approval pops up for me when I've made a lot of comments/editted them. I always assumed it was in place to prevent people from spamming.

    Yea this wasn't a lot or multiple edits on the same post... it was fixing the change the forum software made when posting....

  • chev327foxchev327fox Posts: 826 ★★
    edited April 2018
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    @DNA3000 - I was going to quote your post, but it's really long, so I'm not going to do that.

    Also, I had to trim 60 characters from it to post it, so quoting it would mean you probably could only say "I do think" and then the forum would cut you off.
    I do think that there is some responsibility on both sides (a lot of my player perspective comes from my own experiences and those in my alliance who, when we made changes, have all been able to succeed against the Sentineloids), but I am glad to see that Kabam has not only acknowledged their mistake, but has actively worked to fix it.

    I wouldn't use the word "responsibility." Whenever the developers introduce new difficulty in any part of the game, how well the players adjust to that difficulty and what rewards and experience they get out of it depends greatly on how intelligently and efficiently they react to that. I'd say that is a valid perspective when it comes to, say, the introduction of uncollected difficulty. Some players were so strong when that happened that uncollected difficulty was not a significant challenge. For some players, it was entirely out of reach. But there was a range of players for which that difficulty was high but not insurmountable with thought and practice you could either beat it or work towards overcoming it. The return you get is based in large part on the effort you put it.

    But while that's also true for AQ, I think the problem goes beyond individual player efforts. Alliances grow and evolve over time to mesh together many different players that are compatible with each other. Part of the criteria those players have to satisfy is being compatible when it comes to alliance events, AQ and AW. It is unrealistic to expect that every single player will be able to adjust to changes in AQ and AW at exactly the same rate, but it isn't an inability to adjust that can tear an alliance apart. It can be simply the differences in the way and the rate at which each individual player adjusts. Even if every player does everything right, a sudden change in difficulty and content in AQ can put enormous pressure on an alliance that didn't exist before. It is one thing to expect an alliance to deal with gradual changes over time, putting a small amount of pressure to adjust on each individual player. It is another thing to expect everyone to adjust quickly to a sudden change, all in the same way at the same rate in a way that will allow them to still mesh together.

    A question for you is: do you think it is a good idea to periodically "shake up" whole alliances and challenge them to adapt or die? That seems contrary to me to the purpose of player groups like alliances, which is usually to promote players forming attachments to other players in ways that allow games to retain players for longer periods of time.

    That's an interesting question!

    I do think the answer to that question is yes. If you were asking me as a designer, I would answer yes.

    I think it is contrary to player groups - but I think if one player advances quicker than one alliance as a whole, they'll hop up until they end up in a group at their skill level. What has happened (for most of us) is that we've leveled out and found an alliance of similar skill and like minded-ness.

    But even then, after extended periods of time - you often see people step down, or step up. There are shakeups that happen, especially in large break periods.

    So, I think for the health of the game, yes, I do think that is necessary from time to time.

    I'm not sure if that addresses the question I was asking. Yes, it is unavoidable that alliance shake ups happen from time to time, so it is necessary to allow such things to happen. The players themselves as a natural consequence of progressing in the game will on occasion find themselves outgrowing their alliance or vice versa, and we shouldn't constrain individual player progress to avoid this.

    But should you *deliberately* induce those shake ups, because there's a specific benefit to those shake ups in and of itself? And if so, what is the actual benefit to the game and/or the players?

    Ah, that's a much different question.

    With some conditions, I'd still keep my answer the same. Yes, because if change isn't consistently and constantly introduced, stagnation occurs. Now would I do it frequently? Hell no. Maybe once every 12-18 months.

    By forcing that big a change - while it'll hurt in the short term, in the long term of the game, I think it benefits them to keep us changing and doing things differently. The only thing I'd say against doing something like this is that people who have forged friendships with their alliances aren't going to want to change, and that resistance might be a reason not to do it in the first place. But then again, people are always resistant to change.

    So, yes. Because change is healthy and good, even if it doesn't feel like it in the short term.

    This is, I am sorry to say, an overly simplistic way of seeing "change". Your basically saying all change is good only becasue if not for change you would get "stagnation". Your viewing this so narrowly you're forgetting to factor in many important variables (potential or otherwise).

    I have disagreed with DNA a few times in the past but he is dead on here. Really this is mostly just simple common sense... but I tend to forget not everyone is working with the same tool set so to speak (not everyone has the same knowledge, experiences, ect).
  • RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Posts: 2,210 ★★★★★
    Players said the changes were a bad idea and gave reasons why before the update rolled out.
    Kabam said "Give it a chance and you'll see nothing has changed"

    Players said the changes were a bad idea and gave reasons why after the update rolled out. (Amid the aforementioned sea of unhelpful complaints, granted).
    Kabam said "Give it time. It's not actually harder, it just requires an adjustment on your part".

    The way this article read removed any fault from Kabam in all this and made the players 100% to blame. It's not very objective and thus makes it tough to give any credence to.

    Also, I wouldn't put this on the level of the 12.0 to 12.0.1 adjustment. That was a lot of coding changes that dealt with how each champ at each level interacted with one another. With the pending AQ adjustment, it's small things like capping energy at 2 bars and making the tiles unhidden. The items they're proposing are pretty basic. Saying that it was a herculean task to figure out the problem and make an adjustment is overstating it a bit, don't you think?

    Kabam saying give it time is based on historical data that they have, showing that we adjust to things. Do they miss the mark sometimes? Sure! Every business does. No fault of theirs.

    Look, no lie? The players are 100% to blame here. If we'd all bothered to sit down, read and understand how the Sentineloids worked and stopped trying to power through them like we do every other fight in this game, majority of the problems wouldn't have shown up. The players who DID read and understand the abilities of the Sentineloids and how they worked didn't have an issue. There just weren't many of them.

    Despite that, Kabam still made changes, because there WAS good feedback (if you look at my good examples, that kinda illustrates it) that they needed to hear.

    The launch of 12.0 and the time it took for 12.1 to show up was about 2 to 3.5 weeks if I'm remembering right. This was a faster turn around time. The items they might be proposing are pretty basic, but when you consider that they had the decisions made on the changes they're making (those take meetings and debates, not to mention feedback gathering, all of which takes time, on top of all the stuff they're probably doing for IW), the coding that does have to be done for the changes (again on top of the other stuff they're scheduled to do), and then fitting it in, this wasn't an EASY thing to do for Kabam.

    From a business perspective, trying to get anything from "Ahhh, broken!" to "Yay, fixed!" in a week is tough, when you consider the size and scope of their player base. So no, I don't think that I'm overstating it. Especially having had to do those sort of adjustments in an old job of mine.

    Wrong.
  • GwendolineGwendoline Posts: 945 ★★★
    Players said the changes were a bad idea and gave reasons why before the update rolled out.
    Kabam said "Give it a chance and you'll see nothing has changed"

    Players said the changes were a bad idea and gave reasons why after the update rolled out. (Amid the aforementioned sea of unhelpful complaints, granted).
    Kabam said "Give it time. It's not actually harder, it just requires an adjustment on your part".

    The way this article read removed any fault from Kabam in all this and made the players 100% to blame. It's not very objective and thus makes it tough to give any credence to.

    Also, I wouldn't put this on the level of the 12.0 to 12.0.1 adjustment. That was a lot of coding changes that dealt with how each champ at each level interacted with one another. With the pending AQ adjustment, it's small things like capping energy at 2 bars and making the tiles unhidden. The items they're proposing are pretty basic. Saying that it was a herculean task to figure out the problem and make an adjustment is overstating it a bit, don't you think?

    Kabam saying give it time is based on historical data that they have, showing that we adjust to things. Do they miss the mark sometimes? Sure! Every business does. No fault of theirs.

    Look, no lie? The players are 100% to blame here. If we'd all bothered to sit down, read and understand how the Sentineloids worked and stopped trying to power through them like we do every other fight in this game, majority of the problems wouldn't have shown up. The players who DID read and understand the abilities of the Sentineloids and how they worked didn't have an issue. There just weren't many of them.

    Despite that, Kabam still made changes, because there WAS good feedback (if you look at my good examples, that kinda illustrates it) that they needed to hear.

    The launch of 12.0 and the time it took for 12.1 to show up was about 2 to 3.5 weeks if I'm remembering right. This was a faster turn around time. The items they might be proposing are pretty basic, but when you consider that they had the decisions made on the changes they're making (those take meetings and debates, not to mention feedback gathering, all of which takes time, on top of all the stuff they're probably doing for IW), the coding that does have to be done for the changes (again on top of the other stuff they're scheduled to do), and then fitting it in, this wasn't an EASY thing to do for Kabam.

    From a business perspective, trying to get anything from "Ahhh, broken!" to "Yay, fixed!" in a week is tough, when you consider the size and scope of their player base. So no, I don't think that I'm overstating it. Especially having had to do those sort of adjustments in an old job of mine.

    Wrong.

    This isn’t constructive or helpful in any way. Please either elaborate or just don’t reply.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,032 ★★★
    Nobody remembers when the video of Kang doing a chain stun L3 loop was posted and in 24 hours he was changed ? Or the few hours it took on the special challenge with portals to be changed ? For Kabam to take two full aq cycles to make this change just goes to show what they are really capable of. There's even room to guess that they boosted the sentinels on release with the intention of "nerfing" them to quiet the criticism. I wouldn't put anything past them, they are smart and well paid to learn to spin things in their favor.
  • mostlyharmlessnmostlyharmlessn Posts: 858 ★★★
    Well it looks like my comment which required approval still hasn't posted.

    Basically I was agreeing with DNA3000. There are specific steps which go into any software development which should account for and prevent "we missed the mark" again situations.

    On that note... Now that the new update for AQ is out... it is painfully boring to fight sentinels. There's just so many of them. It's painfully boring and tedious.

    The number of them should be halved or what they really should be are either minis or bosses.

    I've lost all will and desire to do AQ anymore
  • DarkestDestroyerDarkestDestroyer Posts: 2,570 ★★★★
    KhanMedina wrote: »
    I'm not thanking someone for fixing something that they broke.

    Exactly, I won’t say thank you to kabam for getting something wrong, and fighting that wrong. But I will say that they fixed it a lot faster than they usually do for something that doesn’t benefit the community. Props to the speed at which they fixed their mistake.

    And it’s attitude like this, which makes me wonder why Kabam even bother...

    “I won’t say thank you to Kabam”

    Dude they got nothing wrong, AQ was fine, just because some can’t handle it... why should Kabam stop evolving the game because of that?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,698 Guardian
    KhanMedina wrote: »
    I'm not thanking someone for fixing something that they broke.

    Exactly, I won’t say thank you to kabam for getting something wrong, and fighting that wrong. But I will say that they fixed it a lot faster than they usually do for something that doesn’t benefit the community. Props to the speed at which they fixed their mistake.

    And it’s attitude like this, which makes me wonder why Kabam even bother...

    “I won’t say thank you to Kabam”

    Dude they got nothing wrong, AQ was fine, just because some can’t handle it... why should Kabam stop evolving the game because of that?

    Evolution produces more dead ends than it does successes. Evolution also requires random chance, while good game design shouldn't rely upon it.
  • MikeHockMikeHock Posts: 2,046 ★★★★
    KhanMedina wrote: »
    I'm not thanking someone for fixing something that they broke.

    Exactly, I won’t say thank you to kabam for getting something wrong, and fighting that wrong. But I will say that they fixed it a lot faster than they usually do for something that doesn’t benefit the community. Props to the speed at which they fixed their mistake.

    And it’s attitude like this, which makes me wonder why Kabam even bother...

    “I won’t say thank you to Kabam”

    Dude they got nothing wrong, AQ was fine, just because some can’t handle it... why should Kabam stop evolving the game because of that?

    Shrimkins wrote: »
    KhanMedina wrote: »
    I'm not thanking someone for fixing something that they broke.

    It's not about thanking them. It's about giving them credit where credit is due. They made a mistake, owned up to it, and fixed it in a relatively timely manner.

    Of course we would all prefer them to not make mistakes but that seems unlikely.

    Sentinels are still bugged in AQ. No kudos for Kabam.
  • ThatweirdguyThatweirdguy Posts: 670 ★★★
    This a very well thought out Kabam apologist post. It is also an example of lowered expectations. We are so used to there being problems that aren't fixed or take forever to fix/change that when a problem is fixed quickly people give them credit HAHA. This would never have happened if there was proper testing by people who actually played the game. Kudos should be given to the community for raising their voices and ignoring the people who said it was no big deal. I'm sure Kabam loves the post and probably that was your goal. Mission accomplished! :smile: It was well written though to your credit.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,032 ★★★
    They just missed the part that alliances that barely cleared milestones with symbis or the first batch of sentinels will miss them now, the points have been cut too much. So instead of harder difficulty and same rewards, now those who were cutting it close are having their rewards nerfed. It won't affect anyone who was at 105-124m, but those just reaching 100m+ or 125m+ have lost out. Even those who were just above 90 will feel it. Sucks for them, just another unforseen side effect of untested changes.
Sign In or Register to comment.