**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Comments
Simply put, it's evident the event is bad, given the feedback. If somewhere along the line my point got mixed up to imply this is the worst event ever, then apologies, it's never what I meant.
Grinds should be for getting rewards, not unlocking fun content.
Big failure when it's forcing me to slow down instead of working my normal pace.
Me personally I wouldn't care if they doubled it to fight 200 6* it's the end with sp that I have a problem with.
The bottom line is it's not unreasonable to put in some effort for Objectives. Are these extraneous? Yes. On the subject of Objectives overall, some just want to button-mash. I prefer to have something to think about as well.
In many ways, content in games like this functions less like a computer program, and more like a tower defense game. The developers can place things in certain places, but the game dictates what happens next. They can't arbitrarily tell the game what to do, nor can they always predict what will happen if they try to change the configuration of the towers once things are already in motion.
However the week 2 objectives are not just for one week. They are till Oct end. So all they'd really have to do it unlock week 3 and 4 for everyone irrespective of whether they did week 2 or not.
But beat them with final hit as light, medium, heavy, special.. That is not fun..
Consider the AQ start bug. The first person entering triggered the game component that announces AQ start. But AQ start was reprovisioned to include a timer to accommodate the new starting system. This caused the first person to enter to retrigger AQ start, which locked out everyone else until the timer expired a second time. Because this behavior is in the code not the AQ framework, it wasn't trivial to reconfigure to eliminate the behavior. Changing the underlying behavior alone could break the AQ framework sitting on top of it. So now you need to coordinate the work of two completely different people (at least) who are presumably otherwise engaged with other things.
So suppose you trigger those objectives early and it causes them to break for half the players. Do you now pull your engine developers off the task of continuing to work on refactoring the resource management systems that are the source of the memory leaks causing crashes? You can't just pull them off and put them back: there is spin up time to stop working on that and then get comfortable working on an entirely different system, and then when they return there will be spin up time again to settle back into what they were working on before.
All of this is tangled up in the "simple" solution. So now imagine you're a Kabam developer and you propose your simple solution internally, and a producer or manager presents this scenario to you and asks you what would *you* do if all this happens? How would *you* fix it? You can't: it is likely far outside your area of responsibilities. You'd be betting with other people's money at that point. Why would a producer give you the green light under these circumstances?
Arena is too monotonous and not fun for me. I like to play for an hour or 2 per day, really not interested in spending longer on the game.
I'll happily skip these crazy objectives and take that time to do other things.