Proof that the devs are not listening to the players.

andrewvanmarle

jimpark said:

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't halving everything (progression reward tiers/levels/requirements, boss health, etc) and then doubling the refresh timers to 8 hrs effectively make everything the same for everybody but increase quality of life, real life on the weekends. I feel like this would address the newer players and the more veteran players. Thoughts?

That should work!

Ohboy

jimpark said:

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't halving everything (progression reward tiers/levels/requirements, boss health, etc) and then doubling the refresh timers to 8 hrs effectively make everything the same for everybody but increase quality of life, real life on the weekends. I feel like this would address the newer players and the more veteran players. Thoughts?

Why stop there? Just give everyone rewards and base coalition competitiveness on a single round of pve. 

They want you to play for the rewards. In these games, you're not just the customer. You're the product. Not playing enough means you're not giving them enough value to keep you on as a player. 

Sarahschmara

jimpark said:

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't halving everything (progression reward tiers/levels/requirements, boss health, etc) and then doubling the refresh timers to 8 hrs effectively make everything the same for everybody but increase quality of life, real life on the weekends. I feel like this would address the newer players and the more veteran players. Thoughts?

You've got it exactly right. Most (but not all, apparently) of us preferred it when it was 450 for progression and eight hour recharges.

naphomci

Steeme said:

naphomci said:

Bigred5442 said:

I agree, but that is the argument for 4 hour refreshes, people want more tries at the harder nodes. Letting people use potions to try the nodes accomplishes the same thing, while reducing the number of games the top players have to play to stay competitive.

My god, it's like no one wants to acknowledge that 4 hour charges does not actually grant more attempts. 
If it switched to 8 hour recharge, the event would last twice as long as current, meaning you would get the same number of charges!
It really is not that complicated.

Less frequent charges may give you the same amount of charges, but they are spread out too thin.  You're also not taking into account the fact that dragging the event out for another couple days means it creeps into the work week.  So, your argumentation is based on the incorrect assumption that all players will be able to log in and play all their charges at any day of the week at any hour of the day.

People spent considerable effort arguing that 4 hours gives more attempts. This is not true.

And yes, it might creep into the work week. But, the 4 hour charges means that if you cannot play Saturday past noon, you miss out on the last several recharges. It's just annoying and tiring that people arguing for 4 hour recharges act as though it is 100% positive and ignore bad facts.

Your argument assumes that every player will be able to log in every 4 hours every Friday, Saturday, some some Sundays. 

And, pretending as though getting to replay node 1 every four hours is this grand, existential experience is plainly disingenuous. The nodes do not change--if you are arguing about timing of the content, there is another weekend event, and there are training grounds, both of which aren't against the same deck, same abilities, and same life total.

naphomci

Ohboy said:

This is absolutely correct. It seems people have amnesia the moment they manage to complete all pve events with ease. 

Even for the veterans... Do you not remember how many times you attempted ogw pve nodes? How pissed off would you have been if you couldn't move on to the next boss until you beat this one, and you got one attempt every 8 hours. 

And the math isn't as simple as naphomci makes it out to be. The formula is pretty simple. They want you to invest x amount of time in the game. You wanted them to reduce the number of days the event takes to complete. They have to up the frequency to compensate to maintain x. 

Furthermore, the event was also changed a while ago to have a definite end time(user campaigned). Less frequent recharges mean a higher probability that we get cut off. While established players feel the event grindy, newer and weaker players require those charges to attempt to hit progression. 

Take a break from your coalition and try building one of casual players. See how hard they have to try to hit progression. Walk a mile in their shoes.  It was much harder with 8h. My coalition had like a 20% rate of hitting max progression. Now I'm seeing a lot more people hitting it. 

First, as I have said before, I did not campaign for lessening the number of days. Second, there was always a "set" end time, it just wasn't displayed.

And your math 'formula' is wrong. If they reset to 8 hour recharges and changed nothing else, it would require the same "time investment." 

You seem to assume that I was never a causal player either. I spent the first several months of playing as a causal player, starting in February. I was hitting progression most of the time with the 8 hour recharges and a **** pool. If it had been 4 hour recharges then, I don't know if I would have kept playing. 

Ohboy

Argh yes some people don't mind x and some people don't mind Y.

But since x got changed Y has to compensate.

I don't know why you're arguing over the math. If they want you to play an average of 6 hours, they can make you do it over 6 days of 1 hour each or 3 days of 2 hours each. So yes, by campaigning to cut short the event length, it's campaigning to also increase the frequency. You can't  just say "I didn't mind x. Give me y and keep x". You have to say "OK x is stupid. Y is better. Kill x and give us y". 

naphomci

Ohboy said:

Argh yes some people don't mind x and some people don't mind Y.

But since x got changed Y has to compensate.

I don't know why you're arguing over the math. If they want you to play an average of 6 hours, they can make you do it over 6 days of 1 hour each or 3 days of 2 hours each. So yes, by campaigning to cut short the event length, it's campaigning to also increase the frequency. You can't  just say "I didn't mind x. Give me y and keep x". You have to say "OK x is stupid. Y is better. Kill x and give us y". 

Because you get to unilaterally decide what we are allowed to ask for?

A huge flaw with your "have to play X hours a day on the weekend thing" is the Planeswalker events. Those are 3 nodes, 8 hour recharge. So, about 1/18 to 1/15 the number of charges (considering that those have a fixed end time versus variable for the PvE).

Ohboy

I'm not deciding what you get to ask for. I'm saying that when something shifts, something else has to shift to accommodate it.

Which is why half the complaints on this forum lead to regret. They want something and assume everything else will stay the same. It's just not going to happen in any system.

If you didn't want more frequent recharges, you should have spoken out when people campaigned for shorter event times. You thought you didn't care either way, but now you realise you do...and you're unwilling to see the obvious connection between the two because that would mean you didn't do something when you could have. 

naphomci

Ohboy said:

I'm not deciding what you get to ask for. I'm saying that when something shifts, something else has to shift to accommodate it.

Which is why half the complaints on this forum lead to regret. They want something and assume everything else will stay the same. It's just not going to happen in any system.

If you didn't want more frequent recharges, you should have spoken out when people campaigned for shorter event times. You thought you didn't care either way, but now you realise you do...and you're unwilling to see the obvious connection between the two because that would mean you didn't do something when you could have. 

But you are claiming to decide what people get to ask for. Why does something have to shift, as you phrase it? They have made plenty of changes without some countervailing action that apparently perfectly balances it out.

There is no reason that they absolutely have to shift it. They could simply change one aspect, like they have done in the past.

Ohboy

Believe it or not, their objectives take precedence over the user's. And they do have objectives to hit. It's a happy coincidence when our needs coincide with theirs(for example ogw, where they were willing to seed the game to promote it and we got tons of free stuff) , but it doesn't happen all the time. So when making suggestions, you need to consider what's going to happen if the change you're hoping for will collide with their goals.

I never claim to say you can't ask for something. People make ill thought out demands all the time. Just look at occupy wall street. I do reserve the right to disagree with you. 

naphomci

Ohboy said:

Believe it or not, their objectives take precedence over the user's. And they do have objectives to hit. It's a happy coincidence when our needs coincide with theirs(for example ogw, where they were willing to seed the game to promote it and we got tons of free stuff) , but it doesn't happen all the time. So when making suggestions, you need to consider what's going to happen if the change you're hoping for will collide with their goals.

I never claim to say you can't ask for something. People make ill thought out demands all the time. Just look at occupy wall street. I do reserve the right to disagree with you. 

 Here is one example of you saying what we can and cannot ask for:

Ohboy said:

[. . .] You can't  just say "I didn't mind x. Give me y and keep x". You have to say "OK x is stupid. Y is better. Kill x and give us y". 

 That is just straight up saying we cannot ask for something.

I am fully aware of the fact that they are a business and they business objectives are paramount. I also have no actual knowledge of their business objectives, and you do not either. So, to claim, with absolute certainty, that a change has to be balanced is disingenuous. At some point, the players collectively desires should become a business objective, because it everyone in the game is bad mouthing it, it won't grow.

Phillmoore

but it isn't an collective desire as proven by this ongoing thread 

babar3355

Collective desire is not the same as a unanimous desire @Philmoore

naphomci

Phillmoore said:

but it isn't an collective desire as proven by this ongoing thread 

There are a handful of posters, posting a lot in this thread. Far more responded to the poll, which is still the only actual evidence of the issue.

Steeme

Start a new poll.  Times have changed.  Devs have changed.  Fire one up and give it another shot.

Phillmoore

Most players don't make it to the forums and those that do tend to be from the top teams.  So do you not think that any poll done here is likely to be skewed?

andrewvanmarle

Pure conjecture @Phillmoore, maybe brigby can give us insight in the numbers.

But to keep on that track: i expect that most at least moderatly active players  care enough to visit the forums once in a while. And  there are a lot more people here than in top forums, that argument is plain false

TheDragonHermit

Phillmoore said:

Most players don't make it to the forums and those that do tend to be from the top teams.  So do you not think that any poll done here is likely to be skewed?

That is part of the reason I would like to see account recovery tied to a forum account it could bring more players over to benefit from the tips and participate in the polls.

naphomci

Phillmoore said:

Most players don't make it to the forums and those that do tend to be from the top teams.  So do you not think that any poll done here is likely to be skewed?

As I have told you repeatedly, this poll is still the only evidence we have. It may not be perfect, but that does not mean we should outright dismiss as you so desperately want to.

shteev

Perhaps the greatest proof we have that the devs are not listening to the players is that a thread called 'Proof that the devs are not listening to the players' has been on the first page of the forum since mid July.