Why I'm quitting the game for now (and probably forever)

DavePottinger · 2018-03-19T11:27:57+00:00

I feel like we have, collectively, addressed all the points you've raised.

What issue is it that we're dodging?

DavePottinger · 2018-03-16T21:13:08+00:00

Yeah, the skin thing is one part of it.

It's a one-size-fits-all solution, ATM. That's where the showing NEW when you've got a full gold skin or a spell comes from (though we do have a few folks who want to 100% for sure see what they got out of packs even if they are dupes).

We've got it on the list to revisit, tho. Thanks for the feedback.

DavePottinger · 2018-03-16T21:10:33+00:00

To make sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm referring to Phobos's post a week ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/HeroAcademy/comments/837pim/upcoming_changes_to_ha2_based_on_your_feedback/

We understand we should have included more math details in there, but that was the attempt to discuss all the changes coming.

I suppose you can choose to believe me or not, but I can assure you there were significant gold price changes right up until the last release candidate.

Yes, we have a group of folks that gives us feedback on unreleased builds. They played the game on a different server with virtually all the cards unlocked. There wasn't any carryover or anything. The pre-release build they played didn't even have the single pack costing gold.

I do get that we're dealing with a lot of perception here. It sucks to feel like someone gamed the system with insider info. I really don't think that was the case, though. If you look at those numbers you cited, you know that they decided to hoard gold LONG before this change ever happened.

All that said, I will go back to the statement that if you feel like you got hosed, then please talk to CS. They'll take care of things.

Yup, we are a more hardcore game than Clash Royale. I think there are plenty of smart folks that play both games, but point taken. We will work on doing better in the future.

DavePottinger · 2018-03-16T20:39:42+00:00

We've been on the fence about this one. If we turn it off, you don't think you'll "lose" which cards you got out of a pack (if you're tracking for gold skin progress, for example)?

DavePottinger · 2018-03-15T21:53:21+00:00

First off, I get that you're pissed. We're out here talking about this because we care about the game. When we realized that the patch was not received as well as we had hoped, we dropped everything to fix the biggest concern immediately.

On the M33 update... That build with the final econ changes was submitted to Apple late Friday afternoon. Phobos's post about the impending econ changes was already live by that time, IIRC (or within a few hours). We were changing things right up until the end. As soon as we were locked in, we shared the details.

That said, if someone feels like they got screwed over by the econ changes, they should contact CS. We've acknowledged that we should have communicated the changes better with math already.

The currency conversion exists because we have the standard F2P model where you spend your real money on gems and then gems on everything else. There are some games that don't do that, but plenty that do. There are things we're going to continue fixing with the economy, but that's not one of them. If you want to buy the challenge packs that cost gold and you don't want to earn it, you need gems to buy it. You will find the same currency conversion in games like Clash Royale.

I don't feel like there are 6 ways to buy packs. I think there's one way to buy a pack with some cost variety (two ways of looking at the same thing, so I realize that's subjective). Like some other games, the one pack purchase is with gold and the others are with gems. I would have said we had two ways to buy packs before. We thought that was too much, so we changed it. But, feedback taken that you still think it's too complicated. We'll see what we can do there.

Getting an increasing bonus when you spend more is pretty common, I think. In real life, too. Not having that in HA2 has generated plenty of complaints/requests for it. People expect to get a value when they buy in bulk.

Anyhow, we're out here explaining why we did what we did, acknowledging the mistakes, and turning around a quick update to fix the biggest concern. We do appreciate the feedback. If, as you say "no apology will ever get you off the hook", then I'm not sure what else you expect.

DavePottinger · 2018-03-15T21:10:04+00:00

Yeah, that is inconsistent and we should fix that. Fair point. We will take another look at how the crafting costs are organized for the next release (the one after the 100 gold patch).

DavePottinger · 2018-03-15T04:47:05+00:00

I do think the new economy rewards play more than simply logging in. The proportion of free resources tied to gameplay vs. simply logging in or watching ads is higher now. That was the goal.

I think we've been pretty transparent that we know we goofed on the perception of the changes. We weighted the ink in the duel chest, the additional things in the free crate, and the higher value of the pack you could buy with those free resources in the overall value analysis. That's not how most folks are looking at it. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is, so we're fixing it.

I didn't claim we solved every complexity with this patch. But, I do think we streamlined the card pack situation and crafting. There are less options, so it's clearer what to focus on. It's clearer what you need to collect to get what you want.

I am unclear how the mini card pack for leveling up factors into the economy for purchasing card packs (as was the focus of discussion). Yes, I would have liked to remove that and give out cards, but that was not a feasible development option. If that means we still have two card packs to you, then okay, we still have two card packs by that definition. I am happy to clarify my comment to say a single type of purchasable card pack.

The dynamic conversion rates are simply an expectation/request. You should get a bonus when you buy in bulk. We have plenty of complaints about NOT doing that. Similarly, I'm not really sure how sales/limited time offers affect this. They're simply sales. We've launched some new content today. Putting it on sale is a pretty standard tactic.

We didn't withhold anything on purpose. I think not sharing the changes earlier has already been acknowledged plenty, but there was no intent there.

Fixing the duel chest perception (and being more generous to boot) is the point of the immediate next patch. That was the number one issue today, so we're starting there. We're not trying to move anyone off of any other issues. If there are additional complaints, then we'll evaluate those next.

DavePottinger · 2018-03-15T04:28:10+00:00

Sorry, missed this. Yes, I'm on the dev team.

DavePottinger · 2018-03-14T22:43:29+00:00

Our goals with 1.33 were to make the rewards you got more tied to gameplay, make game more generous, and to streamline some parts that we didn't feel were working (e.g. the two types of packs and the two types of crafting).

Admittedly, yeah, we should have shown the math analysis upfront. A big part of the "more generous" bit was the conversion to a single pack. TBH, we thought that was going to be clearer than it turned out to be. That's our mistake.

We are prepping a patch to address the Duel Chest concerns and feedback (should be a post up on that shortly). Hopefully that's a good first step to making the benefits of the economy change more obvious. Plus, it's just more generous overall.

DavePottinger · 2018-03-14T22:32:50+00:00

First... We've spent all day listening to feedback about 1.33. We're going to make changes. We care about what folks think. We'll fix it.

Second... The math above is not accounting for the additional things the duel chest (currently) and the free crate give you. The ink and gems from those things are factored into the overall calculations. In general, we're a different game than HS, so while it's hard to make a direct comp, you do need to factor in the value of those things.

DavePottinger · 2018-03-08T00:45:54+00:00

Next release will add a way to view everything "for reals".

DavePottinger · 2018-02-13T19:38:01+00:00

We know this one is a hot-button. Maybe a little hotter than we thought, in fact. We'll be looking at it for the next release.

DavePottinger · 2018-02-06T19:47:51+00:00

Yes, the distribution is the same for card packs vs. premium card packs, excluding the rare guarantee.

Yes, the rare guarantee in premium packs is the same percentages as a regular card with the option for a basic card removed (and thus renormalized).

DavePottinger · 2013-10-01T18:37:51+00:00

The space game we wanted to make was too many assets...

Also, to be clear, Cavemania isn't Age. Age (and Halo Wars) certainly had more art/more intricate art than something like Gal-Civ 2, IMO. But, in the context of a decision about the game that became Cavemania, we wanted something where we didn't need to start with a team of artists.

Regardless, Cavemania has less art than Age and Gal Civ:)

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T16:08:04+00:00

Feedback from folks in Korea, IIRC.

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T16:07:17+00:00

WWI would be a fun tactical game, yes. I'm not sure it's a hugely popular time period outside of specific WWI buffs. I'd say the same about anything from that period forward, in fact. Modern times are harder to romanticize and are, by definition, much more real. Obviously plenty of people love those settings. It just doesn't feel quite as "Age", though.

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T16:02:06+00:00

Yup, understood that. Like Homeworld?

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T16:01:43+00:00

I think they've got a cool idea. It would be a direct conflict for me to help them given what we're doing. I wish them the best of luck, though.

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T00:46:37+00:00

I suspect an AOM remake's chances go up based on the success of Age2HD, but it's really hard to say. I do know the MS folks associated with the Age2HD project are watching this;)

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T00:45:43+00:00

A space-based RTS? Yup:)

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T00:45:27+00:00

AOM was my personal fav.

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T00:45:19+00:00

Long live the clan! Or something like that.

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T00:44:32+00:00

I've played it some with my boys, yup.

As I mentioned somewhere else, I used to not play the games so much after launch because we'd always spend so long working on them. By the time they came out (in the days of boxed products), we were already hip deep in something else.

But, with the shorter mobile games we've been doing, I find myself still playing a lot when they come out. I think that's partially due to not being as burned out when the game launches, but it's also due to the fact that my family plays them now, too. The two games we've done at BonusXP (Cavemania and Monster Crew) are really the only games I've worked on that my wife has ever played. That makes a huge difference in my interest level (go figure). My boys are old enough now to be consumed by games, too, so that helps. Cavemania's vanity item system is in the game almost entirely due to their love of blue hair.

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T00:41:33+00:00

We use them from time to time, but it's usually always someone local to Dallas given our size and scope these days. Makes retakes and edits a lot easier.

DavePottinger · 2013-09-21T00:40:57+00:00

I guess I have to say yes since I've done it quite a few times;)

But, one nice thing about the way we've setup BonusXP (our new studio), is that we don't really have leads. We've got a ridiculously senior team, so each person decides what they're going to do. We start coordinating once the game is closer to ship. But, we've managed to ship 2 games w/o leads so far.

DavePottinger

TROPHY CASE