Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 120

Thread: [Feedback] Dev Notes Weekly Challenges

  1. #31
    Settler kzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    115
    World
    Ares
    One recurrent problem is client communication. In the past, with PvP or the Black Knight event, BB created a hype but was unable to live up to the expectations. Black Knight event was supposed to be the greatest event ever, but it was just a prank, and PvP was supposed to be... PvP. With Weekly Challenges, players were expecting to be able to upgrade their population buildings on a "weekly" basis, but in most cases, it's just impossible.

    Surely, what people want to believe is not BB's fault, but somehow, BB knows that something went wrong and instead of admitting what was wrong or trying to improve the situation, BB offered "Winter Presents" and "Dev Notes". (This said, the use of "I" in the Dev notes sounds odd... It sounds as if everything was decided by one single individual. Or is it that one person is taking all the responsibility? Just a weird way to communicate...)

    Anyway, I would guess that the objective the Weekly Challenges was to increase the number of regular players in order to make more money. Therefore, the idea of "completely optional", albeit true, is totally absurd from a business perspective. If BB could have thousands more players to log in everyday for the sake of tokens, they would pass on, because of "rather challenging content"? It's not that tokens should be easy to get, it's just that PLAYERS ARE CLIENTS and the product is disappointing.
    Whence comest thou?

  2. #32
    Soldier
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    @ home
    Posts
    72
    World
    Ares
    Agreed kzar, weekly challenges will now be filed away in "The Library" ... or should I say with it.

  3. #33
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    32
    World
    Ares
    Quote Originally Posted by kzar View Post
    One recurrent problem is client communication. In the past, with PvP or the Black Knight event, BB created a hype but was unable to live up to the expectations. Black Knight event was supposed to be the greatest event ever, but it was just a prank, and PvP was supposed to be... PvP. With Weekly Challenges, players were expecting to be able to upgrade their population buildings on a "weekly" basis, but in most cases, it's just impossible.

    Surely, what people want to believe is not BB's fault, but somehow, BB knows that something went wrong and instead of admitting what was wrong or trying to improve the situation, BB offered "Winter Presents" and "Dev Notes". (This said, the use of "I" in the Dev notes sounds odd... It sounds as if everything was decided by one single individual. Or is it that one person is taking all the responsibility? Just a weird way to communicate...)

    Anyway, I would guess that the objective the Weekly Challenges was to increase the number of regular players in order to make more money. Therefore, the idea of "completely optional", albeit true, is totally absurd from a business perspective. If BB could have thousands more players to log in everyday for the sake of tokens, they would pass on, because of "rather challenging content"? It's not that tokens should be easy to get, it's just that PLAYERS ARE CLIENTS and the product is disappointing.
    +1

  4. #34
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    7
    World
    Ares
    One thing I have learned through this discussion is I don't want to level up and have the same experience as some of the other levels are talking about. So I decided not to spend real money on gems for a premium year, and gem pits which I was thinking of before. I will just keep coming and enjoying a bit of game play each week but that is it.

    I like the variety that the quest adds although I found it difficult to find the number of players required for all the cooperative adventures. It didn't take too much out of my barracks at this level, but I certainly won't be eager to level up. When eventually I do, I will probably stop doing the weekly quests.

  5. #35
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    World
    Zeus
    Quote Originally Posted by Raega View Post
    as i stated in the previous feedback thread, the problem is that it is farmable for many players in the 46-55 range... or at least it will be when the new guild market rolls out with Heart of the Wood for 270 guild coins. If you make it impossible to start a new one right away, and have all weekly challenges starting on the same day every week, then it may still cost a lot more for a high level player to collect tokens, but if he chooses to do so, he can get more per week.
    My idea doesnt seem to be gaining any traction, but I was thinking that additionally if the devs decided to make them a less crisis-similar feature, it might be wise to have them be like dailies but you know... weeklies. maybe with or without the "waiting" option if you keep working on the same one for more than a week.


    EDIT: my original post was longer, i edited for relevance, but I did also comment on what happens when you make 25% of the players search for the same adventures that already aren't particularly easy to acquire. I'm okay with multiple big hard adventures involved, just give us short lists of 2-4 adventures, instead of a "list" of 1

  6. #36
    Noble
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    345
    World
    Zeus
    Two thoughts:

    1) I am okay with producing a ton of troops, but can you split them 80% top line (recruits / bowmen / militia / swordsmen / mounted swordsmen / knights) and 20% other troops (any). Can we delegate less than all of the top line troops and all of the other troops. Reason: if we keep the adventure requirement high, most players bottleneck will be the barracks. Allow us to keep some of the top line troops produced for the adventures, as these are the ones that most commonly are lost. Troops like Besiegers are almost never lost, so I don't need to keep any of the ones produced. But having me make 450? That's a ridiculous number, my standing army (in a pop of 29K) is only 350-400. Well it was that until Pathfinder made me build 100 a few times.

    2) Adventure variation is needed. Right now we have four quest chains, requiring us to run the same four adventures or scenarios or coops. This is in addition to running anything needed for guild quests (today I had woodcutter) and Pathfinder (nothing this week, but let's think about the weeks you have to run Snake or Besieged, and then what about running Snow White or MCC for the # of times needed to build up those epic buildings and obtain the obsidian needed to get the good buildings there). And if your favorite adventure isn't on the list, but you are trying to play the new content, you could go weeks without running your favorite adventures trying to keep up.

    Suggestion - 10 total quest chains:
    Two for scenarios - complete any four scenarios / complete two of a specific scenario
    Two for co-ops - complete any four coops / complete two of a specific coop
    Five for missions - From complete any five adventures, four of a specific/available solo advent (Witch of the Swamp or Woodcutter), three of a more difficult list (Nords / Surprise Attack and First / Second / Third Thief), two even harder (any two Tailors or any two Wisdoms/Knowledges/Snakes/Besieged), or one specific end game (Betrayed / Heroic, Princess)
    One for ventures - for the top levels, this could be "complete any venture from the Snow White or Mountain Clan campaigns"

    That's ten different adventure options, so each one only comes up once every 10 weeks (or sooner, but that's on us if we're doing 2-3 challenges a week, not the devs).

    Anyway, sorry I rambled a bit, but I think the difficulty does not need to lessen at all, just the variation to reduce the stress on the barracks and specific advents.

  7. #37
    Veteran General
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    642
    World
    Ares
    Quote Originally Posted by KingHomer View Post
    Two thoughts:

    1) I am okay with producing a ton of troops, but can you split them 80% top line (recruits / bowmen / militia / swordsmen / mounted swordsmen / knights) and 20% other troops (any). Can we delegate less than all of the top line troops and all of the other troops. Reason: if we keep the adventure requirement high, most players bottleneck will be the barracks. Allow us to keep some of the top line troops produced for the adventures, as these are the ones that most commonly are lost. Troops like Besiegers are almost never lost, so I don't need to keep any of the ones produced. But having me make 450? That's a ridiculous number, my standing army (in a pop of 29K) is only 350-400. Well it was that until Pathfinder made me build 100 a few times.

    2) Adventure variation is needed. Right now we have four quest chains, requiring us to run the same four adventures or scenarios or coops. This is in addition to running anything needed for guild quests (today I had woodcutter) and Pathfinder (nothing this week, but let's think about the weeks you have to run Snake or Besieged, and then what about running Snow White or MCC for the # of times needed to build up those epic buildings and obtain the obsidian needed to get the good buildings there). And if your favorite adventure isn't on the list, but you are trying to play the new content, you could go weeks without running your favorite adventures trying to keep up.

    Suggestion - 10 total quest chains:
    Two for scenarios - complete any four scenarios / complete two of a specific scenario
    Two for co-ops - complete any four coops / complete two of a specific coop
    Five for missions - From complete any five adventures, four of a specific/available solo advent (Witch of the Swamp or Woodcutter), three of a more difficult list (Nords / Surprise Attack and First / Second / Third Thief), two even harder (any two Tailors or any two Wisdoms/Knowledges/Snakes/Besieged), or one specific end game (Betrayed / Heroic, Princess)
    One for ventures - for the top levels, this could be "complete any venture from the Snow White or Mountain Clan campaigns"

    That's ten different adventure options, so each one only comes up once every 10 weeks (or sooner, but that's on us if we're doing 2-3 challenges a week, not the devs).

    Anyway, sorry I rambled a bit, but I think the difficulty does not need to lessen at all, just the variation to reduce the stress on the barracks and specific advents.
    With a lvl 6 barracks buffed with a skunk alone you have no problem doing all 4 challenges in one week though in terms of that, so really doing one of these shouldn't be a problem in that regard at all. This is in the lvl 56-66 range but really in the 66 plus range I can't see why you would have a huge problem in that regard either because you have more buffs available to you.

    I would like to be able to select from the Evil Queen questline because as it is after this week I will just stop doing these challenges to work on that again since I don't have my farmyard yet.

    The best selection list suggestion I have seen was based on difficulty - lvl 56-66 could just select from adventures lvl 10 or higher in difficulty or ventures level 10 or higher. The 46-56 lvl 8 or higher.

    I would like to comment on your quest chains suggestions but I really don't understand what you are suggesting - surely a lvl 70 isn't going to get to choose from a witch of the swamp or a woodcutter ? Also your difficulty is off, woodcutter is 'harder' to do than surprise attacks or nords and the tailors as well for that matter. If it wasn't you wouldn't be suggesting the change in fact.

  8. #38
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3
    World
    Ares
    This idea may not be very popular, but have you considered giving the players the option of doing PvP adventures or regular adventures, as this may revive interest in PvP. At the very least I agree that we should be given a range of adventures rather then being told that we must do only this adventure to succeed.

  9. #39
    Soldier
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    74
    World
    Zeus
    BB_Alex, the overall concept and execution is thoughtful and interesting, and the introduction of tokens to increase populations in buildings where we did not expect it is terrific. Making it optional is great, for those weeks when we just don't want to redirect out resources.

    I would simply broaden the "adventures" category. The idea I liked best from players was to make the adventures fall in a difficulty category, e.g., run three adventures difficulty ten and up"--that, in and of itself, will get many players to push themselves that week. If you feel that is too broad, then at least give a few options for the adventures to be run, like "run three Ali Baba" or "run three of any combination of the following four adventures". For the quest chain with Whirlwind, well at least expand it to include all co-ops, as Tomb Raiders is popular and attainable, if you want to include co-ops as the category.

    That's my main recommendation. I'm happy to earn the tokens, and also happy to try the quest chains, plus feel okay ignoring them if I don't want to expend the time and resources.

    Thank you for the new content, regardless. It just needs a little tweakoning for our Happy Holiday seasonings!

    (I DO appreciate BB's ideas and work, very much!)

  10. #40
    Mayor RonEmpire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,316
    World
    Zeus
    spot on! I agree with the below

    Quote Originally Posted by TeaTime View Post
    Weekly Challenge is fine except for the following glaring issues, in my humble opinion.

    1.) Forced co-op map requirements is totally erroneous, as you have effectively removed the decision making of continuance, completely, from the owner of the challenge, and placed it in the hands of others.

    2.) Availability of mandatory adventures seems erroneous. This needs to be revamped as well. Not only is this a completely random drop from searches, with unbalanced odds, but it effectively again, removes the option to complete the challenge, from the owner if they cannot beg, borrow, buy, or get lucky enough to find them. Allow for some other manor of acquirement of necessary maps. Consider providing them in the challenge for free ( NON - Tradable ) ( i.e ,you click it to start it, no pixelated ownership of anything needed), or with a mini task (s), or consider purchasing them with map frags and/or resources. You have imposed a higher demand, but it appears the supply has not been adjusted with it.

    Again,the adventure maps availability, or should I say lack there of have totally impacted the current game economy in what I would consider a negative manner, due to the current structuring of the challenges.

    As a side note, if you want to encourage players to use forced co-op adventures more often, then perhaps you should consider addressing that issue as/in a separate manner entirely, instead of placing them in the weekly challenge, and fostering even more frustration with them, then already exists.

    In short, let the player/owner of the challenge have total control over the choice to proceed or quit, and remove the need for the "random adventure find" and "forced co-op" from it.

    Sincerely,
    An old returning player,
    Teatime

Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts