Datacrons and mental labor
I know this has been part of the conversation, but I don’t feel like it’s been a prominent enough one. For all the issues with Datacrons, I really think the biggest issue is the amount of additional mental labor.
I’m sure many will dismiss this as a concern and say they are happy to just take advantage of everyone else who sees this as a problem. But they are just too much of an extra layer of stuff to try to account for. It’s much to sort through in GAC and TW. Too much information, too may scenarios, too much planning. I’m not seeing any theorycrafting either with these. In GAC it just looks like load up Datacrons on D and wait to see if opponent bothers attacking or fails anywhere and then maybe try to counter attack for enough points to win. There’s much less nuance to the matches. And I’m in Kyber 1.
And unless Datacrons can get figured into GP somehow, TW matchmaking is going to be pretty wonky.
So I’m sure the data will say people are engaging. But not all engagement is the same. I engage every year with paying taxes, doesn’t mean I love them. I do what I have to. Datacron engagement seems to more like that. People are doing them because they have to, but they’re exhausted by them. The impact on gameplay has been negative overall. Regardless of the quantity of engagement the data shows, the qualitative part has to be accounted for. And qualitatively these things are a mess.
I’m deliberately avoiding the request from CG for specific and concrete feedback here. Because I think that misses the point. Regardless of how they get tweaked with material income changes, changes in power level, changes in GLs being included or not, they are just too much mental labor and not interesting enough to be worth the effort no matter how they get adjusted.
I’m sure many will dismiss this as a concern and say they are happy to just take advantage of everyone else who sees this as a problem. But they are just too much of an extra layer of stuff to try to account for. It’s much to sort through in GAC and TW. Too much information, too may scenarios, too much planning. I’m not seeing any theorycrafting either with these. In GAC it just looks like load up Datacrons on D and wait to see if opponent bothers attacking or fails anywhere and then maybe try to counter attack for enough points to win. There’s much less nuance to the matches. And I’m in Kyber 1.
And unless Datacrons can get figured into GP somehow, TW matchmaking is going to be pretty wonky.
So I’m sure the data will say people are engaging. But not all engagement is the same. I engage every year with paying taxes, doesn’t mean I love them. I do what I have to. Datacron engagement seems to more like that. People are doing them because they have to, but they’re exhausted by them. The impact on gameplay has been negative overall. Regardless of the quantity of engagement the data shows, the qualitative part has to be accounted for. And qualitatively these things are a mess.
I’m deliberately avoiding the request from CG for specific and concrete feedback here. Because I think that misses the point. Regardless of how they get tweaked with material income changes, changes in power level, changes in GLs being included or not, they are just too much mental labor and not interesting enough to be worth the effort no matter how they get adjusted.
