QnA discrepancies
Apparently sandbox mode would be too expensive and they aren't sure how much it would be used so aren't willing to do it. No surveys done on that so how can you make a 'data driven' decision there. ...
Forum Discussion
"PhatPat84;c-2096855" wrote:"Kyno;c-2096849" wrote:
They have explained where they are coming from with the "data", and they have other places where they monitor and talk with players.
agree or dont, they have some information about the situation. There are also other points that can be made:
- if a player has something going on IRL, anything not rewards based would probably be the first thing they dont play.
- not everyone will use it. plain and simple, a mode like this will without a doubt have the lowest % of interaction compared to modes that give rewards.
- unfortunately there is no "simple compromise", once it is in game people are going to ask for upgrades and QOL, its a game feature and it would need attention as time moves on. in for a penny in for a pound.
I think the last reason there is one of the main reasons we have been dragged on for a while with a maybe, and now its more of a hard no. At one point it was considered, but now the long term investment of resources is just not something they want to considering investing in, because it would start to limit their ability to put out content.
Think about it, since the JG has been introduced, how many times have you redone events just for something to play?
from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain.
This is disingenuous and misleading of you. You cannot say " how many times have you redone the events just for something to play" when we aren't asking for that.
how is this misleading or disingenuous?
how do you suggest they gauge interaction on a game mode that doesnt exist? just like any business out there my guess is that they extrapolate from existing information. i.e. - modes that have unlimited play and no rewards. No one, literally no one is saying it is a 1 for 1, but your reaction proves a point I was making:
- in for a penny in for a pound - what one players wants is not what another wants. a purely open fighting pit is a very complicated thing and once its a thing players will want it to be more than it is. no simple solution means that they need to be planning it for some "final evolution", and as they have said that is a huge investment and a UI/UX nightmare. that kind of investment will demand a lot of resources.
"PhatPat84;c-2096855" wrote:"Kyno;c-2096849" wrote:
They have explained where they are coming from with the "data", and they have other places where they monitor and talk with players.
agree or dont, they have some information about the situation. There are also other points that can be made:
- if a player has something going on IRL, anything not rewards based would probably be the first thing they dont play.
- not everyone will use it. plain and simple, a mode like this will without a doubt have the lowest % of interaction compared to modes that give rewards.
- unfortunately there is no "simple compromise", once it is in game people are going to ask for upgrades and QOL, its a game feature and it would need attention as time moves on. in for a penny in for a pound.
I think the last reason there is one of the main reasons we have been dragged on for a while with a maybe, and now its more of a hard no. At one point it was considered, but now the long term investment of resources is just not something they want to considering investing in, because it would start to limit their ability to put out content.
Think about it, since the JG has been introduced, how many times have you redone events just for something to play?
from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain.
Obviously this is about profit. Nothing else. So don't try and dress it up as
its obviously about a lot more than that, dont try to make it any less complicated than it actually is. literally nothing in business is that simple.
"PhatPat84;c-2096855" wrote:"Kyno;c-2096849" wrote:
They have explained where they are coming from with the "data", and they have other places where they monitor and talk with players.
agree or dont, they have some information about the situation. There are also other points that can be made:
- if a player has something going on IRL, anything not rewards based would probably be the first thing they dont play.
- not everyone will use it. plain and simple, a mode like this will without a doubt have the lowest % of interaction compared to modes that give rewards.
- unfortunately there is no "simple compromise", once it is in game people are going to ask for upgrades and QOL, its a game feature and it would need attention as time moves on. in for a penny in for a pound.
I think the last reason there is one of the main reasons we have been dragged on for a while with a maybe, and now its more of a hard no. At one point it was considered, but now the long term investment of resources is just not something they want to considering investing in, because it would start to limit their ability to put out content.
Think about it, since the JG has been introduced, how many times have you redone events just for something to play?
from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain.
It wouldn't cost a lot for them to do. And you mentioned that it would take away resources from other areas of the game.
Which ones exactly?
the way they have described it, they have 2 teams working on "new stuff" (this includes reworks and faction passes, event changes and such so not all "new")
these teams work in parallel and when one is releasing the other is working on the next thing and there seems to be a cycle. this would mean that some portion of those teams or maybe even one team would need to be committed to this, which would slow output on everything, its not just one thing that could suffer.
