Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

Discussion about upcoming donation contest

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Discussion about upcoming donation contest
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
4/13/2024 19:26:18   
Grace Xisthrith
Member
 

I'm interested about discussing the donation contest this year. You may note it's quite early to be discussing it, and that's totally true. That being said, I brought something up for Frostvale in October one time on the forums, and I was told it was too late to make any changes at that point, so I'm starting early.

I think the donation contest format from last year has a lot of pros and cons, and I think having players discuss their views on the topic could provide useful information to the staff in how they plan to run this contest. With that being said, here are my opinions.

I think players designing sets to be recommended and put in game is really cool, particularly given it's exceptionally rare player suggestions make it in game, relative to the amount of releases each year. The one exception to this is the stat revamp, which featured a ton of player suggestions, but I don't have totally positive views about that in the first place... anyways, back on topic. Suggestions going into game are cool, and it's exciting.

The reality is that organized groups of players have consistently "won" the donation contest, having the most popular armor set suggestion become implemented in game. There's a variety of reasons for this, I'd propose the strongest ones are: staff are more likely to make items more players are vocally supportive of, more players working together on ideas means "better" ideas are likely to be made (debatable for sure, and depends on your definition of better), staff believe players are more likely to donate more and thereby spend more tokens if they have a very high chance of getting the items they want. I think there are pros and cons to this. I'd assume a majority of token purchases eventually feed into this event, and I assume if people weren't sure what items they were going to receive, there'd be a much lower quantity of donations. Those are both assumptions of course, and I could be wrong, but it's what I believe, and it is the basis my opinion that the pros for the AQ team of the donation contest being influenced by popularity of a suggested set outweigh the cons from their perspective. I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily, to be clear. I think we should be pretty happy the game is still going after all this time, and I personally think that despite some of my gripes and complaints, the AQ team can do whatever they want if they can keep the game running and fun 20 years later.

With that being said, I'd encourage staff to directly state this this year if that is going to be the case, and to have a poll of some kind 2-3 weeks before the donation ends. This would presumably not change the outcome, but it would be a more transparent process, and I think that's a big positive. Three things related to that poll. Firstly, only accounts older than 6 months should have their votes counted, so people can't influence the vote unfairly. I think that would solve most fake vote issues. Secondly, I'm led to believe there is a forums polling system although it hasn't been used in ages. If there isn't, then obviously there'd have to be another way to do a poll, or it would be impossible to have a poll. Thirdly, I think potentially the results of the poll should remain secret until after the donation window ends, so that players aren't motivated to stop donating if the set they don't want wins. You could also say publicizing the results of the poll would make players donate more, and that might be true, I'm not a psychology expert.

Now onto other topics. Last year, there was a donation set, a community set, and a second donation set. I encourage staff to take steps next year to not have two donation sets. I think this could be solved by not responding with a solution to player complaint within twenty four hours, among other things. Something like, "we see there's a lot of player frustration with the outcome of this donation contest, we'll meet as a team and have a game plan ready to address this issue next week," rather than immediately promising a second set the next day. Overall I think making two donation sets is bad because it adds a large amount of workload to an already busy schedule. Our last class revamp was 18 months ago for example.

Another potentially controversial opinion I have is that the format of the community set last year was an overall negative. Mermazon took a lot of time to make (it seemed from the player side at least) and was a pretty funky set. I think part of that comes from items being released the day after the threshold was hit. Delaying these by a week, or perhaps two, or perhaps all the way until the end of the donation contest, might mean a more coherent set is released. But, that's actually not my ideal situation. My ideal would be having community rewards being something that takes relatively little dev time to implement. One big fancy player suggested set is complicated enough, but adding a second set on top is more workload, that again I think could be lightened. My proposal for an alternative, less dev time intensive, but still rewarding for players community goal is described below.

Quite simply, instead of making brand new items, return old items and make them accessible to everyone, just like Mermazon is to all players. I know there's been a lot of promises about rare items this and no returns on items that, but being so real, it's 2024. How many people are gonna be mad if an eleswapped conjure shadow spell comes out, or an eleswapped cometfall recolor is rereleased. Or not even eleswapped, just give the old ones a rare tag in the character page. All in all, what I'm trying to say is, the pros of saving dev hours returning old items, making new players happy returning old items, and the fun of returning old well loved items, greatly outweigh the cons of returning old items.

As for more details, I think the easiest way to do that would be to start an item clone thread, like the one LK started a while back to ease up dev time for new releases. This thread could be limited to rare items, or just have items of any kind (new or old) that people want cloned or eleswapped and given as community rewards. Limit each player to three suggestions, pick the most popular one of every item category, and call it a day. People would be able to vote, more players would have a chance to actually influence what items are given out from the donation contest (unlike the donation set, where it's a popularity contest and if you don't like it you've got next to no chance, or so I currently believe). So to summarize, instead of making a brand new set, I think devs should have players open up about what older items they'd like to see return or have elemental clones of, and add those in as threshold rewards instead, thus saving dev time, giving more players agency in the donation contest, and still motivating players to donate more.

Finally, let's say hypothetically, the art for the community set is already done. I think that's awesome and I love the AQ artists, but I don't think the art being done should necessarily force the coders into making a set out of it immediately. Depending on the situation, could it be totally possible to release the set later in the year (as frostvale items potentially? Or GGBs? Or the summer quest saga?) and not pump all the dev hours into the donation contest. If that's impossible though, then of course a lot of my suggestions would be out the window.

These are my opinions, I'd love to see discussion, and I wonder what ideas other players agree and disagree with. Let's have a polite discussion everybody!
AQ  Post #: 1
4/13/2024 20:04:13   
Sapphire
Member

Community Set

Yeah it was a mistake to release each of the tiered items as you obtained the goal, but only if the ideas for them were not really planned in advance and were more or less thought of in the moment. The set could have been planned in advance and just was a badly designed set for all we know. So I'm not so sure the notion that it was piecemealed actually happened, although could very well have been the case. The issue is in my estimation is that they asked for ideas and one of two outcomes occurred. Either A. They took random ideas and tried to make something that was cohesive, but didn't end up that way. or B. They ignored the ideas completely and did their own thing. Either way that set is a hot mess. The kicker for me was the stretch goal spell was a clone of the options from Tritent, and the supposed "offensive pet" isn't actually offensive. Those 2 stretch goal items are horrendous. I'm not calling staff lazy, but the spell design being a clone of something on the same set feels lazy. The entire thing still needs a redesign that may never happen, now.


For this year, I would suggest that staff propose a theme for this set. They could say "heal poison, heal resist, and water freeze" and then let the player base design items based on that theme. Or they could offer 2-3 themes and let the players design ideas. Then, as we progress through the contest, then ask which idea or theme seems to be the most popular. Since the community set is for everyone, there wouldn't be any influence from "whales" or "groups" (outside the typical support gathering operations that go on) Then staff would maybe narrow it down to top 2 or 3 and they would decide. Or they could narrow it down to top from each themes....and The entire time, letting it be known that staff will ultimately decide. There would ultimately be some widespread support for their decision somehow. Then at the end, make the items.


Token Contest


This should be based on what those who spend the most prefer, as it has always been. There is a necessary 'evil' that's baked in, but this approach "keeps the lights on". You could have 50 players all not in the top 50 that all support some random set, but it would make literally zero sense to choose that set because they didn't contribute to "keeping the lights on" as much as those in the top 50 did. I would even so much as say it's not even about the top 50, but maybe more or less about the top 10. If you "play the game" (10 chars all at L25+, and each winning 1 battle/day) you can win enough tokens to redonate to make top 50, not spending much if at all) In a sense, it's whales (the biggest ones) dictating the foundational ideas of the items through their support of the game. This might sound bad to some, but I assure you it likely makes sense to the vast majority of people.


Some will claim that an individual ( or a very small group) have such large influence that it's unfair. Well, the reality is that there was an attempt to bring many people together to flesh out a compromised and collective idea at a late stage in the contest, and some refused to contribute or were unwilling to be apart of it. If there had been an actual willingness to collab then the debacle that occurred wouldn't have occurred.

So I think this year collabs just need not wait. Even if there are several. And we'll see.
Post #: 2
4/13/2024 20:20:47   
Dardiel
Member

I have thoughts on specifically the player suggestion aspect so I'll just focus on that, my opinions on the rest are largely neutral aside from a general vibe of "communication could help avoid some problems if there's a chance to communicate ahead of time, but I'm not staff so I don't know what is and isn't reasonable".

Regarding player suggestions making it in via the set(s) - I agree that player suggestions getting into the game are great. They often feel fresh since the players making the suggestions will typically have at least a slightly different view of the game from the devs (which means the resulting items can have fun little quirks). I might be a bit biased about it though, since I'm one of many players that loves to make suggestions.

I personally would be interested in considering how it might go if the "set" was split into individual golden dev tickets (ie "you get to design this one item from the set") where the winners are allowed to collaborate with each other / the community but aren't required to. It would give higher highs (players now get to point at items and say "I designed that", there'd be more variety in items so players are more likely to get at least one item they like rather than 2-5 items that are all designed around the same mechanics that they may or may not like, and there'd be less politics around the suggestions) but I could imagine some discontent as well (such as if a player makes something bad out of spite).
Post #: 3
4/14/2024 0:05:04   
Aura Knight
Member

Lack of new rewards will do more harm than good. If these type of events are planned, there's surely time set for the rewards to be made and if there are delays, we'll wait.

Goals to unlock rewards are fine if there's worthwhile incentive. Staff could, for example, offer multiple effects and to get access to those we reach x amount of gold or tokens. Rather than lock rewards themselves to the milestones meant to be reached we put the power of the items on the line. Ideally the final set would be used by everyone.

Regarding details for what sets could offer, all feedback should be from forums. It's too obvious the issues elsewhere will never allow for true collaboration but this place could work provided there's no interference.
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 4
4/14/2024 10:24:57   
1stClassGenesis
Member

quote:

You may note it's quite early to be discussing it, and that's totally true.


On the contrary, Grace Xisthrith, I would say that you are several months too late to the discussion. The dumpster fire of a thread last year was quarantined to let staff discuss what improvements could be made for the next implementation. It is a shame you created your forums account way too late (in my opinion) to voice your opinion on this particular topic on the forums.

Not that I'm dismissing this thread, but it would be excellent if the staff could let us know if there is/are any aspect(s) in particular (regarding the donation event) they would like us to focus on, rather than have players rambling on about how they want future implementations to look like as a whole.
Post #: 5
4/14/2024 23:24:34   
Grace Xisthrith
Member
 

Some very interesting ideas:

Sapphire: I generally agree with you on both points. I do think returning rares to save dev time instead of making a whole new set would still be great. My goal in that idea is opening up more dev time for permanent releases, like classes and quest revamps, is always a good thing, since those are two of my favorite types of updates.

Dardiel: I think the golden ticket idea is interesting. If I'm reading you right though, I'm not sure how these would be distributed, and honestly I don't think there's a good way necessarily, I think giving it to the top X donators probably is more isolating than the current system. That being said though, having more suggestions for individual items would probably increase the diversity of items and ideas on the suggestions post. To that end, what would you think if they made a rule each player in the suggestion post could only suggest one item, not a full set? Players could still coordinate and work together to recommend a full set, but I'd assume that would leave more individual and different ideas on the thread than there have been in the past. I haven't really thought it through how that would work out though, so I'm not sure it would accomplish the goal or just make it roundabout for players working together.

Aura: That's pretty fair, my opinion is still that I do think some older items returning could bring back a lot of hype, maybe more than new items could, but I'm sure it wouldn't be that way for everyone. As for what the sets can do feedback being only taken on the forums, I think that's a great policy and has been entirely true in the past (with the notable potential exception of mermazon item reworks in a third party discord, but those never ended up going live minus the shield, which I believe I actually suggested, so I can't throw blame about that), so they should continue that.

1stClassGenesis: You may be right to be honest, if they delayed the GGBs till August, presumably they know the schedule until then. That being said, I don't actually remember the thread you're talking about from last year. Was it a thread separate from the suggestion threads themselves? If so, could you link it? I'd be curious to read. About your second point though, I think staff direction on feedback like this could be really helpful. If for example, they had some policies about donation they weren't willing to change, like top 50 thresholds, a brand new community set, but were open to change on other topics, like release dates of items or how much suggestion influence players have, it would be great to know to focus feedback there. Obviously those are hypothetical, but I think you're totally right having staff direction to focus feedback on the process would be great
AQ  Post #: 6
4/15/2024 0:47:56   
1stClassGenesis
Member

As mentioned, it was quarantined and as such, no longer available.

This link captures the first 26 responses. This link captures the last response. Unfortunately (or fortunately), I am not able to locate the portions in-between, which held far more contentious bits.

Forum user aq DarkKnight might be able to provide the bits I missed.
Post #: 7
4/16/2024 0:38:06   
Aura Knight
Member

quote:

That's pretty fair, my opinion is still that I do think some older items returning could bring back a lot of hype, maybe more than new items could, but I'm sure it wouldn't be that way for everyone.

The impact of returning rewards needs to be considered. The high numbers reached each time are powered by player greed. If there's something exclusive to gain you can bet there will be more effort to get it. By making it so rewards will be repeated, the sense of urgency which previously was there will be lost which hurts donations themselves. I can't say the chance to get what was missed wouldn't help sometime but such a benefit should be offered sparingly.

AQ DF AQW  Post #: 8
4/16/2024 18:58:45   
Grace Xisthrith
Member
 

Ah I see, thanks for linking those parts of the thread, I read them. I mostly remembered that thread as discussing wingweaver and wishweaver, so I hope discussion on mermazon and other community sets can be unique here. I vaguely remember that thread was mostly reactionary and an immediate discussion following the whole debacle, so I hope some fresh discussion can be productive. Maybe it won't though who knows
AQ  Post #: 9
4/17/2024 6:16:44   
legendd
Member
 

It will be interesting if Devs agree to poll for transparency. This sets as precedent as some would say.
Post #: 10
4/17/2024 20:09:22   
Sapphire
Member

Don't like the idea of cloning rares to be the rewards for the gold drive.

Most old rares have been power crept and there's VERY few individual items that I'd personally like to see. What I'd like to see is different than Susie Q and Johnny B, anyway, and it's somewhat based on what we already own or don't own.


I'd like to maybe see an in individual misc from 2018, and a pet from 2019, and a shield from 2017, and a spell from 2020...etc but do these actually go together in a set form? No. They'd have to do the whole old, boring set.

There is nothing wrong with making functional clones here and there, but will they even be re-evaluated much like the Dev ticket stuff? Those nerfs effectively lessened the excitement. So yeah let's bring an idea back just to nerf it for the entire playerbase who has the original.

IDk, I see lots of issues with that idea ...at least making it the gold drive set.
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Discussion about upcoming donation contest
Jump to:



Advertisement




Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition