Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion



Message

KhalJJ -> Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 6:54:34)

Firstly, apologies if this is in the wrong place. Happy for it to be moved wherever is appropriate.

With that out of the way, this is essentially a request for a refund/UR swap for all players affected by Warcaster staff changes. (with some hopefully constructive/interesting discussion). I am personally extremely disappointed with how this has played out.

I have been, and still am, completely pro- staff making changes to items that contain errors, and have contributed significantly to reporting these (eg. recent reign set items, bloodthirsty sharkicane). I fully understand that the team is small, and even if the team was larger, sometimes stuff like that happens - that is completely understandable and I still think the staff do a good job. I think player input in this way can be extremely helpful to staff, spotting bugs and reporting them.

This bugged/premium-item-changes discussion is exhaustingly recurring, for both players and staff, and the intention here is *not* to open up a wider discussion about this, despite it obviously being a very relevant contributing factor, and despite something badly needing to change regarding staff public communications. Please do not use this thread as an excuse to discuss that, if you wish to do so, please take it elsewhere. Possibly there is more to say on this topic, but I am not sure, as similar was extensively discussed here: https://forums2.battleon.com/f/tm.asp?m=22405425



The main point I want to argue here is that it is completely reasonable for any player who feels upset by the recent warcaster change to be able to either a) receive a UR box refund or b) swap the item for another UR.



I request this specifically because the staff have made an unannounced change that I assume they now want to stick with, but my actual preferred outcome would be for Warcaster to have retained its all-element style effect/use-case.


I'm aware I have made some of these arguments elsewhere but gathering them all here for ease. Also removing any names, not sure if I have to do this but feels so?

The reasons I feel so strongly about this are:

1. I feel strongly that a player can have done “everything right” and still have been burned badly by this. By “everything right” I mean, being an active/involved/social player and doing research, and waiting a long time to see if there are any bugs/issues with the item. I outline the timeline below to explain this:
- Warcaster was released 17/05 2024. The “any spell” nature of the effect was immediately known, and commented on, by at least a couple posters on the very same day *in the release thread*. There was no staff comment on this in the thread.
- 21/05 2024: messages posted in unofficial discord state: “Ok, idk about anything else but *staff member* just said *they* doesn't want to make it so that they only affect water/ice spells so whatever else we're keeping that functionality and boosting on them for all damaging spells.” with a screenshot attached then of DMs between the user and the staff member, quote: “I mean, I’m not going to make the burn /etc follow spell element or be harm/non-elemental, and making the effect only apply to water/ice spells feels like a step back, so *emoji*”. A conversation continues for a short time, and another staff member speaks in the discord 6 minutes from the final message on this. Despite this staff presence, there is no further staff comment on this at this time.
- 3/07 2024: discord user in unofficial discord: “warcaster is pretty much strictly worse overall than magus staff” (included to highlight differing perceptions of what constitutes OP/broken items)
- No further staff input, until this month, when discussions arose from a GBI post (6/12 2024), and a forums member requested Warcaster be changed (6/12 2024) and in follw-up a staff member clarified ( publicly on the forums, and in discord(s?)) that the original warcaster effect was due to a miscommunication.
- 17/12 2024 - *7 months* later - warcaster changed.
So, to summarise possible situations:
- if you weren’t in the unofficial discord, you would not be aware of this at all. That’s enough for me personally to justify refunds, given the time left between now and then, even being excessively cautious, you would feel reasonably safe.
- If you were in the unofficial discord (and follow it religiously enough), this is arguably even worse. Yes, you are kind of initially aware that something funky might be going on, but then you immediately get *explicit staff reassurance* that the item is ok/going to remain multi-elemental, and hear nothing more on this for many months.

2. I feel strongly that this fundamentally changes the use-case of the weapon. I feel this is obvious for any player who has used it regularly - it is pseudo-compression, and enables inventory versatility. Essentially, if I need to re-jig my inventory significantly I’d argue that the use case has changed significantly, otherwise why would I need to re-jig the inventory? General-spellboost vs element-specific spellboost is a fundamentally different use-case. The whole reason I purchased it was to enable spell inventory flexibility and interesting combinations, which is now completely removed.


3. I have personally recommended warcaster (and have seen many others recommend it throughout the community) specifically because of the above use-case, and also due to the (imo justified) perception that it would not be changed. I feel very bad for doing so. I did the same for Nightmare Gown package, but I think that case is quite different given a) the timeline of events and b) no staff comment saying that it would remain in its current state. Aside from the obvious, this not being a very healthy state for the game (I am strongly disincentivised from recommending *any* premium item), I feel I am making this request on behalf of anyone who took my advice.



TL/DR: To summarise, the length of time combined with explicit staff communication on the issue means I believe any player feeling aggrieved should be able to refund/UR swap for Warcaster, barring any reversion to the original.


Of course, I can only speak from my own perspective/experiences, so I would encourage anyone else even with dissenting views to contribute here.



As an addendum, I really do believe an item like the original warcaster staff (procs on any spell but tied to an elemental resistance) is a net positive for the game, there is interesting extra design space there, and there is (somewhat) interesting discussion to be had about the appropriate penalty for such an effect (to ensure single-element boosters still feel useable in comparison).

Dev Anim: You post is acknowledged, and I will be raising this to Hollow.
Mod Anim: Locking temporarily - KhalJJ has fully documented the timeline, no further info is required before making a decision. I shall update and unlock when we have an update.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 7:44:13)

While you have every right to be upset about nerfs that affect items you own, I can't in good conscience support this proposal when:
  • Items get retroactively updated all the time. For example, in the very same batch of changes as Warcaster, updates are made to Book of Love, an item that was released over a year earlier than it.
  • This isn't a situation like Tribal Shaman, where the updated version fundamentally altered the build that the original catered to from player oriented damage to companions. Warcaster still caters to spellcaster mages, that has not changed. Even if you consider that qualifier to be insufficient, the item still provided greater benefit Ice/Water spells before the change due to its elemental modifier.
  • The item still provides the same level of status power it provided before, albeit on fewer spells. This is considered a strong effect; the item is far from useless now.

    To reiterate, I fully understand the frustration. Bugs suck, and they should be fixed as soon as possible to avoid this kind of problem. It's why Warcaster has been the subject of bug reports in the past. Nonetheless, agreeing to this request would be opening Pandora's box. There have been myriad changes to other items that are more severe and fall closer to the line of "build-changing" than Warcaster does, and they haven't been compensated. For example, Dunamis/ Thernda/ Poelala have been modified a number of times over the years to include increasing amounts of CHA in their power calculations. Should they be refunded? Their power boost was decreased and they began to orient more towards beast builds given the inclusion of CHA. Don't they have an even stronger case than Warcaster does based on these metrics?

    The staff reserve the right to modify items after release for the purposes of balance/fairness/utility/etc.. As long as they (i) don't make the item functionally useless and (ii) don't fundamentally change who the item is designed to cater to, there's no compelling case for a refund/compensation. Warcaster fits neither of those criteria.



    • dizzle -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 8:11:55)

    Wow Warcaster actually nerfed to move away from what ultimately became its selling point. Wild and unacceptable behavior from the developers. To release an item that’s bugged, be notified of the bug immediately and determine it doesn’t need changed. Then come backs months later and finally get to the bug because now it’s an issue you finally have time to tackle? After everyone already bought their copies? Yea yes ToS staff retain the right change any item they want. What does this statement nerf make to the players? Catch me not spending on a dime on this game again. Not because I don’t want to support it, but because I cannot in good conscience spend my money on something when the developers constantly contradict themselves regarding balance and bug fixes. Highly disappointed in the devs. I won’t ask for a refund, I’ll ask for you guys specifically (the developers) to be better.



    Bu Kek Siansu -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 8:46:17)

    http://forums2.battleon.com/f/fb.asp?m=22419919
    quote:

    The main point I want to argue here is that it is completely reasonable for any player who feels upset by the recent warcaster change to be able to either a) receive a UR box refund or b) swap the item for another UR.


    quote:

    a) receive a UR box refund


    If I'm not wrong, I think this first one is doable.
    You just need to send a PM to one of AQ Team,
    tell to the point an UR refund in exchange for the item
    you don't want because of the reason you mentioned.
    Then you wait a reply and/or until it has been solved.

    If I'm wrong in this case, my apologies to both sides.

    Thank you.




    sujin6614 -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 9:41:32)

    Im not even mad at this point just disappointed. You guys act like we have many UR ggb to waste. Tsk Tsk

    I can understand the sentiment of having the item be changed, however while I take this internally for review comments like this aren't too helpful. Thus locking for the moment.

    Be back soon with an update.(Locked) ~Anim



    Lorekeeper -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 11:24:28)

    It must be stressed that this was not a change made in isolation or something we "suddenly" had time for.

    Because of our workload, fixes and any kind of balance change are best timed according to a set of criteria:

  • Recent release of the item: If something isn't caught before release, the ideal timing is when the item is recent and code is fresh in memory.
  • Relevance to the code of another project or item: If the item wasn't caught quickly enough, and we're very busy (Such as in weeks that can't be delayed or having a hard time allotting quick fix time to anything not game breaking), the best timing is when the same code or something very similar is used in another item.
  • If all else fails, or if the changes would amount to a full item redesign, then we most likely have to backlog the issue and make time for a dedicated fix in the future.

    In the full changelog, one can see that this is exactly what happened with Warcaster. The reason it was changed when it was is that the same error happened with a different item, meeting the first criterion for that item and the second one for Warcaster.

    However, on the matter of communication, there's definitely an issue to clarify here, but there is also a lot of missing context that is very strange to exclude. Let's take the activity list from the top.



    17/05/2024
    To begin with, I typically try to stay around after a release to catch any issues that get missed in testing, but I genuinely did not have the time during May and later months. I was around increasingly inconsistently due to a situation detailed below. This is why the initial issue was missed.

    On the matter of a staff DM, it must be pointed out that a statement from one staff member that they personally do or don't wish to do something is not a statement of team consensus. However, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and anything that could cause a player to feel misled in their purchases, we can have an internal discussion about avoiding any such ambiguity.


    21/05/2024


    quote:

    A conversation continues for a short time, and another staff member speaks in the discord 6 minutes from the final message on this. Despite this staff presence, there is no further staff comment on this at this time.


    I am compelled to bring up the context missing from this vague statement, because it entirely redraws the situation. Six minutes after a conversation on this matter, ten messages (Enough to not be visible when not on fullscreen) below the paste of a screenshot of a staff DM, I stopped by to make the following message. (Mind the different date format)

    quote:

    Lorekeeper — 5/21/24, 4:09 PM
    Had to go for a bit while my connection was worked on. There was another issue with the background change, Ianthe is working on it.


    I was not participating in or even aware of the nature of the prior conversation, I was alerting players that I'd lost connectivity while bug testing and issued a quick update before going right back to it. My prior activity before then was around an hour and a half before:

    quote:

    Lorekeeper — 5/21/24, 2:31 PM
    I was asking just that, then Hollow was a boss and fixed it himself.



    Just in case, to give full benefit of the doubt, I doublechecked in case this was because of a different conversation or a different staff member. Though timezone differences are a factor, if I search the Gogg's Tavern server "during: 2024-05-21" criteria and from: (Any staff account) terms, it can be easily narrowed down that only "during: 2024-05-21 from: aq_lorekeeper " yields results. That is to say, for a 24 hour timespan, I was the only staff member who spoke in that server.

    And earlier on that same day, I also said this:

    quote:

    Lorekeeper — 5/21/24, 11:07 AM
    If there truly has been an uptick in bug count or slowdown in response time that we haven't noticed this year, I can take responsibility. I normally try to make myself available to test and identify such issues, and while this doesn't make a massive difference for smaller releases, it's very important for quest sized ones.

    I have been unable to spare the free time to do this of late on account of having next to none for reasons including pneumonia, kidney stones, family matters, and severe pet issues.

    I don't say this to request sympathy, but because I feel my excessive stoicism has hurt the conversation.


    With the vagueness removed, hopefully we can give each other some benefit of the doubt on missing conversations that we weren't around for. I really didn't want to dredge that time back up, but this is what comes up if one tries to do their minimum due diligence in corroborating the statements in the OP, as detailed above. That is why I wasn't around to even notice a lot of issues.


    6/12/2024

    Because of all of the aforementioned details, and the hard-to-overstate impact of the extra workload caused by the summer gifting contest crisis, this is the first point at which I was fully aware of the situation. I then looked for a possible source of the issue and found that I never mentioned the effect's element when writing the suggestion for the mechanics, and commented as much n this reply.




    In Conclusion


    We can strive to strip ambiguity from communication, both publicly and when responding to DMs, so that we don't lead player expectations astray if the line between intent and consensus seems blurry as information passes hands. I will relay the feedback of the situation, and poke Hollow about the core premise of the thread.

    However, I must also put my foot down and ask for some good faith in return. Never strip away the context when presenting a list of staff activity to support a point. A damning summary that strips out essential circumstances and the information necessary to corroborate it is, by the most positive stretch, a disappointing breach in benefit of the doubt.



    • Aura Knight -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 12:34:15)

    *Snipped. Please see PM's. ~Anim

    I'm not particularly upset with this update but it does bring up the point of concern over effect uncertainties as well as location placement among the ggb shops. Sometimes it feels the ultrarare section is overloaded for the purpose of forcing box purchases when some items there can go in lower box tiers. You can't expect acceptance of potential predatory purchase methods then no pushback at unexpected changes.

    In an ideal scenario, all purchases would be allowed trial use periods in which you get an hour to test things with the option to swap for another. This can happen one time per item. Such an option helps players test things while not committing to purchases in case of bugs.



    KhalJJ -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 16:24:46)

    Okay, I'll try to be concise and address/add all the things that have come up.

    1) Lorekeeper specifically - I want to make abundantly clear that I am not targeting you in any way (partly why I removed names) nor am I trying to imply that you are being untruthful in any of this - I fully believe you. The "6 minutes" point was part of a wider point (supported more strongly by the point that the multi-elemental nature was mentioned by players in the forum post of warcaster's release) that it was highly reasonable for a player to believe that staff were aware of this effect being in this state (and hence implicitly okay with it being like this).

    Again, i fully believe LK, but that does not matter re: the point I'm trying to make there - that it was fully reasonable for a player to believe that staff, generally, were aware of and okay with the then-state of Warcaster - whether any specific staff actually were aware is immaterial to the reasonable belief of the player; does that clarify? I was just also trying to provide accurate information as to what was discussed at the time.

    Point taken on, one staff view not being representative of consensus, and agreed, that is fair.


    2) Addressing one of chaotics examples (and okay that we disagree) - Book of Love? Really? a 5% power change is comparable to this change in your view? Okay, but I figure most would disagree. The weapon has become <1/8th as applicable (all 8 elements + non-elemental). Further to this, extra sad that this change means we have no spellboost weapons for non-elemental spells. Hopefully that is something that can happen in some form.

    3) Additional supporting detail - this is not the first time warcaster was changed. It got a math sweep at one point( on this page: https://forums2.battleon.com/f/tm.asp?m=22409891&mpage=2&key= ). The fact that this occurred, without element coming up, gives further solidity to a player belief that the elemental effect would not change (ie it got a lookover already and could reasonably be believed to have been okay'd).

    4) I raised the point in the GBI thread but I feel it has been ignored, Glory's Brilliance / Dominion's Brilliance also works in this way... should probably sort them all for consistency if this is the path.



    NightofLight -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 16:45:08)

    I think there is an issue with the recent warcaster change with it paying sp to allow its bonus to affect other elements, other omni element like effects usually tend to effect the main elements as well if theres not a toggle for it, warcasters penalty should also probably apply to its main elements as well or add another toggle to the weapon to compress this effect. Im kind of worried about this turning into another cutlass situation and we should hold items accountable.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 17:01:10)

    @KhalJJ The point was not to raise what changed, but rather that it did change. I highly doubt that anyone will have a problem with +5% damage, but it was a retroactive update nonetheless. There are plenty of others I could have pointed out (for example Dunamis/Thernda/Poelala in the same post, if you prefer).



    Branl -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 17:04:14)

    I think it's fine, however:
    1) This isn't the first change done immediately after the onset of TOS breaking behavior that gets multiple threads locked. At this point, with the absence of any accountability and the appearance that massive protests insulting players and staff alike can effect game development, I can't really put the blame on players for GBIs regularly turning into cage fights. If they are given the perception that it works... they will simply keep doing it.

    2) Should other spell boosting staffs work this way? There's no real penalty to a staff paying more sp to cover all elements as opposed to not being able to cover any but one element to begin with. This could further the need for yet another new standard for single boosting items so stuff like warcaster isn't just uniformly better than everything else. Or Future spellboosters can also follow this model.

    3) I caution the reliance on (HP/MP/SP) costs to avoid damage penalties when it comes to items that need them. This is a very expensive effect, sure, but it won't feel like it if the staff truly has any plans to handle resource generation/healing/EO and items like it. It's sort of pushing the negative reception to those GBIs, which are already contentious enough without dumping a bunch of other issues on them.

    The change itself is whatever, the potential ramifications are yikes.



    The Shadowmaster -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 17:38:26)

    Will panic still scale on ice/water resist? It's kinda expensive, werepyre's panic doesn't scale on anything and it cost less and its also qc.



    Bu Kek Siansu -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/17/2024 18:06:46)

    Just to add this: http://forums2.battleon.com/f/fb.asp?m=22419932

    Warcaster Staves Update





    KhalJJ -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/18/2024 13:35:46)

    Thought I would respond/update here after a little bit of time to digest.

    Firstly, sincere thanks to all staff for the work, and for offering the requested UR swap. This is greatly appreciated.

    Secondly, thanks also for retaining the item's multi-element effect - this was an unexpected but genuinely very appreciated move!

    This move caused much discussion about the appropriate penalty/cost for such an effect. Some other knowledgable players seem convinced it is paying too much, (more than an "omni-penalty"). I'm interested in pursuing discussion of the appropriate penalty (out of pure interest/design space exploration - I still loosely think it wouldn't make sense for this to be equal or more penalised as compared to "true" omni-elemental effects, as per the GBI discussion) , but I will not do so further here, (out of respect for staff decision making/one-off status of this item) and I want to make abundantly clear I am not pushing for any further changes to Warcaster - I appreciate the action taken already and am not asking for anything more, and it has taken up enough airtime in an exciting period for the game!

    For folks who got the thread locked, I appreciate the support, but please do try to work constructively with staff. Comms are never perfect but I hope in future that we can try to give wholly constructive feedback on such issues and work to reach outcomes that suit everyone.

    I think Branl makes some sensible points for consideration also.

    Thanks also to Bu Kek for responding previously, and providing the link here to the updates.



    dizzle -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/18/2024 17:31:01)

    I’ll also give a s/o to Hollow for the quick work and the surprising refund offer.

    After thinking about this situation a little more I think I was certainly curt and a little harsh with my words yesterday and gave no leniency for nuance that us players are ignorant to. I’m not upset about my post being removed entirely and understand the optics of it. However, I must emphasize the necessity of team organization so as to avoid stuff like this. Contradicting statements from developers regarding item adjustments and balance standards is a large part in why these fires continuously pop up. As KhalJJ mentioned multiple times, it was completely reasonable for people to assume that changes would not be made, even though, according to LK and Hollow, it was never *not* going to change Edit: (I’m paraphrasing here but this appears to be what they’re saying and what hollow apologized for, please edit my post and remove this part if I’m mistaken and clarify what was meant) This leads me to my main point which is slightly off topic but I feel is still relevant enough to keep the thread going: Would it at all be possible to alert players when an item (particularly a premium item) is going to get adjusted? A simple edit in the info subs saying “This item is currently not functioning as intended and has some bugs that we unfortunately are not able to tackle at the moment. Expect adjustments in the future.” I think would go a long way at being transparent with your players and customers, and would help at curbing the outrage from the semi casual players when they get blindsided by nerfs and adjustments. I know the lines get blurry here because some items become disaffected due to balance standard changes (like lucky strikes, backlash etc) but that’s understandable. I’m mostly referring to situations specifically like Warcaster, where the developers have full intentions of changing the item when they get time. This I feel like could really cut through the ambiguity and help so as to not mislead anyone



    Sapphire -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/18/2024 21:16:29)

    Well well well. Although the final outcome is better than where it was going, the disappointment remains. As high as it is, it only really simply accomplishes what I set out to showcase. Something I have long thought about, known, and at this point you either see it or you're simply blind to it. And while I won't really go into it, as those who understand..simply understand, it at the end of the day is at the same foundation as to why other things have been changed. For example, the account-based dono change perfectly illustrates this, as well. Been some really bad changes of late.

    I get that there are those charged with having the authority to make decisions regarding Adventurequest, but I am constructively saying that some decisions are and will do more harm than good, regardless of what others will claim. I am personally uninterested in listening to subjective justifications as well. If those individuals wish to try them with others, go for it. As for me, my opinion is not changing. I'm allowed to voice it.

    Too many more of these and I personally do not forsee this thing going on too much longer. Bite the hand that feeds. It's a thing.


    I guess at least SOME sense was made and they found a way to keep warcaster working with all spells. An SP cost won't hurt my playstyle too much most likely.



    Lorekeeper -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/19/2024 0:18:45)

    In the interests of a constructive discussion, would you be willing to rephrase the thesis of the post while replacing the vague allusions in specific terms? The post reads to me as if there was a missing part between the first and second sentence of the second paragraph, unless it was intentional to not elaborate. If that was the case, with respect, I'm confused. Entering a discussion offering constructive commentary is very welcome, but following it with a preemptive dismissal of justifications to then say that one's opinion is uncompromising is a little contradictory without elaboration.



    Sapphire -> RE: Warcaster changes UR Swap/Refund Discussion (12/21/2024 10:09:52)

    I find that in the vast majority of cases, when analyzing a topic for debate related to AQ, I can come up on my own with the very opinions and justifications that others use to back theirs on the front side, and despite that, my opinion usually remains. So when someone lays out the very things I've already considered, then my opinion will then be misconstrued as uncompromising. If it's an issue in relaying that message, please know that I am attempting to save everyone time and effort explaining something that doesn't need to be explained to me. I feel like I'm doing everyone a favor.

    That isn't to say I've never changed my mind, but sometimes on specific topics that I feel strongly about, I feel I have the right to express that my opinion isn't changing. If people think that is an issue because it makes one less likely to engage with me, I am fine with that. I also feel as though it's an issue for someone to try and change an opinion that isn't changing. So instead of circularly going on and on and on, and because I think my "issue" is just as valid and important as another's "issue", it is best to let people know and to make your case with others, which is what I actually said in the previous post.


    As for being vague, yes I was intentionally being vague because I'd rather not go down the road of being taken out of context, being misconstrued, and misrepresented again and again and again.

    I will move on permanently from here on by simply saying that I set out with 1 hope and 2 goals if that hope wasn't met, and those 2 goals happened, one being warcaster ended up with a compromised solution. So thank you. I am grateful that Hollow continues to showcase some customer service instead of having some uncompromising allegiance to some "ideal". While some still are hating this change, I want to let those know that things could have ended in a more one-sided manner and they should be happy with this. I still maintain that warcaster as it was released still wasn't an actual balance issue, though. Literally nobody showcased why.



    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.140625