PDA

View Full Version : A little thin



Sparrow
04-24-2015, 10:25 PM
The Friday update was pretty thin. Can't believe there's nothing else to promote or any glimpses into the future (well, they plan on tinkering with champion card pools regularly, so that was news to me). Maybe people are on vacation or something.

Zophie
04-24-2015, 10:37 PM
The Friday update was pretty thin. Can't believe there's nothing else to promote or any glimpses into the future (well, they plan on tinkering with champion card pools regularly, so that was news to me). Maybe people are on vacation or something.


"We’ve spent our week preparing for some upcoming features and Armies of Myth launch. We’ve begun some improvements to the chat tool, and we’re looking towards the next big patch."

Sounds like they've been working to me.

zadies
04-24-2015, 10:45 PM
I doubt they are on vacation I just think they don't want to spoil anything and have no idea how to answer the questions posed to them over the last week... though the fact that they give such a light update and ask for votes at the same time seems an odd choice.

Gwaer
04-24-2015, 10:57 PM
You need votes when you need votes, and you have exciting updates when you have exciting updates. You're right it was a bit light, but we're in a lull right now while they get the finishing touches on the next content patch.

Sparrow
04-25-2015, 12:19 AM
I wonder if the champion deck they featured is the deck with the least AI problems. Other than Storm Cloud, the play is only hampered by general strategy errors rather than the handling of specific cards. I think it's an odd thing to devote so much of the weekly update to, but, yeah, without solid delivery dates and no resolution or comment on issues brought up this week, there's not much point in highlighting everything they don't know.

zadies
04-25-2015, 08:42 AM
You need votes when you need votes, and you have exciting updates when you have exciting updates. You're right it was a bit light, but we're in a lull right now while they get the finishing touches on the next content patch.

Given the level of communication prior, and the fact that some people feel there is a genuine concern that should actually be easily cover-able under the ToS there is no reason not to respond to it unless they feel they need to rewrite the ToS to be more clear, which may in fact mean allowing what is the concern.

Answering a direct question as to if something is or is not allowed under the ToS should not take nearly a week. While i maybe invested in what the answer is not answering the question at all is actually worse then answering it in a weekly updated in a way that I don't like.

Going around and closing threads without responding to the question that was posed is not the way to instill confidence in your user-base, and don't go and try to derail the topic by discussing why the threads were closed this is actually on the topic of the light update, why it was light and why being light in this manner is bad. All you would really do in that case is get the thread closed without getting the question answered... which would just emphasize the point.

Gwaer
04-25-2015, 09:22 AM
A Friday update has never focused on answering forum based questions. And I don't think they should start now. Next thing you know everyone will be whining about their pet issues not being featured in Friday updates. Use your best judgement, if you end up getting banned take that as proof your best judgement is terrible and maybe you should work on that.

Forum issues shouldn't be blasted to the whole user base, we're a rather small faction if the user base as a whole. Only things relevant to developing the game.

zadies
04-25-2015, 10:00 AM
There have been a number of forum issues that have been blasted to the community as a whole recently gwear, the fact that the talkative members of the forums tend to come out pro-script and don't really want the question answered in a way that may or may not disagree with their own agendas rather then things like the dc blast which caused another forum uproar.

Saying they never address community concerns in their updates is a complete lie, saying they do it rarely would be closer to the truth.

So what your really saying is that until the entire community is aware of the issue then they are completely free to just ignore it... I'll take that under advisement for next week.

Also there are very few non-development questions that are actually asked on the forums.

Asking if something is against the ToS or not is not asking for a sneak peak into the development process which are most people's pet issues, and there have been answers in the api thread recently which is the item most related to this issues.

Sparrow
04-25-2015, 11:00 AM
Personally, I wouldn't mind if any thread that goes over 100 posts (arbitrary number -- I wouldn't want to see people padding threads with posts to reach an specific number), that has addressable issues, was covered in the Friday update. For other issues that get locked due to intra-forum conflict, maybe directly contacting someone at CZE would work.

A couple weeks ago I started a thread about 8-player sealed payouts. It wasn't locked but it went nowhere, so I decided to contact CZE directly (Chark in this case) and even though I didn't get exactly what I had asked for in the thread , I had a good discussion about it and felt better for the exchange.

zadies
04-25-2015, 12:39 PM
Lets say I in theory contacted CZE about said issue and they responded...
either
a) I People will get banned banned because the question wasn't answered directly, which would really make me feel worse, or

b) feel worse about it as people secretly were infesting the game with bots which CZE had not intention of doing anything about, and no one would believe me about it...

Thus a private conversation really doesn't solve the problem regardless of which answer was actually provided.

A specific question related to the ToS shouldn't require much thought to publicly answer, and the refusal to answer, and being set upon by one of CZE's volunteers to make me feel like a moron who doesn't know what the heck is going on doesn't really help instill trust in a company, and I'm talking about Oss calling me a moron Gwear not you.

Thrawn
04-25-2015, 01:40 PM
What exactly are you even looking for here zadies?

Sparrow
04-25-2015, 01:59 PM
Thus a private conversation really doesn't solve the problem regardless of which answer was actually provided.
I figured if you talked to them and they talked back you'd report what they said in a thread. If they ruled against your position, that would be a new facet to discuss. If they ruled for your position it would be a new facet to discuss. It would certainly be grounds for re-opening a subject that was locked down. Plus, a private word may get them to make an official call on the subject.

I'm going to pains to not be specific about the issue so this doesn't get locked, btw.

zadies
04-25-2015, 02:22 PM
What exactly are you even looking for here zadies?

An official answer to the question posed by this thread
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=42785

Discussion of which continued in this thread:
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=42852

Both threads locked without an official reply I figured they might intend to reply during their weekly update if they couldn't be bothered to reply to the subject in a thread they feel like locking.

And Gwear they could have easily answered the question any time this week... lack of response and locking down conversation on a topic just leads to a silence is consent train of thought.

While I might have some stake in what I think the answer should be, the fact that it hasn't been answered at all is disturbing to me more then if they said qol scripts were allowed.

Thrawn
04-25-2015, 02:25 PM
An official answer to the question posed by this thread http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=42785

Trying to hijack an unrelated topic for it seems like a good way to get even more stuff locked.

Xenavire
04-25-2015, 02:26 PM
An official answer to the question posed by this thread http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=42785

Hows this: assume it isn't, don't use it, and stop talking about it (for now.) Chances are it isn't allowed, but if it is they probably need to discuss precise rules on what is or isn't considered cheating/botting.

Wait for them to come to us, and if they never do then it isn't allowed (safest assumption.)

zadies
04-25-2015, 02:34 PM
Xen... sorry can't accept that given the Gwear said he was interested in the response in the first thread the QA volunteer's don't know what is allowed or not, and that is all I'm going to say on the subject that is actually contained in those threads... this is really about CZE not communicating with their users at this point.

Also the first part of the thread that began this discussion was on topic, the update was sparse and CZE's lack of communication is concerning...

Continuing the debate contained in those threads would be off topic, but the original topic of the conversation is CZE being mum.

Thrawn
04-25-2015, 02:36 PM
Xen... sorry can't accept that given the Gwear said he was interested in the response in the first thread the QA volunteer's don't know what is allowed or not.

It took us months to get a still rather muddy answer on the multiple account issue that had a LOT more people pissed off and posting. I wouldn't hope to get a fast answer on that in just a day or two unless it's a quick blanket no on everything.

zadies
04-25-2015, 02:45 PM
Given CZE's previous comments about botting and protecting the economy this should not be a hard question to answer, unless they are back peddling on a previous position in which case they should make it clear they are actually thinking about the question. Leaving everyone to make assumptions based on how they want to interpret the ToS is bad... especially if they decide to try to start banning people for breaking the ToS they have no wish to clarify.

CZE had made statements about the intended use of the VIP program, individuals took the letter of what was written about the VIP program and twisted it's intent so that the VIP program in the end had to be taken out of the game, and also created the mess with multiple accounts at the same time.

Being vague about ToS questions has implications, and given they had already made statements of intent on the subject of bots the lack of a direct answer actually makes the situation more vague.

Stok3d
04-25-2015, 04:00 PM
Thread has digressed off it's intended topic. Zadies PM'd and thread closed.