This is testing GalChallenges generally. This isn't the bug testing any developer has to do even before beta testing. If you've ever programmed (and I've only done a small amount of professional programming and that was 20 years ago, but even I know this) then you for sure know that bug testing ALWAYS happens.
These problems should have come up in bug testing. The GalChallenge testing is to see how we like the event and to collect data on who's playing it, what rewards they're collecting, etc. This is testing US to see how we engage in the event.
It's not supposed to test whether the event actually works.
Maybe it's not supposed to, but it does. Any testing they did seems to have been rudimentary at best, considering how many obvious bugs passed through. Like the one with summons and undersized squads.
This is testing GalChallenges generally. This isn't the bug testing any developer has to do even before beta testing. If you've ever programmed (and I've only done a small amount of professional programming and that was 20 years ago, but even I know this) then you for sure know that bug testing ALWAYS happens.
These problems should have come up in bug testing. The GalChallenge testing is to see how we like the event and to collect data on who's playing it, what rewards they're collecting, etc. This is testing US to see how we engage in the event.
It's not supposed to test whether the event actually works.
Maybe it's not supposed to, but it does. Any testing they did seems to have been rudimentary at best, considering how many obvious bugs passed through. Like the one with summons and undersized squads.
I think that will be considered WAD (working as designed).
Technically you have 5 characters on screen so.... oh well
This has got to be the worst gc yet. Who in their right mind thought this was fun? What a stupid event. 100% damage is reflected back. That nerfs just about every team comp of seperatists imaginable. It completely neuters b1 who is the only healer you can use because you HAVE to have sniper droid at higher levels to get anywhere.
It's unbelievable the level of incompetence at this studio. It's like they don't even have a basic understanding of what's fun. 100% damage reflected back isn't fun, isn't creative, and doesn't encourage problem solving. Not to mention neutralizing the one team you've designed the event to utilize. I don't care that this is supposedly beta testing, you shouldn't need tests to know this was trash
I did the R3 feat with R3 Grievous, Droideka, B1, B2 and Asaaj (thx GAS to provide 4/5 of my team). The rewards entice me enough to try harder when I failed the first time.
It was fun to try and felt good to win !
I've quit playing these events. Maybe that's some data that CG will pay attention to. It's not worth the effort and the events are bugged to hell. Seeing guildmates frustrated tells me I made the right decision. Also didn't do GAC this time to get the carbonite feat and enjoying that too. Probably not a good sign the game is more enjoyable when you don't play it.
@MasterSeedy can you point to where they said the GCs will only run once a week?
I'm not seeing anything of the sort to base your conclusion off of.
I clearly said that both running every day and running once per week are options. I personally believe that they don't have any intention of developing a new GC daily, but I conceded that was a possibility. You seem to be very confused if you think I have asserted I know exactly how often these will run. I quote myself:
Again, either they simply won't do more events - which means they shorten the duration without giving you anything else to do the rest of the week when there is no gal challenge - OR they spend 1/7th the programming time on each one.
...
So set a realistic goal for how often you can put out a good quality Galactic Challenge, then actually put out ONLY good quality challenges, and keep the last one available until the next one drops, even if you can't produce more than one good quality GalChal per month and that means the same Gal Challenge ends up sitting open & playable for 30 days.
I've said "either / or" not that I know exactly what's coming. And though there are quotes from CG, there's no reason to believe that I'm wrong that they've already decided how much programming time they have available and that it won't go up or down based on our forum feedback about how long the event is available to play.
What I don't see from other people is any acknowledgement that there is actually no evidence that if you reduce the time allowed to complete a GC, that therefore they will run more GCs. There is also no support for THAT position, yet people seem to think that a shorter window to complete automatically means more GCs - but CG has NEVER said that.
Given that there's got to be a budget (I'm related to accountants so I know that any multimillion dollar company ALWAYS has a budget), only two possibilities exist:
1. Either quality stays consistent and the number of events per month or year or whatever say the same ... which means that less time to complete just means more time with no GC available at all...
OR,
2. the quality deteriorates because they're trying to make 3.5 or 5 or 7 times the number of events on the same budget.
This is the reality of running a company. The money doesn't multiply just because your customers would love you to run an event every day.
Personally I think it would be great if they hired 7 times the programmers and had separate groups each developing only one GC per week... but what evidence does anyone have that if they tell CG they want the time to complete shortened that this means they'll hire 7x the programmers?
No, I'm quite clear about the information we do and don't have.
On the other hand, I'd love to be proven wrong and that they're willing to triple the budget if forum feedback says we want events 3x as often.
Why don't you ask them whether our feedback will change the budget for GC development? I'd be very curious about the answer.
@MasterSeedy can you point to where they said the GCs will only run once a week?
I'm not seeing anything of the sort to base your conclusion off of.
I clearly said that both running every day and running once per week are options. I personally believe that they don't have any intention of developing a new GC daily, but I conceded that was a possibility. You seem to be very confused if you think I have asserted I know exactly how often these will run. .
Everyone seems to think that this shift is good, but no one seems to get it. They're not going to provide 7x the number of GalChallenges if they're reduced to one day durations. They're going to provide a one day GalChallenge just once a week.
I'm not confused, this is a quote from what you said. You seem to be very clearly asserting that this is what is going to happen and no one else gets it.
Stay stealth and nute’s dubious dealings melts them.
Wait, what?
You mean that "reflecting" is negated by stealth, just like a counterattack? What about daze? What if they're stunned?
This is just a small part of what I mean about how badly this is designed.
They could have said it's a counterattack that deals identical damage. Then we would have known exactly what rules apply.
They could have given a description of what rules actually apply to reflection if it's an actual new ability and not just a counterattack with an unusual total damage.
They could have done a lot of things, but I'm left wondering - is there a miss/dodge chance? Originally I thought there wasn't since a "reflection" isn't an attack and the description didn't say, "It either reflects 0 damage or 100% of the damage + 10% more for every previous reflection."
So what does it do? And what rules apply? WE DON'T KNOW, because no one bothered to tell us what the event abilities actually do.
I'm not confused, this is a quote from what you said. You seem to be very clearly asserting that this is what is going to happen and no one else gets it.
sorry for the confusion.
Then I contributed to the confusion by phrasing things that way.
The reality is that there are business constraints and I do think that no one else is getting that there are business constraints, or at least they're not wording their comments to indicate that they have any awareness of business constraints. There are many hints that people simply believe that if they advocate for shorter completion times that equals more events and maybe even more rewards. But there is nothing saying that the number of events is dependent on completion times.
My personal belief is that they'll resolve those business constraints by not trying to put out more events than they have the staff to create with reasonable quality. They could demand that people throw things together slapdash, but it is my personal belief that they will not do so.
It's also possible that they currently have the staff allocated to make a new challenge every day and the duration of GCs just indicates how many will be overlapping in their duration at any one time. But I doubt that too. Not because CG said it, and I don't have any evidence for it, I just think that if they had the staff to be developing overlapping GCs for the foreseeable future, they probably would have run the beta test with overlapping GCs. It's supposed to be a test of how people respond, right? So why would they run non-overlapping tests when they expect the live events to be overlapping?
So I have my beliefs, and I have reasons for them, and I think the people are being silly if they are assuming that if they advocate a shorter completion window CG will just magically come up with many times more events.
But none of my reasons are exact quotes from CG staff.
I thought this GC sounded stupid when I read it, but discovered its actually interesting... there is strategy using
1) the new "superior training" attack/move and
2) the insta-kill from sniper droid..
Use superior training immediately, and frequently to build your health instead of attacking, and timing your kills... after a few tries to figure it out, I did the final relic tier without losing a unit (and undersized to boot) with just 3 units:
Malak is R7, but I don't think that is necessary.
Asajj lead gets you the sniper droid and provides some buff removal, and zombie takes a loooooot of hits. sniper droid and Malak's 'drain life' do all the killing.
What I don't see from other people is any acknowledgement that there is actually no evidence that if you reduce the time allowed to complete a GC, that therefore they will run more GCs. There is also no support for THAT position, yet people seem to think that a shorter window to complete automatically means more GCs - but CG has NEVER said that.
I also think "2 days to do" means "every 2 days". I obviously may be wrong, because it's an exhibition, but it's based on two things:
1) Intention from Devs to give us "something to do everyday", which could (emphasis on "could") translate to: this type of event will always be available (or almost always, ala GAC. Like 3 per week and sunday we rest)
2) the structure of the exhibition. There are 6 events, but it doesn't last 6 weeks. There is always one going on, 7 days or 2 days lasting. So it's not a stretch to think that would work like this afterwards, even if it's not written anywhere and you may completely be right.
Given that there's got to be a budget (I'm related to accountants so I know that any multimillion dollar company ALWAYS has a budget), only two possibilities exist:
1. Either quality stays consistent and the number of events per month or year or whatever say the same ... which means that less time to complete just means more time with no GC available at all...
OR,
2. the quality deteriorates because they're trying to make 3.5 or 5 or 7 times the number of events on the same budget.
There is the other option that was also supported by @Nauros : the random generated events. Each faction has a modifier specific to the faction, each planet has a modifier specific to the planet. Create enough planets and faction mods and you have lots, lots of possibilities (let's say 10 of each, so 900 possibilities, enough for about 5 years if we have a GC once every 2 days). Yes, it means some of them will result in weird combination. But it could be fun imo, to discover those weird combos. Even if from times to times we have something extremely difficult because of a specific set-up, if it only last 2 days, we can wait for the next one and move on.
Asajj lead gets you the sniper droid and provides some buff removal, and zombie takes a loooooot of hits. sniper droid and Malak's 'drain life' do all the killing.
I'm very surprised. My sniper droid took itself from nearly full health/prot (had a little removed from Anakin's AoE) to dangerously red - like maybe 10% health - from a single shot reflection.
I honestly expected that "instantly defeat" would not cause reflected damage.
So now I'm wondering about how your droid survived. And I'm also wondering if Malak's "Drain Life" causes reflected damage. If not, how did he stay alive?
It would have been so much easier if they could have given us a decent description of what's going on, whether this is a counterattack, etc.
Is Dooku's basic immune to reflection? Don't know! And sure I could try it, but I'm so annoyed by the terrible event that I'm not interested. Other events I played multiple times, but not this one. The fact that damage from under stealth is not reflected just cements my certainty that this was horribly done. Literally every single ability in the game might or might not be an exception from this reflected damage. We also don't know if reflected damage from a single turn is reflected per attack at single attackers or if every geonosian who assists takes the total of all damage inflicted by all bugs who attacked or assisted that turn.
I'm not confused, this is a quote from what you said. You seem to be very clearly asserting that this is what is going to happen and no one else gets it.
sorry for the confusion.
Then I contributed to the confusion by phrasing things that way.
The reality is that there are business constraints and I do think that no one else is getting that there are business constraints, or at least they're not wording their comments to indicate that they have any awareness of business constraints. There are many hints that people simply believe that if they advocate for shorter completion times that equals more events and maybe even more rewards. But there is nothing saying that the number of events is dependent on completion times.
My personal belief is that they'll resolve those business constraints by not trying to put out more events than they have the staff to create with reasonable quality. They could demand that people throw things together slapdash, but it is my personal belief that they will not do so.
It's also possible that they currently have the staff allocated to make a new challenge every day and the duration of GCs just indicates how many will be overlapping in their duration at any one time. But I doubt that too. Not because CG said it, and I don't have any evidence for it, I just think that if they had the staff to be developing overlapping GCs for the foreseeable future, they probably would have run the beta test with overlapping GCs. It's supposed to be a test of how people respond, right? So why would they run non-overlapping tests when they expect the live events to be overlapping?
So I have my beliefs, and I have reasons for them, and I think the people are being silly if they are assuming that if they advocate a shorter completion window CG will just magically come up with many times more events.
But none of my reasons are exact quotes from CG staff.
i guess that kind of my point, none of what you are saying is from exact quotes, or even related to quotes or information they have put out there.
and yet the other side which you think are not wording their comments to indicate any awareness, are basing what they are saying off of information provided by the dev team. again, they are not directly quoting them, but they are at least based on the words the dev team used.
so while some may be seeing something more grandiose than what will come, the ideas being expressed seem to be closer to the ideas expressed by the dev team than what you are saying.
and yet the other side which you think are not wording their comments to indicate any awareness, are basing what they are saying off of information provided by the dev team. again, they are not directly quoting them, but they are at least based on the words the dev team used.
Then quote CG saying that if the duration of events is decreased, then the number of events will be proportionately increased.
It would be very simple for you to support that position if, as you suggest, there are actual CG quotes on point.
Asajj lead gets you the sniper droid and provides some buff removal, and zombie takes a loooooot of hits. sniper droid and Malak's 'drain life' do all the killing.
I'm very surprised. My sniper droid took itself from nearly full health/prot (had a little removed from Anakin's AoE) to dangerously red - like maybe 10% health - from a single shot reflection.
I honestly expected that "instantly defeat" would not cause reflected damage.
So now I'm wondering about how your droid survived. And I'm also wondering if Malak's "Drain Life" causes reflected damage. If not, how did he stay alive?
yeah, sniper droid goes down to very little.. important not to kill anyone when Anakin has has almost full turn meter, or he may wipe him out before he has a chance to rebuild health on his next 2 tries. took me a few tries it get it right.
And malaks drain life kills him if his health it too low.. I discovered in one run... I use him for kenobi... The first drain life lowers his health enough to have a second drain life instantly, which then kills kenobi.. and leaves Malak at about half I think. Sort of an instant kill :-) Maybe R7 is important. my malak has very high health (67h+145p = 212,000 health)
Had to use asajj's buff removal to prevent the GR folks from getting too much courage.
And padme needs to be snipers first kill.
You spend a lot of time not attacking and building max health.. as long as the courage doesnt get too high, they don't actually hurt you so much once you get a couple of stacks. definitely a game of patience.
Can anyone confirm that, to most of my guildmate that are struggling, it seems as though the "Global" modifier isn't being applied to the GR opposition as they're more or less where I'd expect their health and protection to be the duration of the battle?
and yet the other side which you think are not wording their comments to indicate any awareness, are basing what they are saying off of information provided by the dev team. again, they are not directly quoting them, but they are at least based on the words the dev team used.
Then quote CG saying that if the duration of events is decreased, then the number of events will be proportionately increased.
It would be very simple for you to support that position if, as you suggest, there are actual CG quotes on point.
again, i said working from what they said, not direct quotes. but still what you are trying to refute is closer to what they have said than anything you have said.
Part of this is due to the fact that we tuned the rewards conservatively for the exhibition and this would be somewhat mitigated by running the events more frequently in the future but we are reviewing all the rewards for the event across the board but particularly at the low tiers.
Our main goal for this feature is to provide more activities for players each day.
Can anyone confirm that, to most of my guildmate that are struggling, it seems as though the "Global" modifier isn't being applied to the GR opposition as they're more or less where I'd expect their health and protection to be the duration of the battle?
Can anyone confirm that, to most of my guildmate that are struggling, it seems as though the "Global" modifier isn't being applied to the GR opposition as they're more or less where I'd expect their health and protection to be the duration of the battle?
Planet modifiers are for everyone. Try and hit Kenobi on your first move, you'll see that he'll receive damage. If you have 80% less offense and he'd still have all his defense and prot he won't feel a thing
This has got to be the worst gc yet. Who in their right mind thought this was fun? What a stupid event. 100% damage is reflected back. That nerfs just about every team comp of seperatists imaginable. It completely neuters b1 who is the only healer you can use because you HAVE to have sniper droid at higher levels to get anywhere.
It's unbelievable the level of incompetence at this studio. It's like they don't even have a basic understanding of what's fun. 100% damage reflected back isn't fun, isn't creative, and doesn't encourage problem solving. Not to mention neutralizing the one team you've designed the event to utilize. I don't care that this is supposedly beta testing, you shouldn't need tests to know this was trash
This is the first one I actually enjoyed. I actually had to think and strategize to win. It took rng, but I actually cleared all the feats. Pulled off an r5 sepratist win with gg, assaj, b1, magna, geo spy.
Replies
Maybe it's not supposed to, but it does. Any testing they did seems to have been rudimentary at best, considering how many obvious bugs passed through. Like the one with summons and undersized squads.
I think that will be considered WAD (working as designed).
Technically you have 5 characters on screen so.... oh well
I'm not seeing anything of the sort to base your conclusion off of.
It's unbelievable the level of incompetence at this studio. It's like they don't even have a basic understanding of what's fun. 100% damage reflected back isn't fun, isn't creative, and doesn't encourage problem solving. Not to mention neutralizing the one team you've designed the event to utilize. I don't care that this is supposedly beta testing, you shouldn't need tests to know this was trash
Stay stealth and nute’s dubious dealings melts them.
It was fun to try and felt good to win !
I clearly said that both running every day and running once per week are options. I personally believe that they don't have any intention of developing a new GC daily, but I conceded that was a possibility. You seem to be very confused if you think I have asserted I know exactly how often these will run. I quote myself:
I've said "either / or" not that I know exactly what's coming. And though there are quotes from CG, there's no reason to believe that I'm wrong that they've already decided how much programming time they have available and that it won't go up or down based on our forum feedback about how long the event is available to play.
What I don't see from other people is any acknowledgement that there is actually no evidence that if you reduce the time allowed to complete a GC, that therefore they will run more GCs. There is also no support for THAT position, yet people seem to think that a shorter window to complete automatically means more GCs - but CG has NEVER said that.
Given that there's got to be a budget (I'm related to accountants so I know that any multimillion dollar company ALWAYS has a budget), only two possibilities exist:
1. Either quality stays consistent and the number of events per month or year or whatever say the same ... which means that less time to complete just means more time with no GC available at all...
OR,
2. the quality deteriorates because they're trying to make 3.5 or 5 or 7 times the number of events on the same budget.
This is the reality of running a company. The money doesn't multiply just because your customers would love you to run an event every day.
Personally I think it would be great if they hired 7 times the programmers and had separate groups each developing only one GC per week... but what evidence does anyone have that if they tell CG they want the time to complete shortened that this means they'll hire 7x the programmers?
No, I'm quite clear about the information we do and don't have.
On the other hand, I'd love to be proven wrong and that they're willing to triple the budget if forum feedback says we want events 3x as often.
Why don't you ask them whether our feedback will change the budget for GC development? I'd be very curious about the answer.
I'm not confused, this is a quote from what you said. You seem to be very clearly asserting that this is what is going to happen and no one else gets it.
sorry for the confusion.
Wait, what?
You mean that "reflecting" is negated by stealth, just like a counterattack? What about daze? What if they're stunned?
This is just a small part of what I mean about how badly this is designed.
They could have said it's a counterattack that deals identical damage. Then we would have known exactly what rules apply.
They could have given a description of what rules actually apply to reflection if it's an actual new ability and not just a counterattack with an unusual total damage.
They could have done a lot of things, but I'm left wondering - is there a miss/dodge chance? Originally I thought there wasn't since a "reflection" isn't an attack and the description didn't say, "It either reflects 0 damage or 100% of the damage + 10% more for every previous reflection."
So what does it do? And what rules apply? WE DON'T KNOW, because no one bothered to tell us what the event abilities actually do.
That is completely, totally unacceptable.
Then I contributed to the confusion by phrasing things that way.
The reality is that there are business constraints and I do think that no one else is getting that there are business constraints, or at least they're not wording their comments to indicate that they have any awareness of business constraints. There are many hints that people simply believe that if they advocate for shorter completion times that equals more events and maybe even more rewards. But there is nothing saying that the number of events is dependent on completion times.
My personal belief is that they'll resolve those business constraints by not trying to put out more events than they have the staff to create with reasonable quality. They could demand that people throw things together slapdash, but it is my personal belief that they will not do so.
It's also possible that they currently have the staff allocated to make a new challenge every day and the duration of GCs just indicates how many will be overlapping in their duration at any one time. But I doubt that too. Not because CG said it, and I don't have any evidence for it, I just think that if they had the staff to be developing overlapping GCs for the foreseeable future, they probably would have run the beta test with overlapping GCs. It's supposed to be a test of how people respond, right? So why would they run non-overlapping tests when they expect the live events to be overlapping?
So I have my beliefs, and I have reasons for them, and I think the people are being silly if they are assuming that if they advocate a shorter completion window CG will just magically come up with many times more events.
But none of my reasons are exact quotes from CG staff.
1) the new "superior training" attack/move and
2) the insta-kill from sniper droid..
Use superior training immediately, and frequently to build your health instead of attacking, and timing your kills... after a few tries to figure it out, I did the final relic tier without losing a unit (and undersized to boot) with just 3 units:
Malak is R7, but I don't think that is necessary.
Asajj lead gets you the sniper droid and provides some buff removal, and zombie takes a loooooot of hits. sniper droid and Malak's 'drain life' do all the killing.
I also think "2 days to do" means "every 2 days". I obviously may be wrong, because it's an exhibition, but it's based on two things:
1) Intention from Devs to give us "something to do everyday", which could (emphasis on "could") translate to: this type of event will always be available (or almost always, ala GAC. Like 3 per week and sunday we rest)
2) the structure of the exhibition. There are 6 events, but it doesn't last 6 weeks. There is always one going on, 7 days or 2 days lasting. So it's not a stretch to think that would work like this afterwards, even if it's not written anywhere and you may completely be right.
There is the other option that was also supported by @Nauros : the random generated events. Each faction has a modifier specific to the faction, each planet has a modifier specific to the planet. Create enough planets and faction mods and you have lots, lots of possibilities (let's say 10 of each, so 900 possibilities, enough for about 5 years if we have a GC once every 2 days). Yes, it means some of them will result in weird combination. But it could be fun imo, to discover those weird combos. Even if from times to times we have something extremely difficult because of a specific set-up, if it only last 2 days, we can wait for the next one and move on.
I'm very surprised. My sniper droid took itself from nearly full health/prot (had a little removed from Anakin's AoE) to dangerously red - like maybe 10% health - from a single shot reflection.
I honestly expected that "instantly defeat" would not cause reflected damage.
So now I'm wondering about how your droid survived. And I'm also wondering if Malak's "Drain Life" causes reflected damage. If not, how did he stay alive?
It would have been so much easier if they could have given us a decent description of what's going on, whether this is a counterattack, etc.
Is Dooku's basic immune to reflection? Don't know! And sure I could try it, but I'm so annoyed by the terrible event that I'm not interested. Other events I played multiple times, but not this one. The fact that damage from under stealth is not reflected just cements my certainty that this was horribly done. Literally every single ability in the game might or might not be an exception from this reflected damage. We also don't know if reflected damage from a single turn is reflected per attack at single attackers or if every geonosian who assists takes the total of all damage inflicted by all bugs who attacked or assisted that turn.
Hard to know; harder to care.
i guess that kind of my point, none of what you are saying is from exact quotes, or even related to quotes or information they have put out there.
and yet the other side which you think are not wording their comments to indicate any awareness, are basing what they are saying off of information provided by the dev team. again, they are not directly quoting them, but they are at least based on the words the dev team used.
so while some may be seeing something more grandiose than what will come, the ideas being expressed seem to be closer to the ideas expressed by the dev team than what you are saying.
Then quote CG saying that if the duration of events is decreased, then the number of events will be proportionately increased.
It would be very simple for you to support that position if, as you suggest, there are actual CG quotes on point.
yeah, sniper droid goes down to very little.. important not to kill anyone when Anakin has has almost full turn meter, or he may wipe him out before he has a chance to rebuild health on his next 2 tries. took me a few tries it get it right.
And malaks drain life kills him if his health it too low.. I discovered in one run... I use him for kenobi... The first drain life lowers his health enough to have a second drain life instantly, which then kills kenobi.. and leaves Malak at about half I think. Sort of an instant kill :-) Maybe R7 is important. my malak has very high health (67h+145p = 212,000 health)
Had to use asajj's buff removal to prevent the GR folks from getting too much courage.
And padme needs to be snipers first kill.
You spend a lot of time not attacking and building max health.. as long as the courage doesnt get too high, they don't actually hurt you so much once you get a couple of stacks. definitely a game of patience.
again, i said working from what they said, not direct quotes. but still what you are trying to refute is closer to what they have said than anything you have said.
The answer is simple really.
Cant be sure but i think no
Planet modifiers are for everyone. Try and hit Kenobi on your first move, you'll see that he'll receive damage. If you have 80% less offense and he'd still have all his defense and prot he won't feel a thing
This is the first one I actually enjoyed. I actually had to think and strategize to win. It took rng, but I actually cleared all the feats. Pulled off an r5 sepratist win with gg, assaj, b1, magna, geo spy.
@SWBSD Yes. They stated they were not going to make any changes during the exhibition.
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/234767/galactic-challenges-feedback
Didnt they change the durations and some of the rewards changed or are we to believe the changes were already in before the complaints?
The different durations were all part of the original schedule