answer to TB rotations is not answer to the question that was asked

Replies

  • Happy New Year!!!!
  • Now that you guys are back, maybe answer the question...
  • Starl0rd
    81 posts Member
    edited January 2
    Why do they set it up to have to choose in the first place?? This game is in such need of more to do, that an increase in frequency of events has been proposed many times. They have an opportunity with TBs to rotate all 4.
  • Just in case anyone has forgotten what the point of this posting was.............

    Here is my take on the question asked. The same question I will ask during the next Q&A if it is not answered sooner.

    I think most people would agree that the LS Geo TB is “Hard”. Even 250 million GP guilds are struggling with it. That being said, instead of forcing guilds to either choose between a very easy LS Hoth TB or a very hard LS Geo TB, would it possible to tweak the choices? For instance, LS Hoth TB OR a DS Geo TB? Two weeks later, a DS Hoth TB OR a LS Geo TB? This way, a guild would be in a position to choose a TB that is better suited to their guild.

    Just to be clear:
    Choice 1 - LS Hoth TB or DS Geo TB
    Choice 2 - DS Hoth TB or LS Geo TB
  • V01D
    55 posts Member
    @Kyno any chance you could check in on this question? I know you were going to look into this before the holidays. Thanks Kyno.
  • CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    I think I also misunderstood the question when I passed it to Tophat. Thanks for explanation, I'll see if I can get an updated answer for this

    This was really cool. You should chime in more often imo.

    My previous comment has now been rescinded.
  • CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    I think I also misunderstood the question when I passed it to Tophat. Thanks for explanation, I'll see if I can get an updated answer for this

    This was really cool. You should chime in more often imo.

    My previous comment has now been rescinded.

    "No takesies backsies. Unless you pay. $19.99 per takesy backsy." - CG
  • TVF
    25592 posts Member
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    I think I also misunderstood the question when I passed it to Tophat. Thanks for explanation, I'll see if I can get an updated answer for this

    This was really cool. You should chime in more often imo.

    My previous comment has now been rescinded.

    Expected otherwise?
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Any update yet?
  • Kyno
    25843 posts Moderator
    V01D wrote: »
    Kyno any chance you could check in on this question? I know you were going to look into this before the holidays. Thanks Kyno.

    This is still a slow week, I will ask for an update next week.
  • Thanks @Kyno for touching base. An answer anytime next week would be awesome
  • Kyno wrote: »
    V01D wrote: »
    Kyno any chance you could check in on this question? I know you were going to look into this before the holidays. Thanks Kyno.

    This is still a slow week, I will ask for an update next week.

    Slow week to me would mean they don't have much to do and thus are able to answer the question now. They have only had about a month to come up with a simple reply after all.
  • Obi1_son wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    V01D wrote: »
    Kyno any chance you could check in on this question? I know you were going to look into this before the holidays. Thanks Kyno.

    This is still a slow week, I will ask for an update next week.

    Slow week to me would mean they don't have much to do and thus are able to answer the question now. They have only had about a month to come up with a simple reply after all.

    look, they have an office of like 10 people. you don't even understand all the bureaucracy that comes with such a massive workforce. you can't just ask a question and get an answer.

    this is a well oiled machine, like the DMV.
  • Kyno
    25843 posts Moderator
    Obi1_son wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    V01D wrote: »
    Kyno any chance you could check in on this question? I know you were going to look into this before the holidays. Thanks Kyno.

    This is still a slow week, I will ask for an update next week.

    Slow week to me would mean they don't have much to do and thus are able to answer the question now. They have only had about a month to come up with a simple reply after all.

    To me it means everything is moving slow and we are not likely to get to less crucial issues like this one.

  • Slayvoff wrote: »
    Obi1_son wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    V01D wrote: »
    Kyno any chance you could check in on this question? I know you were going to look into this before the holidays. Thanks Kyno.

    This is still a slow week, I will ask for an update next week.

    Slow week to me would mean they don't have much to do and thus are able to answer the question now. They have only had about a month to come up with a simple reply after all.

    look, they have an office of like 10 people. you don't even understand all the bureaucracy that comes with such a massive workforce. you can't just ask a question and get an answer.

    this is a well oiled machine, like the DMV.

    But.... they said they had 90 people working. 🤔
  • Legend91
    1414 posts Member
    AnnerDoon wrote: »
    Slayvoff wrote: »
    Obi1_son wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    V01D wrote: »
    Kyno any chance you could check in on this question? I know you were going to look into this before the holidays. Thanks Kyno.

    This is still a slow week, I will ask for an update next week.

    Slow week to me would mean they don't have much to do and thus are able to answer the question now. They have only had about a month to come up with a simple reply after all.

    look, they have an office of like 10 people. you don't even understand all the bureaucracy that comes with such a massive workforce. you can't just ask a question and get an answer.

    this is a well oiled machine, like the DMV.

    But.... they said they had 90 people working. 🤔

    10 actually developing
    80 art, sound & packs
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • @Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.
  • Agree with everything you say Janson. Everyone needs to chill. The holidays just finished and everyone will be back to normal starting tomorrow. Them changing TB choice is fairly easy so (and hadnt mattered for a month since this was DS Geo anyway). Lets just hope for an answer this week sometime
  • Kyno
    25843 posts Moderator
    Col_Janson wrote: »
    Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.

    The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.

    I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...

    Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.

    No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Col_Janson wrote: »
    Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.

    The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.

    I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...

    Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.

    No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.
    The question was asked in a Q&A. The Q&A sessions answer questions in what, less than 24 hours? Live? If CG can't answer a question appropriate for such a Q&A in less than six weeks, that seems weird.
  • Kyno
    25843 posts Moderator
    DRD1812 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Col_Janson wrote: »
    Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.

    The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.

    I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...

    Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.

    No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.
    The question was asked in a Q&A. The Q&A sessions answer questions in what, less than 24 hours? Live? If CG can't answer a question appropriate for such a Q&A in less than six weeks, that seems weird.

    That is a very good example of an arbitrary timeline, thank you for that.

    That is an organized session where all the appropriate people are there to allow for that to happen as smooth as it does.
  • To be fair, Crumb did qualify his follow-up with "should", not "will". Keep in mind right around that time there were also a lot of other items on CG's plate that were a higher priority than following up on this (LS Geno bug and relaunch, Christmas content and event scheduling, launch of the Journey Guide and Hyperdrive package, and the fact that most people tend to take an extended holiday over the Christmas/New-Year timeframe).

    That being said, I do hope he follows up on this question this week after everyone gets back into the office and settled in from the holiday. If not, I do expect a follow-up at the next Q&A session if we haven't received an answer by then.
  • And some people wonder why others question the dev’s credibility.
  • AnnerDoon wrote: »
    And some people wonder why others question the dev’s credibility.

    They still have some?
  • Let's hope Crumbs forum post quota gets reset at the start of the calendar year.
  • Kyno
    25843 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Col_Janson wrote: »
    Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.

    The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.

    I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...

    Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.

    No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.

    Who should be accountable for what?
    Crumb should be accountable for his word.

    Your lying when you say no timeline was given see below.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, sitting down with Tophat at lunch today to get a better answer to your question. I should have an update this afternoon

    6 weeks isnt arbitrary deadline set by the community. 6 weeks is just the amount of time that has passed since crumb said he should be able to have an update that afternoon.

    I agree I don't think crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary deadline set by the community but should he as the community manager be accountable based on his word?

    And after that he replied that he couldnt get a solid answer. So again, he did what he said in the quote you have there and came back with a response.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around

This discussion has been closed.