Recently, there was a card(A) announce that will be release in the coming week. The community spotted an interesting interaction with another existing card(B) that can create a interesting scenario.
A few day after, it was announce that the card(B) will be adjusted to disable the scenario.
My question is:
Did the Dev not knew that such interaction/scenario is possible before the announcement?
If Yes, then both announcement should be on the same announcement release.
If No, then how could this had been missed?
My question is not to invoke any controversy but a genuine query. (Especially to those working in the game industry) Please be reminded of the forum COC.
Nobody is perfect, mistakes happen. If something is missed, the best thing is that it is acknowledged and fixed, which by what your saying they have done.
Indeed nobody is perfect and mistakes can happen, and a prompt reaction to it is appreciated.
However, the question remains.
I believe in all established company, there are a group of people and system to ensure mistakes does not happens. If there is a mistake, then an investigation take place to put up safeguards.
My understanding is that Chaki usually catches a lot of this type of stuff for them, according to Kibler. He was just as surprised as we were that this slipped through.
Maybe Reckless Experimenter is really just that far off the radar for them.
(Standard) Deathrattle Priest, the new Freeze Shaman?
As suggested, it mean they do not know about the scenario, but have a doubt.
If there is a doubt, should not the reaction be revert the ‘case’ back to the development, play test team to further work on the card before release?
By announcing the release, it is a show that the card(A) has undergone the process required for it’s release. It thus, does not aim to use the player base as a check.
If they had intended to use the playerbase as a check, then the manner of announcement should not have been as a “ready to release” state.
They have previously handle release of over 100 cards, that are required to undergo the phases and checks. What is the difference between this card(A) compare to the others?
Before anyone gets a wrong idea and goes in different direction, let’s look at the big picture.
Nothing is perfect and mistakes bounds to happens. But a mistake not corrected is a chance to allow for another similar mistake. By avoiding to address a mistake, we do not allow the party to correct it, and let the party repeat the same mistake.
My question lies in understanding if there was a mistake and thus allowing a correction to the system. (not the product)
When we ask for constructive posts, sometimes, an inconvenient question can benefit the Dev with something they can bring back and ponder on.
Thereafter, then we can see more quality interaction between Dev and players.
Thank you for making this thread! It is both informative and conducive of important discourse.
For anyone curious, here is the context:
Keep in mind that this particular phenomenon does not matter; the question at hand is more general. Please respect the wishes expressed in the opening post by the rational Reaver.
I believe it most likely that there exists a lack of efficiency when it comes to implementing updates, especially with the recent restructuring as mentioned by the gifted Gwyneth.
Deriving context from the way our beloved former Community Manager, Mr. Jesse Hill, shared certain information, it seems evident that there is always a lot of discussion with the team. Yet this is not necessarily a good thing in all circumstances: it can mean unnecessary bureaucracy; in some cases, it can result in no one double-checking the product or the more obvious interactions, because they assumed it has already been handled due to the conversations that were had.
Having said that, it is entirely fine for Team 5 to consider and even expect feedback from the player base! If anything, it bodes well that they are willing to make changes in response to the same. Due to sheer size alone, the players will indubitably always find interactions and bugs that the team might not be able to from limited playtesting. After all, this is the main reason certain decks can unexpectedly become meta tyrants, and therefore necessitate nerfs, at least for the sake of perception.
However, I do agree that Team 5 should provide at least an implicit disclaimer that any proposed update can be changed as appropriate. This is necessary when they might be debating their next course of action, and when they were truly unaware of an unintended interaction. We do not know which is true in this case, but either way, it would be reassuring to know that proposed cards and updates can and will be changed as deemed suitable.
The remainder of this post will be somewhat off-topic, so my apologies in advance!
I have been saying since I first started playing the game that all Mana cost reduction effects should have a “but no less than (1)” provision. That is, anything that reduces Cost should have the Summoning Portal restriction, as Reckless Experimenter now does. Obviously, those cards and abilities that naturally cost 1 Mana would be unaffected, and those that naturally cost 0 Mana would continue to cost 0 Mana.
This change would not only preemptively preclude the most egregious forms of abuse, but also open design space for exploring and supporting such effects in expansions of a higher power level without necessarily breaking the game.
Patron Warrior would not have been nearly so terrifying if Emperor Thaurissan stopped discounting cards when they reached 1 Mana.
In fact, Emperor Thaurissan in general has always been a concern; this would bring him down to a much more reasonable level while preserving his value in enabling countless fun and otherwise impossible combos.
Mech Mage quickly fell out of the metagame and is thus not a good example, but it would have been much more bearable and have had less of a negative impact on the meta if it were so restricted.
Besides, Mechwarper as a card can easily break other cards, as we have been seeing with the recent resurgence of Mechs – indeed, along with something like Zola the Gorgon, it would have enabled every class to play infinite copies of SN1P-SN4P in Wild.
This is the same reason that the nerf to Razakus Priest was targeted precisely and perfectly, and had such a massive impact on the deck and thus both the Standard and Wild metagames.
0-Mana cards and abilities are dangerous, especially so when they were pretty obviously never meant to be played for free. Consequently, discounting effects should always incorporate the “no less than (1)” limitation, either directly or indirectly.
I know that the brilliant Bowser has been championing a similar philosophy, probably for an even longer time!
Thank you for the reply with impressive effort put in.
There are signs that we will see more changes in ways things are being done. (buff to cards, introducing 1-2 new cards in between expansion, etc)
These was some of the requests the players had been asking for.
I believe alot of people is appreciative of the many recent attempts to freshen up the game, myself included.
However, with each request implementation/updates/etc, we get to see more “hiccups”, from missing details in patch notes, “haphazard” news release, packs opening bug(during MSG), etc, etc
My upmost concern is learning from past experience. There are some mechanics that have shown in the past that can create potent problems. If there is no system/process to learn from past experience then it is bound to repeat.
As such, to a player, this means that the repeat is intentional. If unintentional, then what system/process is there in place that is built on that learnt experience?
Or the theme of “there is NO rules” be every present?
