This patch has the worst public reaction out of any of the previous patches:
Honestly, it’s insulting. The issues people have are not reactionary. The changes made are not being felt positively.
And how are you judging this? Isn’t leaving a Steam review for a game you have hundreds of hours in, days after a patch has dropped, the definition of reactionary?
Balance and design changes always take time to shake out.
You’re absolutely correct.
Heavy negative criticism isn’t always reactionary though. It’s entirely possible that the changes being made are noticeably bad.
It’s a reduction of criticism to call it reactionary, and it also assumes that the critics prefer status quo.
This patch made too many changes all at once, and ultimately introduced more issues with balance than it solved.
The cherry on top is the changes were made for people who don’t make up the core playerbase. It gets brought up every time… the people the changes were made for have left or are more interested in having this game represent the meta seen in other Age titles.
But sure, let’s wait and see. No one is really suggesting otherwise.
I never said negative criticism of any kind isn’t always reactionary.
Reacting to balance changes within days of them dropping is a reaction, by definition. A hasty one. Reacting to design decisions moreso. It doesn’t even have to be negative, it’s just that negative reactions to balance tend to get the most (virtual) airtime.
Personally, I think more care should be taken for the casual playerbase. I understand why campaign balancing has remained separate, but Art of War missions should be updated to help onboard MP-oriented players better. But I doubt the game will ever get the resource to keep them aligned.
Hi @MedicMaaan , I’ve always enjoyed your opinions and I’m interested in hearing what you would do to improve the patch. I could be wrong, but I think a refresh of the siege mechanics was something you wanted as well. I noticed that part of your disappointment is related to your perception that melee infantry was over-nerfed. You may be right, but if that’s the case, with the data from Season 9, they’ll certainly fix it and make the necessary balancing changes.
No. We played the PUP. These changes were highlighted as a part of that. There was time to process what it would mean, and there’s been push back the whole time.
It’s also not a common trend, no other patch has had a negative review ratio this bad.
I don’t have anything to add past this, just trying to bring objective data points.
I hope the Negative reviews is just because people are not used to it or the Annoying pause feature
The patch has some positives, such as removing the siege mini-game, but there are a lot of areas where it’s maa and nob overly nerfed and longbowman overly buffed
I really hope they can fix these issues in the next nov patch
I have been checking where this is coming from.
Most of it is coming from a place in the world where they have players with hundreds of hours and are unhappy with the changes because “it’s unbalanced and changes the game”.
It has tinges of review bombing because of the hate they are showing in several of the reviews.
I’ll have to take a page out of your book here and suggest that you withhold characterization of why this feedback exists and who it is coming from. In the medium to long term you may find different results. Wait and see, right?
That’s a good point about the PUP. But there’s no correlation between the people leaving negative reviews and the people playing the PUP, except maybe you? No judgement in either case, it’s just not a correlation we can make. A percentage of the reviews will 100% be reactionary and not based on having played the PUP.
As for it being a common trend, again, this was a significant design update significantly long after the game released. It’s going to happen. Positive reviews are going to trend rarer as time goes on:
You can bring as many data points as you want, but you’re reading into it subjectively (presumably because of your shared dislike of the design changes in the latest update).
Personally, I don’t think games shouldn’t be balanced on popularity. That isn’t in any way an objective metric with which to evaluate design and balance. Enjoyment will rise (or not) over time depending on adjustments the developers make and / or depending on the players ability to adapt to the changes (even if the changes can be argued to be bad, adaptation still needs to occur). With this period of adaptation, the actual qualitative insight (even if it’s critical), will increase.
Look at this review. There are quite a few like it - they’re not all about balance:
Should we therefore associate the amount of reviews with dissatisfaction with balance specifically? Objectively, we shouldn’t.
I have simply described objectively where these mostly negative reviews come from and how several of them are expressed.
Clearly there are adjustments to be expected.
Well, actually it’s not “that many” bad reviews (less than 100), considering that the game’s base is 14,000 players. In fact, few people give their Game Review opinion constantly, they do it once or never; and if they do it’s to talk about the Game in general, not about an update.
This has simply been a storm of Rage from Chinese users who are using the Steam forum to gather their criticisms of the new patch, as a form of protest.
Most of them write things like:
In general they are a minority, although well, I share the feeling of wanting more DLC, but criticizing the game as a whole for it in the Steam Chart, I don’t think it’s right.
Most players, as far as I can tell, support the end of Siege Wars.
That said, changing so many unit stats has thrown the metagame into disarray, so until new guides and builds are updated, many players will obviously be left hanging.
These negative reviews are definitely not rash conclusions from people who didn’t even have time to understand the changes…Just like drawing conclusions based on reviews posted 3 days after the patch.
Those reviews seem to be overreacting, considering that the depth of this change will take a while to properly process. It seems more like protesting than actual reviews–and as we all know, review bombing games is rarely if ever reasonable.
The siege changes were a necessity. Honestly, it is surprising that they took this long to make the change. An anti-siege siege unit who stops all forms of progress? Who in their right mind had that idea to begin with?
Finally siege can actually function as you know, siege. Expensive lategame units that accelerates the end of the game via the destruction of units and buildings.
I saw it more as an interesting piece of information. As a data point it is representative of crowd feedback that has never been seen before for this game. The only thing I was trying to highlight is that there is no point in time in the history of this game that a patch has lead to a negative response as significant as this.
Think of it as a milestone.
From a personal perspective, it is validating to me. I am not comfortable with all changes made, but I actually like 90% of what was done. I did not make the post for that reason though. I offered it because I prefer references, data, and actual information as opposed to the subjective discussion that normally occurs on these forums.
With that being said, I am trying to avoid making a position on why that feedback is the way it is. More time needs to pass and more feedback needs to be given. It’s unreasonable to draw conclusions about it so early… it feels almost hypocritical considering the argument against valuing it.
Your responses raise an important question for me:
What would be an appropriate time to revisit the topic of feedback?
Does your reasoning apply to the inverse relationship? Are all positive reviews that lack nuance now rendered inert?
You have misunderstood the reason for my posts @GorbMort. I am trying to show how people are responding in mass, and >60% of the negative reviews don’t include text.
Time will tell how this update is received. If the update is received poorly it will be shown in the data.
It is currently a mostly negative response.
When the metagame is established and even in the November patch.
14000 players and you make a change based on the most useless audience there is, reddit users who in total had less than 300 people voting. And we don’t know if the people who asked for the change are regular players, I’m level over 500, I play every day I can if I’m not tired from work.
What you did with the infantry changed the game, it was terrible, it took pieces off the chess board.
And worst of all, there is no logical justification for the cavalry to receive a huge bonus and the infantry to be completely harmed in the late game.
People really like several types of units, but now only those who use cavalry and ranged units will have a full game.
The changes to the Library were terrible. The changes to the artillery were worse, it doesn’t make sense that the Columbrine was a thin cannon that did more damage than a normal cannon. The game became crap, I went to write a negative review on Steam.
How so ? I tested them and they still do 18 dmg with fu
What was their move speed before ? And now ?
it was 19 before
They were 1.75 speed now 1,62 same with knights.Maybe this unit deserves a discount.
I didn’t say “inert”. I said “reactionary”.
If someone said “the balance changes are amazing, more balance changes like this” within 72 hours of a balance patch being released, yes, this would also be reactionary. It would be based on “feels”, and nothing more.
But more importantly, you’re the one trying to tie some kind of objective evaluation of the game balance to Steam reviews. That’s an assertion you have to qualify. I’m simply saying “we can’t tell”. Which we can’t. Maybe it’s the easy answer, but . . . what else is there to say?
If you want to argue balance specifically, maybe make a thread? “look at all these negative reviews” isn’t a data point, because there are many reasons why people submit negative reviews.
“time will tell how this update is received”
Sure. Except that a binary “good / bad”:
a) doesn’t give you a breakdown of what was good bad, and therefore
b) cannot be used to make any balance or design arguments, and
c) is based primarily on emotive feedback the closer to the update it’s submitted.
Like I said before. I don’t want balance or design to come from peoples’ subjective likes or dislikes. I do not consider the fact that this patch is getting negative Steam reviews to be any kind of objective measurement r.e. balance and / or design. It’s a good metric for gauging player unhappiness (not even happiness, because as we know more people are incentivised to post when they’re unhappy vs. when they’re happy), but little more than that.
