Comments

1. 

   Aristo (Enlightened) on 11/22/2011 12:38 a.m.

   Chadj. Do you believe your own words? Can you and the team really think this is good for the game. If I wanted 1000 friends I would like to choose them. It is not a matter of the strong, it is a matter of who can cheat the most.
2. 

   Anvar (Archmage) on 11/22/2011 12:52 a.m.

   Agreed with Aristo. This will make alt farming skyrocket. Also, I like the medal, but probably won't get to see it in color. Yes, as I expected, the Animators are winning all the new mega-BGs. What did you expect, when they take around 55% of the USA total every campaign? The BG re-groupings should have been regional with continuity to old BGs, only expanded.
3. 

   Kieri (Magister) on 11/22/2011 2:11 a.m.

   There are known alt-farmers who just logged each alt into a different BG. The chats are unusable. If you want fewer battlegroups, make the regions you were talking about this summer. I was actually looking forward to that. This just breaks the game.
4. 

   Omega001 (Seeker) on 11/22/2011 3:31 a.m.

   HAY HI IM NOT REALLY NEW HERE BUT I KNOW WAYS THAT WE CAN WIN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WIN OJS IM HERE
5. 

   EchoShade (Journeyman) on 11/25/2011 6:52 a.m.

   Not to fuss but I like sticking with friends I make in my battlegroup - you make those connections and therefore can trust them. Why can't we stay in the same battlegroup? (as in keep in the 1000 we where with, not chop and change each round)
6. 

   Anvar (Archmage) on 11/25/2011 6:26 p.m.

   Echo: I'm not in BG with people in my same CITY. That's silly. Make the BGs regional, not country-wide, with respect to old state BG continuity. And to change it every round is even worse, though I'm glad I'm not in the maddness of BG1 this round.
7. 

   ProfCSI (Acolyte) on 11/27/2011 1:55 a.m.

   I've been playing this for over five days now and I've been a top-ten USA scorer in the first two rounds, so I think I've got enough experience to comment. This USA BG might be a nice thing to do occasionally to keep players interested in new challenges, but it is NOT good for a social game to toss me in with a random 500-member team three times a week. Here's why: -New players are overwhelmed by the chat and rarely get the chance to get their questions answered as we try to educate them. -New players can't form chat relationships that last as they are tossed about in random groups. With a broken PM system, it's nearly intolerable to try to guide these players via PM. -Players who could normally aid each other due to physical proximity can't aid each other due to disparate BG assignments. -Players who enjoy chat find that the crowded, 500-person chat room is too hectic to enjoy (again, a broken PM makes this worse and limits conversations to one-on-one). -ABC/AHC are disasters for any player, especially in BG 1. There is no way to take an intelligent risk with that. -This battle group change is exacerbated by the dreadful change to the beacon list. As noted by others, players cannot see beacons of teammates a mere two KM away. For a geo-based game, this is stupidity. I can't see that this random BG assignment process and large teams can be good for social cohesion that would keep players engaged. Undoubtedly, this idea helps players from US states that have extremely small populations. I would suggest that the smallest states' groups be added to neighboring larger states to create some regional groups. I play in the Colorado group and believe that adding New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nebraska to the Colorado group would aid those players in finding more teammates and challenges, improving game play for them. But randomly tossing Colorado players into six groups every couple of days is a recipe for tearing apart the success of the game for little reward.
8. 

   SerottaCSi (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 2:07 a.m.

   Oops, login confusion. The above post is mine, written under my teaching account login.
9. 

   SerottaCSi (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 2:17 a.m.

   One other thought: Any experienced player could have foreseen these complaints. Perhaps Grey Area needs to consider a small council of experienced players who could guide them on proposed changes. Developers can get lost in the forest of their own details and fail to understand how players have adapted to the game as it is. I'm an end-to-end process analyst by trade and could definitely explain how players relate to the game in a way that the less-experienced players (such as a level 12 developer) may not see.
10. 

    Jayne (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 2:23 a.m.

    totally agree with SerottaCSi - i believe i have posted similar comments in the forums.
11. 

    blinDFury (Awakened) on 11/27/2011 2:25 a.m.

    I agree with SerottaCSi on every count. Currently if you want to play with you current bg you have to coordinate the sign in time and even if you do land in the same bg, team chat is, in most accounts, completely useless. Like SerottaCSi, I spend a lot of my time teaching younger mages. In BG4 of the last round, I couldn't do anything other than teach because there was always a noob that needed assistance. (always was not an exaggeration) In BG4 there was not enough experienced players to take on spiders without statussing for help from the other bg players. Personally NJ animators wants our bg back the way it was. If we went regional, group NJ and NY together anything larger will be just like US BG1.
12. 

    Ayrede (Enlightened) on 11/27/2011 2:30 a.m.

    I agree with Serotta. I used to score points to support my TEAM, the cohesive group of individuals I immensely enjoyed playing with. We had local villains and inside jokes. Cross team chat was full of witty banter and even though the mages were from different academies, we still enjoyed each others' company. (When we weren't raiding, that is!) Now it seems I just score points to score points. It doesn't really make a difference in the overall result. I don't sense a team aspect because I'm with different players each round, many whom I don't recognize. Chat is impossible to follow. We can't find and train our new players. It's difficult to form relationships with other players because in a few days you might not be in the same battle group anymore. The change is fun on a temporary basis, but in the long term I feel it will undermine the game.
13. 

    Anvar (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 2:36 a.m.

    Serotta: I posted on SC's FB wall the hours before the BG change (as I was finding out what was going on). I was told to give it a chance and that my opinion wasn't going to be taken into account until the change. When I stated that my fears were confirmed after playing round 1, I was still brushed off and replied to with a canned response, that I've seen elsewhere. I even suggested in a forum thread that myself and others would gladly take part as a "sounding board", free of charge. I feel like there's a disconnect between the devs and their client base. They do internal testing of any changes and feel that that's good enough for them. I wholeheartedly disagree.
14. 

    ProfCSI (Acolyte) on 11/27/2011 2:42 a.m.

    Agreed, Anvar. While a developer knows a great deal about the /intent/ of changes, how a community reacts to those changes is unpredictable. Members of that community have a far better idea of what will happen--especially the most-engaged players. I plan systems and user interfaces for a living, so I know that I'm often surprised by how users react to systems/interfaces I've designed. I know for sure that it's wise to ask your user community for feedback and to learn well from what they say. Sadly, the most active members of this community don't feel they have that say.
15. 

    Caenarys (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:26 a.m.

    A council for feedback seems wise.
16. 

    Sassy982011 (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:39 a.m.

    first u screw up my bc list and "FIX" the lag probem and take away my reliable hunting grounds. Next u mix up our bgs and make many of our heavy players quit. Now ur trying to sell this crap and make us like it?! U R SCREWING UP UR OWN GAME! U R MAKING UR PAYERS MAD!
17. 

    summers (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:53 a.m.

    Having been thru 99% of this game's U.S. release I have to agree with everyone above. The beauty and addictive qualities you designed into this game (the social and the "locality" aspects) are this game's bread and butter. When Free Movement was introduced it created an uproar that is until players on both sides saw the potential for near infinite raid and scoring opportunities. So when everyone was becoming used to Free Movement and the opportunities it supported Free Movement was ended. When Boss spirits were introduced without the joy of Kill Sharing it created initial strife until people realized that not only is it good to help your neighbor but the "Lottery" system of just hacking away at said Boss spirit would net someone that luck jolt of Energy and Experience. When the Weavers were introduced .... When Kill Sharing was introduced .... I have been here and I have seen the Joy and the Pain that each iteration has caused in the local, regional, national, and international communities playing. Now for once I see a series of iterations that is threatening the very fabric of Game Play and Player Loyalty. Please re-think not only the Random BG's but these new Regional BG's and the strife, pain and consequence to New and Old Players alike.
18. 

    Windyxman (Seeker) on 11/28/2011 1:31 a.m.

    How do you get the maps to show up for the campaigns? I can not not see any of the campaigns prior or present. Is there something wrong with my computer? Any help would apprecieated.