devtrackers.gg
Hopefully TFT rewards are exclusive to TFT game modes. I really don't want to feel compelled to play something to get a skin in a completely different game mode. X(
Hopefully TFT rewards are exclusive to TFT game modes. I really don't want to feel compelled to play something to get a skin in a completely different game mode. X(
That's our thinking too - rewards should recognize accomplishments for a context you wanted to play in anyway, not leave you feeling forced to play something you're not interested in so you can use them elsewhere.
Ok hold up, the answer to the Teemo question is super inconsistent with what Riot has done before with changing Teemo, and I want an honest answer from a Rioter about shipping Teemo's changes.
We tried a few variations of the changes, but in the end, it seemed like we couldn’t make a change without being deeply divisive—and we weren’t comfortable shipping something unless the majority of his playbase was on board.
Remember that time when Teemo's shrooms didn't bounce? And that time where they lasted 10 minutes instead of 5?
Prominent Teemo mains swarmed this sub and the PBE forums (most notably, this post) to discuss why Teemo was suddenly being changed. At the time, very few folks were on board. /u/PhreakRiot jumped into the aforementioned thread to attempt to defend the changes, saying that we "don't comprehend the buffs" (referring to the overall shroom mechanics changing) and that the 5-minute reduction "doesn't make as big as a difference as it may appear...if it wasn't going to get popped in the first five minutes, it's unlikely to find a target in the next five."
At that time, our (meaning Teemo players) feedback seemed to not be considered, as the changes were ultimately pushed to live (holy crap, it's been nearly four years since then) to the dismay of many Teemo mains (myself included). He was not an oppressive laner by any means, nor was he anywhere near pro play.
My question is: What gives? Why the sudden change of heart? I'd like to think that Riot's approach to changing the mechanics of a champion is becoming increasingly player-focused (as Riot is indeed player experience first, according to their manifesto). But is there another reason why the Teemo changes weren't shipped? Will the 10-minute shroom dream ever be reconsidered?
(Note: I do not mean to sound incendiary toward the devs. I just want some clarification on the Teemo decisions. I like him a lot.)
FWIW, there are different criteria for different types of work. I wasn't at the company four years ago so I don't know 100% if this was the case for the previous Teemo changes, but if the previous work was done because we felt 10 minute shrooms were unhealthy for the game as a whole, that's something where Teemo player feedback will be weighed, but won't be sole factor on whether it ships. Nobody ever wants a nerf to ship for their own champion (and rightfully so). If we're trying to ship something awesome specifically for Teemo players and Teemo players are divided on whether they like it, then that's a much clearer show-stopper.
Also I do just want to focus on the player-focus line in your comment. We definitely slip up on player focus sometimes, but it's also not quite as cut-and-dry as "listening to what players say on Reddit/Twitter/etc. is player-focused." Sometimes it's correct to make an unpopular decision (or, even more relevant, a decision that appears REALLY unpopular due to the nature of social media and online engagement) because it improves the game. Players frequently ask for unreasonable things (non-stop, actually), players are biased towards their mains (which is fine, but we have to take it into account), and humans are notoriously change averse. Devs and players won't always see eye-to-eye on what's best, but I promise 100x that the designers I work with are always in it to make the game better for players. It's all we talk about—every decision is framed around what's best for players and how we can deliver value to you all, and sometimes it's not obvious and we know we're gonna get put on blast but that comes with the territory. This is mostly to say: It's a hard job with a lot of moving parts and different audiences, sometimes we get it wrong, but it's rarely for a lack of thinking and caring about the player experience. Thanks for being a long-time player and for giving well thought-out and reasoned feedback.
Thank you for the response.
I think I should clarify for a moment, because I don't want to a.) antagonize you, b.) belittle Riot (and their employees), as well as c.) minimize the gravity of your work.
I understand that the player-focused bit isn't exclusive to the online forums. Y'all have one of the largest sets of continuously growing data in the industry (be it from player behavior feedback, realtime statistics related to players and champions, as well as a population that you can directly interact with for surveys), so I'm sure that there's probably a lot that goes into the decision-making regarding champions and such. I respect what y'all do to the extent of me wanting to work at Riot once I'm finished with my degree, but I digress.
I think my concern is one related to the wording of the Teemo changes portion. If what you're saying is, the changes being made aren't being made because his kit is unhealthy, it's just slightly dated, then wouldn't saying something along the lines of wanting to ship changes that stay true to the champion, make them interesting, and keep the community whole? Like, it seems off (at least to me, but I might be a minority here) to focus exclusively on shipping changes unless the majority of the playerbase was on board given the other major influences keeping them from shipping.
Does that make sense?
I appreciate you replying. I really really really hope that you didn't find my comment to be in any way negative. Thank you for replying and keeping this game great! :)
I'm not sure I fully follow your question. It sounds like we're on the same page. When the goal of shipping a change is to give something great to the community of people that play that champ, then those changes shouldn't run contrary to what a considerable portion of those players want. I believe this is the goal for the current round of Teemo changes, which is why they were pulled upon the community liking them less than was forecast.
Basically, my question was if there was a better way to phrase the statement to begin with, given that there were other serious considerations to be made along with the community reaction.
If you're referring to this statement:
We tried a few variations of the changes, but in the end, it seemed like we couldn’t make a change without being deeply divisive—and we weren’t comfortable shipping something unless the majority of his playbase was on board.
Then no, I think it was phrased accurately. This set of changes was meant to make Teemo players happier (to my understanding), and it didn't seem to be doing that, so we weren't comfortable shipping them.
Yes, I am referring to that statement, but I think maybe some clarity on the intentions of the changes might add to the impact of relying on the players being happy. Something along the lines of:
We were considering changes to Teemo's kit that would make him more fun/accessible/unique/[insert goal here], which meant that we needed players to be on board with our ideas in this case. In the end, it seemed like we couldn’t make a change to meet our goals for Teemo without being deeply divisive—and we weren’t comfortable shipping something unless the majority of his playbase was on board with the changes.
The addition of the first sentence (that I bolded) emphasizes the goal of the rework, the importance of player feedback at meeting that particular goal, and allows for the final sentence to use player feedback & happiness as the metrics for the success of those changes. Does that make sense?
Sure, makes sense.