devtrackers.gg
We updated this post to include a question about melee variants, too!
We updated this post to include a question about melee variants, too!
Yeah, glad to see them address this. Their wording was a little concerning in the previous 'Ask Valorant' and it's good to see they recognize there's something here to explore.
Was talking to someone in another thread and, unrelated to this issue, they suggested we should just assume Riot is generally correct and knows what's best for the game.
I just want to say it's super important for the community to push back when they see something they don't agree with. Not that I think this community has had this problem but I think it's important to stick to being critical. Don't assume Riot knows what's best for the game. With CS:GO, the community was relentless in pushing back and it made really great changes to the game. From removing the fog, to changing the bomb and round timer, to giving players 2 flashes to doing their own changes with sound, such as HRTF implementation, just to name a few. If Valve steered and the community didn't try to course correct, I can only imagine how different csgo would be. It's important to remember that this entire format, in both CS and Valorant, exists because of the community. The 12 and 15 max round, 5 v 5 format isn't something Valve created. The community created it, maintained it, experimented with it and used it for literally about 12 years before Valve implemented it into their own match-making.
And to be clear on the point of criticism, I don't think the notion is one the devs would even disagree with. Valve has said time and time again they read everything on the csgo subreddit but stay out of the conversation because they want to hear the brutal, honest truth that they typically don't get to hear once they introduce their presence to the conversation. The game gets better through that kind of friction. It's also important to remember, esports game design is actually a pretty new phenomenon and nobody has all the answers. It's only very recently that devs have shifted their focus from making a game that is just fun to a game that is both fun and competitively viable/fair/interesting both to play and spectate.
Obviously, when you're critical of what the devs do, be respectful and try not to bark up the "they are killing the game!" tree. But I think the best esports games have communities that are not complacent and devs that are willing to engage in the conversation, so I'm excited to see where all of this goes.
I just want to mention that yes we love feedback, and we don't want anyone to just assume we know best, especially if they're suffering or frustrated.
That said, I don't think it's about everyone just yelling feedback everywhere (I do disagree with Valve's approach because if you don't know what our goals or values are, or what challenges we have, or we can’t ask in return, how can we align ourselves together to a good future?) - what we want is a dialogue, and right now I think a lot of people are approaching our conversations like they're the final word. We just want to give context on our thinking and explain some of our limitations.
I'll admit that sometimes it can seem like we're saying we know best, but most of the time we're just trying to say "hey, that thing you have an issue with, we did a lot of testing on our end and we're not sure we can validate it." If you still disagree, help us understand where there might be a disconnect.
Constructive criticism is good, raw criticism can be destructive. And before anyone tells me that game dev is some kind of customer service where you have to grow a thick skin and the customer is always right, that's a no from me.
!pin
I have a question-- as far as this Ask VALORANT series goes, I find it to be very useful in getting a better idea of what you guys are thinking. My question is where do these questions actually come from? The top of the page says "send us your questions", but how? Are people actually sending you guys these questions, or are they just frequently asked questions on different mediums (twitter, reddit, etc.)?
If we, for example, find problems (or what we believe to be a problem) with the game, or find a problem with the response you guys published (i.e. hit registration, sound, etc.), where do we report these?
Pretty much everywhere, we ask for questions on twitter, we see frequently asked questions on reddit, and our regional social people keep an eye out everywhere else. We thought about making an intake form but that seems a little complicated to sort through at our scale.
I recently watched GMTK's video that discusses if "Should Game Designers Listen to Negative Feedback?", got me a decent point of view to understand what's happening on the other side. Gets to the same points you're bringing up.
Recommend everyone to check it too.
Ah yeah, this is pretty good. The other challenge we definitely have is how many players are coming in from a wide range of other FPSes with a range of very hard reinforced notions. VAL is intended to be its own thing, but there are definitely those who just want it to be "their thing 2.0." It's our job to filter, but it can sometimes be overwhelming.
To that end, are there any plans to create variants for existing melee skins? I adore the glitchpop set and I'd love to be able to use variants of it on the melee
Not at the moment. We want to run this test first, then see if players really want melee variants (reddit isn't always a representative sample :D), and then we'll decide if/when we can support making them. And THEN we'll see which skins we can make it for and if we ever go back and add them to older melees or not.
If you want the non-developer answer, I'll tell you that too many people on the VALORANT team have been begging for these. u/pwyff keeps yelling at us in all caps with TEAL AXE. :(
So I do want to ask, there are questions that I think are worth asking that get lost in the chaff regarding the scale that y'all tend to operate at -- I know how difficult it is to process tickets and questions on a bunch of different platforms, I was a former community manager myself so I get how daunting it can be, and the game I was working on was FAR smaller than Valorant. That said though, is there any intake method for questions asked at a smaller scale that aren't commonly asked questions? Like, on twitter, I saw that y'all announced that you'd be testing out new skin variants on melee weapons in a future skin set, but I'm curious if there's any plans to extend that retroactively to sets like the prime/elderflame/glitchpop sets that already have melees, but I imagine questions like those tend to get lost amongst people saying "skins are too expensive" or "do something about smurfs" or "im tired of playing on ascent"
This isn't really about my question of "will we ever get variants for existing melee weapons" (though I would like an answer to that, I don't expect one right now but something at some point would be appreciated), but it's more about how can players extend feedback/concerns/questions for things that might not be commonly thought about/addressed/talked about in your current vectors for collecting feedback, if that makes sense. Thanks!
Eh you can ask me and I can put it in. Otherwise we obviously do want to take the 'largest' questions or we get roasted (as we have before) for being too weird and specific.
I'll say I think we're open to do variants for existing weapons but... want to see if the tech is there and the demand :) Stay tuned on that.
You can ask another super specific question right now if you'd like.
That said, I don't think it's about everyone just yelling feedback everywhere
Of course. I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But I think one can track the failed competitive games versus the successful ones by whether the dev outright ignored all criticism. I don't think riot has fallen victim to this but, in any creative space, it can be easy to get too close to the product and get so accustumed to it that you tune out other perspectives outside of it's production. We see it all the time in artistic mediums where a creator is completely befuddled by their audiences reactions. Players don't sit in the dev environment for innumerable hours andarent designing the game like you guys. They only know what is in front of them. So if in an 'Ask Valorant' session, a statement about how 3D directional sound being a certain way may sound completely innocuous on your end but may sound completely insane on the players end, without the proper context of course.
I do disagree with Valve's approach because if you don't know what our goals or values are, or what challenges we have, or we can’t ask in return, how can we align ourselves together to a good future?
That's fair though I think Valve has reached a point with CSGO where it perhaps benefits them to be more hands off. Those early years, many probably wished Valve was more hands on but where csgo is at right now, it's probably best they don't make significant changes considering it's year-after-year success.
Which leads me to ask...how many agents do you guys intend to add to this game or is it too early to have an idea? at this stage, it certainly makes sense and I'm enjoying the complexity it adds to the game, but much like any "class" shooter, eventually adding more of them becomes problematic for a number of reasons. I recall the R6 devs saying they wanted 100 Operators by the games end and that always seemed insane to me.
And before anyone tells me that game dev is some kind of customer service where you have to grow a thick skin and the customer is always right, that's a no from me.
That's probably the worst part of being a game dev in the multiplayer space. I admire anyone that can tolerate it.
Absolutely agree re: devs not being too precious with the product and listening to build a collaborative experience. Being honest I think there is also some... shock when you go from iterating on a game for years and years and it's wholly yours, to millions upon millions of folks pouring in with none of that context, all demanding many, many things. Takes a little bit of time to go from "this is mine I want to give to you," to, "this is a thing we build together."
RE: the perfect agent roster balance... I think /u/MorelloRiot has said at least ~50? 60? Honestly I think we'll start to understand how flexible the agent roster is as we inject more in, so I don't think we can say "100 is crazy" or "100 is great." Personally I think ~50-60 feels about right (let's say 5 per role).
DotA2 is a great example to me, because each unit is unique, but drafting at the highest levels is about building the right toolbox (or so I think from my armchair). If you have a good, winning strategy, you can draft the S-tier hero for that strategy, but if it's banned, you start picking up the A and B-tier heroes who, when put together, can still do that function. If VAL is more like that, I can see it supporting a much larger ecosystem of agents.
Not at the moment. We want to run this test first, then see if players really want melee variants (reddit isn't always a representative sample :D), and then we'll decide if/when we can support making them. And THEN we'll see which skins we can make it for and if we ever go back and add them to older melees or not.
If you want the non-developer answer, I'll tell you that too many people on the VALORANT team have been begging for these. u/pwyff keeps yelling at us in all caps with TEAL AXE. :(
!!!!TEAL AXE!!!!!
You guys and gals have been great with the transparency and open dialogue. And the willingness to push back where needed. I truly value your engagement and, outside of Val being a good game, it's a reason I stay connected and playing. The teams passion is obvious and I for one really enjoy the dialogue
<3
Does that mean you are open to update existing skins like adding effects for Spline? I think League does this too (Not sure). But I know it might take away more time and resources for new skin lines.
I can ask!