Q&A with Game Designers - Spring 2021 Edition (Discussion Part II)

I like this effort and thank everyone who facilitated it (staff, players and moderators)

it is good to know different perspectives on things overall. i must admit some answers were disappointing from a players point of view but i will comment on 2 points (balance and economy)

1- Balance: SG is way too hesitant in that area and i believe it is negatively impacting some aspects.

Some heros are in 100% need to be buffed and wouldn’t impact the game balance at all. The clearest example is Quintus (slow, weak damage, does nothing special) who is outclassed by average speed heroes who do similar damage and more things. Buffing him by no means will change the meta or balance.
Some heros are on similar boat mainly the heroes who introduced a new mechanic or unique thing that probably got toned down before release to be safe i guess (inari, Thoth-amun, aeron, ameonna, perseus, Victor, valeria, vlad, … etc).
They are rarely used at all so the internal metrics can be very misleading for them.

Also, why not update old family bonuses to be for 3 hero members instead of 5? 3 seems to be the perfect reasonable number for both attack and defense.

why not adding more 4* and 3* in all seasons especially season 4? many colours are lacking some abilities. you can use the already existing bosses and enemies as the artwork just like when muggy was added.

2- Economy: it is also a caution area it seems but why not improve the clearly lacking things like old quests. For example, why ever do “Find crafting items” when using the same energy in normal farming of 8-7 will give better results?

Why not improve the loot for seasonal quests especially the emblems part. it is once every 3 months, it can’t break the economy.


There are many reasonable answers in Tim and Joel’s feedback, and I am happy that they took the time to provide us with answers. Many were vague, others were disappointing, and a few are good to hear. My thoughts are below and I start with the most negative and end with the most positive. Overall, I’m pretty neutral on their feedback, but I’m less optimistic that they will make the large pool of non-s1 heroes more accessible to the player base. If they think that shortening the training time on HA10 is too risky, then I doubt their duplicate 5* hero solution will be well received. I could be wrong, but until we hear the ideas (or more likely see them in beta down the road), I cannot be sure.

There’s a difference between being careful with the game economy and effectiveness of a feature. On AVERAGE, you’d expect a non-S1 to appear once every 20 trainings, which is about 5 months. And it might be a non-s1 you already have or do not want. Mind you, this is an end-game building that takes about a year of dedicated play to get to the first training. Additionally, you are required to have 5* to trade in! Ostensibly, some of those duplicates are going to be from summons. I agree with the premise that SG has to be careful with HA10, but the end product seems more miserly than careful. Adding the ability to get costumes in HA10 will be nice, but the combination of odds and training length limit this feature’s excitement.

I’m not sure folks agree on the definition of affordable and sensible. There’s an acknowledgement that prices were set based on expectations when the app went live and clearly those expectations have been exceeded by a significant margin. So why hasn’t the roster space cost structure changed? Why hasn’t there been additional free space for the tripling of unique available heroes?

Ideas are good. After HA was rolled out about a year ago, I started a thread in #active-player-lounge on this very topic to attempt engagement between some players and SG. The idea being that it is in SG’s best interest to push a product that has player buy-in rather than pushing through a negatively received feature. I think the player base would very much appreciate SG sharing these ideas before investing the cost to implement them. I think Tim misunderstood the trade-in system suggestion; I think the intent of the question was a single player retiring 4 Elena in order to receive 1 Alberich, not something that involves multiple players.

I’m glad this was finally stated openly so that folks in beta (and to some extent those not in beta) understand what the purpose of beta is.

I wish they would have taken it further. Take a look at folks who used mats on Delilah years ago and paid to summon Director Zuri. It’s still nice to have both for depth, but many would appreciate the ability to reallocate the mats used for Delilah on Director Zuri.

I really like this answer. This has been a long-standing request.

This might be my favorite answer. Any additional info on defense is appreciated.


Reading the answer regarding the lack of writers with lore knowledge, I couldn’t help but shout out, “I volunteer!”. Background in archaeology, obsession with folklore and mythology, and a recent degree in creative writing and literature. :raised_hand:
I’d love a season based on The Táin, with a Cúchullain, a Ferdia, Queen Maeve, King Conor MacNassa, Emer, The Morrigan etc. etc. Etc. Can have enemies from Celtic mythology! Think about it! Would be AMAZING. :slight_smile:


New buildings? a Museum? Expedition Building? I wonder how the Expedition Building would work.


Here are my thoughts:

First of all i was delighted to see some of the questions i wrote being answered, that felt really good.

Secondly and this is the reason why i voted “unhappy” on the poll here. Most of the sensitive questions (especially about duplicates) were answered in a way that reminds me of politicians, they gave an answer in the sense that they said something about it but they actually avoided the question by not giving any specifics (We are thinking about it, we have ideas, etc.) So they answered the question but they actually didnt.
The solution was PROMISED us 3 years ago then again a year ago when it was clear that HA cannot fulfill that role. And now they say they have ideas? This is simply outrageous. Like the topic was a new one. So they basically said that they do not give the thing any priority even though they kept promising it for years and its the top asked feature by the community.

They cherry picked the questions so i would have expected an actual answer to those, not some wishy-washy bull :poop:. We are not stupid here and we cannot be talked to sleep with fairy tales about game balance and economy when new broken op heroes are being released with every new event.


I like that they fielded some more direct, needs-to-be-answered questions (e.g. why they ignored feedback on Limit Breakers, what they’re doing to bridge the gaps from F2P to P2P, etc)

BUT, I felt like I was reading responses from politicians. Most(!) answers were deflections or seem to stall/allude to “behind the scenes” happenings. Or just avoided an actual answer by bringing up other topics

EDIT: I didn’t notice until after posting that @Mr.Sabaton had just alluded to politicians the post before me. “Great minds” as they say…


@Gwniver I thank you for speaking up here. I think forum posters may skew towards long-term players, and it’s important to hear from your side too.

I had expected the Q&A to be simply a PR exercise. Rightly trying to appear in the best light. Style with little substance.

My first impression is really poor.

Anyway, yes, I agree that this is not personal comment aimed at the game designers themselves: After so much that the community has decided to tolerate , this is the best that you can offer us?


Earlier in the year, I wrote here on the forum that costumes for non-S1 5* were the joke of the year (in terms of the game). Somehow, limit breakers or this Q&A have topped it.


Credit where it’s due, at least they were fully honest about limit breakers having been due to “business parameters” (ie $$$$ :money_mouth_face: :money_mouth_face:) rather than try to BS us with some ridiculous answer that everybody knows is just full of :poop:.

So while I don’t like most of what was said, I give them points for how it was said and for their candidness.


Or at least change the odds of the previous portals ffs!! jesus christ we will get to season 10 and still there will be season 1 heroes in them?! This is a pay to win game we get it but is slowly (fastly?) getting pay to play damn…
For ftp players chances to get atlantis heroes are gone (good luck getting something from crap academy), i think there are quite some player still finishing season 3 but with all this events packed in a month i mean, playing 34 normal stages (or 12 on both normal and hard but if you don’t have a good roster you will toil hard) for getting a single pull is enormously tiring and tedious, without taking into account the world energy required…embarassing


Here, here! I see it also in my line of work, and see also that EP is really providing us with a Free service, for a start. And how else can they make back their money but with providing content! content! content! …it’s not surprising at all really, ahah.

Finally, someone who talks sense here. I completely agree. I’ve been out there trying to get hired myself. It is mildly terrifying. Brr!

So why ask BETA contributers for their feedback? It’s a waste of everyone’s time if decisions are already made. It’s their business to run as they see fit, obviously, but perhaps more transparency with the BETA testers: tell them the content is happening regardless, you’re feedback isn’t required, just check the feature for bugs please.


Kudos for doing this Q&A, even if I don’t find many of the answers satisfying.

Did these two answers really come from the same person??

  • Will there ever be an actual fix to the duplicate 5* issue?*
    • TIM: We have been discussing this here, it’s definitely not an easy one to solve but we have some ideas.

What are exactly the QoL improvements promised in the 2021 Sneak Peek?

  • TIM: […] We have a detailed plan for the Legendary hero duplicate use feature, but that one won’t go to development until very late this year. […]

“Some ideas” and “a detailed plan” are pretty far apart! Even so “very late this year”, then typical schedule slips, I wouldn’t expect to see anything come from this for at least another 12 months. Very, VERY, disappointing for an acknowledged problem that’s been around for years.


I appreciate the time taken to answer quite a lot of questions. I also appreciate the fact that the answers seem to be verbatum.

I would comment that many of the responses leave more questions than answers,so perhaps could do with being expanded…

For example, why are events being prioritised when many of us feel exhausted by the amount going on, and would appreciate the QoL updates more.

Too many tidbits (we discussed this but decided no e.g. pity counters) that could do with further explanation.

Anyone reading the Q&A is interested enough in the game to visit the forum and want to be part of the community. Although it might be a very small part of the overall playing base, surely we can have more detail?

It’s fairly obvious many decisions are taken from a revenue perspective, sugar coating that as ‘business decision’ is poor. I get that there’s a need to be tactful, but I think this read more like @petri reading the questions to Tim and Joel and literally transcribing the answers, rather than them answering it as if they were being asked directly by ‘the fans’.

It’s interesting to note that there are different development streams and budgets: and that PC has freer reign, and I also think that it would be useful to understand more of the game mechanics as to why what seems like a simple request (raid replays etc) might not be.

Basically what I’m saying is that you can give a little more and get a little back from the player base. Good customer service is about transparency, not about vague answers. And I don’t think the answers were deliberately vague (in the main) but I think most people will be left feeling unsatisfied, which goes against the aim of this.

Also, Season Five?! Can we just chill out?


How many 5* did you get in that 2500 pulls?

1 Like

The interview came off as incredibly tone deaf. When they talk about making decisions based on engagement (code word for spending money) rather than feedback (customer satisfaction) it makes me cringe. We know that there are many players in the game with addiction issues. If your goal is primarily to exploit this behavior, it’s really not a great look for you or your company.

Some entrepreneurs care deeply about creating a great product. Others just want to get rich. We know where SG falls.


Q&A was just a waste of time In my opinion.

well done to them tho for replying back to the questions least we know now they took the time to read them.

What iv taken from this is its all about money not the the players. No change there I guess lol.

But hay ho the show must go on.


SG have a plan to limit break the token.

It’s called: “Super Reset Token”

Hail to the game economy!!


Two things I learned from this Q&A. #1, game metrics decide their decisions. A lot of that is controlled by us. If we (the community) want more QoL improvements (seems we do), then we need to ignore new events until the metrics tell them that’s not what we want. Easy to say, hard to do. #2 - the difference between Western developers and Asian developers is really apparent here. Asian attitude is that they’ll try hard to accomplish these things to make the players happy, Western response is…it’s just too difficult, cuts into our profit, and doesn’t seem worth it. The poster Gregschen said it best, completely tone deaf responses here. If I have to read one more answer that can be summarized as, “We know that would make you happy, but we aren’t going to do it” I mean, we aren’t really customers are we? We are just guests in your world. The game isn’t for us, it’s for you now isn’t it? The stubborn rebukes of community desires really turns me off, and I actually wasn’t really that unhappy with this game until reading the Q&A. Actually makes me dislike the game more as I now know the narcissistic personality behind it.

And just thought of this, they mention they can only figure out limit breakers by having a larger portion of the gamers experience it, so then they can tweak it. They admit that, but then they so stubbornly say they know how these other changes will affect the ‘game economy’ so they aren’t going to try it at all, rather than implement it and tweak it?


As for beta testing, they literally said to us that we don’t really know what we want.
Our perspective is not “enlighted” such as them, so they know best what we really want even if we say it suck.

If you read carefully, they even said we don’t even know what a “QoL improvement” really is, as eventually adressing the duples problem would be so “major” to not even be considered a QoL but a feature per se.

But of course, it is so major that they decide to further delaying it.

They talked about “game economy” (spending behaviour) as it will totally change it.

It depends guys.
You can adress it in a thousand ways, more or less impactful, and i already know i don’t need to tell you this.

To not do it is once again a choice.

As per how the game is advancing, if they don’t do it now i don’t see any reason for them to do it in the future too.

This is exactly a copycat answer from the last AMA, which once again take another undefined quantity of time before once again find some excuse to not implement it.

You better consider every single question that have "next year"and work in progress in it like it will never happen, and act accordly.

This is what we have, and it will not change.
Take or leave.


Cookie Settings