
Originally Posted by
Scapes
From Creative Lead Trick Dempsey:
Ark hunters,
We’re releasing an update to the Warmaster instance to address social dynamics inside the event. Feedback from players fell into two broad categories: those that break locks and those that do not.
Lock breakers break the Warmaster locks at the first opportunity, valuing their play time, entertainment, and the moment-to-moment rewards that come from constant action. They are playing Defiance for a limited time each day and they are guided by which events are active in the game. Every part of the user interface supports this play method. Indicators and EGO instructions push these players forward, and they reap great rewards during their time. Lock breakers constitute a vast majority of players.
Lock keepers seek to prolong the lock-breaking step until the number of players inside the Warmaster event meets or exceeds 24 players, often using chat and weapon intimidation to dissuade others in the instance. These players value resources over time and aim to earn the legendary weapon drops from the Warmaster at all costs. Additionally, these players tend to have an extremely limited scope for value on items; anything that is not part of a predetermined list is deemed entirely worthless. These players are extremely active on the forums and in-game, but still constitute a small minority of players.
Here is how we are updating the event: When the last Volge in the upper level of the arkbreak is killed, the objective to open the vents appears. That objective now has a 30-second countdown. At that point, the vents will open themselves and the cage will appear in the room below. When the cage spawns, it begins a 3-minute countdown. During this countdown, the locks may be destroyed as normal. However, when the countdown completes, the locks shatter and the Warmaster is released. To be clear, from the moment the last Volge is killed in the lobby, there is a maximum of 3.5 minutes before the Warmaster fight starts.
This puts the game’s mechanics in line with the interface indicators in the game and the instructions from EGO. Once inside the Warmaster event, players will proceed to its end in 10 to 15 minutes, thus freeing them to pursue their next adventure in a timely manner. Players aiming to maximize their chances to earn legendary gear or Warmaster kills now have the onus put on them to organize their teams before entering the event. They need to prepare their plans, leader designations, and group/friend invites such that they can execute them quickly. We are not, at this time, removing the exploit that allows players to exceed the event’s 24-player maximum, but we are requiring teams that wish to do so to achieve this in a timely fashion.
While lock keepers are not necessarily playing the Warmaster instance incorrectly, this is not how the event was designed to be played. This change prevents them from holding an in-progress event hostage and allows the instance to progress as designed. Players who progress the Warmaster fight are not and have not been “griefers” as they are doing what the game has literally told them to do. We’ll continue to monitor feedback about the Warmaster event and this latest change, so please share your constructive experience-based insights with us on the forums.
Good hunting,
Creative Lead Trick Dempsey
---
Please Note: This letter's intent was not to polarize or antagonize any of our players. I can say that definitively. As a developer designing a feature, this birds-eye view of the game's audience can be dehumanizing as is sets players in camps based on gameplay style and behavior. These labels appeared in the article and came across as offensive when that was not the intent. Additionally, the article should have been branded as a "Developer Blog" of sorts as it was written from a development standpoint, communicating the rationale for a feature change using direct reasoning.
Having read most if not all of the forum activity, this appears to have been the core frustration about the post, even more so than the game change. To again be fully transparent, both myself and PhantasieTrion reviewed, edited, and signed off on the article before I published it last night. The notion was that the change may be received better if communicated using an honest, if blunt, voice. In retrospect, we should have put the article through another round of revisions to temper it better and soften some of the language used.
I encourage everyone to look past the directness of the original article which was as much my fault as anyone else's and focus on the feature change itself which we are interested to hear feedback about.