@Morello, because you asked that the Cass thread return to topic
From this comment
I don't think it's a good practice to leave people feeling like that - agreed. I do, however, think that it's important to note we will not always act on it - there's a key difference.
In Sona's case, I think we did the right changes (especially looking at some of the data), but feedback from the community was definitely discussed - just not acted upon as much because much of the conversation revolved around retaining the exact things we were looking to solve (though you may be speaking to other issues in that conversation that I'm missing).
It's not about change aversion. I never saw anyone who I thought was being serious about their feedback disagree with the need for a Sona rework. What I take exception to is the mesaging and communication. I'm going to talk about the Sona rework as a specific example, because I have experience with it, but it's my sense that this has been a consistent problem with most of the reworks, with the possible sole exception of the Skarner rework.
The rework process fails to ask and answer important questions
For example, when the Sona rework was announced, the messaging was "Sona needs changes and this is why." I don't know many people who disagreed with that assertion. What didn't happen, however, was what I consider a critical part of the process:
- Why do you pick Sona?
- What do you think Sona does?
- Does this rework align with those concepts?"
I think that this sort of questioning encourages focused feedback and might actually help them feel better about the changes. I know that when I said, "I bring Sona as a high-risk/high-reward early game poke and team fight control", I was met with messaging that said, "Sona will be stronger with these changes." While that's true - and I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not picking on Fearless here - it doesn't address my concerns. This isn't a design issue, it's a communication issue.
Personally, I think that this is best handled by explicitly asking these questions in crafted precursor threads. All of the "Let's Talk About [champion]" threads seemed to go pretty well. There was also a Community Beta thread asking for rework ideas without including numbers that was highly positive. This is the sort of community engagement that makes people feel like they're being heard, even if you guys end up going a different direction.
The rework process does not express a vision for the champion
I'm a little less certain about this point with regard to the other reworks, but my feeling about the Sona rework was that no one ever said, "This is what we want Sona to do/be after the rework." At the time, I expressed it as a disappointment that Fearless didn't try to resell me on the champion. Now, you might argue that it's better to throw a healthy champion out there and let the player base explore on their own. I would agree with you for new releases. A rework involves an emotional investment, however, so I think it's appropriate to be more transparent and up front about the intended direction.
It feels as though Riot devalues certain types of feedback
I'll be honest, I wasn't ever angry about the Sona changes, but I was frustrated in both the quantity and quality of engagement. I think there are four things going on here:
- The signal-to-noise ratio on the internet is awful. Wading through feedback is painful and time-intensive.
- The people best suited to delivering a creative, healthy champion might not have the time or the skills to engage in a dialogue about the process.
- The rework process has difficulty processing feedback. (More on this in the next point.)
- Different venues are good at different types of feedback. For example, high-ranked players tend to have better insight into balance, while general forum posters can speak to feel/identity.
I read the synopsis of the Pax talk on Community Managers (the lack of focus in the video made my head hurt) and this seems to be an area where Community Managers can help. You might also want to consider pairing designers with someone to handle communication.
The rework process feels like it is set in stone before any sort of feedback is considered.
I know that this is an awful catch-22. A rework is not a casual thing. It has to achieve specific goals and League is a complex system with a lot of moving parts. Accordingly, you can't float ideas that don't meet those goals. You also can't talk about them in early stages without risking a soon™ situation if something changes. There are also the persistent cries of "why are you doing this instead of X?!?!?!?"
All of this is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that handing the players a finished product can leave them feeling alienated and disenfranchised. It has been interesting watching the parallel problem with the recent lore rework. I think the answer here is to be diligent about recognizing and spotlighting quality feedback. I feel that Riot's track record in this area has been spotty.
I think that the player base is undereducated as to how champions fit into League
Balance tweaks are usually about power and toxic play flow. Players understand them as such. For example, people complained when LeBlanc's silence was removed, but my sense was that most of them understood that a broken thing was being fixed for the sake of the game as a whole.
Reworks, by contrast, tend to address larger issues like identity and role. To return to the Sona rework, something needed to be done about her lack of team fight presence beyond Flash+ult. Fearless found a creative solution, but I don't think there was much engagement beyond, "she now has something to do." I think that facilitated discussions should be a regular thing.
Oh, my. I didn't realize it was getting that late. I can also see that I misunderstood Morello's request regarding the original thread. I'm too tired to move it, plus I like the Community Beta boards better. Have a good night.
