The developers of the MOBA Paragon, which has been in open beta since mid-August and is being developed for PC and PS4, had to hear quite a bit from their community over the past two weeks, as they made changes to the game that generally faced little favor.
Now Epic Games has spoken up again and announced that they will revert the reduction of the HP of T2 towers, inhibitors, and the core, which were introduced last Tuesday, October 4, with patch 32.1.
After analyzing the collected data, they found a further shortening of the gameplay time and thus became one step closer to their goal of an average party duration of 31.5 minutes. However, they also noticed a decrease in player satisfaction regarding the changes made. Therefore, they will revise them.
All good again?
However, this is not enough for some players. They should at least revert the previous patch as well, or better yet, return to a version from several weeks ago when the grass was still green and the world was still in order.
Some even speculate that the last change, which many saw as another affront after the removal of a game element by patch 32.0, is only being revised because it was planned by the developers. They just added this on top to reverse it a few days later and thus improve their standing with the community.
For the most part, players reacted positively to Epic’s announcement in Paragon’s official forum. However, if anyone does not shake their head at the aforementioned, unfounded accusations and delusions…
Pascal says:
It is understandable that some players are currently feeling a certain frustration over recent changes. Especially if these are presented factually and illustrated clearly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
However, it seems that at the moment, opinions are often expressed meaninglessly and senselessly, without informing themselves thoroughly, trusting that the developers at Epic Games have a larger overall picture in mind, or maybe just looking for the fault within themselves and their perspective on things.
Currently, some comments are as entertaining as they are disturbing. One can only wish that some individuals become aware of the term “open beta” and realize that this means constant change, turning various screws, and evaluating data, and that it is a long process aimed at achieving the best possible end product.
