Gameplay Faction formed!


I think those are fair questions. I will see if I/we can get answers. I do not know everyone there, so I do not know all their levels or what leagues or teams they are all in.

The whole thing is very new (obviously), and it would be unfortunate for me to unintentionally violate an NDA a few hours after signing it.


Good luck. I’m not going to hold my breath.

*Edit, oh yeah, add how many have Atlas to that list, cause that makes a difference as well.


That’s what we all need brother. We need good luck.


I have Atlas. I do not know about everyone else.

I believe, maybe hope is better, that there is a possibility for good to come from this. I am not one for idle meetings or just talking. That is a waste of everyone’s time.


Right on, I’m glad you’re in there. I’m not trying to sound cynical I just wanna know what to expect from this. If every player in there has Atlas, that’s unfortunately a bit of a tell for me, though. I just want to know what’s going on. Should I still bitch on the forums or should I spam you with PMs? Whats the sitch?!?!


I have no reason to change what I have been saying for a while now.

I hope I will have a better platform and will be more easily heard.

I know there is great need for some big changes. And I do not mean arbitrary changes or adding more levels. I believe we need to make some alterations to the “kernel” so that the foundation for the whole thing is more stable and more scalable than it is right now.

The game was not built overnight, and it wasn’t brought to its current state overnight. But I will not try to stall for time. Change needs to happen, and it needs to happen soon. But it also needs to be done right–we don’t want to break the game completely while trying to fix it. Well, I don’t anyway.

When I know more about what kinds of things I can say, I will be as open as I can be.

Right now, I can say I know almost nothing more than all of you (as relates to PG’s intentions for this group).


A player representative group who have signed an NDA - great how are they going to represent the players now? It’s like saying politicians (the closest thing I can think of to a representative - it’s called the House of Reps after all) not being allowed to speak to any of their constituents about what’s happening in government. Great work!


I am disappointed in those of you who see this enormous step in the right direction as yet another thing to complain about.
After almost 3 years, PG has decided to let players in!
If you’re complaining about that, your priorities are not in the right place.

As for the people selected, this requires an NDA just as the CF does. That means they must have some level of faith in the people chosen, and are likely to go for invested, vocal, long term players who have a lot to lose by breaking their rules.
The member list is (at least currently) not oversaturated with spenders. I also only recognize one or two as fellow D1 players, so the others are at least D2, maybe lower.

This is an excellent move and I thank PG profusely for being flexible enough to admit their mistake and reach out to the community to help going forward.


Please take my hesitation to say some things as uncertainty and not as unwillingness.


I disagree with you. I collaborated with one of PG’s employees on the disastrous 4.0 update and he was open and willing to listen to me.
Several of the changes after 4.0 were things I suggested, like:
• Put “broken” towers (fire/ice turret, dark flak, fire flak) back to their pre-4.0 values and gently scale them upwards after the plateau level
• Keep the buff to the ice turret shield
• Increase dark flak supershot strength and decrease duration of stun (relative to pre 4.0)
• Increase fire flak damage (relative to the initial graph of proposed changes I saw)

I understand you weren’t privy to the conversation and therefore couldn’t know that PG has actually taken player advice, but I’ve personally seen that they can; I would never have expected this 2 years ago. This is progress.
@PGCrisis @Arelyna tagging in case PG.C does not want me saying this :joy:


I’m sure it’s uncertainty. But the fact remains - why an NDA if this select group is to represent player views? How are they to seek feedback?

NDA means this discussion is between 2 parties - the GPF member and PG, and that no one else can know about said discussion.

I would have refused to sign and refused to join if such an impost was put in front of me. Goes directly against anything vaguely related to representing the player group.

I’ll be open here and say I’m on PGDave’s atlas world war preview group - there’s no NDA - and discussion is free flowing and we are actively encouraged to seek feedback, just not to put anything out in public that is still very clearly in draft form. I appreciate that Dave is trusting and mature enough to know we will abide by those requests. But hey again, I’m just one player :man_shrugging:


In fairness an NDA is necessary otherwise you’ll have insider info being handed out to whomever the faveskies are


Sorry but you having non spending alt accounts does not count for a nonspender.


NDA??? Lmao…figures (10characters)

What BS

Sounds like pawns for PG look we are listening. We have a new group of players helping. (Even though they won’t be able to disclose crap


Wow this thread. Full of negativity.

I wish I knew what happened with the ashenguard failure, but I don’t think anything done will satisfy most people.

Let’s see what happens.


It is possible this is more than a focus group (not that I take what you said to mean that). If so, then an NDA makes sense.

Having signed it (after reading it), I do not see how it will prevent us from representing the players. We may not be able to share everything with you the moment we find something out, but we can still make the best case possible for those matters that concern everyone.

I considered what you say you would have done, but after talking with a few friends, I decided it was at least possible I could be a better advocate for the players it I agreed to PG’s terms. Maybe I am being overly optimistic. I do think it is pessimistic to think something will fail the moment it has been announced. Perhaps you are right. But maybe you are not. We won’t know tonight.

As I said, I will not be advocating for anything different from what I have already publicly advocated for.


I’m sorry you feel that way. I for one think the changes that “patched” the 4.0 update were positive. Is it done? Of course not. Ice flak, Farms/Mills, warriors and sorcerers, so much still needs fixing.
But it could’ve stayed as it was when 4.0 came out, or it could’ve been overshot again and been crazy out of control.
This is bearable.


All talk and next to no action. I’m not expecting that to change. If the players they have chosen can ‘chat’ well, fair enough. Unless they are people who can actually play and play well I can’t see it helping, regardless of whether individuals on here ‘like’ those players or not. Its the testing that is a major problem. I’m sure PG sitting around their table thought 4 was a wonderful idea.


Sorry but if these people are supposed to be speaking for the player base, the members should be disclosed by PG to the players so we know who to speak directly to or know we are responding to something these players post about that they want player feedback on (assuming they can since you forced them to sign an NDA)


I have nothing against any of those who’ve already revealed their in the group. Like I said earlier I hope you guys can represent us well and that PG actually listens. I’m happy that there is even a player group they are consulting with - I’ve advocated for this for ages.

My gripe (not speaking for everyone here), is the process by which this has come about, and also that there clearly isn’t good representation across all player levels (yes yes all high levels have been low levels once - how many actually remember what it was like? I can’t remember what it was like in Gold tier and I’m only just into Sapphire now), and finally an NDA just sends a real bad message you know? :man_shrugging: