1.5 a step to far!?!?!

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • 1.5 a step to far!?!?!

    As a Frontline Pioneer, I would like to thank the devs for taking all the recommendations provided by me and my fellow Pioneers. It was a long test period but I think everything came out alright....

    Wait... that never happened, never mind.

    Well I have had my first look. I will briefly give my feed back to the live test (for the community as a whole, not the pioneers). You "said" you wanted "feedback" - I will expect that this feedback will be treated as if you made the request.

    Point 1. About the above, it is clear that going straight to the players the dev team is saying, "It is yours like it or not, whether it works or not, or whether it is overly complex or not." It also says, that being in the FP is a pointless activity, an empty honor. If the point is for FP to beta test, without information on what is being tested, what bugs to look out for, what develops may be coming, and now without any advance testing of game wide overhauls - the FP is pointless!

    Point 2. At the first look at the new 22 player map, I can now sing praise for the old 22 player map - it was at least marginally accurate. In future -updated- maps, I suggest you just slap Africa onto the coast of North America. (I'm sure mobile users will appreciate the saved bandwidth.)

    Point 3. Market changes have still not been reverted, making the pittance of resources that you "grant" the player in 1.5 barely able to cover basic needs with no money to purchase more. 'nuff said!

    Point 4. Now every building type costs some of EVERY resource... actually needed (IRL) or not. Rares for road construction... are we building radioactive roads?!?! SO... now with the measly allowance of resources you get to start, you can be assured that if building you must build, resources you won't have.

    Point 5. Opening new strategic opportunities with new building types... HAHAHAhahahaha!
    Let me ask, what was wrong with the buildings that were available before, strategy games are based on the overall operations - not the minutia of detail! What have we got from this assortment of graphical representations?...
    Now every unit has to have its own special building to create, increasing costs (remember every building costs EVERY resource), reducing strategic options (build for air superiority but now you suddenly need tanks, good luck changing that on the fly!), and making the game overly complex.

    Point 6. I could almost get on board the Research changes, of course, if real participants during WWII could do research at the pace of this game it would have been Fallout by '41. That, not withstanding, the tree is better organized, the pricing is beyond reasonable - but that is kind of the point isn't it...

    Point 7. You can say much about Bytro, but one thing you could never say is that they are dishonest (underhanded perhaps, but not dishonest). They called it, as they always do, like it is. They need to keep their eye on the (financial) bottom line. These changes are nothing but a very transparent means to that end;

    Expanded buildings designed, which require heavy resource investment, to break up the unit production process so that if you don't pay you are limited, and if you do pay your opportunities are limitless.
    Reduced starting resources - to ensure that non-payers are limited in progress, while payers, again, have every advantage.
    Off scale maps and lightning quick research to reduce the time scale of each map, to get players to the next new game as soon as possible - as profits sag when to many games run "over-time".

    As far as Bytro's goals on these changes it is a win-win... until the other side of the equation comes into play;
    Profitable game mechanics + "solid player base" = return on investment

    For the players, as long as you can keep them, the experience could have been a little less jarring!
    Killings my business, and business is good!
  • Alphared wrote:

    if you don't pay you are limited, and if you do pay your opportunities are limitless.
    This has always been the case.

    The changes for CoW 1.5 remind me of the Civilization franchise. Each iteration was a major change from the previous version. I played 2 then 3 then 4. All improvements until they finally ruined it for me with 5, but all the prior versions are still playable.

    As far as newbs learning the game from scratch, 1.5 might be an improvement. Some of us will simply adjust, but others seem to focus on the impending loss of the current version. A big question is whether Bytro will add a new version (as with Civ) or replace the current version. Replacing would appeal to Bytro because then only one version to maintain. This prospect has already angered/disappointed many who will leave, but either choice splits the player population.
  • Actually, I'm kind of digging the new research system. It makes a lot more organized, and a lot more accurate. I mean seriously, Commandos in the secret branch? Really? They were some of the most common infantry units, next to regular infantry!

    As for the added "Light Armor" armor class, it really just doesn't need to exist. Sure it's a nice touch, but it doesn't really serve a purpose. Armor worked just fine.

    Now with resources, you do have a point. All countries now receive a pitiful amount of them, and all things cost everything. I really disagree with this choice.

    Now as for Frontline Pioneer, you're really surprised by this? The FP has always been a figurehead, and always will. So few people stick around to be FPs that our opinions don't even really matter. Add in the fact that unless you pay you can't create your own games, and I'm almost glad that I'm not an FP anymore.

    All in all, no it's not the most solid update, but I do think that the strategic elements, to a point, are an improvement.
  • JesterTheSheep wrote:

    Now as for Frontline Pioneer, you're really surprised by this? The FP has always been a figurehead, and always will. So few people stick around to be FPs that our opinions don't even really matter.
    I think you have that a bit backwards... They don't listen to, or even solicit FP opinions, so they leave because there is no pint of sticking around. AND, really, if you think about it - soliciting players so they can beta test, and then leaving them to test nothing with no information... they have a point!
    Killings my business, and business is good!
  • Nooberium wrote:

    This has always been the case.
    As far as newbs learning the game from scratch, 1.5 might be an improvement. Some of us will simply adjust, but others seem to focus on the impending loss of the current version. A big question is whether Bytro will add a new version (as with Civ) or replace the current version. Replacing would appeal to Bytro because then only one version to maintain. This prospect has already angered/disappointed many who will leave, but either choice splits the player population.
    I didn't miss the point that this has always been a pay for better outcomes game (since Bytro successfully tested the model in S1914 - all of their games have been), but my point was that it is transforming from pay-to-win to pay-to-play.

    I also didn't question how hard new players learning curve would be, obviously they will have an advantage (the same kind of advantage they get from scoring kills on AI when older players AI kills remain unscored to this day) in learning this new set up. New players also went through the tutorial that teach them how to use gold, and not, as you would expect, how to play the game... old timers like me were years in by the time the tutorial came around. Sorry, if I am not sufficiently worried how the new cows will fair in the new environment.

    JesterTheSheep wrote:

    Actually, I'm kind of digging the new research system. It makes a lot more organized, and a lot more accurate. I mean seriously, Commandos in the secret branch? Really? They were some of the most common infantry units, next to regular infantry!

    Now with resources, you do have a point. All countries now receive a pitiful amount of them, and all things cost everything. I really disagree with this choice.
    I did say I found the new research system better organized and more economical. My point is that it has been rendered far LESS accurate, and may I add dumbed-down. Losing the nuclear naval options was the right move. Branching research more reasonably, also, the right move. Doing so many different researches in a single day, perhaps, a little, maybe, to close to the goal no one wants to talk about out loud.

    As far as those resources... I have had a day with it. If you don't pay gold you have one of three options... research to your hearts content OR produce a building (or, if you are lucky two), OR build up low level troops so they can be massacred by someone paying to do all three at the same time. The key is, the in-game fictional, money... not enough to go around and no market to play the money up.

    KrestelGaming wrote:

    I actually like some of the changes. I think the shorter battle times are great since I don't like waiting an entire hour for a single Militia to get destroyed

    What I don't like is the new research mechanics. Now troops already in service won't automatically be upgraded once the unit is upgraded to the next level in the tech tree
    That is part of the problem, giving you just enough to like - and that has been asked for - that you ignore (or accept) what nobody wanted or asked for. I am not saying there are not things to like, I AM saying there are reasons not to want them at the offered price.
    Killings my business, and business is good!
  • @Alphared

    Overall nice summary but you forgot a big new cashcow created with the new update the new revolutionary combat resolution system:

    1. The way the new combat system works ground units now take damage every 30m not every 60m thats huge for combat resolution and having to produce by any means necessary more units to ship to the front to replace the ones dying twice as fast now!

    2. Units under 50% morale move slower and deal less damage also receive more damage making them more susceptible to enemy fire. Meaning people are more likely then ever to heal them units up to at least 80% by enemy means necessary...

    Can we please move the CoW app from strategy games category to Casino listing in the applestore i think it would be more accurate depiction of reality.

    Feels more and more like a craps shoot then strategy to me...

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Kanaris ().

  • Kanaris wrote:

    @Alphared

    Overall nice summary but you forgot a big new cashcow created with the new update the new revolutionary combat resolution system:

    1. The way the new combat system works ground units now take damage every 30m not every 60m thats huge for combat resolution and having to produce by any means necessary more units to ship to the front to replace the ones dying twice as fast now!

    2. Units under 50% morale move slower and deal less damage also receive more damage making them more susceptible to enemy fire. Meaning people are more likely then ever to heal them units up to at least 80% by enemy means necessary...

    Can we please move the CoW app from strategy games category to Casino listing in the applestore i think it would be more accurate depiction of reality.

    Feels more and more like a craps shoot then strategy to me...
    Actually those changes had not been posted, or I had notice they had been posted, when I wrote the review. I haven't yet seen combat in action, though that is my next big adventure...

    That said, you are correct, anyone foolish enough to join combat should see high casualty and low replacement rates. Wars will be quick and dirty... and expensive for the winner.
    Killings my business, and business is good!
  • Thanks for the feedback.

    We did not do this as a FP test because we wanted alot of opinions, of the whole community, instead of only getting feedback from a small and particular group of players. Another aspect is that we wanted this to be a surprise for everyone. Doing this first with FP tester, who are under no contract, would spoil the whole thing and create alot of hearsay in the community.
    We will keep making use of FP testers for smaller features and updates which are meant to go into the live product sooner. In fact you will soon get more stuff on beta for the next release. The 1.5 version however does not really fit into FP testing, it is just too big for that.

    As for the detailed feedback on the 1.5 version: It seems you spin every design choice in a way that our only reasoning was to get more money? Well if that is your reasoning and you have so much bad faith in us, then I don't even know where to start to discuss this. It seems you made up your minds already, making it rather pointless for me to argue this.

    One tidbit about the combat: Our reasoning for the combat mechanics changes were to make combat easier to grasp and more exciting.

    If players have too few starting resources we can easily increase them, and we probably will to make the first day more interesting. It would have been enough to just explain this instead of going into an anti-gold crusade mode. As we said, this was a first test with a very rough balancing, that is far from being the final version. You can expect improvements with the next Event.
  • freezy wrote:

    As for the detailed feedback on the 1.5 version: It seems you spin every design choice in a way that our only reasoning was to get more money?

    Well there isn't a billion explanations available either we are posting in bad faith wanting to make the devs look bad for some mysterious and nefarious reason. This reason no matter what you chose to imagine it to be, I think we can all agree cannot possibly benefit users in any way shape or form as other than gaming experience we have no stake in CoW its not like we own shares of Bytro. By virtue of Occam's razor its highly unlikely as far as possibilities go.

    On the other hand maybe there is a logic and valid reason for people to be reacting so strongly, perhaps just cause exists based on past experiences, past updates, past forum posts, past grudges from constantly being ignored while gaming experience is ruined, update after update after update.

    I mean unless moderators have deleted said posts there is a plethora of posts strongly contesting pretty much every update since the butchering of CoW at the hands of the "research" update. Been a slippery slope downwards, ever since...

    If you want to turn a blind eye to overwhelming evidence of user discontent and subsequent lack of faith, be my guest but I fail to see how you can possibly be surprised, by it.
  • freezy wrote:

    Thanks for the feedback.

    We did not do this as a FP test because we wanted alot of opinions, of the whole community, instead of only getting feedback from a small and particular group of players. Another aspect is that we wanted this to be a surprise for everyone. Doing this first with FP tester, who are under no contract, would spoil the whole thing and create alot of hearsay in the community.
    We will keep making use of FP testers for smaller features and updates which are meant to go into the live product sooner. In fact you will soon get more stuff on beta for the next release. The 1.5 version however does not really fit into FP testing, it is just too big for that.

    As for the detailed feedback on the 1.5 version: It seems you spin every design choice in a way that our only reasoning was to get more money? Well if that is your reasoning and you have so much bad faith in us, then I don't even know where to start to discuss this. It seems you made up your minds already, making it rather pointless for me to argue this.

    One tidbit about the combat: Our reasoning for the combat mechanics changes were to make combat easier to grasp and more exciting.

    If players have too few starting resources we can easily increase them, and we probably will to make the first day more interesting. It would have been enough to just explain this instead of going into an anti-gold crusade mode. As we said, this was a first test with a very rough balancing, that is far from being the final version. You can expect improvements with the next Event.
    You are so welcome,

    The issue with FP is NOT just this update... it includes this update, but hardly limited to it.
    I have been an FP many times (starting back in the beginning of S1914), somehow I always seem not to stick with it though, wonder why?

    There seems to be a mismatch in what Bytro thinks is Beta testing, and what Beta testing ACTUALLY IS!
    It IS NOT playing games with new features to see if they break; without information on what those features might be, without information on what bugs to look out for, without information on where the designer really needs you to stress the code to see if it holds up, etc.! It's a give and take, designer-tester. And, designers, who know how Beta testing works don't make their testers use the players bug report system, it is generally a good idea to have direct feedback channels - for efficient communications.

    It seems Bytro's idea of Beta testing is to randomly select some experienced players (expertise or no) throw them blind into games that may (or may not) have new features, tell them to send in bug reports, and treat them like average forum users (even in their own DEDICATED forum)!

    You are correct, we are not under contract, we are not in Bytro's employ, and we are not even Beta testing. We are quite simply players, who when asked, volunteered to do a job which is usually paid to employees who actually get the information needed to do the job!

    So, now you release an Alpha, for public consumption and feedback (the latter you complain about in another forum) - which means you are unwilling to use (or trust?) the voluntary Beta testers you solicited to do just that job!

    Would you like to tell me I am wrong in concluding that FP is pointless???

    As far as my so-called "anti-gold crusade" I have two things to say;

    I said I was in the Beta for S1914, and then suddenly droves of us left, why? Because the devs actively told us they were no longer listening... seems they got it in their heads that every critique (game mechanics or not) was a critique of their money making scheme. You see, I UNDERSTAND that any "anti-gold crusade" is pointless and meaningless - the matter has been decided on high, and any blasphemer shall be cast out. I have understood this since S1914 beta, I watched it happen, and I know that even if it buries the company - NOTHING is going to change it.

    BUT! I am going to point out what has been directly stated, by BYTRO! The last two major updates have stated IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that these changes are made with an eye to the financial bottom line. My response was to simply detail what was meant by "...we will have to keep in mind the monetization of the game." It's hardly a "crusade" to point out how these changes "keep in mind the monetization of the game", is it?!?!

    You know what MIGHT help us not "spin every design choice" in any particular way, we YOUR BETA TESTERS? By telling us something more then nothing about your design choices. You will find the "bad faith" is less about the presumed reasons for your choices, and more about the sum of communications available to us - which as it stands is neither more or less then 0!
    Killings my business, and business is good!
  • You are certainly right that beta is not used as effectively as it could be. We always try to improve communications with beta users. We usually make use of the ingame beta notifications to communicate important changes to beta users (you can look them up, there was one for most releases in the last months). Sometimes we forget about it, and this we certainly have to improve. For some features where we want to gather particular feedback, we also open feedback threads here in the forums, as I just did today again. For some features we forget that and for some features we decide that we don't need beta feedback.

    Beta games for us are not a replacement of QA. We have internal Alpha QA, working with detailed test sheets and whatnot, knowing what to look out for and working closely with programmers and designers (of course no QA can spot 100% everything). Additionally we often also hold discussions with our support staff about upcoming changes, as they are actually under NDA.

    Beta games for us are:
    - a way to stress test new changes with more users, to check for server problems.
    - get bugs spotted that slipped through our QA, to fix those bugs before release. Beta bug reports usually get forwarded fast and have higher prio than live bug reports.
    - to get an impression how the community at large might react when we fully release it
    - if we ask for it, get detailed feedback on changes

    It is certainly not your fault that you don't give feedback on changes when we don't ask for feedback, and that is ok. Some features are better suited for that than others.

    So in summary, yes we have to work on improving communication with beta users and I think we did some improvements on that matter in the last months. At the same time we won't use beta to solve everything or to QA everything or to get opinions on everything. How we utilize beta really depends on the features we release. We really appreciate the more active beta users though who really take the time to report bugs or share their opinions.
  • I always prefer the maneuver and combat activity. Many like the building and development, most of the complaints about CoW 1.5 are that combat has been emphasized over building. My response: Well, duh! this is a war game, isn't it?"
    So my suggestion for a Beta game, entirely separate from CoW and the rest of the series:
    Why not try making a real wargame, where the espionage, research, popularity, buildings and sundry accessories are replaced with the real crux of warfare:
    Logistics, including maintenance battalions to repair the tanks and howitzers, combat engineers to build hasty defenses, destroy enemy defenses, and speed up troop movement, transport battalions to move the troops faster, ordnance battalions to move the ammo to the troops and repair equipment, and quartermaster battalions to supply the troops with food and fuel. <Need some Navy and Air Force types to chime in here with similar units. Pretty sure the Navy has oilers and the Air Force Maintenance Squadrons.
    Modify the battle timer to have a small (5 minute) random component.
    Victory points awarded on defeating enemy forces.
    Start conditions are a 50/50 mix of combat and support units.
    New units available at a fixed and known rate,
    Players get to decide what type of unit the new issues are.
    NPC have some defensive troops, but produce no more, and do NOT give RoW.




    Assuming that the above would not be too difficult to implement,
    It would be very interesting to see how popular this variant might be, and perhaps a better gauge of what the majority of players want, rather than how vocal a few complainers are on the forum.
  • I am about to break a decade-ish long embargo. I am about to make a suggestion, and not just one...
    This relates tangentially to 1.5, as Bytro wants to make a big change to CoW... the change as proposed is, let us say, not generally receiving favorable reviews. SO, why not make the right changes instead?!?!

    Let's start with the economy;
    Instead of whatever you have you call a "market", which is representing a commodities market - make it a real commodities market;
    All resources are listed as a single value, and at a single price which is controlled by supply and demand
    x amount available to sell at y price... more x, less y, less x more y
    to sell place your order - you get paid current y price (immediately) per unit minus a minimal per unit fee
    to buy place your order - receive commodity at current y price per unit

    Resources;
    Resources have these functions; Civilian upkeep, military upkeep, market sale value, stockpiling
    All functionally the same as now (1.4)
    Resources are produced by territories, but the territories should reflect their RL capabilities;
    This may require more terrain types (which, if they are not tactically significant need not be related to the players),
    examples plains would produce food or oil
    mountains can produce metals or rares
    urban areas produce goods (only)
    deserts might produce oil
    etc.
    there should be no territory that is useless to capture, unless it would be useless in RL and each territory should have a population score that can change over time (a function of morale perhaps) which give you manpower
    If you want new building types then make them economic buildings, or better then buildings add an economic research category; things like improved agriculture, improved electronics, etc. that add to your economic production capabilities. These should not be inexpensive researches.

    The resources themselves;
    Food - all edibles, self-explanatory
    Goods - Manufactured goods, not raw materials
    Manpower - A percentage of the population able to be recruited for military use. Incremented by population and what has already been recruited, NOT by the system that currently increases it like any other resource (Though a slight increase might result for birth rate, this should be quite low). In fact, it could be taken right out of the resource line up and set someplace more practical.
    Metals - all metals, including aluminum (which is a metal and is most definitely not "rare")
    Oils - all fuel types, could in fact be called fuels instead
    Rares - Minerals (like Uranium), Metals (like Gold or Platinum)

    Money - Not in itself a resource, but a prime mover as the only medium in which the "governments" should really function... resources (in RL) are worthless unless someone will pay for them. Money (and the ability to pay for what it buys) should be what concerns players the most (economically).

    Money;
    Money should be raised through; taxes, market trading, international trading to facilitate these;
    Players should be able to set tax rates which effect morale; x tax is standard - plus x tax, lower morale - less x tax, higher morale. Taxes to high = rebellion. Taxes, of course, being based on population. Money, like Manpower, should NOT accumulate from any other method - but only through taxes and effort.
    Market trade has already been described
    International Trade - Players should be free to make trade deals with other players (yes, I know, but the cheaters) as a form of diplomacy or even extortion. (The cheaters should be handled through back end processes and report forms... not by limiting player interactions(!)) To make international trade a more profitable prospect a messenger trade option - Trade Deal - should be made available, which assigns an exchange of resources at regular intervals (day change?). Trade deals should be unilaterally terminable, and must require an exchange of resources by both parties (with limiters to keep one party from exchanging all daily production for the second parties single unit(!))

    (It may even be warranted to consider a "financial market" that provides loans - at cost, but that could be a bridge to far.)

    Money is the prime mover from here on out -

    Military Build up;
    Military unit should have building and upkeep costs, but they should not be resource hogs as much as investments (that is how real governments see and deal with them)

    Costs:
    Infantry related units; Manpower+Money to recruit - food+money to maintain
    Guns, Tanks, Planes; Manpower+Metals+money to build - Fuels+money to maintain
    Ships; (more) manpower+metals+money to build - (more) fuels+money to maintain (there are reasons only a handful of nations have large navies, there are reasons why German-British naval competitive building matter before WWI - they require a lot to build and maintain)
    Nuclear weapons; Rares+money to build, fuel+money to maintain

    Why so cheap? Not really cheap, Above I describe that neither manpower nor money should be auto-generating. They may increase through effort, but if no effort is put forward then they are limited resources. And the reasoning is that governments do not keep large stockpiles of resources laying around to manufacture military needs - they spend large sums of money to get someone else to get the resources to build those needs. The resources for building and upkeep represent the resources the government needs to acquire directly.

    Military statistics;
    All military types should have base values derived from RL representative examples. Those values should only increase slightly through research (we are dealing with a period of @6 years here, not decades of research and development)

    Unit types;
    Not much to change here, make them more representative of RL roles (I can play rock-paper-scissors anytime, i don't need to be online to do it(!)). And get rid of the nuclear missiles, no nation was anywhere near the development of them, I know it's cool and all to blow up an enemy that has no defense to your attack, but it is totally out of place.

    Building types;
    Return all standard CoW (1.4) building to there former status. Give the military production buildings (Industry, Barracks, Airports, Ports) a war-time production option. Wartime production taxes morale and any population increases, but increases available manpower.

    Research;
    As stated smaller increase for research (a man is just a man, even if you give them a better gun(!))
    Add economic research options to improve resource production.
    Research should only cost money (the government is not doing the research, they are paying others to do it, cost should REFLECT the money required for the researchers to get he resources - not be the resources themselves.)

    Diplomacy;
    War - A diplomatic state of being at war, declared wars should not reflect in international morale, undeclared wars should have a price internationally.
    Embargo Blockade - Embargoes under the system here described would be useless (because they rely on whatever the market is supposed to be in 1.4) and the last attempt to introduce blockading resulted in no one being able to ship anywhere without getting into war with every AI, so have a specific (player only) diplomatic option to blockade specific countries.
    Peace - The default
    Right of way - the default
    Share map Allied - same benefits as if you were in a coalition (which are the same benefits as share map(!)), without the special message channel.

    Conquered Territories;
    Resource production controlled by morale (which is controlled by taxation, etc.). Once, and if, they reach (90-100%) morale they become core provinces (with all the same benefits). But, until they reach (50%) morale their population does not count toward manpower.

    Allies;
    Defending an allies provinces gives you that provinces defense/attack advantages as if your troops were that allies.
    Reconquering an allies provinces returns that province to your ally, not to you, so long as that ally is in play (has at least one other province).

    Someone is going to hit me with the "these changes will be difficult in the code" myth. Listen, I know why you do it - either you your code is to buggy to remain stable, your trying to impress me with difficulty of your work, or you simply don't want to do it. All that is fine, but experience tells me that none of this is out of reach. You want a game that is profitable and popular, the players want a game that reflects a realistic representation of it's theme... these are win-win changes (IMHO). BUT...

    There is one last piece to this puzzle...
    IF and WHEN these changes are implemented and perfected... HANDS-OFF. I know, developers hate that more then sand in their boots, but, developers also have this tendency to fiddle with things that are great - until they break (I.E. 1.5(!)). So, you do it, and then back off to see what happens as a result.

    (And, as I expect, per usual, I am about to be blasted by the "team" for having the audacity to mention a suggestion - Embargo On (until further notice).)
    Killings my business, and business is good!
  • Alphared wrote:

    developers also have this tendency to fiddle with things that are great - until they break (I.E. 1.5(!))
    I agree 100% with Alphared's statement above. In my 30+ years of experience in electrical/electronic engineering design and development, one of the things that lead to misspent money and loss of market share is the tendency of talented designers to fiddle with a great product- like the introduction of new Coke many years ago mentioned elsewhere in this forum. I believe that CoW is a great product- like a classic car! So don't kill it- just tweak it a little here and there ... ;)
  • freezy wrote:

    By the way, a week ago I opened a thread about the latest changes made testable on beta (Link). I still don't see any feedback in the linked thread from people lamenting in this thread here that we should communicate changes to front pioneer more often, to receive constructive feedback from them.

    Just an observation.
    It's not lamentation, it's resignation. Do it more then once, then do it again. Make it a habit, only then will change have been proven.
    Killings my business, and business is good!