i asked gpt to read the 9 pages of feedback and give a summary and toughts, so here it is:
The most well-founded suggestions
I would single out five.
1. Transform Set 1 into a specialized Product Drop/Luck set.
It’s simple, resolves the lack of identity, and offers direct comparisons to the Fortune Teller or Xochi sets.
2. Swap the Free and Speed sets.
Not because Construction is bad, but because there are too many recent alternatives for Speed, whereas there is room for a relevant premium/auctionable Construction set.
3. Reduce Set 3's HP and compensate with skills.
Instead of destroying the set, preserve its Shooting/Dodge/Tactics identity without repeating the extreme stats of the Guarding Bandit set. One proposal suggested a cap of roughly 1 HP per total level, with compensation in Tactics, Shooting, Aiming, and Dodging (something that has already happened).
4. Winner Weapons with higher average damage + competitive XP.
This is likely the cleanest suggestion technically, as it enhances the set's identity without requiring absurd power creep.
5. Create a real hierarchy among reward types.
Tombola set → Specialized, usable Free set → Upgraded Tombola set → Clearly premium Nugget set → Truly exceptional Winner set. This is a more structural solution to the problem of sets becoming obsolete within a few months.
By the final pages, the frustration had shifted from mere balancing issues to a lack of trust in the feedback process itself. Players were literally suggesting that if their feedback wasn't going to be used, there was no point in even opening the thread.
Page 9 concludes in exactly this atmosphere: the event kicks off in the Beta, and comments appear suggesting that the next feedback thread should perhaps be left empty, alongside calls for no one to hit the "Like" button.
There is also a more cynical take among some participants: the choices were allegedly driven by a deliberate strategy to maintain recurring sales—for instance, the idea that "Winner Sets" shouldn't remain too far superior to "Nugget Sets," as that would reduce the winner's need to purchase future gear. This is player opinion and speculation—not something proven by the thread itself—so I wouldn't treat it as fact.
My final assessment of the event, based solely on the forum discussion:
The "Free Set" is based on a good concept but suffers from questionable placement/reward value and compares poorly to the "Austin" set.
"Set 1" is viewed by the community as a genuine design failure.
"Set 2" isn't bad; it’s simply unnecessary.
"Set 3" started out controversial, sparked the most serious balancing debate, and apparently ended up in a much more acceptable state following the adjustments.
The "Winner Set" faces a broader issue regarding reward philosophy: if an item is extremely rare, expensive, or hard-earned, it needs a feature that remains special for more than just a few months—and when it comes to weapons, the community seems to regard "Damage" as the surest way to achieve this.
However, the greatest damage caused by this thread may not be to the sets themselves, but to the sense that the consensus reached over nine pages didn't carry enough weight in the final changes. That is why the conversation in the last few pages shifts away from the numbers and toward the question of whether participating in future feedback sessions is even worth it.
