The past two weeks, Z12's two new heroes launched and the conversation in the community hasn't let up. But behind all that energy, some real discomfort was happening at the same time: some players couldn't log into the game for days on end, some felt the new heroes' strength was already starting to affect the balance of combat, and some sent their issues to Support and felt like they were dropping words into a place with no echo.

A few players spoke up in ways that actually moved things.

@Summer25 , for a June 4 crash report that mapped out the failure path completely — it cut our time to locate the root cause significantly;

@DK , for putting it precisely: "The issue isn't that the hero is strong — the damage feels extreme relative to current defensive options" — that's exactly the kind of specific observation that shapes how we read the data;

@sillyfluffyowl , for saying plainly "I don't want to talk to a crappy program (AI) — I want to talk to a sensible person" — that's a line we didn't smooth over. It's what we're working to fix.

Thank you, all three.

These aren't scattered noise — they're what players genuinely ran into these past two weeks. Here's each one laid out clearly: what we fixed and why; where our design judgment stands and why we're not rushing to walk it back just because the pushback is loud; and what's still not fully resolved.

iPad / iPhone Crashes: Fixed in 26.501.1 — Testing Gap on Our End

Conclusion first: the crash is fixed. Update to the latest version on the App Store or Google Play.

After the last update, some iPad and iPhone models started crashing immediately on launch. For some players, that meant days of not being able to get into the game. Affected devices are mainly older models — iPhone 10 and earlier, iPad 9th generation and earlier.

Root cause confirmed: a video playback component upgrade created a compatibility conflict with the iOS / iPadOS versions on these devices, triggering at initialization. To be clear — this wasn't a device problem, and it wasn't a system settings issue. Our testing during this version cycle didn't cover this particular device-OS combination.

@ahuo located the root cause and shipped the fix in 26.501.1. A game update is all that's needed — no OS reinstall, no device replacement. Players who couldn't log in should be back to normal immediately after updating.

If you're still crashing after updating, submit through Support with your device model and iOS version — @ahuo will keep investigating.

Z12 Hero Strength: A Design Decision, Not a Numbers Accident

26.501 brought a new Z12 hero: Darian. Since launch, one question has come up consistently in the community: is Darian too strong? Is he going to break the existing combat structure?

That question deserves a straight answer — not "we'll keep monitoring balance."

Our current position: Darian's strength is within designed parameters. This isn't numbers running out of control — it's not something we discovered was too strong after launch. It was an intentional design choice.

Here's why: new heroes in this game don't just add characters — they're designed to shift the combat structure by introducing new counter points into the existing meta. That's the logic behind Darian as well. In certain team compositions he's strong. Against certain setups he has clear weaknesses. Strength is relative, not absolute — when players find specific approaches that work, counter routes surface alongside them. That's part of the design, not a side effect.

We're not walking the judgment back just because the pushback is loud. Loud pushback tells us the impact was noticeable — that's not the same as saying the numbers are off. What would drive an adjustment is combat data: if a hero ends up with no viable counters across different configurations, modes, and matchups, that's when we adjust. The current judgment stands — but that's not the same as ignoring incoming data.

@DK posted on May 28 with a very specific concern: "The issue isn't that the hero is strong. The issue is that, compared to current survivability and defensive options, the damage output feels extreme — it lowers the strategic depth of combat and makes outcomes more dependent on whether you have this specific hero leveled up." That kind of detailed feedback is exactly what @malaxianxiang is collecting — it feeds directly into how we assess the data. If you're seeing clear imbalance in a specific mode, submit through Support and he'll see it.

Missing Items From Last Issue: Sent — Still Missing? Submit Again

The compensation for last issue's missing items took longer than expected. It's done now — affected accounts should have received the items.

If you submitted a report at the time and still don't see the items in your account, submit through Support again with your original report time and account info — @Vivi will follow up. If you've already received them, no further action needed.

AI Customer Service: Fast, Yes — But Players Want More Than an Instant Form Letter

Since AI customer service went fully live, one pattern of feedback hasn't stopped: replies come in fast — sometimes within seconds — but players finish reading and feel like it didn't actually understand what they said.

We're not going to paper over that with numbers. Response times going from 1–3 days to a few seconds did solve some of the waiting problem. But it introduced a new gap: the wait before used to carry a quiet signal — "someone is actually reading this." A fast reply now can feel like "the system just sent a template."

That's a genuine experience gap after the AI takeover — not players being oversensitive, not a misunderstanding of how support works. It's a product design problem: response speed improved, but the feeling of "my problem was actually received" didn't come along with it. @sillyfluffyowl put it plainly on June 10: "The customer service has always been crap! I don't want to talk to a crappy program (AI)! I want to talk to a sensible person!" — we kept that, and it's exactly what we're working to fix.

The current iteration directions: having AI replies reference the specific context from what players describe; adding status confirmation steps so players know where their issue stands in the process; and for situations that clearly need human judgment, reducing unnecessary back-and-forth and routing to a real person faster. @fang41371 is pushing these forward.

We also know that these changes mostly address whether things look responsive. What players actually want is someone accountable for this specific thing, all the way through. That experience isn't fully there yet, and we're not going to call it resolved.

Two things that have actually landed since AI customer service took over.

Payment and order queries: AI now pulls order records directly, so most submissions get a result within minutes instead of waiting for a manual shift.

Bug identification: the backend cross-references player descriptions with system logs in real time. The iPad / iPhone crash this period was caught early through this mechanism — faster than waiting for complaint volume to build.

For a fuller account: AI Customer Service: Our Assessment and Where We Stand. It covers why we chose AI, why fast responses can create new experience problems, and what's actually changed in the backend.

Thank you for holding LF to a high standard. Every comment and every complaint from the past two weeks — we read them all, and we took them seriously. Your expectations are real pressure, and more complete updates are coming.

For issues still in progress: real people are actively working in the backend. Cases that didn't route through automated handling have actual staff on them.

Every topic above has a named person following it — comment in the relevant section and they'll see it.

For specific account issues — account problems, missing items, orders, purchases — use the Support module with your account info and timing. Public posts aren't the right channel for personal account information and aren't the most effective path for resolving individual issues.

LF Operations Team

ShireHub