Taunts on Test on 02/23 [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Kirstie

02-23-2009, 07:39 PM

<cite>Maveric_LOL wrote:</cite><blockquote>awsome now, please can you explain the reasoning behind the ninja nerf to knights stance, and while your at it, please please tell us why this change was left out of the patch notes.</blockquote>"ninja nerfs" are usually bugs, unintended side effects, or things that were accidentally missed during the process that starts with a dev making a change and ends with the stuff getting onto the test server.There are very few things we intentionally keep out of the patch notes that we expect users would encounter.If you're referring to the spell damage penalty on the defensive stance, there is a change coming to that and we're currently passing it through our internal QA before it goes to Test, which should be soon (tm) <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.- Kirstie

Thundy

02-23-2009, 07:58 PM

<cite>Kirstie wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maveric_LOL wrote:</cite><blockquote>awsome now, please can you explain the reasoning behind the ninja nerf to knights stance, and while your at it, please please tell us why this change was left out of the patch notes.</blockquote>"ninja nerfs" are usually bugs, unintended side effects, or things that were accidentally missed during the process that starts with a dev making a change and ends with the stuff getting onto the test server.There are very few things we intentionally keep out of the patch notes that we expect users would encounter.If you're referring to the spell damage penalty on the defensive stance, there is a change coming to that and we're currently passing it through our internal QA before it goes to Test, which should be soon (tm) <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />.- Kirstie</blockquote>Let's face it, you guys (aka Aeralik) have completely lost control of what's going on in this update. You'll never admit it, but we all know it.How about some answers about this proc change "rollback" which didn't actually roll back 90% of the proc change?

Maveric_LOL

02-23-2009, 08:02 PM

<cite>Kirstie wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maveric_LOL wrote:</cite><blockquote>awsome now, please can you explain the reasoning behind the ninja nerf to knights stance, and while your at it, please please tell us why this change was left out of the patch notes.</blockquote>"ninja nerfs" are usually bugs, unintended side effects, or things that were accidentally missed during the process that starts with a dev making a change and ends with the stuff getting onto the test server.There are very few things we intentionally keep out of the patch notes that we expect users would encounter.If you're referring to the spell damage penalty on the defensive stance, there is a change coming to that and we're currently passing it through our internal QA before it goes to Test, which should be soon (tm) <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />.- Kirstie</blockquote>Ok, please understand kristie that i really dont mean this as an insult and no im not being sarcastic. But your response tells me that you are not familiar at all with the AAs that are being changed which is kinda scary given that your tag indentifies you as the lead mechanics dev. I am referring to the AA ability called Knights Stance located in the shadows crusader line. Please, go look at it and then respond.

Zibleez

02-23-2009, 08:03 PM

<cite>Thundy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Let's face it, you guys (aka Aeralik) have completely lost control of what's going on in this update. You'll never admit it, but we all know it.How about some answers about this proc change "rollback" which didn't actually roll back 90% of the proc change?</blockquote>Have a little respect and think about it - the notes you see on test are the ideas that were discussed, tossed around, distilled into some final debated revised form, then pushed out to test. You aren't seeing what goes on behind the scenes that got the game to where it is - these things don't happen by accident.Am I pleased with the way Aerilik has come across to many people on the forums? No. But they hired him to be a mechanics designer, not a PR liason. Dev is making changes, analyzing the changes, and revising things based on both feedback and testing - more on testing than feedback though. As 80%+ of the posts on this forum are just like yours in tone, without objective reasoning, and many of them have no full group testing to substantiate the claims they make, we shouldn't blame SoE for just taking these posts with a grain of salt.I've been coming to this board daily for the last week or so, just to keep tabs on the responses from the devs, and I more and more understand why your average PUG is so painful.

Raidyen

02-23-2009, 08:11 PM

I have to agree with the tone of the majority of people on these forums about the changes, and quite honestly i understand that it is a test server, and bugs and things are going to happen, but how exactly a bug of this size that effects the core of what we are supposed to be testing get past anyone? And Dhuin i dont know what you have been reading, but there are tons of posts on these boards that have plenty of reasoning and stats to back up what they are saying. I am in video production. Just because i sit in front of a cpu all day editing doesnt mean i can be a jerk to m y customers, or not communicate properly with them. This is a service based industry, and working with a talking to customers is a part of that. Just because a person is a dev, doesnt give them the right to treat people with disrespect, or make emotional changes to the product we are paying for.Alot of the community feels disrespected right now based on the lack of communication, from anyone really. Kiara said she is trying to get answers and asked for a week to get them, so im gonna give that to her. After that, well, lets just see what happens this week, shall we...

Palathas

02-23-2009, 08:19 PM

I'll check out a problem that I've been having for a while now and it was still happening the other day. The Monk's single target taunts Taunt, Stare and Staring Threat are resisted 100% when trying to complete an HO while in both Defensive and Offensive stances at App I, App IV and Adept I levels of expertise.As a single target taunt specialist I find it odd that the single target taunt fails 100% of the time but the encounter taunt works 100% of the time....Edit: I'm only level 22 so I haven't had a chance to check out the higher level single target taunts.

Kordran

02-23-2009, 08:20 PM

You know what? I surrender. All I'm getting from these threads is the distinct impression that the left hand clearly has no idea what the right hand is doing at SOE. Changes are all over the map, there's undocumented nerfs throughout, and things like broken taunts being pushed to Test which should have never passed QA.It's incredibly disappointing.

Kirstie

02-23-2009, 08:27 PM

<cite>Maveric_LOL wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kirstie wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maveric_LOL wrote:</cite><blockquote>awsome now, please can you explain the reasoning behind the ninja nerf to knights stance, and while your at it, please please tell us why this change was left out of the patch notes.</blockquote>"ninja nerfs" are usually bugs, unintended side effects, or things that were accidentally missed during the process that starts with a dev making a change and ends with the stuff getting onto the test server.There are very few things we intentionally keep out of the patch notes that we expect users would encounter.If you're referring to the spell damage penalty on the defensive stance, there is a change coming to that and we're currently passing it through our internal QA before it goes to Test, which should be soon (tm) <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />.- Kirstie</blockquote>Ok, please understand kristie that i really dont mean this as an insult and no im not being sarcastic. But your response tells me that you are not familiar at all with the AAs that are being changed which is kinda scary given that your tag indentifies you as the lead mechanics dev. I am referring to the AA ability called Knights Stance located in the shadows crusader line. Please, go look at it and then respond.</blockquote>Hiya,No offense taken, I'm still pretty new to the position and I'm not personally making changes to the classes until I've had more time to burry my nose in much deeper than I am now (seriously would you want to revamp fighters after two weeks on the job??).Because of the volume of posts we've had on the fighter changes a lot of the new posts are becoming pretty vague in their descriptions, refering to "that problem with X class" or "that proc change" which doesn't narrow it down much given the team has been making a lot of changes and reverted some, and a lot of those tweaks haven't made it to the test server, and a slightly different set has then migrated out to the non-test population who only reads the forums.The change I referred to was one that matched the description of the orginal question somewhat, and I had a definitive answer to so I thought I'd pass that along. Its important to remember that all the changes we make effect everyone differently, and a lot of people have their hot button issues that don't match up with what other people might think is "the important" issue on the topic.- Kirstie

Thundy

02-23-2009, 08:29 PM

<cite>Dhuin@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thundy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Let's face it, you guys (aka Aeralik) have completely lost control of what's going on in this update. You'll never admit it, but we all know it.How about some answers about this proc change "rollback" which didn't actually roll back 90% of the proc change?</blockquote>Have a little respect and think about it - the notes you see on test are the ideas that were discussed, tossed around, distilled into some final debated revised form, then pushed out to test. You aren't seeing what goes on behind the scenes that got the game to where it is - these things don't happen by accident.Am I pleased with the way Aerilik has come across to many people on the forums? No. But they hired him to be a mechanics designer, not a PR liason. Dev is making changes, analyzing the changes, and revising things based on both feedback and testing - more on testing than feedback though. As 80%+ of the posts on this forum are just like yours in tone, without objective reasoning, and many of them have no full group testing to substantiate the claims they make, we shouldn't blame SoE for just taking these posts with a grain of salt.I've been coming to this board daily for the last week or so, just to keep tabs on the responses from the devs, and I more and more understand why your average PUG is so painful.</blockquote>I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. The rollback I'm speaking about has already been tested and found to have not been rolled back at all. There wasn't anything mean or deletable in my post, it is proven fact.

Praytus

02-23-2009, 08:34 PM

Thundy

02-23-2009, 08:40 PM

<cite>Kirstie wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hiya,No offense taken, I'm still pretty new to the position and I'm not personally making changes to the classes until I've had more time to burry my nose in much deeper than I am now (seriously would you want to revamp fighters after two weeks on the job??).Because of the volume of posts we've had on the fighter changes a lot of the new posts are becoming pretty vague in their descriptions, refering to "that problem with X class" or "that proc change" which doesn't narrow it down much given the team has been making a lot of changes and reverted some, and a lot of those tweaks haven't made it to the test server, and a slightly different set has then migrated out to the non-test population who only reads the forums.The change I referred to was one that matched the description of the orginal question somewhat, and I had a definitive answer to so I thought I'd pass that along. Its important to remember that all the changes we make effect everyone differently, and a lot of people have their hot button issues that don't match up with what other people might think is "the important" issue on the topic.- Kirstie</blockquote>There is only one "proc change". It is not hard to find Aeralik's posts on it, including the one where he said it was being rolled back, and then people asking why it was not completely rolled back, and then *crickets*.. which, frankly, is pretty standard fare.

Gaige

02-23-2009, 08:53 PM

<cite>Kirstie wrote:</cite><blockquote> I'm still pretty new to the position and I'm not personally making changes to the classes until I've had more time to burry my nose in much deeper than I am now (seriously would you want to revamp fighters after two weeks on the job??).- Kirstie</blockquote>You were moved from associate producer to mechanics supervisor? That's interesting...

Windowlicker

02-23-2009, 09:04 PM

<cite>Gage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kirstie wrote:</cite><blockquote> I'm still pretty new to the position and I'm not personally making changes to the classes until I've had more time to burry my nose in much deeper than I am now (seriously would you want to revamp fighters after two weeks on the job??).- Kirstie</blockquote>You were moved from associate producer to mechanics supervisor? That's interesting...</blockquote>I would assume the Mechanics dept requires some better supervision.

Yimway

02-23-2009, 09:06 PM

<cite>Zahne@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would assume the Mechanics dept requires some better supervision.</blockquote>heh, ya think?

Danelin

02-23-2009, 10:26 PM

Heh. I feel rather sorry for her having to ride herd on that team, given how much hate they are garnering themselves.I also find it interesting that the 'real issue can't be found' because of how many their are. This is a great excuse to force through every change when the majority of them are being hated on, then say 'well we weren't sure what exactly people were opposed to, so we decided to push it live...'Biggest issues with this update aren't hard to findIt breaks tank balance even worse than on live, with only Guardians TRULY benefitting from the changes overall, as they are the one class who had broken aggro that is now fixed. It destroys the dynamic aspect of fighter gameplay by requiring only one style of fighter gameplay be used, enforced through the linked buffs and stance changes, combined with existing penalties to the stances and the class AA trees. It has been stated that there is no goal to have 'One fighter class' but the DPS axis of the fighter tree is being effectively removed, and the lack of ability to fast-stance-switch (note i didn't say stance DANCE) combined with the inability to build aggro while offensive and the inability to use buffs while in no stance is going to destroy multi-fighter raid viability, which is at the most adequate it has ever been on live now.The modifications to the DPS classes in terms of de-hate have not been equally applied or well thought out in terms of how they effect each class and who needs what. (Swashbucklers are AE dps, their haste causes increased aggro on everything they do, thus they are AE hate, and they get only single target dehate abilities, warlock dethreat is lacking, etc.)ALL the in-test modifications to DPS, itemization, etc... result in reduced ability to kill all content with no compensation, thus effectively setting back every player except for the casual tank who didn't know what they were doing well enough to hold with the tools they did have, and guardians who's reliance on taunts was too heavy under the now-live mechanics.Aeralik has basically flat out said that 90% of these changes will go through as he planned them regardless of our feedback, regardless of the producer's decision to delay things for more feedback. (Posted shortly after we were told it was being delayed) Thus confirming once again that he doesn't care about customer opinions or feedback.The devs have failed to give us a revised vision of what our classes' roles are intended to be after whatever changes DO go live. Assuming all gear and buffs are equal, where should we stand DPS wise?In summary: Traditional EQlive style sledgehammer fixes to screwdriver problems with Pre-guild summit EQlive levels of customer interaction.

Anurra

02-23-2009, 11:01 PM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Heh. I feel rather sorry for her having to ride herd on that team, given how much hate they are garnering themselves.I also find it interesting that the 'real issue can't be found' because of how many their are. This is a great excuse to force through every change when the majority of them are being hated on, then say 'well we weren't sure what exactly people were opposed to, so we decided to push it live...'Biggest issues with this update aren't hard to findIt breaks tank balance even worse than on live, with only Guardians TRULY benefitting from the changes overall, as they are the one class who had broken aggro that is now fixed. It destroys the dynamic aspect of fighter gameplay by requiring only one style of fighter gameplay be used, enforced through the linked buffs and stance changes, combined with existing penalties to the stances and the class AA trees. It has been stated that there is no goal to have 'One fighter class' but the DPS axis of the fighter tree is being effectively removed, and the lack of ability to fast-stance-switch (note i didn't say stance DANCE) combined with the inability to build aggro while offensive and the inability to use buffs while in no stance is going to destroy multi-fighter raid viability, which is at the most adequate it has ever been on live now.The modifications to the DPS classes in terms of de-hate have not been equally applied or well thought out in terms of how they effect each class and who needs what. (Swashbucklers are AE dps, their haste causes increased aggro on everything they do, thus they are AE hate, and they get only single target dehate abilities, warlock dethreat is lacking, etc.)ALL the in-test modifications to DPS, itemization, etc... result in reduced ability to kill all content with no compensation, thus effectively setting back every player except for the casual tank who didn't know what they were doing well enough to hold with the tools they did have, and guardians who's reliance on taunts was too heavy under the now-live mechanics.Aeralik has basically flat out said that 90% of these changes will go through as he planned them regardless of our feedback, regardless of the producer's decision to delay things for more feedback. (Posted shortly after we were told it was being delayed) Thus confirming once again that he doesn't care about customer opinions or feedback.The devs have failed to give us a revised vision of what our classes' roles are intended to be after whatever changes DO go live. Assuming all gear and buffs are equal, where should we stand DPS wise?In summary: Traditional EQlive style sledgehammer fixes to screwdriver problems with Pre-guild summit EQlive levels of customer interaction.</blockquote>QFE.I do want to say that, I know the devs want to make a good game. They want to improve it. But, they are too detached and looking at it from a developer's stand point and not a players. They are wrapped up in the numbers, balancing, and the "vision". Being a game developer myself, I know exactly how they feel and what it is like (have been there myself). It usually causes problems that we are seeing lately. In the end, it does not do us any good. What has to be done is the developers have to set aside time to:1. Play their game, and REALLY know what is going on. For the most part, this involves playing classes to max level. (basically take the time to LEARN their own game. Can partly do this by reading well known sites aka eq2 flames)-and/or-2. Appoint trusted class LEADs to give good feedback.It is hard to develop for a game correctly that has grown up from initial release. Too much has changed, and both parties have walked in different directions (developers and players). The vision becomes twisted and lost in each role. Both sides have to meet and have dialog on the best way to go. Once this happens, everything will straighten itself out (for the most part) and a path that both parties like can progress.

Jurmoon

02-24-2009, 12:00 AM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Heh. I feel rather sorry for her having to ride herd on that team, given how much hate they are garnering themselves.I also find it interesting that the 'real issue can't be found' because of how many their are. This is a great excuse to force through every change when the majority of them are being hated on, then say 'well we weren't sure what exactly people were opposed to, so we decided to push it live...'Biggest issues with this update aren't hard to findIt breaks tank balance even worse than on live, with only Guardians TRULY benefitting from the changes overall, as they are the one class who had broken aggro that is now fixed. It destroys the dynamic aspect of fighter gameplay by requiring only one style of fighter gameplay be used, enforced through the linked buffs and stance changes, combined with existing penalties to the stances and the class AA trees. It has been stated that there is no goal to have 'One fighter class' but the DPS axis of the fighter tree is being effectively removed, and the lack of ability to fast-stance-switch (note i didn't say stance DANCE) combined with the inability to build aggro while offensive and the inability to use buffs while in no stance is going to destroy multi-fighter raid viability, which is at the most adequate it has ever been on live now.The modifications to the DPS classes in terms of de-hate have not been equally applied or well thought out in terms of how they effect each class and who needs what. (Swashbucklers are AE dps, their haste causes increased aggro on everything they do, thus they are AE hate, and they get only single target dehate abilities, warlock dethreat is lacking, etc.)ALL the in-test modifications to DPS, itemization, etc... result in reduced ability to kill all content with no compensation, thus effectively setting back every player except for the casual tank who didn't know what they were doing well enough to hold with the tools they did have, and guardians who's reliance on taunts was too heavy under the now-live mechanics.Aeralik has basically flat out said that 90% of these changes will go through as he planned them regardless of our feedback, regardless of the producer's decision to delay things for more feedback. (Posted shortly after we were told it was being delayed) Thus confirming once again that he doesn't care about customer opinions or feedback.The devs have failed to give us a revised vision of what our classes' roles are intended to be after whatever changes DO go live. Assuming all gear and buffs are equal, where should we stand DPS wise?In summary: Traditional EQlive style sledgehammer fixes to screwdriver problems with Pre-guild summit EQlive levels of customer interaction.</blockquote>This is an EXCELLENT summary of why your player base is up in arms. Please print it out and post it over the water cooler. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I have been a SoE customer since 1999. I have played EQ2 since launch. I have two accounts, have bought every expansion, and attended two fan faires. My wife and I have brought many people to Everquest over the years, and absolutely love the world you have all built. You will have a hard time finding a more loyal fan than I. And yet, if LU 52 goes live with the mess so ably described above, I will cancel my accounts. I just can't argue from the perspective of a player any more, it is time to speak as a paying customer.

Maveric_LOL

02-24-2009, 09:33 AM

**Bump**Still waiting on an answer...

feldon30

02-24-2009, 10:24 AM

Danelin, excellent post that really recaps what is going on.

Darkor

02-24-2009, 10:33 AM

<cite>Jurmoon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Heh. I feel rather sorry for her having to ride herd on that team, given how much hate they are garnering themselves.I also find it interesting that the 'real issue can't be found' because of how many their are. This is a great excuse to force through every change when the majority of them are being hated on, then say 'well we weren't sure what exactly people were opposed to, so we decided to push it live...'Biggest issues with this update aren't hard to findIt breaks tank balance even worse than on live, with only Guardians TRULY benefitting from the changes overall, as they are the one class who had broken aggro that is now fixed. It destroys the dynamic aspect of fighter gameplay by requiring only one style of fighter gameplay be used, enforced through the linked buffs and stance changes, combined with existing penalties to the stances and the class AA trees. It has been stated that there is no goal to have 'One fighter class' but the DPS axis of the fighter tree is being effectively removed, and the lack of ability to fast-stance-switch (note i didn't say stance DANCE) combined with the inability to build aggro while offensive and the inability to use buffs while in no stance is going to destroy multi-fighter raid viability, which is at the most adequate it has ever been on live now.The modifications to the DPS classes in terms of de-hate have not been equally applied or well thought out in terms of how they effect each class and who needs what. (Swashbucklers are AE dps, their haste causes increased aggro on everything they do, thus they are AE hate, and they get only single target dehate abilities, warlock dethreat is lacking, etc.)ALL the in-test modifications to DPS, itemization, etc... result in reduced ability to kill all content with no compensation, thus effectively setting back every player except for the casual tank who didn't know what they were doing well enough to hold with the tools they did have, and guardians who's reliance on taunts was too heavy under the now-live mechanics.Aeralik has basically flat out said that 90% of these changes will go through as he planned them regardless of our feedback, regardless of the producer's decision to delay things for more feedback. (Posted shortly after we were told it was being delayed) Thus confirming once again that he doesn't care about customer opinions or feedback.The devs have failed to give us a revised vision of what our classes' roles are intended to be after whatever changes DO go live. Assuming all gear and buffs are equal, where should we stand DPS wise?In summary: Traditional EQlive style sledgehammer fixes to screwdriver problems with Pre-guild summit EQlive levels of customer interaction.</blockquote>This is an EXCELLENT summary of why your player base is up in arms. Please print it out and post it over the water cooler. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I have been a SoE customer since 1999. I have played EQ2 since launch. I have two accounts, have bought every expansion, and attended two fan faires. My wife and I have brought many people to Everquest over the years, and absolutely love the world you have all built. You will have a hard time finding a more loyal fan than I. And yet, if LU 52 goes live with the mess so ably described above, I will cancel my accounts. I just can't argue from the perspective of a player any more, it is time to speak as a paying customer.</blockquote>Very well said

Defiant

02-24-2009, 11:22 AM

They should just have class leads similar to how they did it in Vanguard. Still not a perfect system, but would more than likely stop some of unintended consequences of game updates going overlooked.

Enoe

02-24-2009, 11:38 AM

I play tanks only in game. Guard and sk., so this update will have great impact on my game expirience.What i do in game is little raiding and rest of the time pvp. Our raid force is not elite. Our setup is far from perfect but we steadly progress throug zones.What this update will change for me and my fellow guild tanks?PvE:- MT guardian will be happy - no other tank will rip aggro of him- we have 4 other fighters in raid force 2 sk zerk and monk - with changes:a) ot (me) will be useless untill MT dies or there will de something to offtank - i need to stay on def stance=dps will be 30-40% lower then nowb) sk in mage grp - he will be happy too since being in offstance will prevent him from pulling aggro - on the other hand his dps will drop as well so it can not look so good to keep him on dps spot in this grp.c) zerker in melee grp - not much will chane for himd) monk - we have him for avo check for mt/altruism and good monk from time to time can be rescue tank with peel/tsunami. With changes he cant do this job as good as he can now. So again there will be question if we should keep him.On live all our tanks work hard as dps and tank/ot - at least they have possibility to ot if necessary. With changes dps of tanks will drop - so there will be no reason to have so many of them since w/o tanking abilities (being in offstance).Job of OT will be to watch tv and wait for call on vent that MT has trouble.With changes you remove all versatility and utility of the fighters in raid. They can be only MT/OT period. So looks like this change is made for only high end avatar killing guilds who raids in perfect setup. Well done i just wonder what % of market are they?PVP:This is just rediculus if u look at the impact of changes in pvp.For full group tanking fighters being in defstance is ok. They can use extra survivalibity. Why they need 1000000 taunt amount since our current taunts are efficient? Removing many buffs from deffstance will make tanks pvp dps even lower.But pvp is not about full groups or raids only. I like solo on my chars. Changes will make it almost impossible. Solo on guardian was hard enough now it will be even worse. Solo on Sk was ok - i can say maybe even little OP. But changes went so far that soloing on SK will be real hard again. Dps reduction of sk in pvp will be like 50% with nothing to gain from def stance. Oh yea i will get more taunts amount. Guess what I DONT NEED IT. Solo pvp in offstance with all penalties? Suicidal.I think now all scouts casters can laugh. Again their classes will be on top of food chain, and it took only 20 topics about nerf sk and other fighters to achive it. Well done.And dont tell me you read feedback, or you spend long time thinking about changes or even discuss them. Guardian still has 150 int on TSO pvp set - can you tell me why? Its silly and small thing compare to all incoming changes but for god sake it really like you guys in Sony are drinking martini on beach and game changes are made by ad hoc hired WoW programers on 5 days contracts.

Faelgalad

02-24-2009, 11:49 AM

I'am with Danelin

Motzi

02-24-2009, 01:55 PM

Kristie,It doesn't come down to what is bugged on test. The player base's animosity over this is over what is fundamentally a bad design decision.You need to have your team read these threads and go back to the design phase of fighter changes and start over.I'll personally be surprised if your budget / timeline will allow for that though.Involve class leads in the design / pre-design phase of these projects and maybe you'll come to test with something that isn't fundamentally a bad idea for your game.

Raidyen

02-24-2009, 02:13 PM

<cite>Jurmoon wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have been a SoE customer since 1999. I have played EQ2 since launch. I have two accounts, have bought every expansion, and attended two fan faires. My wife and I have brought many people to Everquest over the years, and absolutely love the world you have all built. You will have a hard time finding a more loyal fan than I. And yet, if LU 52 goes live with the mess so ably described above, I will cancel my accounts. I just can't argue from the perspective of a player any more, it is time to speak as a paying customer.</blockquote>Everything up there with the exception of the 2 fan faires lines up with myself and my wife, EQ1 from release, EQ2 up till now, every expansion, multiple accounts, RL friends that also have multiple accounts that we brought to this game. Based on what has been on test up to this point, how devs are handling these changes, the massive number of problems that have gone to test that should have never made it out of a QA department if one even exsists, makes me question whether or not i need to continue paying for a product that is no longer producing.

Phank

02-24-2009, 03:08 PM

<blockquote><cite>Jurmoon wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have been a SoE customer since 1999. I have played EQ2 since launch. I have two accounts, have bought every expansion, and attended two fan faires. My wife and I have brought many people to Everquest over the years, and absolutely love the world you have all built. You will have a hard time finding a more loyal fan than I. And yet, if LU 52 goes live with the mess so ably described above, I will cancel my accounts. I just can't argue from the perspective of a player any more, it is time to speak as a paying customer.</blockquote></blockquote>Ditto.Been an avid player since '99. I've played EQ2 since launch as well. I don't play alts, therefore my gaming experience is all-in for my SK.The fighter changes are bad. But the decreased effectiveness and overall enjoyment of my class will be the breaking point for me. For lack of a better word, the "nerf" to Shadowknights months after the much needed revamp of the class is not only insulting it's downright ridiculous.On top of the Fighter changes you are watering down the damage of the Shadowknight and increasing Hate gains everywhere. It just goes to show that nobody at SOE plays the SK to the level of ability that the players do. And if the players say we don't need more Threat, we don't need more Threat. End of story.Stop giving us more Threat. Stop watering down our damage. Stop messing with the fun we're having in this expansion.And to the people that are crying SKs are OP -- with all things being equal, I just haven't seen it. Player's skill is first and foremost with this O.P. issue. The people crying are simply not up to par with the SKs that have been around and struggling to find every gimmick to keep up with the other fighter's dps prior to TSO. That skill and experience is paying off now. Don't penalize us for 1. sticking with the class 2. being a devoted customer through the worst of times for the class and 3. because other people can't play THEIR class to our ability.

RafaelSmith

02-24-2009, 04:29 PM

<cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Kristie,It doesn't come down to what is bugged on test. The player base's animosity over this is over what is fundamentally a bad design decision.You need to have your team read these threads and go back to the design phase of fighter changes and start over.I'll personally be surprised if your budget / timeline will allow for that though.Involve class leads in the design / pre-design phase of these projects and maybe you'll come to test with something that isn't fundamentally a bad idea for your game.</blockquote>I have always believed that the best video game developers are those that remain "gamers" at heart.The fighter mechanic changes and what appears to be a case of denial from the Devs as to just how flawed it is leads me to believe that the people being these changes are not "gamers" at heart. They have lost touch as to why we players play these games.They seem hung up on the numbers and the "paperdoll" balance of the classes and are ignoring the reality of how the current mechanics work or how all the current classes work.The current mechanics are not as broken as the "revamp" changes would indicate.They are overreacting and its obvious to just about anyone.There basic reasoning for these changes seems to be that currently fighters are doing too much DPS while tanking....well that is only true in a few isolated cases with "Stacked" conditions. Hardly a valid reason to completely redesign and dumb things down like they are.

Panzzzzer

02-24-2009, 04:35 PM

<cite>Phank wrote:</cite><blockquote>And to the people that are crying SKs are OP -- with all things being equal, I just haven't seen it. Player's skill is first and foremost with this O.P. issue. The people crying are simply not up to par with the SKs that have been around and struggling to find every gimmick to keep up with the other fighter's dps prior to TSO. That skill and experience is paying off now. Don't penalize us for 1. sticking with the class 2. being a devoted customer through the worst of times for the class and 3. because other people can't play THEIR class to our ability.</blockquote>No offense man, cause SKs were really in need of some revamp before TSO, but you just can't say "It's not our class that's OP it's all you other fighters that suck" ahahah really................I won't evaluate that nerf cause i never played SK, but you just can't say SKs in their current state on live didn't need some kind of "adjustments", that class is just silly right now when you compare it to EVERY other fighters, and i'm talking of survivability, dps, aggro management... all the fighter's stuff. SK is superior in every way right now, and by quite alot.edit for typos

Bruener

02-24-2009, 04:48 PM

<cite>Vass@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phank wrote:</cite><blockquote>And to the people that are crying SKs are OP -- with all things being equal, I just haven't seen it. Player's skill is first and foremost with this O.P. issue. The people crying are simply not up to par with the SKs that have been around and struggling to find every gimmick to keep up with the other fighter's dps prior to TSO. That skill and experience is paying off now. Don't penalize us for 1. sticking with the class 2. being a devoted customer through the worst of times for the class and 3. because other people can't play THEIR class to our ability.</blockquote>No offense man, cause SKs were really in need of some revamp before TSO, but you just can't say "It's not our class that's OP it's all you other fighters that suck" ahahah really................I won't evaluate that nerf cause i never played SK, but you just can't say SKs in their current state on live didn't need some kind of "adjustments", that class is just silly right now when you compare it to EVERY other fighters, and i'm talking of survivability, dps, aggro management... all the fighter's stuff. SK is superior in every way right now, and by quite alot.edit for typos</blockquote>What you don't realize, and the very few people that are in like mind to you...is that the simple penalties to defensive stance alone cover these issues that you say makes SKs "OP'd". On test it doesn't matter if you are an offensive or a defensive tank, everybody's dps blows.Wow problem solved I guess. Now on top of that SOE is stacking multiple nerfs to SK dps that affects them whether they are defensive or offensive. This is not right. SOE is making it so you either plan on being offensive and dps'ing or you plan on being defensive and tanking...there is no middle ground and the switch is delayed by 5 sec in stances. This means in offensive stance offensive fighters should be hitting very good T2 numbers so that they actually have a purpose on raids and in groups if they are not the one "tanking".On test the simple switch from offensive stance to defensive stance is 50% dps. Don't you think that is enough of a nerf? If anything every tank besides Guards should be hitting very very good dps numbers when they take an offensive role. Guards this change actually helps because they still have the top survivability and agro is going to be a non-issue what-so-ever. Guaranteed raid MT as usual.The numbers that Crusaders/Zerks/Brawlers are putting up on Live should carry over through the next LU when taking on an offensive role. Slight bumps to Zerks and Brawlers in offensive might be called for, but nerfs definitely are not.EDIT: The basis for DPS remaining in offensive is due to the taking away of tanking while in offensive, while the fact remains that many classes themselves can do their primary function while maintaining very good dps. Rogues/Chanters/Bards/even healers. Taking away choice should mean better in other areas.

Aull

02-24-2009, 04:54 PM

Bruener

02-24-2009, 05:08 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vass@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phank wrote:</cite><blockquote>And to the people that are crying SKs are OP -- with all things being equal, I just haven't seen it. Player's skill is first and foremost with this O.P. issue. The people crying are simply not up to par with the SKs that have been around and struggling to find every gimmick to keep up with the other fighter's dps prior to TSO. That skill and experience is paying off now. Don't penalize us for 1. sticking with the class 2. being a devoted customer through the worst of times for the class and 3. because other people can't play THEIR class to our ability.</blockquote>No offense man, cause SKs were really in need of some revamp before TSO, but you just can't say "It's not our class that's OP it's all you other fighters that suck" ahahah really................I won't evaluate that nerf cause i never played SK, but you just can't say SKs in their current state on live didn't need some kind of "adjustments", that class is just silly right now when you compare it to EVERY other fighters, and i'm talking of survivability, dps, aggro management... all the fighter's stuff. SK is superior in every way right now, and by quite alot.edit for typos</blockquote>I don't wish to see sk's nerfed cause I play one as well. However, I have no reason to play my zerker or my bruiser really when my sk has it all covered. I wanted the zerker for aoe tanking and bruiser for straight up superior dps (or at least I thought bruisers could do that), but now my sk can do all this better than the aoe zerker, equal/beat both my bruiser and zerker dps, and hold aggro like a champ.Again I do not wish for any set backs to come to sk's but honestly any uniqueness that the bruiser or zerker had my sk can now cover those same area's with better survivability. The way I see it if sk's are now fixed then my other fighters are broken.</blockquote>Translated: Now that SKs can do the same job Zerkers can I you no longer feel like your Zerker is as unique as he once was. The fact is Zerker AE dps is still fantastic. Zerker agro is solid. Zerker surivivability is just as good.So, now you have 2 tanks that fill similar roles...and you are probably finding out the way that the SK does it is a little bit more fun. I know that is the reason I play a SK and the reason a lot of the old school SKs stuck it out. It has a nice flavor to it.So what exactly is the issue here?

Aull

02-24-2009, 05:19 PM

It was just a personal misunderstanding on my part when I created these two classes is all. I didn't see in the description that sk's were good at aoe but my sk has been great aoe since his creation. I thought zerker would be the better tank when faced with many foes. As it stands my sk has been actually better at aoe all along and now even more so. Pulling two separate groups or even two encounter groups of mobs is much easier for me on my sk. My zerker does good if it is one encounter only since zerker aoe are more for encounter fights.Paladins are not the bad at aoe either.Again just a personal class identity crisis is all.

Detor

02-24-2009, 05:22 PM

<cite>Kirstie wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're referring to the spell damage penalty on the defensive stance, there is a change coming to that and we're currently passing it through our internal QA before it goes to Test, which should be soon (tm) <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />.- Kirstie</blockquote>Knight's Stance does sound like it's stance related because of well, it's name. Actually it's an TSO AA, subclass (shadowknight / paladin shared) that increases damage of the main hand weapon when the person isn't using a 2H weapon or DWing - not that a paladin/shadowknight can DW. It was recently changed so that at rank 5 instead of saying "Increases weapon damage bonus by 25." it was reduced down to "Increases weapon damage bonus by 15." which is just shy of a 50% reduction in the damage bonus it gave. That reduction, combined with the autoattack reduction defensive stance has now, and the weapon skill reduction defensive stance always had results in a lot of lost damage on test versus live.

Eueadan

02-24-2009, 11:04 PM

Remember remember the <a href="http://lolnge.[Removed for Content]/" target="_blank">15th of November</a>...I know you are are doing your best to provide us a great game, but please pause to consider the "us" in that equation.Before implementing any further major mechanics changes to the game, please (1) stop, (2) think them through (with the community if possible...i.e. "this isn't working as intended, we need to change it, what do you think of X"), and (3) present a coherant summary of (a) what the change is, (b) how you believe the change will effect the game, and (c) how the change fits into a grand overall vision of the game.This apparent nerf whack-a-mole across multiple major game mechanics is getting to be too much, and is starting to cause primal screams by community members. The current course is not going to end well.

Eugam

02-25-2009, 05:51 AM

<cite>Dhuin@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thundy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Let's face it, you guys (aka Aeralik) have completely lost control of what's going on in this update. You'll never admit it, but we all know it.How about some answers about this proc change "rollback" which didn't actually roll back 90% of the proc change?</blockquote>Have a little respect and think about it - the notes you see on test are the ideas that were discussed, tossed around, distilled into some final debated revised form, then pushed out to test. You aren't seeing what goes on behind the scenes that got the game to where it is - these things don't happen by accident.Am I pleased with the way Aerilik has come across to many people on the forums? No. But they hired him to be a mechanics designer, not a PR liason.Dev is making changes, analyzing the changes, and revising things based on both feedback and testing - more on testing than feedback though. As 80%+ of the posts on this forum are just like yours in tone, without objective reasoning, and many of them have no full group testing to substantiate the claims they make, we shouldn't blame SoE for just taking these posts with a grain of salt.I've been coming to this board daily for the last week or so, just to keep tabs on the responses from the devs, and I more and more understand why your average PUG is so painful.</blockquote>/sign. Afterall this is Test. No matter what happens, its not live and therefor worth to discuss it with some respect.

Danelin

02-25-2009, 06:27 AM

This is exactly why EQlive ended up appointing community representatives for each class. Every thread tends to eventually devolve into class bickering, even if it is on that classes class forum.It was a good idea. It allowed a volunteer who was either unpaid (or possibly recieved a waived monthly fee, I don't recall) to perform an extremely cost effective service for both SoE and their classes. They polled their classes for desired changes and most undesireably changes that had been carried out or were in testing, and provided that information back to the devs in locked threads that only a forum moderator could post to. It allowed all of the general information to be consolidated into a thread that devs could read through easily without fishing through a pile of shouting.I would suggest a similar model be implemented by EQ2, with the addition of a specific 'development representative' for in-testing/developer roundtable threads, to consolidate more general information from those areas, for things like a huge percentage of the fighters being up in arms and realizing that posting on their subclass threads would be ineffective.The cost to sony would be either nil or negligible (25 subscription fees a month can't cut into their pockets that deeply, especially if those folks are still buying x-pacs), and would make the forums a much more valuable resource to both the devs and the community as a whole, since those who posted valuable feedback would be able to get it to the eyes of the developers more reliably. It would also give the developers less of a reason to not reply to posts. Having to sort through all of the various threads takes up a good portion of my time currently to find anything meaningful. The devs can't spare that time so easily.Finally, it would work best if combined with more transparency from the developers. Not just what changes you are planning, but WHY you are doing so. Determine along with the devoted players what the best direction for the game is, and give us transparency behind the process. Naturally there will be some things you want to (or have to) keep secret, especially as regards expansion. However finding a way out of the messes you have already made with the help of the players, and effective feedback regarding what would keep them happiest would go a long way to preserving your player base.It is ironic that all this is happening during the recruit a friend promotion, because I have ended up actively suggesting that a few friends who were considering joining the game NOT do so because of the upcoming revisions. They are waiting to see what happens right along with me, and I might end up losing their attention to another game before things settle out. It is unfortunate.

Orthureon

02-25-2009, 06:34 AM

<cite>Enoe wrote:</cite><blockquote>I play tanks only in game. Guard and sk., so this update will have great impact on my game expirience.What i do in game is little raiding and rest of the time pvp. Our raid force is not elite. Our setup is far from perfect but we steadly progress throug zones.What this update will change for me and my fellow guild tanks?PvE:- MT guardian will be happy - no other tank will rip aggro of him- we have 4 other fighters in raid force 2 sk zerk and monk - with changes:a) ot (me) will be useless untill MT dies or there will de something to offtank - i need to stay on def stance=dps will be 30-40% lower then nowb) sk in mage grp - he will be happy too since being in offstance will prevent him from pulling aggro - on the other hand his dps will drop as well so it can not look so good to keep him on dps spot in this grp.c) zerker in melee grp - not much will chane for himd) monk - we have him for avo check for mt/altruism and good monk from time to time can be rescue tank with peel/tsunami. With changes he cant do this job as good as he can now. So again there will be question if we should keep him.On live all our tanks work hard as dps and tank/ot - at least they have possibility to ot if necessary. With changes dps of tanks will drop - so there will be no reason to have so many of them since w/o tanking abilities (being in offstance).Job of OT will be to watch tv and wait for call on vent that MT has trouble.With changes you remove all versatility and utility of the fighters in raid. They can be only MT/OT period. So looks like this change is made for only high end avatar killing guilds who raids in perfect setup. Well done i just wonder what % of market are they?PVP:This is just rediculus if u look at the impact of changes in pvp.For full group tanking fighters being in defstance is ok. They can use extra survivalibity. Why they need 1000000 taunt amount since our current taunts are efficient? Removing many buffs from deffstance will make tanks pvp dps even lower.But pvp is not about full groups or raids only. I like solo on my chars. Changes will make it almost impossible. Solo on guardian was hard enough now it will be even worse. Solo on Sk was ok - i can say maybe even little OP. But changes went so far that soloing on SK will be real hard again. Dps reduction of sk in pvp will be like 50% with nothing to gain from def stance. Oh yea i will get more taunts amount. Guess what I DONT NEED IT. Solo pvp in offstance with all penalties? Suicidal.I think now all scouts casters can laugh. Again their classes will be on top of food chain, and it took only 20 topics about nerf sk and other fighters to achive it. Well done.And dont tell me you read feedback, or you spend long time thinking about changes or even discuss them. Guardian still has 150 int on TSO pvp set - can you tell me why? Its silly and small thing compare to all incoming changes but for god sake it really like you guys in Sony are drinking martini on beach and game changes are made by ad hoc hired WoW programers on 5 days contracts.</blockquote>Both Crusaders are insanely overpowered in PVP, whether it be group or solo. I am glad Crusaders are getting the nerf, but affecting all tanks is a little much.

Windowlicker

02-25-2009, 09:33 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Translated: Now that SKs can do the same job Zerkers can I you no longer feel like your Zerker is as unique as he once was. The fact is Zerker AE dps is still fantastic. Zerker agro is solid. Zerker surivivability is just as good.So, now you have 2 tanks that fill similar roles...and you are probably finding out the way that the SK does it is a little bit more fun. I know that is the reason I play a SK and the reason a lot of the old school SKs stuck it out. It has a nice flavor to it.So what exactly is the issue here?</blockquote>I know there's this whole epic quest to save the overpowered uber status of the SK, but your absolutely incorrect. The SK isn't just overpowered against the Berserker, it's currently overpowered against every single plate tank in the game.Legendary SK's are pulling hate off fully fabled raidgeared Guardians on single target. That's beyond problematic, and absolute proof the class needs a savage beating with a nerf stick. In fact, this is a rare case where a visible majority is in full agreeance that these changes need to be made. Everyone of course, except the SK's.That's to be expected now isn't it.

Allurana

02-25-2009, 10:10 AM

Ok, I will add my comments to this growing thread.Paying customer since April 1999, no break in subscription since then. Switched to EQ2 the day the servers went live in Nov. 2004.I am a 3 boxer, so 3 paid accounts all those years. All the expansions, etc...Main character Guardian from day 1 on Blackburrow and still main character to this day.I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE the taunt changes going in. GO SOE!!!!I have ALWAYS played my guardian in defensive stance and have no plans of taking it out of defensive stance. I am a tank, I tank. I am not a scout, I am not a mage, definitely not a healer. I am a tank.The only enhancement I would like to see happen would be a more fleshing out of the taunt system in terms of information displayed to the tank/group/etc... Healers get HP meters on everything to see if they are overhealing or need to kick it up. Scout get HP meters on every mobs in a fight to see if they need to kick up there DPS, switch mobs, etc... and mages get the same thing.Tanks get a new threat meter which will be having a marvelous tweak added shortly to test server to give the tank a litlte more information on how they are doing.We need a more fleshed out system though. Keep up the good work SOE and keep pushing forward to complete this new, improved and (GRASP!) different way of fixing a long standing problem with combat in this game and actually putting fighters on a level playing field with all the other classes that have had all the data they needed prsented to them so nice and neat for years.Respectfully,Allurana

Ahlana

02-25-2009, 10:19 AM

<cite>Zahne@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Translated: Now that SKs can do the same job Zerkers can I you no longer feel like your Zerker is as unique as he once was. The fact is Zerker AE dps is still fantastic. Zerker agro is solid. Zerker surivivability is just as good.So, now you have 2 tanks that fill similar roles...and you are probably finding out the way that the SK does it is a little bit more fun. I know that is the reason I play a SK and the reason a lot of the old school SKs stuck it out. It has a nice flavor to it.So what exactly is the issue here?</blockquote>I know there's this whole epic quest to save the overpowered uber status of the SK, but your absolutely incorrect. The SK isn't just overpowered against the Berserker, it's currently overpowered against every single plate tank in the game.Legendary SK's are pulling hate off fully fabled raidgeared Guardians on single target. That's beyond problematic, and absolute proof the class needs a savage beating with a nerf stick. In fact, this is a rare case where a visible majority is in full agreeance that these changes need to be made. Everyone of course, except the SK's.That's to be expected now isn't it.</blockquote>Not true, As an SK I think a toning down is in order. I just disagree with everything else this patch is taking. The merged buffs, the changes to offensive and defensive. I say nerf my class down a bit but leave my playstyle alone. It is the fundamental playstyle that is changing, the challenge of being a tank in offensive and still doing well. It will all go away that is what most SKs are up in arms about. If we wanted to play 100% in defensive mode we would've made a Guardian.

Lethe5683

02-25-2009, 11:43 AM

<cite>Zahne@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>The SK isn't just overpowered against the Berserker, it's currently overpowered against every single plate tank in the game.</blockquote>Fixed that for you. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />

Bruener

02-25-2009, 11:59 AM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zahne@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>The SK isn't just overpowered against the Berserker, it's currently overpowered against every single plate tank in the game.</blockquote>Fixed that for you. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Unfortunately I guess I have to spell it out for you guys. Every fighter while tanking is getting a nerf. SK dps while in defensive is cut in half now. That is a nerf.So why is it that you think SKs need nerfs on top of that. Nerfs to AEs. Nerfs to one of the best AAs we have...one we have been long over-due for. This does not just affect SKs while tanking it also affects the opposite end in offensive...where DPS is supposed to matter.All tanks on test can hold agro easily in defensive stance...meaning they can all hold agro while tanking. All tank dps while tanking is in the gutters. That is nerf enough. For those that have extreme class envy and only see red, how does the continual nerf to SK dps in offensive make you feel better? Offensive fighters that are not tanking should have high T2 dps...because that is all they are doing, no other role. Get over yourself and look at the facts.

Zagats

02-25-2009, 12:29 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote> Get over yourself and look at the facts.</blockquote></blockquote>Great advice, maybe you should take it Bruener.SK's on live are retardedly overpowered. That is a fact. And yes all fighters are taking it in the shorts with the defensive stance change, but that is a completely different nerf. Think of it as 2 nerfs if you will, rather then one big one. SK's need a nerf to get them in line with where they should be on live, then the second nerf is to all fighters to keep them all on the same page with the proposed fighter changes. Your whole defense to keeping SK's how they are on live as being that other tanks just suck is quite ill informed. I have played with some of the best tnaks in this game, and my new main character- a guardian, isn't too shabby himself. Yet, on all fronts SK's are superior. That is a problem. Do I think SK's need to be nerfed to where they were before they became gods? No. But there must be a middleground.

Motzi

02-25-2009, 12:40 PM

Seriously, diluting every single thread with SK rants isn't going to accomplish anything. One of you cry babies make a detailed post with hard numbers and make a real, substantial argument about why in comparison to your peir classes you are no longer in alignment. No speculative posts based upon reading patch notes, but real, solid, number crunching and analysis. Then, and MAYBE then you'll get some consideration from SoE.This assasination of all other threads with /whine isn't going to get anyone anywhere and only distract from others' valid concerns.

Mulethree

02-25-2009, 05:15 PM

<cite>Kirstie wrote:</cite><blockquote>there is a known problem with taunts that is creeping up in many of the conversations. Specifically that the taunts aren't doing the amount of taunting their description says they should. Aeralik has fixed this internally and we'll be getting it fixed up in a test update in the near future.</blockquote>Yeah - the original topic of this thread. It appears fixed - taunts now actually do as much threat as their examine window claims they will. It looks like the actual threat levels increased to match the spell descriptions.You might get better feedback from the devs if they knew where to look, i.e. posted in a thread thats actually about what you are discussing. You could also quote the paragraph you are referring to, instead of the entire post with 100 lines of irrelevent nested quotes. If a dev could post on a subject, and get back 5 pages of useful input, they might actually read it and we'd have a constructive dialogue. Instead theres 5 pages of useful stuff buried in 40 pages of nonsense and hundred line posts that are 99 lines of rehash(quoted) for one line of 'you go girl!' or similar.