EverQuest II Producer’s Letter, March 2009 - Feedback [Archive]

Freliant

03-17-2009, 07:51 PM

There is one thing all devs will have to keep in mind reguarding the community of fighters (particularly raid equipped fighters) and that is that once they get a taste of dps, they will not want to let it go.I can guarantee you that any change you make that will lower the dps of the fighter classes, even if its to the betterment of the game, will meet with a very strong response, mostly negative. Let me quote a player:"I am so far into diminishing returns when it comes to mitigation, parry cap and defense cap, that the only direction for me to move, is in dps." - (xKhonsx i think).This being the case, unfortunately, any change to bring things in line will feel like he is being gimped and the past year has been completely worthless.I want to go on the record saying: For further changes to actually be accepted, the current dps setup has to be mostly left intact, with changes moving forward related to raw agro generation through itemization. Just like mages get +spell, fighters should get + hate added to the gear they normally wear. That means, that through proper itemization, their taunts will be exponentially higher than they are now. Fabled items with a set increase (not percentage based) to taunts is also good, and there should be no upper cap to the taunt potential through items.So lets say that a regular taunt does 1k-2k damage on a 10 second recast... through items, it should be possible to go to a 10-15k taunt with a 4 second recast, when using full Avatar gear. The numbers are made up, but the end result is what we are workign towards.Also, someone once said:"You can't taunt a mob to death."And this holds very true. Once any fighter is at a point where they are comfortable keeping agro and do not need any additional agro generation, they will undoubtedly continue through a dps increasing route.Another quote:"Stances should be about how much damage you take, not how much agro you generate."This is probably the truest statement there is... but it has to be worked out properly.. cause if a fighter looses all ability to take damage, he will never use this stance while solo.. only when in a group and with someone else tanking... which is all fine and dandy, but we all know some fighters also solo, and this stance has to be somewhat viable for that.Overall, I am disappointed that the changes did not go through this time around, but if you think that moving forward there could be a better compromised change that really envisions what we see as the tank role and also incorporates the game's health, then I am all for it.

Caetrel

03-17-2009, 07:51 PM

Kudos to the SOE team for putting a stop to this debacle. I look forward to the new process and the future changes in store for EQ2.

Thundy

03-17-2009, 07:58 PM

I LOVE how even in the letter that states more open communication is coming, you still fail to COMMUNICATE in that letter what most people are thinking (and was one of the first replies here):What about all the content, fixes, additions on Test/"GU51" that are NOT fighter related? How long is it going to take this to be patched in. Is all this a "new expansion" feature now considering we're almost 4 months into the year already?*reads the February Producer's letter for a good laugh* lol.

Obadiah

03-17-2009, 08:08 PM

That's really good news, I think. Hopefully the Hate-O-Meter stuff can come without the fighter changes. But regardless ... dude ... you gotta get that Lavastorm stuff fixed and live.

dawy

03-17-2009, 08:10 PM

Common sense has seemingly prevailed with this issue

ke'la

03-17-2009, 08:18 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>So does this mean the time table will be pushed out to the expansion for a more seemless integration with itemization? Are other changes like hate meters and some AP tweaks still coming? I welcome the change but it begs the question-- why wasn't this done in the first place. I've fighters sitting in limbo now for over 2 months based on the previous proposal and would much rather have the EQ2 historical stability of knowing nothing happens 'til the expansion when it can be done"right".</blockquote>I think part of the reason that we where kept in the dark was they where not even shure what they where doing, they just knew that they weren't doing the revamp as it is on test now. My guess is it went something like this.Can we fix it so that the players won't liench us... they tried a few things and in internal testing they found out they can't and keep what is already on test.So the next question was so what do we do know, answer? role back the changes and start over... that results in the question can we do it? that took some figuring out and then it was deturmined yes we can.Then the question was asked(or even at the same time) how can we keep something like this expencive mistake from happening again. Answer more player involvment... that leads to ok how do we do that, and they then need to come up with that plan...All of this has to happen befor they can talk to us about any of it... as who knows what if any of it would accually happen.

ke'la

03-17-2009, 08:27 PM

<cite>Thundy wrote:</cite><blockquote>I LOVE how even in the letter that states more open communication is coming, you still fail to COMMUNICATE in that letter what most people are thinking (and was one of the first replies here):What about all the content, fixes, additions on Test/"GU51" that are NOT fighter related? How long is it going to take this to be patched in. Is all this a "new expansion" feature now considering we're almost 4 months into the year already?*reads the February Producer's letter for a good laugh* lol.</blockquote>They probly can't tell you when the rest of GU51 will go live because they themselfs are not sure as they don't know how this roll back will effect that content in ways unforseen. Once it is on test and working in it's rolled back form I am sure they will get a better Idea about how long it will take to finnish, and then get it to live.

Elanjar

03-17-2009, 08:29 PM

Thank you SOE for listening to us fighters.I think we can all agree that change is needed but the structure/implementation was wrong.Moving forward with more communication I'm sure we should be able to get the proper fixes made to make hate function how it should.PS the letter made no mention of whether the lavastorm changes are going on hold also? Are those still going live?

Derang

03-17-2009, 08:30 PM

Wow...so now im never going to see Meditative Healing aa fixed, and never going to see ae auto attack on a brawler. This is absolutely a waste of my time for fixes that should have been hotfixed not in a fighter revamp "HATE GAIN" game update...Thanks for nothing!-Oh sorry about the hate messages, just tired of playing a unbalanced broken class!

dreken

03-17-2009, 08:34 PM

thats good to hear , was not very pleased with the revamp as it was, as for a more open two way communication, and that you realize that there are alot of players that really do know what they are talking about and not just talking dribble ....it is a very good first step..... so just remember the forums is a tool and it doesn't bite

Kirianna1

03-17-2009, 09:24 PM

Yay! A step in the right direction! Though I agree the other non-fighter-revamp things should still get patched in... soon! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Child

03-17-2009, 09:27 PM

<cite>Maleia@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yay! A step in the right direction! Though I agree the other non-fighter-revamp things should still get patched in... soon! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>agree as well.lavastorm and the /mood new animations i'm wanting<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />

Clav

03-17-2009, 09:30 PM

I'm dumbfounded and disappointed by this news. I liked the changes and was getting very tired of waiting for them to go live. Now I have no idea what's coming, and I fear the worst.

Grugg

03-17-2009, 09:46 PM

<cite>Claviarm wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm dumbfounded and disappointed by this news. I liked the changes and was getting very tired of waiting for them to go live. Now I have no idea what's coming, and I fear the worst.</blockquote>Fear is the mind-killer. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />

MCS-Apophis

03-17-2009, 09:53 PM

Can you give us the hate meter and the new lavastorm content?You said in the past that the threat info is already being transferred to the client so it shouldn't be a big deal to add without the rest of the revamp.

Goldenpaw

03-17-2009, 10:00 PM

Absolutely, dissapointed the changes are not going in. I am happy that the other fighters are happy!But selfishly, because it would fix the incredible frustration as a guardian I feel playing in groups this is a severe blow to hope of being able to tank in defensive on fights that need it without hate transfer. What a pain in the freaking ###.While I hope you stay true to your "more communication" the players don't know what they want, we live in a microwave society where we want what we want now, and like several posts above said, once they've had a DPS they are going to kick, scream and moan if their dps drops for any reason, because by God, they've earned it. If you make change, resist, if you wanted to bring fighters back to the same point with itemization in the future, well too bad, you gave it to us once it is our birthright... My point is that SOE must make the decision to lead the way, listening is key, but creating a diatribe with the players to do what "you feel is best for the game" is begging a quagmire of disaster.This is sad, I'm happy for my fellow fighters, hate to see anyone get nerfed, but this is sad for the Guardian who saw a chance to do what we were supposed to do again. You know, meatshield?

Daysy

03-17-2009, 10:05 PM

Admitting the mistakes and starting again is the best thing I've seen from Sony in a long time. Good luck with getting it right this time.

Megavolt

03-17-2009, 10:51 PM

Thank you,From the deapest part of my heart, thank you...Although there were parts of the original plan that I did like, there were many things that were still left unadressed that couldn't be fixed with the general "plan" of the aoe/single target designation and true active/passive of the Guard/Zerker/SK versus the Pally/Monk/Bruiser set.I ADORE the idea of the fighter stances heading more into offensive and defensive sides. With that it makes it more viable to keep more than just 2 classes of an entire archtype in a raid, and yes, those of you who raid know that at current live setup keeping a raid of of all 24 classes would be insane, much less keeping one of each fighter class (SIX fighters in a raid... are you nuts?!?) A fighter should be a viable replacement for any of the 8 scouts or 8 mages in the setup if not by their own dps but possibly by further utility that would increase the dps of the overall raid. Agro(single target and aoe)/Utility should be something something handled by aa's not by stances, unless by a secondary stance to the primary defensive/offensive stances.I am not opposed to aoe/single target plan for the tanks but each should be able to aa spec to where an aoe'er could rival a single for single targets and a single target can rival an aoe on aoe encounters. Just out and declaring "You are an aoe, and you are a single target" leaves certain content unobtainable to certain classes. Why take a Guardian to Halls of the Foresaken when just finding a Berserker would be alot easier than trying to struggle through a zone where a single target tank just doesn't fit.As far as the passive(I get hit and get hate for it) vs. the actve (I hit you and get hate for it). it completely unbalanced the planned changes due to fear/daze effects. Without hate transfer as it is now on live all my acrued agro was lost when these effects kicked in compared to a guardian friend who gained hate in this time. This effect was sorta handled with stifle/stuns but not for fear/daze with the increase in hate in our taunts useable while stifle and stunned. Perhaps just changing these lines a bit to to make the hate a pulse with a higher initial taunt that could overwrite itself instead of a single taunt would fix the unbalancing, but that's just my idea and I'm sure there are others out there that would work better to balance this out.... oh and one last thing. This is sorta my pet peave that I have since you wanna group us Monks and Bruisers in with the rest of the fighters. If we were meant to tank, why not increase our survivability. The world revolves around Guard MT's. Zerker, Pally, and even SK MT's are not unknown in the world, but due to the way we are untouched then suddenly hit the ground makes us a completely unviable class to ever hold this position. A change in the way avoidance is worked would be much appreciated. As in normal fighting very few hits are 100% avoided, adding in glancing blows(25% damage) and weak blows (50% damage) to sort of normalize the damage we take would make us a viable class to raid MT, even to select as a group tank. Leather mitigation is rediculous and unscaled since Fallen Dynasty so since that time our survivability has decreased since mob damage has scaled almost exponentially since then.And since I mention it in almost every post I write, please do something nice for Monks for a change, our last 10 changes have all been nerfs while almost every other class has had an enhancement (and don't feed the last d-fist change wasn't a nerf, if you knew what you were doing with d-fist as it used to be you didn't see the effects of the stifle. Cutting our heroic damage off it was the cruelest thing I have ever seen)

Gaige

03-17-2009, 11:19 PM

<cite>MCS-Apophis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can you give us the hate meter and the new lavastorm content?You said in the past that the threat info is already being transferred to the client so it shouldn't be a big deal to add without the rest of the revamp.</blockquote>Cake and eat it too mentality I see?

Tiberuis

03-17-2009, 11:48 PM

Bravo!Thank-you for not making all of us tanks into Guardians - especially the Zerkers and SK's. We did not roll Defensive Plate Tanks. Most of us Offensive Tanks on these forums have no interest in becoming taunt monkeys.I find the concept of "taunting" (ie. yelling, screaming, shouting obcenities, hurling insults, etc.) to hold aggro to be ridiculous to say the least. We are Fighters. We should be Fighting to hold aggro, not yelling. It is a silly concept.I would like to see the hate meter implemented at some point in the future, regardless of the play value (taunts, dps) driving it.I would also like to see the Lavastorm update implemented. I can't wait for a new series of quests and content in one of my favorite EQ2 zones.This really is a great game, and tons of fun to play right now. TSO is an awesome expansion, the content is diverse, and lots of fun to play - solo, group, and raid.I think SOE needs to do a better job of marketing this game to attract more players - as opposed to more mechanical revamps ala GU13 and GU51. The latest friend referral program is a good example of the type of programs that need to continue to be brought on line. SONY has such a strong brand equity - and they sure know how to market a product (see the PS2/PS3 consoles) when they want to <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Kiara

03-18-2009, 12:04 AM

The Lavastorm changes ARE going to be pushed live. Right now they're being separated from the fighter changes so that we can push them live (and a little extra polish is being thrown on as well).I don't have an exact date yet for the Lavastorm changes going live, but I know that the team is working hard to push them as soon as they can.When I have a clearer ETA, I'll be sure to share.

Obadiah

03-18-2009, 12:18 AM

<cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote>The Lavastorm changes ARE going to be pushed live. Right now they're being separated from the fighter changes so that we can push them live (and a little extra polish is being thrown on as well).I don't have an exact date yet for the Lavastorm changes going live, but I know that the team is working hard to push them as soon as they can.When I have a clearer ETA, I'll be sure to share.</blockquote>Does that mean the Hate-O-Meter is entirely entwined with the Fighter changes and can't go in? That's kind of a drag.Oh yeah, is correcting the spelling of "Agressor" (Aggressor) intrinsically tied to Fighter changes too? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />

MCS-Apophis

03-18-2009, 12:23 AM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote>The Lavastorm changes ARE going to be pushed live. Right now they're being separated from the fighter changes so that we can push them live (and a little extra polish is being thrown on as well).I don't have an exact date yet for the Lavastorm changes going live, but I know that the team is working hard to push them as soon as they can.When I have a clearer ETA, I'll be sure to share.</blockquote>Does that mean the Hate-O-Meter is entirely entwined with the Fighter changes and can't go in? That's kind of a drag.</blockquote>Please bring over the hate meter stuff, red bars, the meter, etc. That would help the aggro a lot just being able to see what your at.

Balmore

03-18-2009, 01:08 AM

and Shadow Knights stay in Assassins' club.

Seomon

03-18-2009, 01:30 AM

As for the changes not going in, that's fantastic. Changes like should have been incorportated with an expansion, and merging buffs we've had for years is a horrible idea. Also, taking away class defining skills like Amends after I've had it for 4 years and completely changing my class is a horrible idea. I'm all for making the tanks more independant for hate management, but this was not the way to do it. It did not need a massive nerf of fighter dps, when any DPS class that knows what they are doing and is as equally geared will do more DPS than the tank.<cite>Producer wrote:</cite><blockquote>"We are also looking at incentives to get more of you playing on the Test server, for further feedback. We truly believe that if we can get more of you testing and contributing your feedback, we will know more about what you all want, what you all believe is best for the game. We want to acknowledge here that this is your game, and many of you are the experts at various aspects of this game. We want this to be a collaborative effort between SOE and its players. When we get the details of the Test server incentives worked out, we’ll be announcing it on the forums and on EQ2players. We’ll also be announcing the plan for improving our communication and creating an open two-way dialogue with you as soon as we’ve worked out all of the details. "</blockquote>Just do what Aeralik did and set up times to run tests. That's all you need to do to get people to log in and test the changes. Other than that, you're not going to pull people away from real servers, and you should stop trying and focus on the game.

Dreyco

03-18-2009, 01:46 AM

While I support the Development team in their decision...I cannot even begin to express my dissapointment, or the dissapointment of all those that I spoke to regarding this announcement.Here's hoping at least the Lavastorm changes make it to live soon enough. Perhaps make some of those armor appearances available to those of us who don't raid? That would be awesome, as a little reward to those of the population who will now continue to struggle with their tanking ability to some extent, not due to lack of skill, but due to a DPS reigning game environment where they just can't, with the gear that they have, put out the numbers necessary to keep up with classes that are shooting through the roof.One can hope <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Tehom

03-18-2009, 02:10 AM

Like others, I hope the hate meter is seperate from the fighter changes and would come in - don't see much reason for it not to. I'm a bit disappointed at the fighter changes being dumped; I felt the version on test I played with was fine, and decoupling dps and hate generation for fighters is necessary for the long term health of the game as the gap between hardcore and casual players grows increasingly large. I don't have any problem with fighter dps as it is right now, though, and feel that Aeralik's mistake was in trying to control fighter dps this expansion rather than just leave it for later. Other nerfs like the coercer robe are similarly misguided and should just be allowed to phase out eventually with inevitable rebalancing on level cap increases.As far as inducing players to play on test server, I would just open it up to transfers or provide incentives to players' live characters as a result of playing on test server. Given the horrendous lag that AB (and presumably other servers) experience (hay thar, 10 second delays on attacks when fighting avatars), I think a lot of players would cheerfully jump ship for a low-lag environment if given the chance. Examples of incentives to live characters for playing on test server could include things like the ability to /claim potions that'd give a 2 hour 50% bonus to achievement experience for every so many levels you gain on a character on test (say 1 for every 10 levels up until 50, then 1 for every 5 levels until 70, then 1 for every level after that point. Something like that.) Unique furniture, titles, or other cosmetic claimed items would certainly appeal to some players as well, even if they wouldn't appeal to me personally.

Lord Morain Daknar

03-18-2009, 02:56 AM

nice, good call.imo scrap these changes completely. yes even the hate meter. The only fighter change that would be good imo would be better taunts, but not if it means less dps.thank you <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

OutcastBlade

03-18-2009, 02:58 AM

I hope the letter isnt blowing smoke up our butts, but at the same time I think its a ballsy move and I am grateful you are taking it all this seriously.A lot of damage has been done to this game over the years, a lot of it having to do with bad decisions with regards to class mechanics. It doesn't matter who you talk to ingame, even assassins, we all agree that the work done in this area is severely lacking foresight and it needs to be addressed. These fighter changes are a blessing because it has revealed to the developers as a whole just how bad it can get, and we've been dealing with this for years now.Look at the SKs. They were getting a huge nerf to what they got from TSO. Thats because the people in charge of the mechanics don't stop to think about the repercussions of what they put in the game. We see more nerfs than improvements and that is abysmal and embarrassing for you because it makes you look incompetent."NERF NERF NERF, and if you are bored NERF SOME MORE!" <- This needs to stop.... NOW! And you can stop this by putting more thought into what you're adding to the game.Thanks.

789mkii

03-18-2009, 03:16 AM

This problem is originally・Lack of taunt volume/taunt curve calculationIt is first of all there. Best regards.

Boramyr

03-18-2009, 03:27 AM

Please Leave the brawler AOE/AA changes in too. Those class's seriously needs a group aggro tanking fix NOW not months from now.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 04:02 AM

With these changes not going live, you now have 4 fighter classes desperatly in need of near immediate adjustment.SKs need a damage nerf.Guardians need more reliable hate generation.Both brawlers need more reliable hate generation and survivability.This also leaves paladins on live with /easymode tanking, something that is not desirable at all.At least bezerkers are fine. 1/6 ain't bad, I guess.

therodge

03-18-2009, 04:10 AM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>With these changes not going live, you now have 4 fighter classes desperatly in need of near immediate adjustment.SKs need a damage nerf.not really if so maybe only slight aoe damage nerfGuardians need more reliable hate generation.yesBoth brawlers need more reliable hate generation and survivability.yesThis also leaves paladins on live with /easymode tanking, something that is not desirable at all.DID U PLAY ON TEST? i mean jesus motherflibben monkeyballs that was /easymode hell that was /wineq2 yes paladins have easier agro on live then other tanks but on test all tanks had /easymode +1At least bezerkers are fine. 1/6 ain't bad, I guess.</blockquote>

Noaani

03-18-2009, 04:19 AM

<cite>therodge wrote:</cite><blockquote> DID U PLAY ON TEST? i mean jesus motherflibben monkeyballs that was /easymode hell that was /wineq2 yes paladins have easier agro on live then other tanks but on test all tanks had /easymode +1</blockquote>Whats amusing about this is the fact that I have been arguing for the last few weeks that tanks on test will have no trouble holding aggro, against certian people that "did the math" and came up with it being impossible.Paladins on live have it easier than any fighter on test.

ke'la

03-18-2009, 05:12 AM

<cite>Seomon wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for the changes not going in, that's fantastic. Changes like should have been incorportated with an expansion, and merging buffs we've had for years is a horrible idea. Also, taking away class defining skills like Amends after I've had it for 4 years and completely changing my class is a horrible idea. I'm all for making the tanks more independant for hate management, but this was not the way to do it. It did not need a massive nerf of fighter dps, when any DPS class that knows what they are doing and is as equally geared will do more DPS than the tank.<cite>Producer wrote:</cite><blockquote>"We are also looking at incentives to get more of you playing on the Test server, for further feedback. We truly believe that if we can get more of you testing and contributing your feedback, we will know more about what you all want, what you all believe is best for the game. We want to acknowledge here that this is your game, and many of you are the experts at various aspects of this game. We want this to be a collaborative effort between SOE and its players. When we get the details of the Test server incentives worked out, we’ll be announcing it on the forums and on EQ2players. We’ll also be announcing the plan for improving our communication and creating an open two-way dialogue with you as soon as we’ve worked out all of the details. "</blockquote>Just do what Aeralik did and set up times to run tests. That's all you need to do to get people to log in and test the changes. Other than that, you're not going to pull people away from real servers, and you should stop trying and focus on the game.</blockquote>If they get some uber piece of fluff they might.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 05:16 AM

<cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they get some uber piece of fluff they might.</blockquote>Oximoron.

Thunderthyze

03-18-2009, 05:17 AM

Comment inc from Aeralik?

Sirenta

03-18-2009, 05:48 AM

I definitely can not wait to see EQ2-Devs other than Domino actually communicating with us, the community.I always thought, that is what this Dev Roundtable forum is all about.Putting ideas and then examining the reactions.For the fighter changes...well there are quite some good discussions on these boards, some fun and even excellently worked out ideas, how toapproach the Aggro-DesasterBut actually you cannot revamp 1/4 of the classes, when you try to revamp the interdependencies of these towards others.An overall plan would be appreciated and when you are adding, merging or altering spells...PLEASE consider the logic of your implemented game mechanics (Clerics Sacrifice comes to mind 10k+ damage to the cleric, possible zero heal to the target)

Mytilma

03-18-2009, 07:36 AM

Good decision, *applauds*. The fighter changes may or may not be necessary, who am I to judge, but they should definitely not hold the new content hostage. Give us the new content soon as it is separated again from the merged update and you're fine to release it, and reflect on the fighter (and possibly other class) changes without time pressure. Just for Christ's sake, leave the Lame-O-Meter out.

Brook

03-18-2009, 08:11 AM

While I am happy the fighter revamp was scrapped in its current form on test, the changes to the Lavastorm raid content has been adjusted around those changes. How will this effect that content if it is pushed live, or will it?Will that content be tested/adjusted on test before it hits live?Will fighter revamp 1.0 be changed back to before TSO release?Will Sk's be nerfed to pre revamp state, or will they be adjusted accordingly (toned down a hair) to match the other fighters? It seems pretty obvious many adjustments to classes before the revamp were done to justify the need for the changes in the first place. (or thats what it would appear IMO)Will those changes be reverted or left in an unbalanced state?Will you please hire someone to fix the automated transfer service and the station character update info? Its been down around 6 months now and I have toons that were deleted 6 months ago still showing up on the database.Will you give (TSRDanial)?spelling... an award for the extra hard work he has been doing to communicate with us and manually put peoples transfers through?Any chance your going to reimburse players who return that left due to the changes that were obviously not that well planned out?Please communicate with us on these questions, inquiring minds would like to know.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 08:15 AM

<cite>Brook wrote:</cite><blockquote>Any chance your going to reimburse players who return that left due to the changes that were obviously not that well planned out?</blockquote>Any player to quit this game due to changes that are not on live yet deserves nothing from anyone.Edit: other than ridicule, obviously.

JinjAB

03-18-2009, 08:20 AM

Thak you Devs.Domino style communications/interactions FTW!

cawalton

03-18-2009, 10:02 AM

Regarding what would encourage me to play on Test, I would play if my Live toon or account received a reward/points or something that I could directly apply to my characters. That way I wouldn't feel that playing on Test was "wasted" game time, instead something that advanced me on Live as well, which hopefully would be worth my time to obtain. I would think the reward, or what ever, would be based on how much Test time was played.Other than something that advances/enhances my regular guys, I just don't consider Test worthwhile (I figure I'm paying you people to ensure the quality of the game, I just want to play when I have the time for some quality kickback (which I consider EQ2 to be).This may seem a selfish view, but time can be in short supply so gaming on Live takes priority, Cliff

Vonotar

03-18-2009, 10:22 AM

Interesting how they are yet again talking about encouraging people to play on Test.There was an entire long thread devoted to that very subject, it even started with a few 'starter ideas' from Rothgar.- discounted subscription fee- free transfers to test- move entire guilds to testThe thread ran from 14th March '08 to the 12th December '08 before falling foul of anti Station Cash posters and being locked for that reason (with absolutely no update on what would be done with all this feedback on the Test server service).Personally, give me free guild and character transfers and I will move all my characters their tomorrow.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 10:22 AM

<cite>Producers Letter stated:</cite><blockquote>We’ll also be announcing the plan for improving our communication and creating an open two-way dialogue with you as soon as we’ve worked out all of the details.</blockquote>So, you plan on opening up a two way communications channel, so that we can all have input into the game. While it sounds good in theory, the question needs to be raised as to why the bolded part of this quote exists.Why not start off this whole new communication thing now, with player input into how this communication thing will work?I mean... your basically say you want to include is in things, but before you do so you need to figure out how you are going to include us.This seems much the same way as that kid at school that was always picked last for sport, who gets picked because he has to be, but he is just sorta pushed over to the side. You are including us in communication because you basically have to, but we are going to be pushed to the side and told not to touch anything.I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love for you to listen to (some of) the players here, but I am less than optimistic about the whole thing so far.

Lakn

03-18-2009, 10:26 AM

Yes please, let the minority that posts on these boards pick and choose just what parts of the update to implement and whatever you do don't you dare decrease fighter dps or another whinefest will enuse that will dwarf what has been going on here the last 2 months.Really dissapointed about how this was handled...

Ciara52

03-18-2009, 10:33 AM

<cite>dawy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Common sense has seemingly prevailed with this issue</blockquote>I thinks so too <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Maybe I can dust off my SK <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Personally I think that this is a step in the right direction. Sure you have to wait and see, but it seems like there is good faith involved here. Give it a chance because look what being to hasty has done - makes a mess. But I'd like to see Lavastorm go in <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Ranja

03-18-2009, 10:42 AM

So I assume that open lines of communication and feedback mean more than what Aerlick was giving us. Where he would tell us of a change, let us complain and then make the change anyways telling us we did not know what we were talking about. So, this kind of communication is gone right?

Yimway

03-18-2009, 11:05 AM

There is rumor of some subset of the community being more directly involved in design and testing feedback going forward. I'm curious when we may know more about this, and what is the process for signing up to participate and/or what are the prerequisites you envision for participation within that group?

Danelin

03-18-2009, 11:08 AM

First things first:Thank you for listening.Some observations that I have made over the whole thing, and some ideas about them.1 - Defensive stance and taunts still need work, and it needs to be fixed sooner rather than later. Most (4/6) fighter classes object to the idea of being unable to tank in offensive, so some other compromise will need to be reached, but Guardians need the defensive stance and taunts ASAP. They are the only tank that is insanely badly hurting for core role right now. (Brawlers aren't great, but Guardians are just... sad... right now. It is also frustrating as Berserker to go head to head with a gnarly mob and realize as soon as I drop into D-stance I will lose aggro almost immediately. I think regardless of the fighter involved, adjusting Defensive so that it reduces DAMAGE but not ACCURACY is badly needed. This goes double if any form of attack-procced aggro is going to remain viable.2 - About damage: If re-scaling is going to happen, a number of things need to be examined and possibly reworked in order to permit it. First - The problem results from a combination of diminishing returns, itemization, and relative buff effectiveness (Some classes benefitting much more from certain buffs than others can slide them all over the damage scale.) Generally speaking, the Devs need to work closely when designing AA, Itemization, and Skills, then implement the scale for an expansion in lockstep. If the next expansion is a level cap increasing expansion, this can permit an adjustment of relative damage through larger or smaller damage increases to given classes as they scale up. Obviously some tweaks are going to need to be made sooner than that, but anything as sweeping as the proposed changes that were in the (now cancelled) revamp need to go in with an expansion, and be from reduced power increase rather than flat reduction whenever possible. This also allows for mob health to be scaled at the same time to prevent issues with fights becoming much harder etc.3 - About aggro generation and manipulation in general: I think that aggro manipulation should become almost exclusively the domain of fighters after the major revamping happens. I don't mean this as simply 'fighters should hold easily through raw taunts', but that fighters in general should have a variety of aggression tricks, and that some of them should perform differently in offensive and defensive stance. I think the 'basic taunt package' of single target taunt, group taunt, and damage taunt should still function as they always have, along with rescue. There are many creative things that could be done with this, however, to encourage multi-fighter arrangements on raids. Perhaps even doing something like introducing a class (not subclass) specific specialty taunt style, that functions to increase that fighter's aggro while in defensive, but has a hate function that could serve to help other fighters when in offensive.Example - Enraging aura: Crusader ability. Puts a detrimental effect on target creature. 3 triggers. The next 3 direct aggression increasing abilities to hit target creature result in an extra 50% threat generated. In offensive stance it would work for any fighter that throws a taunt, in defensive it only works for the tank who triggered it. (Defensive crusaders aren't handing their hate off to a non-crusader offtank in that kind of arrangement.this was slapped together off the top of my head, but I think you see where I am going with this.)Some great ideas about taunts in general can be found in this thread: <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=444249">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=444249</a>General thoughts: Play complexity is what seperates this game from WoW. It needs to not be sacrificed whenver it is possible to avoid it. The game is beginning to show it's age. Steps to revise the client are in the right direction. Finding ways to make the game continue to scale without breaking is important if we want to keep enjoying it into the future.I am really tired. I think that covered most of my general thoughts and feelings so far.

Danelin

03-18-2009, 11:10 AM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Producers Letter stated:</cite><blockquote>We’ll also be announcing the plan for improving our communication and creating an open two-way dialogue with you as soon as we’ve worked out all of the details.</blockquote>So, you plan on opening up a two way communications channel, so that we can all have input into the game. While it sounds good in theory, the question needs to be raised as to why the bolded part of this quote exists.Why not start off this whole new communication thing now, with player input into how this communication thing will work?I mean... your basically say you want to include is in things, but before you do so you need to figure out how you are going to include us.This seems much the same way as that kid at school that was always picked last for sport, who gets picked because he has to be, but he is just sorta pushed over to the side. You are including us in communication because you basically have to, but we are going to be pushed to the side and told not to touch anything.I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love for you to listen to (some of) the players here, but I am less than optimistic about the whole thing so far.</blockquote>QFE... I may laugh, I may cry, I may stab myself in the eye... But I agree 100% with Nooani on this one.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 11:14 AM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>... I may laugh, I may cry, I may stab myself in the eye... But I agree 100% with Nooani on this one.</blockquote>Don't feel too bad, everyone agrees with me at least once.

Danelin

03-18-2009, 11:19 AM

Oh. One other thing that occured to me. I think that some form of the EQ1 class feedback/class leaders model should be established. Being able to maintain a continuous top10 class requests list can help developers get a good idea of changes that the players of those classes consider to be top issues. For that matter someone could look over the old post-guild summit revisions to EQ1 feedback for a lot of good ideas. I definitely think the players should be involved in developing new feedback mechanisms as well, rather than sitting around waiting for the devs to tell us what they will be.

Vonotar

03-18-2009, 11:19 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is rumor of some subset of the community being more directly involved in design and testing feedback going forward. I'm curious when we may know more about this, and what is the process for signing up to participate and/or what are the prerequisites you envision for participation within that group?</blockquote>Oh that old tat, so instead of simply SoE coming up with ideas the general playerbase hate it will be SoE+BestBuddies coming up with the ideas...Bruce, please, start with an overall vision of what each class should be and their relative strengths, let the players debate that out. Then start to put the flesh on the bone and work out what skills would be boosted/cut/added/removed in order to sculpt the class into the designated niche.Personally I didn't think that the revamp was totally objectionable, however I could see that it had no more class balance or specialism than the old system, in fact the revamp appears to blurr the lines even further making fighters more generic.To truely create a better system you need to take the playerbase with you, if this was a new MMO you could hold your cards to your chest safe in the knowledge that you can set your stall out on launch and people will choose the classes they most like the look of. HERE you have a very large, established playerbase who already have level 80 characters of certain classes, you therefore NEED to consult AT EVERY STAGE to try and ensure that the changes you implement will deliver as much as SOE and the majority of PLAYERS want at the cost of as few disgruntled players as possible.Getting a discussion going, talking to the playerbase, you might actually be surprised by how excited people would get about the prospect of seeing their character classes develop. Shut us out and you simply reaffirm the sentiment that this is SOE's game and if the PLAYERS don't like it, well they can go elsewhere.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 11:20 AM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Defensive stance and taunts still need work, and it needs to be fixed sooner rather than later.</blockquote>What most people do not realise is that the fighter changes that are on test are actually part 2 out of a 2 set change, and part 1 have been live for months (TSO).What is on live is broken, and in worse shape than what is on test, at least in an overall manner. As much as I hate to say it (because I know they already have), if these changes are not going live, someone had better be putting in a crapload of overtime to get fighters fixed on live, and soon.Waiting 4 more months for a fix will be bad, very bad.

steelbadger

03-18-2009, 11:21 AM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Producers Letter stated:</cite><blockquote>We’ll also be announcing the plan for improving our communication and creating an open two-way dialogue with you as soon as we’ve worked out all of the details.</blockquote>So, you plan on opening up a two way communications channel, so that we can all have input into the game. While it sounds good in theory, the question needs to be raised as to why the bolded part of this quote exists.Why not start off this whole new communication thing now, with player input into how this communication thing will work?I mean... your basically say you want to include is in things, but before you do so you need to figure out how you are going to include us.This seems much the same way as that kid at school that was always picked last for sport, who gets picked because he has to be, but he is just sorta pushed over to the side. You are including us in communication because you basically have to, but we are going to be pushed to the side and told not to touch anything.I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love for you to listen to (some of) the players here, but I am less than optimistic about the whole thing so far.</blockquote>QFE... I may laugh, I may cry, I may stab myself in the eye... But I agree 100% with Nooani on this one.</blockquote>Indeed, most of what the community (myself included) post is pretty useless tripe. How is SOE planning on sorting through the swathes of useless Knee-jerk reactions based on what a friend of a friend who plays on test says to find the few useful and reasoned posts?Are we going to have a system of representatives? Maybe a system of polls only available to those on the test servers? Whatever the method there will have to be some thought put into it...But, on the whole, good news.

Thunderthyze

03-18-2009, 11:21 AM

<cite>cawalton wrote:</cite><blockquote>Regarding what would encourage me to play on Test, I would play if my Live toon or account received a reward/points or something that I could directly apply to my characters. That way I wouldn't feel that playing on Test was "wasted" game time, instead something that advanced me on Live as well, which hopefully would be worth my time to obtain. I would think the reward, or what ever, would be based on how much Test time was played.Other than something that advances/enhances my regular guys, I just don't consider Test worthwhile (I figure I'm paying you people to ensure the quality of the game, I just want to play when I have the time for some quality kickback (which I consider EQ2 to be).This may seem a selfish view, but time can be in short supply so gaming on Live takes priority, Cliff</blockquote>Honestly I don't know if there is anything that would make more people play on Test. In order to be anything other than "stress testing fodder" you need people who know enough about the game and its mechanics in order to provide meaningful feedback. At present those people either already ARE playing on Test or else are fairly hardcore and would have no intention of turning their backs on their Live guilds. Most people who play this game (and I include myself in this) glide over the surface oblivious to most of the mechanics and would have little to offer on Test other than the occasional superficial comment. I will pop onto Test every now and then but have always been discouraged in the past over the total lack of feedback provided by the Devs. Maybe this will now change.One thing that "might" work is for the Devs to liase with class reps from within the playerbase like they did in EQ1 although obviously most of THOSE players come from within the EQ2Flames community and, as such, may be unwilling to co-operate for one reason or another. Maybe it's time for SOE to begin re-building bridges?

Noaani

03-18-2009, 11:27 AM

<cite>Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>One thing that "might" work is for the Devs to liase with class reps from within the playerbase like they did in EQ1 although obviously most of THOSE players come from within the EQ2Flames community and, as such, may be unwilling to co-operate for one reason or another. Maybe it's time for SOE to begin re-building bridges?</blockquote>People from the flames community would be more than willing to help, if asked, and if provided some sort of guarentee that they will not simply be ignored.

Danelin

03-18-2009, 11:29 AM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Defensive stance and taunts still need work, and it needs to be fixed sooner rather than later.</blockquote>What most people do not realise is that the fighter changes that are on test are actually part 2 out of a 2 set change, and part 1 have been live for months (TSO).What is on live is broken, and in worse shape than what is on test, at least in an overall manner. As much as I hate to say it (because I know they already have), if these changes are not going live, someone had better be putting in a crapload of overtime to get fighters fixed on live, and soon.Waiting 4 more months for a fix will be bad, very bad.</blockquote>Woo! We are back to disagreeing. The world can get off of its ear.1 - I am fully aware of the two part fighter revamp.2 - Live is NOT in worse shape than test by any stretch of the imagination. Waiting four months for a fix will not be bad. Both crusaders and berserkers can tank quite well in easily group aquired gear. Brawlers are hurting a little bit worse on this, but I have still had skilled brawlers tanking T2 zones with a single healer, so they are functioning. Guardians are the only tank that is really, really bad in terms of their overall ability to function. I strongly suspect that this is (thinly) veiled whining about tank DPS output. Well, I have two things to say regarding that.1 - Shadowknights are in fact a bit high. The nerf to knight's stance that was on test would largely fix this by itself. If you wanted to balance them even further, look to itemization. I'd start by reducing the delay and damage spread on their epic personally.2 - No other fighter is consistently parsing too high relative to other classes with the same level of buffing and gear, and brawlers are in fact parsing too LOW. I know you have some sort of entitlement issue with fighters coming "too close" to DPS class numbers, but frankly that is not an imbalance that will murder the game worse than rushing poorly thought out changes. I continue to stand by my opinion that any complete re-leveling of the playing field (as opposed to surgical tweaks of things that are massively out of line) should wait for a level cap increase.

Yimway

03-18-2009, 11:33 AM

<cite>Gwynian@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is rumor of some subset of the community being more directly involved in design and testing feedback going forward. I'm curious when we may know more about this, and what is the process for signing up to participate and/or what are the prerequisites you envision for participation within that group?</blockquote>Oh that old tat, so instead of simply SoE coming up with ideas the general playerbase hate it will be SoE+BestBuddies coming up with the ideas...Bruce, please, start with an overall vision of what each class should be and their relative strengths, let the players debate that out. Then start to put the flesh on the bone and work out what skills would be boosted/cut/added/removed in order to sculpt the class into the designated niche.</blockquote>I can understand bringing the entire community into the design phase isn't the best decision. There is just too much disparate data to go thru and the potential delay and establishing buy-in can take too long.That being said, there is no reason the existence of a subset of the community to do this with would automatically exclude the rest of the community. If the people in the subset are not bound to anonymity and could still carry on player discussion on class / general gameplay / zone discussions with other players and serve as 'filters' or conduits of this feedback.I have seen this general model applied successfully before.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 11:33 AM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>1 - Shadowknights are in fact a bit high. The nerf to knight's stance that was on test would largely fix this by itself. If you wanted to balance them even further, look to itemization. I'd start by reducing the delay and damage spread on their epic personally.</blockquote>On live, SKs are overpowered in terms of DPS in relation to other tanks, on test, all fighters are closer together in DPS, with brawlers being the highest of all fighters in offensive stance, or all fighters in defensive stance.On live, brawlers and guardians have issues with aggro. On test, they do not.While some players may not have liked the changes, they were significantly less broken than what is on live.

Yimway

03-18-2009, 11:37 AM

yay for tripple post lag...

Mephetic

03-18-2009, 11:58 AM

<cite>Boramyr wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please Leave the brawler AOE/AA changes in too. Those class's seriously needs a group aggro tanking fix NOW not months from now. </blockquote>Amen

Tehom

03-18-2009, 12:00 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>On live, SKs are overpowered in terms of DPS in relation to other tanks, on test, all fighters are closer together in DPS, with brawlers being the highest of all fighters in offensive stance, or all fighters in defensive stance.On live, brawlers and guardians have issues with aggro. On test, they do not.While some players may not have liked the changes, they were significantly less broken than what is on live.</blockquote>I think you'd find many players who disagree with individual parts of this, which is part of the problem of devs soliciting feedback - they could perceive a false consensus, players have notoriously poor perceptions outside of their own class roles, cite anecdotal or simply inaccurate data, etc. For example, while I'd agree that brawlers have issues with aggro on live, I'd strongly disagree about guardians, who largely function as the baseline for tanking in the game; any change to make guardians more desired as main tanks while they're currently the MT of choice for the vast majority of raid forces would be exceedingly foolish.Other things devs will never get a consensus on are things which really aren't a matter of analysis at all, but simply judgement calls about how things should be. For example, just how much damage should tanks do? You can argue about what they currently do, but the exact ratio to shoot for is ultimately something the devs need to decide based on the relative value of fighters vs scouts and mages. Frankly, given the emphasis on multi-tank fights like Zarrakon, it seemed like they were trying to encourage having more fighters, not less, which would seem to suggest that reducing fighter dps runs contrary to how they're pushing raid forces. Generally speaking, I'd regard the boat druids are in as a vastly worse position from a balancing perspective compared to clerics/shamans as raid healers than any difference in tanks or dps classes.

einar4

03-18-2009, 12:10 PM

I'll reserve my personal judgement on any planned changes when I am able to playtest them. However the gist of the letter, as I understand it, I find to be a cop out. Design-by-committee doesn't work very well as a creative process, especially when the "committee" consists of several thousand people, each with a personal stake in a very specific aspect of the game: what they think is important for "the" game but in fact what is important for "their" game.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 12:10 PM

<cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>any change to make guardians more desired as main tanks while they're currently the MT of choice for the vast majority of raid forces would be exceedingly foolish.</blockquote>Like any class, guardians are fine when they have hate buffs and transfers.The reason a guardian is lacking on live is because of all of the fighters, guardians and paladins gain the least from increased DPS buffs. Paladins have amends to make up that gap, guardians have nothing.In theory, guardians have larger taunts than other classes, and this works well enough when the right buffs exist. Take those buffs away and a guardian has a glaring lack of hate generation. The level of hate each tank generates while totally unbuffed may well favour guardians, but once you add in the proliferation of damage increasing buffs that benefit other fighters moreso than guardians, and you end up with a class that is simply unable to hold aggro in a variety of situations.You could consider this an issue with hate buffs as easily as you could consider it an issue with guardians. I just consider it an issue.

Jarnhand

03-18-2009, 12:37 PM

I was one of those tanks that was not in favor of the changes. I am glad the input of the player base was considered. Thank you. Having said that, I can imagine how difficult this decision was. I have met some of you folks at the first SONY block party and I have seen how excited some of you get when you talk about the game. For one developer in particular, the game is more of a performance art piece than a computer program... /tips hat ... so I know a lot of time and creativity went into the fighter revamp.I want the development team to know I appreciate their work and dedication. I wish you all the best.

Oakum

03-18-2009, 12:51 PM

Initial reaction: LoL.Fighters whining and wanting to do do tier one dps and out dps true dps hybrids WHILE TANKING like druids/chanters/bards who who can only dps when not doing thier primary job of healing/utility for have now delayed the release of the lavastorm, hate meter, and whatever major bug fixes on test for a SECOND time.Why didnt they roll an assasin or find a group of friends that would let a second tank come along and just DPS in it instead of being the groups tank? LoL. No one likes content delayed.It was probably a mistake, but its done now and the whiners are rejoicing.Well, not whiners really, just those who like to dps as much as or more then actually tank. LoL. The SKassins ect doing 10k dps WHILE tanking. No one wants changes to their class no matter how actually overpowered they are. Its human nature. They just do not care about the larger balance of the game or the effects on its other players. Games are almost always ME FIRST to its players. Even those of us posters who do care about the larger balance of the game are in the extreme minority would like, for example, the warden to be the best druid healer class instead of the worst overall.Yes, I know some say fury's are worse then wardens but thats largely to the players who play fury concentrate largely on DPS and dont really learn how to heal on their character. Basicly neglect that side of the class. Their defensive buffs are different but equal and they have more offensive buffs. Utility is equal.The only thing that leaves me a little unsettled about them pulling it back is that it seems to be based largely on overpowered players complaints and not for a technical or need more work oncode/design reason. The inmates are running the asylum and they are rejoicing that the staff will continue to let them play with knives and icepicks and use them on each other.When will the health of the long term game become more important then those of us who post a lot and are the vocal minority of the players opinions again? I guess the reason it was delayed was not explained enough to make sense to me from a larger perspective.

Mathafern

03-18-2009, 01:04 PM

My response is: Way to go.Game development should always focus on making things more fun. I'm not saying nerfs should never happen, just that they should be incremental enough not to instakill the prospects of any given class.And speaking strictly as a player here (since I am a player) I'd rather see 4/6 classes get tougher than 2/6 classes get weaker to balance 6 classes. Existing content should get easier over time IMO instead of getting harder. If I want to make content harder I'll strip down to crafting gear and run instances.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 01:25 PM

<cite>Mathafern@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>My response is: Way to go.Game development should always focus on making things more fun. I'm not saying nerfs should never happen, just that they should be incremental enough not to instakill the prospects of any given class.And speaking strictly as a player here (since I am a player) I'd rather see 4/6 classes get tougher than 2/6 classes get weaker to balance 6 classes. Existing content should get easier over time IMO instead of getting harder. If I want to make content harder I'll strip down to crafting gear and run instances.</blockquote>The problem is, both chanters are overpowered, assassins and dirges are overpowered, and templars and mystics are overpowered.If they followed your line of thought here, they would need to buff up every class in the game to the level of the most overpowered class in the game currently (SKs). This would have the effect of content becoming trivial.One good thing your post has managed to achieve though, is an example of why soliciting player feedback can be a bad idea.

Brook

03-18-2009, 01:28 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Brook wrote:</cite><blockquote>Any chance your going to reimburse players who return that left due to the changes that were obviously not that well planned out?</blockquote>Any player to quit this game due to changes that are not on live yet deserves nothing from anyone.Edit: other than ridicule, obviously.</blockquote>For clarification I was referring to this problem.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Noaani wrote:"On live, SKs are overpowered in terms of DPS in relation to other tanks, on test, all fighters are closer together in DPS, with brawlers being the highest of all fighters in offensive stance, or all fighters in defensive stance.On live, brawlers and guardians have issues with aggro. On test, they do not.While some players may not have liked the changes, they were significantly less broken than what is on live."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sry, but this has been a half finished mess to long not to expect people to leave because of it, and then no real communication added to it the past few weeks I think they deserve at least a little something if they will come back.I am in full agreement that revamp 1.0 needs reversed.

Thunderthyze

03-18-2009, 01:31 PM

Hopefully the class forums will see some life now.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 01:38 PM

<cite>Brook wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sry, but this has been a half finished mess to long not to expect people to leave because of it, and then no real communication added to it the past few weeks I think they deserve at least a little something if they will come back.</blockquote>Tanks did not leave the game because of what was on live, a very few left the game because of what was on test.Fortunatly, most players are smart enough to wait a few weeks after something hits live and has had whatever adjustments the devs think is necessary before leaving the game.

Asif

03-18-2009, 01:39 PM

<cite>Brook wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Brook wrote:</cite><blockquote>Any chance your going to reimburse players who return that left due to the changes that were obviously not that well planned out?</blockquote>Any player to quit this game due to changes that are not on live yet deserves nothing from anyone.Edit: other than ridicule, obviously.</blockquote>For clarification I was referring to this problem.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Noaani wrote:"On live, SKs are overpowered in terms of DPS in relation to other tanks, on test, all fighters are closer together in DPS, with brawlers being the highest of all fighters in offensive stance, or all fighters in defensive stance.On live, brawlers and guardians have issues with aggro. On test, they do not.While some players may not have liked the changes, they were significantly less broken than what is on live."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sry, but this has been a half finished mess to long not to expect people to leave because of it, and then no real communication added to it the past few weeks I think they deserve at least a little something if they will come back.I am in full agreement that revamp 1.0 needs reversed.</blockquote>Brook WHY should they reimburse people who left over this what about the people who have the balls to stick it out and wait see where it would really go anyway.I say no way if people left over something that IS on test let them come back on their own with no compensation. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Yimway

03-18-2009, 01:40 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Brook wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sry, but this has been a half finished mess to long not to expect people to leave because of it, and then no real communication added to it the past few weeks I think they deserve at least a little something if they will come back.</blockquote>Tanks did not leave the game because of what was on live, a very few left the game because of what was on test.Fortunatly, most players are smart enough to wait a few weeks after something hits live and has had whatever adjustments the devs think is necessary before leaving the game.</blockquote>I canceled my subs before the launch. Gave them until it ran out to correct it. I didn't feel what I said here, no mater how eloquent, or persausive would have remotely the same impact of the notes on my exit survey.

Hirofortis

03-18-2009, 01:41 PM

It is good that SOE wants to listen to the community,Now can you please at least fix things that you broke last november. We have been in a holding pattern for 5 months after you nerfed and broke things and it is getting very frustrating. Give us your thoughts, let us give you ours and then fix it. This has gone on long enough. Do not break something until you are sure how your going to fix it.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 01:44 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I canceled my subs before the launch. Gave them until it ran out to correct it. I didn't feel what I said here, no mater how eloquent, or persausive would have remotely the same impact of the notes on my exit survey.</blockquote>Then you are one of the few, and deserve ridicule.

Rahatmattata

03-18-2009, 01:50 PM

Not really. Money speaks louder than [Removed for Content] and crying on the forums. If you want to ridicule someone for unsubscribing to a game they don't enjoy you deserve to be ignored.

Bookbunny

03-18-2009, 01:54 PM

Praise Tunare! Looking forward to the increased communication and two-way dialogues to correct the problems while not breaking the game in the process.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 01:54 PM

<cite>Derkin@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not really. Money speaks louder than [Removed for Content] and crying on the forums. If you want to ridicule someone for unsubscribing to a game they don't enjoy you deserve to be ignored.</blockquote>Leaving the game because you don't enjoy it is not only understandable, it is expected.Leaving the game because there is a possibility that a change may come to live that may or may not be altered before it goes live if it goes live, may or may not be altered after it goes live if it goes live, and if it goes live as it is now may or may not be enjoyed, is totally deserving of the ridicule (and mockery, tbh) of basically everyone.

Tehom

03-18-2009, 01:57 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>The problem is, both chanters are overpowered, assassins and dirges are overpowered, and templars and mystics are overpowered.If they followed your line of thought here, they would need to buff up every class in the game to the level of the most overpowered class in the game currently (SKs). This would have the effect of content becoming trivial.</blockquote>That's not necessarily the case in practice. Players will cherry pick the most overpowered classes and use them, and abandon weaker classes. So in a sense, content is already 'trivialized', though players wouldn't think of it that way; they just use the overpowered classes (or gear, or mechanics, whatever) and it becomes thought of as a standard. For example, there's a lot of overpowered items right now. Nerfing them would be met with outrage, because their use has become accepted as standard, and players believe the game's difficulty is acceptable with them. Is it a particularly healthy way to design things? Not really. But as long as the challenge is present with whatever overpowered classes or items people use, they'll accept it as the norm and react very poorly to any change to this which would increase the game's difficulty, and perceive it as an arbitrary change. I generally believe the best thing to do is to boost up underpowered classes as a temporary fix to keep them viable in the short term, and reserve nerfs-by-proxy for expansion releases.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-18-2009, 01:59 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>any change to make guardians more desired as main tanks while they're currently the MT of choice for the vast majority of raid forces would be exceedingly foolish.</blockquote>Like any class, guardians are fine when they have hate buffs and transfers.The reason a guardian is lacking on live is because of all of the fighters, guardians and paladins gain the least from increased DPS buffs. Paladins have amends to make up that gap, guardians have nothing.In theory, guardians have larger taunts than other classes, and this works well enough when the right buffs exist. Take those buffs away and a guardian has a glaring lack of hate generation. The level of hate each tank generates while totally unbuffed may well favour guardians, but once you add in the proliferation of damage increasing buffs that benefit other fighters moreso than guardians, and you end up with a class that is simply unable to hold aggro in a variety of situations.You could consider this an issue with hate buffs as easily as you could consider it an issue with guardians. I just consider it an issue.</blockquote>I agree...I mostly feel this is a bad publicity stunt unless they really pull out ALL THE STOPS when it comes to integrating consumer communication in their developer decisions and organization. And what I mean by this is going to ALL THE SERVERS, finding ALL THE TOP GUILDS, and inviting ALL OF THEM to test and offer their feedback for silly bonuses like 10 no tradable booster packs of their choice, station cash, etc. Surveys need to be conducted that evaluate playstyle and public opinion on these changes. Weight should be given to those of veterancy, those who have accrued more in-game accomplishment than others. I hate to sound self righteous (as I tend to believe how I have considered things is always with the best of the community at heart), but I just have trouble envisioning how else they actually expect to collaborate than by implementing the 2 ideas given here (incentivize involvement from experts, survey with SUBSTANTIVE, SENSIBLE inquiry). Here's hoping that this reform isn't just a paper one, but a pragmatic forray into the grandeur of dedication aptly done.(P.S. Aside from this, Danelin's post was fairly good).

steelbadger

03-18-2009, 02:00 PM

<cite>Oakum wrote:</cite><blockquote>Initial reaction: LoL.Fighters whining and wanting to do do tier one dps and out dps true dps hybrids WHILE TANKING like druids/chanters/bards who who can only dps when not doing thier primary job of healing/utility for have now delayed the release of the lavastorm, hate meter, and whatever major bug fixes on test for a SECOND time.Why didnt they roll an assasin or find a group of friends that would let a second tank come along and just DPS in it instead of being the groups tank? LoL. No one likes content delayed.It was probably a mistake, but its done now and the whiners are rejoicing.Well, not whiners really, just those who like to dps as much as or more then actually tank. LoL. The SKassins ect doing 10k dps WHILE tanking. No one wants changes to their class no matter how actually overpowered they are. Its human nature. They just do not care about the larger balance of the game or the effects on its other players. Games are almost always ME FIRST to its players. Even those of us posters who do care about the larger balance of the game are in the extreme minority would like, for example, the warden to be the best druid healer class instead of the worst overall.Yes, I know some say fury's are worse then wardens but thats largely to the players who play fury concentrate largely on DPS and dont really learn how to heal on their character. Basicly neglect that side of the class. Their defensive buffs are different but equal and they have more offensive buffs. Utility is equal.The only thing that leaves me a little unsettled about them pulling it back is that it seems to be based largely on overpowered players complaints and not for a technical or need more work oncode/design reason. The inmates are running the asylum and they are rejoicing that the staff will continue to let them play with knives and icepicks and use them on each other.When will the health of the long term game become more important then those of us who post a lot and are the vocal minority of the players opinions again? I guess the reason it was delayed was not explained enough to make sense to me from a larger perspective.</blockquote>Some people spent time testing the changes, looking at how they compared with live and how they might change my experience, did the maths and posted constructive criticism on the changes. Some people didn't concern themselves with arguing over SOEs vision and instead concerned themselves with ensuring the nuts and bolts of the changes were fit for purpose. Some people actually logged onto the test servers and actually saw the changes first hand.I quite liked parts of SOEs vision for the future of tanking, what I didn't like was the nuts and bolts, how it was implemented and how it would change my gaming experience. I went onto test looking forward to find out what was going to happen, liking the sound of the changes, I liked them up until I started working out how I'd be playing after the changes went live.Maybe, if you felt the changes were so reasonable and sensible (in both intricacies and vision) you should have told us, the oh so malignant complainers, why you believed this was the case. Don't just put people down with a "stop whining" or by calling us idiots or insane, put the same level of thought and consideration into showing why the changes were beneficial as I did into showing why I believed them to be a bad idea.

Obadiah

03-18-2009, 02:02 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Derkin@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not really. Money speaks louder than [Removed for Content] and crying on the forums. If you want to ridicule someone for unsubscribing to a game they don't enjoy you deserve to be ignored.</blockquote>Leaving the game because you don't enjoy it is not only understandable, it is expected.Leaving the game because there is a possibility that a change may come to live that may or may not be altered before it goes live if it goes live, may or may not be altered after it goes live if it goes live, and if it goes live as it is now may or may not be enjoyed, is totally deserving of the ridicule (and mockery, tbh) of basically everyone.</blockquote>Canceling isn't leaving unless your subscription ran out while it was still on Test.I canceled both my accounts as well, so ridicule away. Neither lapsed before this announcement, so what did it cost me in terms of money and/or gameplay? Not a thing. I seem to recall Atan posting the entire time it was on Test I assume he's in the same boat.My cancellations came not because of the initial changes, but because after thoroughly testing and providing very specific, black & white feedback to one relatively simple to fix but horrifically blatant disparity, they came back a month later and made said disparity WORSE.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 02:02 PM

<cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>The problem is, both chanters are overpowered, assassins and dirges are overpowered, and templars and mystics are overpowered.If they followed your line of thought here, they would need to buff up every class in the game to the level of the most overpowered class in the game currently (SKs). This would have the effect of content becoming trivial.</blockquote>That's not necessarily the case in practice. Players will cherry pick the most overpowered classes and use them, and abandon weaker classes. So in a sense, content is already 'trivialized', though players wouldn't think of it that way; they just use the overpowered classes (or gear, or mechanics, whatever) and it becomes thought of as a standard. For example, there's a lot of overpowered items right now. Nerfing them would be met with outrage, because their use has become accepted as standard, and players believe the game's difficulty is acceptable with them. Is it a particularly healthy way to design things? Not really. But as long as the challenge is present with whatever overpowered classes or items people use, they'll accept it as the norm and react very poorly to any change to this which would increase the game's difficulty, and perceive it as an arbitrary change. I generally believe the best thing to do is to boost up underpowered classes as a temporary fix to keep them viable in the short term, and reserve nerfs-by-proxy for expansion releases.</blockquote>So, I read your post, wondering exactly what to make of it and why you could seemingly be in favour of not balancing classes, and then it hit me:Your a coercer.

Noaani

03-18-2009, 02:06 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Canceling isn't leaving unless your subscription ran out while it was still on Test.</blockquote>Correct, and very astute of you to be aware of this fact!However, with such literary skills, you may notice that I said players that leave the game, not players that cancel.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-18-2009, 02:09 PM

Enchanters are OP and more classes need to be brought inline on terms of utility offered, to equal what this base class has become. There were mostly good changes in the scrapped work (just needing minor tweaks like what was being addressed in <a href="list.m?topic_id=444659">Fighter Stances - Pursuing Balance</a> and threads on Berserkers/Brawlers and ninja nerfs). I also feel it's wholly wrong and unneeded to wipe Test Copy, as it may detract from the willingness and energy of potential or currently invested testers on Test Copy.

Vonotar

03-18-2009, 02:15 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Canceling isn't leaving unless your subscription ran out while it was still on Test.</blockquote>Correct, and very astute of you to be aware of this fact!However, with such literary skills, you may notice that I said players that leave the game, not players that cancel.</blockquote>So why use that statement to bash somebody who cancelled their recurring payment?If anything it seems like the most sensible approach, if I felt that SoE were taking the game in a direction that would ruin my enjoyment of it, why would I want to keep playing with that cloud hanging over my head (unless I was a raider with commitments to keep).I too would give SoE the time it takes my sub to expire and then let the account lapse until such a time that either SoE changes it's mind, or my love for the game (and absence from it) makes me want to resubscribe. Either way, by upsetting the customer SoE loses (a small amount of) money.Now, continuing to pay for something when you're not happy with it, that is the act of a fool.

Quicksilver74

03-18-2009, 02:25 PM

I'm glad they are wiping the slate clean here and starting from scratch. There were plenty of lessons learned for sure. I'm hoping we can as a community give some really good suggestions on what direction a new fighter revamp could take. I really hope we focus on improving the existing classes rather than nerfing them.

Obadiah

03-18-2009, 02:25 PM

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-18-2009, 02:26 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only changes that should remain are the reductions in hate transfers/reducers (Amends, etc.), increased taunts and the new Aggression skill mechanics. Everything else, including the buff merges and changes to stances should be scrapped as it is causing more problems than it is solving. 4 year old games should not be undergoing paradigm shifts. That's something you do early in the design phase, not years after release.</blockquote>An old post that I think would be a sound compromise til GU#52.

Tehom

03-18-2009, 02:38 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>So, I read your post, wondering exactly what to make of it and why you could seemingly be in favour of not balancing classes, and then it hit me:Your a coercer.</blockquote>Well, defiler or illusionist based on what's needed, but close enough. Sure, I have a natural bias to oppose nerfing enchanters, but I don't think it makes my point necessarily invalid; content is currently beaten by using overpowered classes/spells/items, whether that's enchanters doing too much damage, bards contributing too much, shamans and clerics boosting group survivability to absurd degrees compared to druids, steadfast being overpowered, sanctuary being overpowered, shield ally, wizards having ice lash, avatar gear, whatever.You could argue endlessly about any of these particular abilities contributing too much and affecting the relative desirability of other classes, but the reality is that raids exploit all of these things and consider the difficulty they face while using them to be the norm. The devs are obviously terrified of making any painful nerfs, because it inevitably costs them subscriptions. It's far less painful to just save rebalancing for expansion releases when there's gamewide power increases, and classes that contribute too much can have their relative contributions lessened by weaker upgrades than others.

Allurana

03-18-2009, 03:07 PM

What about fighter revamp part 1???????We have been living with this half "fix" since TSO came out. Our DPS was GUTTED at that time to the point of being non-playable without a TON of extra DPS and transfer classes to back us up.We have been living this nightmare for 5 months now waiting for fighter revamp part 2 which was to be in LU 51.Now it is being backed out, fine - that is ok. If you all want to go a different avenue then fine. Lets see the new creative ideas BUT.......back out fighter revamp part 1 also, PLEASE.Life was pretty ok pre-TSO - we put up with the massive DPS nerfs since we were promised figher part 2 was coming. Now we are gonna have to wait probably another 3 to 4 months of development.Consider backing the whole revamp out until you can fix it in one update, please.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-18-2009, 03:22 PM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>First things first:Thank you for listening.Some observations that I have made over the whole thing, and some ideas about them.1 - Defensive stance and taunts still need work, and it needs to be fixed sooner rather than later. Most (4/6) fighter classes object to the idea of being unable to tank in offensive, so some other compromise will need to be reached, but Guardians need the defensive stance and taunts ASAP. They are the only tank that is insanely badly hurting for core role right now. (Brawlers aren't great, but Guardians are just... sad... right now. It is also frustrating as Berserker to go head to head with a gnarly mob and realize as soon as I drop into D-stance I will lose aggro almost immediately. I think regardless of the fighter involved, adjusting Defensive so that it reduces DAMAGE but not ACCURACY is badly needed. This goes double if any form of attack-procced aggro is going to remain viable.2 - About damage: If re-scaling is going to happen, a number of things need to be examined and possibly reworked in order to permit it. First - The problem results from a combination of diminishing returns, itemization, and relative buff effectiveness (Some classes benefitting much more from certain buffs than others can slide them all over the damage scale.) Generally speaking, the Devs need to work closely when designing AA, Itemization, and Skills, then implement the scale for an expansion in lockstep. If the next expansion is a level cap increasing expansion, this can permit an adjustment of relative damage through larger or smaller damage increases to given classes as they scale up. Obviously some tweaks are going to need to be made sooner than that, but anything as sweeping as the proposed changes that were in the (now cancelled) revamp need to go in with an expansion, and be from reduced power increase rather than flat reduction whenever possible. This also allows for mob health to be scaled at the same time to prevent issues with fights becoming much harder etc.3 - About aggro generation and manipulation in general: I think that aggro manipulation should become almost exclusively the domain of fighters after the major revamping happens. I don't mean this as simply 'fighters should hold easily through raw taunts', but that fighters in general should have a variety of aggression tricks, and that some of them should perform differently in offensive and defensive stance. I think the 'basic taunt package' of single target taunt, group taunt, and damage taunt should still function as they always have, along with rescue. There are many creative things that could be done with this, however, to encourage multi-fighter arrangements on raids. Perhaps even doing something like introducing a class (not subclass) specific specialty taunt style, that functions to increase that fighter's aggro while in defensive, but has a hate function that could serve to help other fighters when in offensive.Example - Enraging aura: Crusader ability. Puts a detrimental effect on target creature. 3 triggers. The next 3 direct aggression increasing abilities to hit target creature result in an extra 50% threat generated. In offensive stance it would work for any fighter that throws a taunt, in defensive it only works for the tank who triggered it. (Defensive crusaders aren't handing their hate off to a non-crusader offtank in that kind of arrangement.this was slapped together off the top of my head, but I think you see where I am going with this.)Some great ideas about taunts in general can be found in this thread: <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=444249">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=444249</a>General thoughts: Play complexity is what seperates this game from WoW. It needs to not be sacrificed whenver it is possible to avoid it. The game is beginning to show it's age. Steps to revise the client are in the right direction. Finding ways to make the game continue to scale without breaking is important if we want to keep enjoying it into the future.I am really tired. I think that covered most of my general thoughts and feelings so far.</blockquote><cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh. One other thing that occured to me. I think that some form of the EQ1 class feedback/class leaders model should be established. Being able to maintain a continuous top10 class requests list can help developers get a good idea of changes that the players of those classes consider to be top issues. For that matter someone could look over the old post-guild summit revisions to EQ1 feedback for a lot of good ideas. I definitely think the players should be involved in developing new feedback mechanisms as well, rather than sitting around waiting for the devs to tell us what they will be.</blockquote><cite>Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>cawalton wrote:</cite><blockquote>Regarding what would encourage me to play on Test, I would play if my Live toon or account received a reward/points or something that I could directly apply to my characters. That way I wouldn't feel that playing on Test was "wasted" game time, instead something that advanced me on Live as well, which hopefully would be worth my time to obtain. I would think the reward, or what ever, would be based on how much Test time was played.Other than something that advances/enhances my regular guys, I just don't consider Test worthwhile (I figure I'm paying you people to ensure the quality of the game, I just want to play when I have the time for some quality kickback (which I consider EQ2 to be).This may seem a selfish view, but time can be in short supply so gaming on Live takes priority, Cliff</blockquote>Honestly I don't know if there is anything that would make more people play on Test. In order to be anything other than "stress testing fodder" you need people who know enough about the game and its mechanics in order to provide meaningful feedback. At present those people either already ARE playing on Test or else are fairly hardcore and would have no intention of turning their backs on their Live guilds. Most people who play this game (and I include myself in this) glide over the surface oblivious to most of the mechanics and would have little to offer on Test other than the occasional superficial comment. I will pop onto Test every now and then but have always been discouraged in the past over the total lack of feedback provided by the Devs. Maybe this will now change.One thing that "might" work is for the Devs to liase with class reps from within the playerbase like they did in EQ1 although obviously most of THOSE players come from within the EQ2Flames community and, as such, may be unwilling to co-operate for one reason or another. Maybe it's time for SOE to begin re-building bridges?</blockquote>Quoted...for...emphasis. QFE.

denmom

03-18-2009, 03:40 PM

<cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>any change to make guardians more desired as main tanks while they're currently the MT of choice for the vast majority of raid forces would be exceedingly foolish.</blockquote>Like any class, guardians are fine when they have hate buffs and transfers.The reason a guardian is lacking on live is because of all of the fighters, guardians and paladins gain the least from increased DPS buffs. Paladins have amends to make up that gap, guardians have nothing.In theory, guardians have larger taunts than other classes, and this works well enough when the right buffs exist. Take those buffs away and a guardian has a glaring lack of hate generation. The level of hate each tank generates while totally unbuffed may well favour guardians, but once you add in the proliferation of damage increasing buffs that benefit other fighters moreso than guardians, and you end up with a class that is simply unable to hold aggro in a variety of situations.You could consider this an issue with hate buffs as easily as you could consider it an issue with guardians. I just consider it an issue.</blockquote>I agree...I mostly feel this is a bad publicity stunt unless they really pull out ALL THE STOPS when it comes to integrating consumer communication in their developer decisions and organization. And what I mean by this is going to ALL THE SERVERS, finding ALL THE TOP GUILDS, and inviting ALL OF THEM to test and offer their feedback for silly bonuses like 10 no tradable booster packs of their choice, station cash, etc. Surveys need to be conducted that evaluate playstyle and public opinion on these changes. Weight should be given to those of veterancy, those who have accrued more in-game accomplishment than others. I hate to sound self righteous (as I tend to believe how I have considered things is always with the best of the community at heart), but I just have trouble envisioning how else they actually expect to collaborate than by implementing the 2 ideas given here (incentivize involvement from experts, survey with SUBSTANTIVE, SENSIBLE inquiry). Here's hoping that this reform isn't just a paper one, but a pragmatic forray into the grandeur of dedication aptly done.(P.S. Aside from this, Danelin's post was fairly good).</blockquote>If they go with only top guilds, then it's not a fair and balanced communication. All the rest of us are left out in the cold and not heard, save for what we can shout into the aether in the forums.Top guilds are usually raiding guilds. Adjusting the game around raiders (and no this isn't a 'raider hate' comment) won't be balanced for those who aren't in fabled or T2 shard gear or upcoming T3 or really good legendary gear or have the resources available to get them.It should be even, voices from all "camps".

ke'la

03-18-2009, 03:49 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they get some uber piece of fluff they might.</blockquote>Oximoron.</blockquote>I don't know there are alot of people tht goto awful great lenghts to get what is exseably a fluff item... if your willing to go to those lenghts to get it, then I would say it is Uber. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Jesdyr

03-18-2009, 03:55 PM

<cite>Pheep@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Top guilds are usually raiding guilds. Adjusting the game around raiders (and no this isn't a 'raider hate' comment) won't be balanced for those who aren't in fabled or T2 shard gear or upcoming T3 or really good legendary gear or have the resources available to get them.</blockquote>The gear issue is huge ... Most of the time I hear complaints about XXXX is overpowered it is often from a casual player who ended up in a PUG with a RAID GEARED XXXX that out parsed them.I am a decently gear'd Coercer. I have been out parsed by many classes that are claimed to be worse DPS than coercers. Balance is not possible because there is WAY too much focus on gear based DPS and different classes require different gear to get the most out of their DPS. I would hope that the devs would not just blindly listen to ANY section of the player base. There are too many variable than just looking at someone's parse and comparing it to another person's.

ke'la

03-18-2009, 03:56 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Producers Letter stated:</cite><blockquote>We’ll also be announcing the plan for improving our communication and creating an open two-way dialogue with you as soon as we’ve worked out all of the details.</blockquote>So, you plan on opening up a two way communications channel, so that we can all have input into the game. While it sounds good in theory, the question needs to be raised as to why the bolded part of this quote exists.Why not start off this whole new communication thing now, with player input into how this communication thing will work?I mean... your basically say you want to include is in things, but before you do so you need to figure out how you are going to include us.This seems much the same way as that kid at school that was always picked last for sport, who gets picked because he has to be, but he is just sorta pushed over to the side. You are including us in communication because you basically have to, but we are going to be pushed to the side and told not to touch anything.I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love for you to listen to (some of) the players here, but I am less than optimistic about the whole thing so far.</blockquote>Right now the "Communication" from the boards is a shouting match at best, and a rioting mob at worst, it is kinda hard to get good "communication" out of that. That is part of what they need to figure out. The second thing they need to figure out is how to get the word to US in a way that gets accuratly reported to the maximum number of players, because communication only works if all who have a well informed opinion are heard.

Mathafern

03-18-2009, 04:06 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mathafern@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>My response is: Way to go.Game development should always focus on making things more fun. I'm not saying nerfs should never happen, just that they should be incremental enough not to instakill the prospects of any given class.And speaking strictly as a player here (since I am a player) I'd rather see 4/6 classes get tougher than 2/6 classes get weaker to balance 6 classes. Existing content should get easier over time IMO instead of getting harder. If I want to make content harder I'll strip down to crafting gear and run instances.</blockquote>The problem is, both chanters are overpowered, assassins and dirges are overpowered, and templars and mystics are overpowered.If they followed your line of thought here, they would need to buff up every class in the game to the level of the most overpowered class in the game currently (SKs). This would have the effect of content becoming trivial.One good thing your post has managed to achieve though, is an example of why soliciting player feedback can be a bad idea.</blockquote>Everyone has an opinion, and everyone has a different experience of the game. If the developers don't pay attention to soloers AND groupers AND raiders then they will not build a product that can work for all three.Obviously they can't balance the game based on rant posts- particularly rants from people who don't even play the class being balanced. They can get more than one opinion though; and often an averaging of multiple opinions will come closer to the truth than anything else.Balance always comes down to a matter of opinion. Even if you use numerics, like DPS, to determine balance- you'll hear then about survivability, or itemization, or utility. My post though wasn't about who decides balance though. It was about how to balance: incrementally. Not a huge change all at once, but one change at a time, so that you can actually observe the effect without totally destroying the class. Some class will always be regarded as OP- don't drop them to the bottom of the heap in response, move them down a notch and maybe move another class up a notch.What you can hope for is a centerline of balance that classes cross up and down over time. You will never see total equality of every class- and I never hope to see such a thing because it would mean every class is the same.

ke'la

03-18-2009, 04:21 PM

<cite>Pheep@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>any change to make guardians more desired as main tanks while they're currently the MT of choice for the vast majority of raid forces would be exceedingly foolish.</blockquote>Like any class, guardians are fine when they have hate buffs and transfers.The reason a guardian is lacking on live is because of all of the fighters, guardians and paladins gain the least from increased DPS buffs. Paladins have amends to make up that gap, guardians have nothing.In theory, guardians have larger taunts than other classes, and this works well enough when the right buffs exist. Take those buffs away and a guardian has a glaring lack of hate generation. The level of hate each tank generates while totally unbuffed may well favour guardians, but once you add in the proliferation of damage increasing buffs that benefit other fighters moreso than guardians, and you end up with a class that is simply unable to hold aggro in a variety of situations.You could consider this an issue with hate buffs as easily as you could consider it an issue with guardians. I just consider it an issue.</blockquote>I agree...I mostly feel this is a bad publicity stunt unless they really pull out ALL THE STOPS when it comes to integrating consumer communication in their developer decisions and organization. And what I mean by this is going to ALL THE SERVERS, finding ALL THE TOP GUILDS, and inviting ALL OF THEM to test and offer their feedback for silly bonuses like 10 no tradable booster packs of their choice, station cash, etc. Surveys need to be conducted that evaluate playstyle and public opinion on these changes. Weight should be given to those of veterancy, those who have accrued more in-game accomplishment than others. I hate to sound self righteous (as I tend to believe how I have considered things is always with the best of the community at heart), but I just have trouble envisioning how else they actually expect to collaborate than by implementing the 2 ideas given here (incentivize involvement from experts, survey with SUBSTANTIVE, SENSIBLE inquiry). Here's hoping that this reform isn't just a paper one, but a pragmatic forray into the grandeur of dedication aptly done.(P.S. Aside from this, Danelin's post was fairly good).</blockquote>If they go with only top guilds, then it's not a fair and balanced communication. All the rest of us are left out in the cold and not heard, save for what we can shout into the aether in the forums.Top guilds are usually raiding guilds. Adjusting the game around raiders (and no this isn't a 'raider hate' comment) won't be balanced for those who aren't in fabled or T2 shard gear or upcoming T3 or really good legendary gear or have the resources available to get them.It should be even, voices from all "camps".</blockquote>No but putting them on test and then nerfing thier gear(including spells) to what is available to the playstyle the zone is intended for, will yeald some quality data, they did this with the x2 zone on test and it got some good feedback. Granted it won't account for skill level of the players, but it will be far harder to get those who don't want to be the best in thier class to test anyway.

Maroger

03-18-2009, 04:28 PM

I was very glad to read the Producer's letter and just hope that they really mean what they say about communication with the players. And as far as I am concerned that means communicating with non-raiders, players of all levels, and all playstyles. It does not mean just communicating with your slate of "pre-selected Testers" as you have done in the past.It should mean wide open communication that EVERYONE can read -- not just a select few.It also mean implementation by increment -- no massive sweeping changes like was tried before. That was the route to failure. Try doing small things and see if they work first.

Mulethree

03-18-2009, 04:37 PM

I don't know why this wasn't done 6 weeks ago and the improved fighter revamp ready for release by now.I'd like to see the logging of threat information go live sooner if possible. Not the threat meter - unless its ready, but the info on taunts, detaunts, agro position modifiers etc. which Aditu's Parser has been reporting on test for many weeks. As for this sort of change being more appropriate as part of an expansion release. This discussion has been going on since before the TSO Beta. Many involved in the Beta were peeved that this wasn't included with the TSO release and that we would have months of half-[Removed for Content] fighter balancing before some eventual fixing 'later'.As far as the praise for Domino's great rapport and comunication with her community. It is great, and constructive, and productive. Not to reduce her achievement, but her community is constructive and productive - they are tradeskillers who create. The game in general, and the community, are far more destructive - what with being mainly concerned with killing things. I don't think ordering developers to interact more on forums like this one, with all the flames, the off-topic thread hijacks, the guys who post 5 times in the same thread basically 'thats why I've cancelled my account'; well its not a productive use of developers time and its no surprise that they aren't interacting here already.As for drawing more people to the test servers. The current incentives are : more character slots - as they are seperate from the ones on your live account; Some buffers - they may give you better gear or level you up so you can try out a class and see if they are fun at high levels before you spend months leveling them ; new content sooner - test players see GU's and live events a month before they get to live. But the biggest incentive is the chance to help improve the game - to provide feedback and fixes during development rather than after release.Now keeping in mind that the people who protested during Beta that TSO wouldn't fix fighters - that it should be thought out in advance rather than done piecemeal - weren't listened to. I still think that a more civil, moderated, forum - that developers might actually find productive - would improve communication and customer involvement.Make a forum - like you do for Beta's - that only includes accounts which are active on the test servers. Assign a moderator - someone who deletes the flames, moves hijack posts to their own threads, and boots repeat offenders from the forum. You should be left with a much higher proportion of constructive participants - high enough that it would actually be worth the developers time to monitor and interact.You might also try getting Station to provide a more useful forum tool. If they had a search function that was actually useful, and a ranking system, then you could eliminate many of the posts that are re-asking questions that have already been addressed and eliminate a lot of the 'me too' or 'shut up' type noise posts. You could skip over many of the posts to the ones community-ranked as 'useful'./feedback and /bug are one-way, Forums can be collaborative, but not if they are full of noise.

Sharakari

03-18-2009, 04:52 PM

Isn't there a forum that can only be seen by those on TEST??? If not, there should be. Sony wants more folks to play on TEST. So they should ignore all the posts on these forums by the folks who are just ranting and not even testing. If you want to express an opinion, you need to be on TEST and have actually played it. Use a TEST forum that only those on TEST can see to provide negative and postivie feedback. If the figher revamp is important to you, it should be worth your time to get on TEST and actually kick the tires.

Spyderbite

03-18-2009, 04:57 PM

<cite>Sharakari@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Isn't there a forum that can only be seen by those on TEST??? If not, there should be. Sony wants more folks to play on TEST. So they should ignore all the posts on these forums by the folks who are just ranting and not even testing. If you want to express an opinion, you need to be on TEST and have actually played it. Use a TEST forum that only those on TEST can see to provide negative and postivie feedback. If the figher revamp is important to you, it should be worth your time to get on TEST and actually kick the tires.</blockquote>Agreed. I've been asking for this for forever now. People who don't play on Test have absolutely no right to post their opinions on the current Test content. Cause when they do, its based completely on assumptions.Everybody wants to be included in the changes made to the game. But, very few want to invest the time in testing the potential content. That's like letting folks from the UK vote during a presidential election in the states. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Obadiah

03-18-2009, 05:07 PM

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sharakari@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Isn't there a forum that can only be seen by those on TEST??? If not, there should be. Sony wants more folks to play on TEST. So they should ignore all the posts on these forums by the folks who are just ranting and not even testing. If you want to express an opinion, you need to be on TEST and have actually played it. Use a TEST forum that only those on TEST can see to provide negative and postivie feedback. If the figher revamp is important to you, it should be worth your time to get on TEST and actually kick the tires.</blockquote>Agreed. I've been asking for this for forever now. People who don't play on Test have absolutely no right to post their opinions on the current Test content. Cause when they do, its based completely on assumptions.Everybody wants to be included in the changes made to the game. But, very few want to invest the time in testing the potential content. That's like letting folks from the UK vote during a presidential election in the states. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>QFT doesn't say enough so .... Amen!!!Granted, just making it visible to people with characters on Test doesn't do it. It's easy enough to /Testcopy over and not play at all. Something akin to the Beta forums, including an NDA to ensure that people didn't just copy/paste comments from those forums over to the main boards lol. And if you post enough worthless vitriol there you get banned.<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />

Freliant

03-18-2009, 05:10 PM

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sharakari@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Isn't there a forum that can only be seen by those on TEST??? If not, there should be. Sony wants more folks to play on TEST. So they should ignore all the posts on these forums by the folks who are just ranting and not even testing. If you want to express an opinion, you need to be on TEST and have actually played it. Use a TEST forum that only those on TEST can see to provide negative and postivie feedback. If the figher revamp is important to you, it should be worth your time to get on TEST and actually kick the tires.</blockquote>Agreed. I've been asking for this for forever now. People who don't play on Test have absolutely no right to post their opinions on the current Test content. Cause when they do, its based completely on assumptions.Everybody wants to be included in the changes made to the game. But, very few want to invest the time in testing the potential content. That's like letting folks from the UK vote during a presidential election in the states. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I wholeheartedly agree.A test forum that only those that actively participate on test can post on. The rest can read, but unable to post unless they get on and test it themselves.

Matia

03-18-2009, 05:12 PM

<cite>Mulethree wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for this sort of change being more appropriate as part of an expansion release. This discussion has been going on since before the TSO Beta. Many involved in the Beta were peeved that this wasn't included with the TSO release and that we would have months of half-[Removed for Content] fighter balancing before some eventual fixing 'later'.</blockquote>And some number were just as peeved that half or more of the focus of the last expansion's beta wasn't devoted to the actual expansion, but to non-expansion things like this. Something like this should never ever be tied to an expansionin the testing process, since it not only affects everyone and not just the individuals who purchase the expansion, but also precisely because it does detract from the testing of the actual expansion.This leads to expansion content that hardly gets looked at by many as well as takes time and effort away from actual new content.As to an exclusive access forum, if it is only visible by those on test, everyone will simply make a level one toon on test to qualify.And before you repeat that it would only be allowed for "active" testers.. that leads to the problem of what qualifies as such as well as requires even more time spent by some poor soul to do nothing but go "not active enough, dropped".. "yes you can join" .. and generally just investigating characters to see what account they belong to to tell whether they meet whatever criteria is decided upon as "active".If you are going to want exclusivity, then you will also have to expect it to work against you when the next one is that only those with a character of xxx class can get into some forums.. etc. Probably not a justifiable expense of time and SOE money.

Thantoes

03-18-2009, 05:13 PM

All I ask for with the new open communication is this-- Please do not listen to JUST the fabled-Mythed-140+ AA players like those that Beta tested TSO dungeon content. Once that went live, players that did not have a mythical-few if any Fabled pieces or maxed or nearly maxed AA were being used as floor mats.

Armawk

03-18-2009, 05:19 PM

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote> That's like letting folks from the UK vote during a presidential election in the states. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>No it isnt, its like people who havent got TVs or newspapers voting based on what they heard in the pub. Everyone gets the changes whether they test or not.I however do agree with a testing forum thats limited, but of course anyone could use it just by making a level 1 toon on test...Making a special friends club of appointed 'super players' or chosen big guilds to give advice is a bad idea in my opinion and experience however.. those players are usually knowledgable, experienced, intelligent, committed; and often biased, selfish, bound up in long running feuds, focused excessively on their class or personal hobbyhorses and contemptuous of other playstyles. They also tend to suffer from great overconfidence and overcertainty in their opinions.It is however an incredibly good idea to get good players to do the kind of GM organised/buffbott adjusted test runs in new instances and raids that have been used/discussed. Thats where your big guilds and known top players can be a huge help, not telling you what to do but SHOWING you what they will do.You need a very broad mix of opinion and feedback. Its hard to get because of course casual players and some other groups are reluctant to invest the time on test, but you cannot say 'oh well, their loss then' because if they go, the game goes with them.Im sure the devs are well aware that in the end THEY have to design the game. You and I can give our ideas, feedback, comments, but we are not competent/positioned to design the game. I am aware of no example of design primarily by player feedback/suggestion that worked out. I am aware af many horrible failures of that process though. Even successful mod teams have leaders who make the actual decisions.

Jesdyr

03-18-2009, 05:21 PM

<cite>Freliant wrote:</cite><blockquote>A test forum that only those that actively participate on test can post on. The rest can read, but unable to post unless they get on and test it themselves.</blockquote>That is mostly stupid. Many changes you dont need to actually play on test to understand them. The fighter changes I agree required actually playing with them before you could give an educated opinion on. Things that come down to simple math (if there is such a thing in mmogs) not so much. I know what changing a proc from 3 to 1 does and should be able to comment on it.

Gaige

03-18-2009, 05:24 PM

<cite>Freliant wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>I wholeheartedly agree.</cite>A test forum that only those that actively participate on test can post on. The rest can read, but unable to post unless they get on and test it themselves.</blockquote>It takes a few minutes to download and install test, so then people would be able to post on the test forums. Seems like a lot of work that would pretty much do nothing in the end.

Yimway

03-18-2009, 05:28 PM

<cite>Sharakari@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Isn't there a forum that can only be seen by those on TEST??? If not, there should be. Sony wants more folks to play on TEST. So they should ignore all the posts on these forums by the folks who are just ranting and not even testing. If you want to express an opinion, you need to be on TEST and have actually played it. Use a TEST forum that only those on TEST can see to provide negative and postivie feedback. If the figher revamp is important to you, it should be worth your time to get on TEST and actually kick the tires.</blockquote>Thats honestly a bad idea. The playerbase on pure test is not an accurate representation of the actual server communities, not by a long shot. This is part of the problem, and I think we have some new 'live test' environment comming...

Raknid

03-18-2009, 05:30 PM

This may sound like a really silly idea, but for participating on test......how about a claim reqard that provides a one use item that will do a personal zone timer reset on an instance? These could be a one time thing, or only periodically be handed out by the devs for helping in organized tests.I am not sure how hard it would be to create the reward and flag the accounts, but you might be able to encourage people to test if they had a extra chance at loot somehow on their live toons.

Dethdlr

03-18-2009, 06:25 PM

Good job. Well done. Glad to see this is being re-thought before going live. Although I think there were some good ideas included in the mix, as a whole, I'm glad it's being re-thought.As for the new line of communications, I had a thought on that back on Feb 19th:<cite>Decimatr wrote</cite><blockquote>Has there ever been any thought given to creating a user community advisory panel or something of that nature? And I'm not talking about the press or those running game related websites but members of the user community who spend a lot of time playing. Entry by application only, notified if you're accepted, NDA must be signed, grants access to a private forum where some of these ideas are posted in the design/idea phase before any time has been spent coding them? Bring in a limited amount of players that represent the spectrum of playstyles that are willing to give constructive well thought out feedback on the ideas put forth by the developers / designers? It's a complex game and really difficult for the developers / designers to think of everything that may be impacted by a change in the way something works. Some of these recent changes including the fighter revamp could have been hashed out within that forum before it ever reached the overall user community. Just a thought.</blockquote>Key points to this are:Entry by application only: The number of messages you have posted on these or other message boards says nothing about how much you play the game or how much you understand the mechanics, certain classes, certain playstyles, etc. Allowing people to apply would get participation from people who you may not even be aware of but who would be able to provide valuable feedback.Represent the specturm of playstyles: Come up with an application that includes the level of raid zones you are raiding, average raids per week, average group instances per week, average groups per week, normal number of people in your groups, average amount of time spent soloing per week, etc. Put it together so you have the information needed to choose people from all different playstyles. If you fill this with raiders, you're only going to get input from one section of the user community (granted, a lot of times, they are some of the most knowledgeable). Input needs to come from all sides: The solo players, duo players, trio players, group players, beginning raiders, intermediate raiders, high end raiders, avatar slayers, those who haven't reached level cap, etc.Willing to give constructive, well thought out feedback: This is key. It must be clear that attacking other people's ideas are not acceptable. Giving well thought out, respectful opinions on why you think someone elses idea wouldn't work is different from saying "That's a dumb idea. Do you even play the game?". In most threads on the forums, you have to sift through the unuseful chatter to get to the posts with constructive ideas. Make it a requirement that this not to take place in the new forum and that abuse of this requirement may be grounds for your removal from the program.NDA must me signed: Why on earth would I suggest an NDA to help with the free flow of information? Because with an NDA signed, the devs would be more willing to involve those members earlier in the design/idea phase without risking a public bashing in the forums like what happened with the base damage adjustment that was squashed shortly after it was made public. Throw the ideas out to the limited set of players allowed into the program. If the overwhelming response is negative, especially if it includes well thought out reasons WHY it's a bad idea, it never even makes it to the overall player base. If the response is positive, or if there are good ideas to incorporate into the idea, incorporate those ideas and then throw it out there to the overall player base to kick around. With this in place, the base damage adjustment would never have seen the light of day. I'm not suggesting that this keep ideas from being shared with the overall player base, I'm just suggesting that a targeted panel of players that can give feedback in the early idea/design phase, in a manner that isn't a drain on the devs to sift through, could result in some high payoffs. Once the ideas have been bounced off the targeted panel, THEN throw it out to the overall community to kick around, STILL in the design phase.As I said when I first posted this idea almost a month ago: Just a thought. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />

Child

03-18-2009, 06:28 PM

i may have missed it, but did not a single "red name" post anywhere except the opening post and kiara's post on page 2?all this thread is is us talking about it, we have no confirmation any "red names" are even looking at this thread, much less reading it.aka - i'm still sketchy anything will actually change, and am fairly sure that they will do whatever they want again, with minimal input from us. after 9 pages, i find it veyr straneg that not a single "red name" commented after page 2, especially considering how in-depth some of the posts are

EQ2Luv

03-18-2009, 07:42 PM

I'm disappointed that the changes couldn't be put in, or some middle ground at least. As a brawler, I'm tired of needing a warden in my group in order to go defensive stance without losing all my aggro generation. With dps as the primary source of aggro, i have to choose between staying *offensive* stance to hit the mob and generate aggro or going defensive to get my 'shield' and take a massive hit rate penalty. The lack of high end gear, particularly defensive gear, with +crushing makes this a difficult choice to make. I was also looking forward to my bruiser being able to tank multi-mob encounters on par with plate classes.I guess I'll just have to keep forming groups with very specific class composition.

denmom

03-18-2009, 07:48 PM

<cite>Zyketor@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>i may have missed it, but did not a single "red name" post anywhere except the opening post and kiara's post on page 2?all this thread is is us talking about it, we have no confirmation any "red names" are even looking at this thread, much less reading it.aka - i'm still sketchy anything will actually change, and am fairly sure that they will do whatever they want again, with minimal input from us. after 9 pages, i find it veyr straneg that not a single "red name" commented after page 2, especially considering how in-depth some of the posts are</blockquote>Possible reason: red names are busy cleaning up the update, pulling all that revamp fighter code out, readusting things back.Six Fighters, each with their own changes and tweaks, their stances. That would take time. As well as time to adust whichever other classes were changed. We, the players, don't know when the revamp was reversed. It could have been the day of the letter, the day before, week before, hours before the letter, we don't know. The Test Copy update notes have been sitting at March 3rd.What we do know is that time is needed to undo all that was done. We may not hear from any of the game devs for some time, save for the ones who take a moment from their work to drop a post or two.Give them a bit of time.

Akhawkblade

03-18-2009, 07:54 PM

I was very dissapointed to not see these proposed changes go through. If you are not going to proplerly adjust this then you should allow fighters to respec there complete class to another fighter class. This way if they are not happy with the way classes are unbalanced then they can choose a different fighter class. As it stands some fighters have been severely damaged and others upgraded to the point where if you give them evac then they will be ultimate having everything.

Child

03-18-2009, 07:57 PM

<cite>Pheep@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zyketor@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>i may have missed it, but did not a single "red name" post anywhere except the opening post and kiara's post on page 2?all this thread is is us talking about it, we have no confirmation any "red names" are even looking at this thread, much less reading it.aka - i'm still sketchy anything will actually change, and am fairly sure that they will do whatever they want again, with minimal input from us. after 9 pages, i find it veyr straneg that not a single "red name" commented after page 2, especially considering how in-depth some of the posts are</blockquote>Possible reason: red names are busy cleaning up the update, pulling all that revamp fighter code out, readusting things back.Six Fighters, each with their own changes and tweaks, their stances. That would take time. As well as time to adust whichever other classes were changed. We, the players, don't know when the revamp was reversed. It could have been the day of the letter, the day before, week before, hours before the letter, we don't know. The Test Copy update notes have been sitting at March 3rd.What we do know is that time is needed to undo all that was done. We may not hear from any of the game devs for some time, save for the ones who take a moment from their work to drop a post or two.Give them a bit of time.</blockquote>still, it takes all the 2 seconds to post here.and i'm fairly sure not not every single red name is working on this every hour of the day.but yes, time will tlel us if they'll be true to their word.

bezibul

03-18-2009, 08:37 PM

I have spoken to several Guardians whom, like myself, greatly anticipated the arrival of the new up-date for the fighter class. Guardians and Beserkers alike, have only their taunts. But unlike Beserkers, We guardians have little to brag about when it comes to DPS. Therefore we were happy to know that our taunts were going to be improved upon. Now to make my argument, Shadowknights are supposed to be compared to the palidan but there is no compareson at all. other than they both have some sort of heal, and the palidan has nothing that compares to the SK damage. It is widely known that the sk is overpowered compared to most classes. The only people who would disagree are SK's. who will argue to the end because they dont want soe to do anyhing about it. In my opinion the SK is nothing but a caster (not a Tank) who weares plate armor, with all the taunts of a beserker and the damage of a wizzard. Now that makes the playing field totally unfair. give the rest of the casters plate at then it would be fair. I am a Guardian mostof the time and if SOE thinks that the players will give good input towards any new update, then please hire a new think team. All the players and I am including myself, will only be after what makes them more powerful. It is simply human nature to do so, therefore SOE should make the changes necessary to ensure a playing field by re-examine each character and the abilities of that character and make the necessary changes accordingly. Quit trying to please everyone because you will never please everyone, people will gripe and compane no-matter what you do or what changes you make, just make changes that continue to equal out the playing field for All players. If you really want to know who is and has been neglected by SOE and the programmers the most, then look at the Necromancers and the Conjurors. These classes ESPECIALLY on PVP servers have been totally neglected by SOE. These classes and their spells need special attention, and should be upgraded immediatly on PVP servers.

bezibul

03-18-2009, 08:51 PM

SOE needs to re-think the dismissal of the fighter update, and go forward with it. Remember you will never please All the people All of the time, so quit trying, that wil be the downfall of the game, instead try inserting a up-date that includes something like the PUNK BUSTER program that keeps cheaters and hackers out of the game, that would be a big start to improving the game as a whole.SOE will never get the players to agree on any update because it is human nature to look out for number 1. (themselves)The programming team and Managers should simply look at the real reasons for most of the complaints ingame by putting actual observers in-game to monitor actual ive play, then make decisions based on data collected. Only an informed decision that is neutral will help the SOE team make the necesary changes that need to be made.I would volunteer now to be part of the observation team for SOE.

Gilasil

03-18-2009, 09:34 PM

So they're going to try to listen more to the community. Ok. Sounds great on paper.BUTThe people posting here do not represent EQ2 players as a whole. They're just people who choose to post who tend if anything to be more disgruntled then the people playing the game as a whole. For example, people in-game seem to be very positive about Research Assistants, but you sure do see a lot of negative posts on that thread. Naturally people posting here will insist that they DO represent typical player sentiment. Anyone who believes that should roll a toon, NOT say who they are, and actually get out and talk to people in the game. Nobody elected the people posting here to represent the playerbase as a whole and, near as I can tell, many times they do not represent typical player sentiment. So SoE must take anything posted here with several very big grains of salt. It would be interesting to go through all the "I Hate the Fighter Changes" threads and add up how many unique posters contributed (not total number of posts, total number of unique posters). I'm too lazy to actually do it but I'll bet we're not looking at more then few dozen people. I.e. probably less then 50, and almost certainly less then 100 people killed a major feature destined for a couple hundred thousand players.Not saying they shouldn't pay attention to the forums, only that they need to be careful before giving them too much weight. They definately need other ways of getting player feedback.And yes, I have at times been pretty disgruntled myself and they shouldn't listen to me exclusively either.

Yimway

03-18-2009, 11:01 PM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>The people posting here do not represent EQ2 players as a whole. They're just people who choose to post who tend if anything to be more disgruntled then the people playing the game as a whole. For example, people in-game seem to be very positive about Research Assistants, but you sure do see a lot of negative posts on that thread. Naturally people posting here will insist that they DO represent typical player sentiment. Anyone who believes that should roll a toon, NOT say who they are, and actually get out and talk to people in the game. Nobody elected the people posting here to represent the playerbase as a whole and, near as I can tell, many times they do not represent typical player sentiment. So SoE must take anything posted here with several very big grains of salt. </blockquote>Don't worry, the person I know approached so far was approached in game of all places, and doesn't actually post on the forums, he just uses /feedback on test.

Danelin

03-18-2009, 11:47 PM

I made a post on in-testing feedback recommending one set of avenues of player feedback. I think it is quite good, and making use of the in game /survey option allows for ensuring a wide variety of playstyles are covered.It is worthy of mention that some of the people who post heavily on the forums have other reasons, and at least moderately 'less biased' opinions.I post on the forums regularly because my work leaves me spending a lot of time at my desk waiting for something to do to come along. I often spend this time reading over the forums and giving feedback, comments, suggestions, etc. My bosses have no problems with me spending a lot of time reading and typing, but I can't play a game.I know I am in the player minority, but I am a very 'broad spectrum' player. I have played online games since the days of local BBS door games, and pen and paper RP since I was in Junior High School. In EQLive I was a 7 days a week 6 hours a day hardcore raider for several years.I have played EQ2 as both a static grouper and hardcore soloer. I later started raiding with a raid alliance. I am now in a non-hardcore raid guild, but due to my schedule, I can only raid once a week. Most of my playtime is spent soloing, tradeskilling, or doing pick up groups. I have a level 80 Berserker, Inquisitor, and Necromancer. I have played two of those toons as regular raiders. I have a coercer in his 50s and a swashbuckler in his 60s. I talk regularly with my in-game friends, and we discuss our classes, how they perform, and what problems they have.When TSO launched and Shadowknights got bumped from worst tank to best, I was actually happy for a friend of mine who has doggedly stuck with his Shadowknight main since KoS. He gets to play the toon he loves and actually be effective. Good for him. I do feel that they are a bit overpowered right now, and he does as well.I know that I am far from the only person who has made constructive posts regarding specific suggestions for fighter changes in the past. I also know that if people felt that the forums were actually a viable means of reaching the developers (IE felt like they listen) that we would probably see a rather large increase in regular use by a larger section of the player base.<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=446059">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=446059</a>Please check this thread and make suggestions or feedback. Additional forms of feedback that I didn't suggest are welcome too. Obviously a good feedback engine will be a lot of work to develop entirely, but it CAN be done, and in a way that doesn't specifically cater to any one playstyle. Developing something that works will only benefit us all in the future.

Eueadan

03-18-2009, 11:58 PM

Best news ever!Thanks for listening!

irvisscott

03-19-2009, 12:22 AM

<cite>Akhawkblade wrote:</cite><blockquote>I was very dissapointed to not see these proposed changes go through. If you are not going to proplerly adjust this then you should allow fighters to respec there complete class to another fighter class. This way if they are not happy with the way classes are unbalanced then they can choose a different fighter class. As it stands some fighters have been severely damaged and others upgraded to the point where if you give them evac then they will be ultimate having everything.</blockquote>Actually fighters can now get evac. I have never won the roll, but the charm in stronghold (last name) has it on it.

Danelin

03-19-2009, 12:25 AM

<cite>Mobmasher@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Akhawkblade wrote:</cite><blockquote>I was very dissapointed to not see these proposed changes go through. If you are not going to proplerly adjust this then you should allow fighters to respec there complete class to another fighter class. This way if they are not happy with the way classes are unbalanced then they can choose a different fighter class. As it stands some fighters have been severely damaged and others upgraded to the point where if you give them evac then they will be ultimate having everything.</blockquote>Actually fighters can now get evac. I have never won the roll, but the charm in stronghold (last name) has it on it.</blockquote>Shadowknights can also evac as a native class ability.

denmom

03-19-2009, 01:53 AM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mobmasher@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Akhawkblade wrote:</cite><blockquote>I was very dissapointed to not see these proposed changes go through. If you are not going to proplerly adjust this then you should allow fighters to respec there complete class to another fighter class. This way if they are not happy with the way classes are unbalanced then they can choose a different fighter class. As it stands some fighters have been severely damaged and others upgraded to the point where if you give them evac then they will be ultimate having everything.</blockquote>Actually fighters can now get evac. I have never won the roll, but the charm in stronghold (last name) has it on it.</blockquote>Shadowknights can also evac as a native class ability.</blockquote>Truth be told, that never made sense to me.My Warden has evac, but that makes sense. More than once I've had to hit evac when things got too hairy and damage was too much on a bad pull etc. It's the healer getting their group out of harm's way.The FD ability of an SK is another thing that never made sense either.But yanno...those two abilities give the SK their unique flavour. As Amends and warding are for the Paladin.Anyhow...just being chatty and dropping in a few copper to the pot. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Rashaak

03-19-2009, 02:39 AM

<cite>bezibul wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have spoken to several Guardians whom, like myself, greatly anticipated the arrival of the new up-date for the fighter class. Guardians and Beserkers alike, have only their taunts. But unlike Beserkers, We guardians have little to brag about when it comes to DPS. Therefore we were happy to know that our taunts were going to be improved upon. Now to make my argument, Shadowknights are supposed to be compared to the palidan but there is no compareson at all. other than they both have some sort of heal, and the palidan has nothing that compares to the SK damage. It is widely known that the sk is overpowered compared to most classes. The only people who would disagree are SK's. who will argue to the end because they dont want soe to do anyhing about it. In my opinion the SK is nothing but a caster (not a Tank) who weares plate armor, with all the taunts of a beserker and the damage of a wizzard. Now that makes the playing field totally unfair. give the rest of the casters plate at then it would be fair. I am a Guardian mostof the time and if SOE thinks that the players will give good input towards any new update, then please hire a new think team. All the players and I am including myself, will only be after what makes them more powerful. It is simply human nature to do so, therefore SOE should make the changes necessary to ensure a playing field by re-examine each character and the abilities of that character and make the necessary changes accordingly. Quit trying to please everyone because you will never please everyone, people will gripe and compane no-matter what you do or what changes you make, just make changes that continue to equal out the playing field for All players. If you really want to know who is and has been neglected by SOE and the programmers the most, then look at the Necromancers and the Conjurors. These classes ESPECIALLY on PVP servers have been totally neglected by SOE. These classes and their spells need special attention, and should be upgraded immediatly on PVP servers.</blockquote>Have you ever played an SK? Sorry, i've played one since launch (Abandoned him at level 52 since he couldn't hold aggro worth a [Removed for Content], even with adept 3/master 1's on all CA's/Spells) and quite honestly it's only been since TSO that SK's have become a much better tank, most likely due to the first set of changes done at launch of TSO. As for DPS, Guards were at the low end of the DPS chart. The way it used to be was:Top DPS to Bottom DPS for tanks: Bruiser, Zerker, SK, Monk, Paladin, GaurdianBruisers, Zerks, SK's were offensive based tanks.Monk, Paladin, Gaurdian were defensive tanks.Now...there 'really' is no point in using Defensive stance on any Tank class. DPS far out weigh's having more mitigation and the ability to taunt. The Developers dug themselves a big hole by giving out DPS like it was candy...I ran my Guard through Acad the other night and he was second on the parse zone wide. I was in a group with a lvl 80 (mentored) Assassin, 65 Brig, 63 Warlock, lvl 80 (mentored) Inqiz, and a lvl 59 Dirge. My Guard was lvl 62, most of the ca's/skills on him are only App 4 or Adept 1...I parsed second to the Assassin...thats just not even right by any stretch...

bezibul

03-19-2009, 03:16 AM

when you get to t8 with your guardian then please by all means take another look at your parse, you will be greatly dissappointed. I raid with geared guardians every week in t8 zones and they do not even come close to topping any parse. Just wait until you get to 80 and you will see the real world as SOE has made it.

Noaani

03-19-2009, 05:45 AM

<cite>Pheep@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they go with only top guilds, then it's not a fair and balanced communication. All the rest of us are left out in the cold and not heard, save for what we can shout into the aether in the forums.</blockquote>Limiting anything to a single playstyle is a bad idea.If the developers were going to look into something like this they would be likely to ignore playstyle and focus only on class/game knowledge, which is exactly how it should be. If the players with this knowledge all happen to raid, so be it, if none of them happn to raid, then so be it.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-19-2009, 06:18 AM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Pheep@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they go with only top guilds, then it's not a fair and balanced communication. All the rest of us are left out in the cold and not heard, save for what we can shout into the aether in the forums.</blockquote>Limiting anything to a single playstyle is a bad idea.If the developers were going to look into something like this they would be likely to ignore playstyle and focus only on class/game knowledge, which is exactly how it should be. If the players with this knowledge all happen to raid, so be it, if none of them happn to raid, then so be it.</blockquote>lol. Do you guys somehow think the best of the best, the experts, somehow get to where they are being oblivious? It seems to be almost pretty clear their Guardians can manage hate well, and that this change isn't for them, but the casuals. It's the top tier, high end raiders who I saw provide detailed and insightful feedback on the difficulty of the new x 2 instances needing to be scaled down. If you're going to act like being a callous cynic is circumspectful (prudent) here, then you're sorely mistaken. People appreciate being involved on a collaborative basis and aren't going to look to imbalance things when they're already being rewarded with the good will of a move to bring the thoughts of the tried and seasoned players to bear.<cite>Pheep@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zyketor@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>i may have missed it, but did not a single "red name" post anywhere except the opening post and kiara's post on page 2?all this thread is is us talking about it, we have no confirmation any "red names" are even looking at this thread, much less reading it.aka - i'm still sketchy anything will actually change, and am fairly sure that they will do whatever they want again, with minimal input from us. after 9 pages, i find it veyr straneg that not a single "red name" commented after page 2, especially considering how in-depth some of the posts are</blockquote>Possible reason: red names are busy cleaning up the update, pulling all that revamp fighter code out, readusting things back.Six Fighters, each with their own changes and tweaks, their stances. That would take time. As well as time to adust whichever other classes were changed. We, the players, don't know when the revamp was reversed. It could have been the day of the letter, the day before, week before, hours before the letter, we don't know. The Test Copy update notes have been sitting at March 3rd.What we do know is that time is needed to undo all that was done. We may not hear from any of the game devs for some time, save for the ones who take a moment from their work to drop a post or two.Give them a bit of time.</blockquote>That isn't a possible reason because administrators always try to read all the threads. Regardless, those often associated with response here are likely not involved with the implementation of test updates, as a behind the scenes team like the QA (quality assurance) department I've heard timetravelling mention is probably most involved.

Noaani

03-19-2009, 06:27 AM

<cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>People appreciate being involved on a collaborative basis and aren't going to look to imbalance things when they're already being rewarded with the good will of a move to bring the thoughts of the tried and seasoned players to bear.</blockquote>If everyone in the game has input, nothing will ever get developed.The smart thing to do is to pick the select few that know particular aspects of the game (a few for each class, as one possible example), and put them all together in a focus group with teh developers. Once that process has been finished, the results are then handed to the rest of the community.Its a simple case of having a choice between involving every single player, and never getting anything done, or picking whom is involved, and trying to move forward.

denmom

03-19-2009, 07:24 AM

It can't be just raiders or just casuals or just middle of the road...it has to be a bit of all views.There are casuals out there who know a lot about their class, know what they can and cannot do. There are raiders and middle of the road who have similar knowledge.My point is it should not be only "the best of the best of the best, Sir!". It should not be only top guilds. SOE needs voices from all sides, not just one.Again, this is not a "against raiders" post. I mention this for clarification and to prevent misunderstanding.

therodge

03-19-2009, 09:09 AM

<cite>bezibul wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have spoken to several Guardians whom, like myself, greatly anticipated the arrival of the new up-date for the fighter class. Guardians and Beserkers alike, have only their taunts. But unlike Beserkers, We guardians have little to brag about when it comes to DPS. Therefore we were happy to know that our taunts were going to be improved upon. Now to make my argument, Shadowknights are supposed to be compared to the palidan but there is no compareson at all. other than they both have some sort of heal, and the palidan has nothing that compares to the SK damage. It is widely known that the sk is overpowered compared to most classes. The only people who would disagree are SK's. who will argue to the end because they dont want soe to do anyhing about it. In my opinion the SK is nothing but a caster (not a Tank) who weares plate armor, with all the taunts of a beserker and the damage of a wizzard. Now that makes the playing field totally unfair. give the rest of the casters plate at then it would be fair. I am a Guardian mostof the time and if SOE thinks that the players will give good input towards any new update, then please hire a new think team. All the players and I am including myself, will only be after what makes them more powerful. It is simply human nature to do so, therefore SOE should make the changes necessary to ensure a playing field by re-examine each character and the abilities of that character and make the necessary changes accordingly. Quit trying to please everyone because you will never please everyone, people will gripe and compane no-matter what you do or what changes you make, just make changes that continue to equal out the playing field for All players. If you really want to know who is and has been neglected by SOE and the programmers the most, then look at the Necromancers and the Conjurors. These classes ESPECIALLY on PVP servers have been totally neglected by SOE. These classes and their spells need special attention, and should be upgraded immediatly on PVP servers.</blockquote>ROFL sorry im a paladin been since launch and um im argueing it. an sk has an edge yes but its not a cliff. got an sk freind almost exsact same gear (he has a [Removed for Content] belt i want damnit) and would concider him equal skill. if hes taking he normally gets me by 700 dps if im tanking i might get him by 3-400 and aoe it all depends how long the mobs last, if their sort i normally beat him if the fights long he normally gets me by about 1000. but when your groups doing 29k damage who really cares about that extra k eh? raids sks still hold a slight edge, but id say max includeing same group and gear, he averages between 300-800 dps more then me. ANY paladin with half a brain will tell you in equal gear an sk will slight us out but its not by 5k. and any sk with half a brain will admit they do sick damage but so will any other tank, minus a guardian with the right gear.to the poster above me id suggest the following.grab 3 people from each class, a top end raider, a soloer and a grouping player, search through past posts to make sure they got a brain and have them be the offical class leaders (and by brain i dont nessisarily mean they have to agree on the same ideals, for instance although i disagree with the player i quoted he isnt cognitivly impaired i didnt insult him, and honestly his opinion very well may be the right one, even if i dont agree, thats the way the world works one mans words vs another, only a collabritive can give a true opinion.)

Jarnhand

03-19-2009, 11:32 AM

Looking at SONY's proposed path forward, it seems communication is one of the first items on the agenda. Plainly, the current forums are not working because the signal to noise ratio is low. Let's try something different and argue about its success or failure after we've used it for a while.<cite>Mulethree wrote:</cite><blockquote>Make a forum - like you do for Beta's - that only includes accounts which are active on the test servers. Assign a moderator - someone who deletes the flames, moves hijack posts to their own threads, and boots repeat offenders from the forum. You should be left with a much higher proportion of constructive participants - high enough that it would actually be worth the developers time to monitor and interact.</blockquote>I would support this approach.

Noaani

03-19-2009, 11:42 AM

<cite>Jarnhand wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mulethree wrote:</cite><blockquote>Make a forum - like you do for Beta's - that only includes accounts which are active on the test servers. Assign a moderator - someone who deletes the flames, moves hijack posts to their own threads, and boots repeat offenders from the forum. You should be left with a much higher proportion of constructive participants - high enough that it would actually be worth the developers time to monitor and interact.</blockquote>I would support this approach. </blockquote>So would I, if it wern't for the fact that there is no limitation as to whom can post there.Anyone and everyone has unlimited access to the test server, and while this may keep players that have no interest in these things away, since those people have no interest, they tend to keep themselves away.Essentially, all this suggestion would amount to is a portion of these forums that have even heavier handed moderation.

Jarnhand

03-19-2009, 12:03 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jarnhand wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mulethree wrote:</cite><blockquote>Make a forum - like you do for Beta's - that only includes accounts which are active on the test servers. Assign a moderator - someone who deletes the flames, moves hijack posts to their own threads, and boots repeat offenders from the forum. You should be left with a much higher proportion of constructive participants - high enough that it would actually be worth the developers time to monitor and interact.</blockquote>I would support this approach. </blockquote>So would I, if it wern't for the fact that there is no limitation as to whom can post there.Anyone and everyone has unlimited access to the test server, and while this may keep players that have no interest in these things away, since those people have no interest, they tend to keep themselves away.Essentially, all this suggestion would amount to is a portion of these forums that have even heavier handed moderation.</blockquote>Moderate away. Plainly doing the same old thing is not getting us where we want to be. Let's try something different and then argue about it after we have some data on its efficacy. If it does not work, we stop and try something else. Such is human progress.

Xethren

03-19-2009, 12:10 PM

I commend the producer for that letter.This revamp so that fighters can actually tank through hate again is much needed to the game. but I believe in some ways the approach was not correct: merging buffs into stances for one, taking away player choice is never a good thing. Next, the whole "Single Target vs AoE Target" tank argument only hoses the three that were going to be Single, since, say... a Guardian has solid single control, but terrible AE control. Now the Berserker has good AE control and also almost-as-good-as-a-Guardian single control... which makes guards have a lot harder time being picked for encounter-happy dungeons like TSO. Third, the hate meter, while it is merely cosmetic I dont believe we need to copy this from other MMOs. Why should the game be holding our hands? If the whole idea of this update is to make each person be more responsible (as it should be) for their aggro, what do we need a hate meter for? If the wizzy keeps ripping aggro off the tank he needs to not nuke so hard, plain and simple, and/or the tank needs to step up his game.Ive said it several times but I will say it once more in hopes that a Red will read it: saying that buff up times were too long is ludicrous, Ive NEVER been in a group that wasnt finished buffing before Res Sickness wore off. This goes along with the argument against merging buffs into stances.Since we are going back to square one for this, I think the other content planned for LU 51 should still be released on time; i.e. the Lavastorm Revamp. Starting to get a lot of complainers that we havent got a major game update since the TSO launch. though please take your time to make sure the content is well-tested. I would much rather have a solid update later then a buggy one earlier.Perhaps this fighter revamp should be included along side the next expansion, that way there is plenty of time to test new ideas and changes. Glad to know the devs are going to try to step up communication. That shows a wonderful effort. If we go from having one update a month to one every couple months I have no problem with that so long as new things are thoroughly tested before going live.<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Rahatmattata

03-19-2009, 01:09 PM

I think appointing players as class leads is a stupid idea.

Yimway

03-19-2009, 01:12 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think appointing players as class leads is a stupid idea.</blockquote>Nah, its fine.Just allow a periodic vote to ellect/re-ellect a new one <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />If they are good, they can stay on the island, if not we'll find a new one.

Jesdyr

03-19-2009, 02:43 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think appointing players as class leads is a stupid idea.</blockquote>Nah, its fine.Just allow a periodic vote to ellect/re-ellect a new one <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />If they are good, they can stay on the island, if not we'll find a new one.</blockquote>There is only two choices for coercer, Revel or Revel.

Pexsus

03-19-2009, 03:54 PM

When altering the course of the game based on feedback from players please consider the source of the feedback. If a player cares enough to have their voice heard about an upcoming change they should care enough to actually log on to test or test copy and actually TEST the changes. Reactionary statements by the uninformed masses do nothing but hinder real progress.The only incentive to playing on test or test copy should be to actually test the content before it goes live and have your input on those changes considered.

Yimway

03-19-2009, 04:19 PM

<cite>Pexsus wrote:</cite><blockquote>When altering the course of the game based on feedback from players please consider the source of the feedback. If a player cares enough to have their voice heard about an upcoming change they should care enough to actually log on to test or test copy and actually TEST the changes. Reactionary statements by the uninformed masses do nothing but hinder real progress.The only incentive to playing on test or test copy should be to actually test the content before it goes live and have your input on those changes considered.</blockquote>One does not need to play on test to be involved in the design process. Hopefully this new communication process is going to involve players BEFORE code is even written, long before something makes it to test for bug checking.I don't mean to discourage anyone from doing testcopy and checking things out and giving feedback, but if players are not involved sooner in the process, nothing is likely to change.

Spyderbite

03-19-2009, 04:52 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't mean to discourage anyone from doing testcopy and checking things out and giving feedback, but if players are not involved sooner in the process, nothing is likely to change.</blockquote>I have never played a game that did this. And, there are very few that I haven't played. How soon in the development process becomes "too soon" before an NDA is necessary. That's a grey line that people will push back and forth at their convenience.

Yimway

03-19-2009, 04:57 PM

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have never played a game that did this. And, there are very few that I haven't played. How soon in the development process becomes "too soon" before an NDA is necessary. That's a grey line that people will push back and forth at their convenience.</blockquote>An NDA may very well be required for those in the program, perhaps not. That would be dependent on how much back and forth there is, and how much information is provided from SoE's side. However, community feedback can be involved in the design process without the community knowing the details that would require an NDA. Just depends on how they want to put this thing together, but yes, if there is a lot of guided discussion from SoE, I'd imagine an NDA would be required.Would you argue that community involvement in the design process of the fighter revamp would have hindered or helped the outcome and the deliverables that made it to test?I believe it would have influenced the outcome in a positive manner.

Pexsus

03-19-2009, 05:02 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>One does not need to play on test to be involved in the design process.</blockquote>I disagree 100%. There are too many changes that "sound bad" but are actually great additions to this game. People simply can not comprehend how a change will actually impact their playstyle until they actually interact with that change hands-on. When you have logged on test, interacted with the changes and formed an unbiased opinion, then that opinion should have impact on the changes being implemented. This tank change is a prime example. When it was announced all I heard was whinging from all sides about how no tank would ever be able to hold aggro with less DPS and no hate transfers yet amazingly, when everyone logged on test and interacted with the changes they found out that simply wasnt the case. Yes, there were other issues with the changes that needed some revision, but there were some really good changes made in this update that are just being thrown aside as well. In short, you cant speak intelligently on a topic you dont understand... unless you are running for office.

Zarador

03-19-2009, 05:02 PM

<cite>Pexsus wrote:</cite><blockquote>When altering the course of the game based on feedback from players please consider the source of the feedback. If a player cares enough to have their voice heard about an upcoming change they should care enough to actually log on to test or test copy and actually TEST the changes. Reactionary statements by the uninformed masses do nothing but hinder real progress.The only incentive to playing on test or test copy should be to actually test the content before it goes live and have your input on those changes considered.</blockquote>Actually, I knew of Guilds/Players in the past that had a Character on Test just to be one of the first to accomplish something or develop a stradegy before it hit the live servers. Some players and Guilds enjoy having a "preview" to prepare them.

Santi Dominiti

03-19-2009, 05:17 PM

Thank you again for not putting these changes through...As a paladin I love my current standing.. yes there are a few things I would like changed but I can make do with what I have. The major issue I had with this update is being classified as a single target tank... when I have 8 AoEs. I love being able to OT on raids and lock down a group of mobs... holding agro on 1 mob was a joke on test... for you people who were saying amends is "easy mode" did you even see what tanking was like on test?? Yes, I know some tank classes are having issues on live, but I will not even attempt to comment on them because I play a paladin and I know my paladin just as well if not better than most people in this game.On the note of hate xfers .. this is MMO people should have to depend on each other to prevail. An assassin without buffs is useless, so why should a tank be any different? Classes are built to help each other out. Maybe a t1 dps like an assassin is not the best class to have the xfer but maybe a t2 dps like a brig should to give them more utility.For future comments/feedback, there are many different types of players in this game. You need to have all of them represented in your feedback discussion, but an open forum like this is NOT the best place for the feedback. There are some people here that know what they are talking about but others are here just to post to stir people up or tell them they are wrong. Imo select a few people from each segment in each class and have them as your representatives. Kind of like EQ2Flames does with the class boards. In each class there are certain people that the majority of the class can agree know what they are talking about, use this fact in picking those people. If you choose SOE fanbois who will agree on everything you say then what is the point of having the feedback. Pick people who you know have the best interest of their class in their mind.

Yimway

03-19-2009, 05:26 PM

<cite>Pexsus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>One does not need to play on test to be involved in the design process.</blockquote>I disagree 100%. There are too many changes that "sound bad" but are actually great additions to this game. People simply can not comprehend how a change will actually impact their playstyle until they actually interact with that change hands-on. When you have logged on test, interacted with the changes and formed an unbiased opinion, then that opinion should have impact on the changes being implemented. This tank change is a prime example. When it was announced all I heard was whinging from all sides about how no tank would ever be able to hold aggro with less DPS and no hate transfers yet amazingly, when everyone logged on test and interacted with the changes they found out that simply wasnt the case. Yes, there were other issues with the changes that needed some revision, but there were some really good changes made in this update that are just being thrown aside as well. In short, you cant speak intelligently on a topic you dont understand... unless you are running for office.</blockquote>I'm not sure you understand the difference between the design stage and the test stage of software development.Design happens before code is created, it is influencing the outcome before anything exists to test. Logging into the test server is not what qualifies who would be a worthwhile player to consult in this stage of the process. Testing is a QA process and often times the results of that QA instigate a reiterative design phase (back to the drawing board), but as I said to make a better outcome, player involvement needs to enter the process BEFORE code is written.Having been involved with large scale software development, I can assure you, the people that do the best work on the QA side are generally not the same people to involve in the design phase.

Gaige

03-19-2009, 06:10 PM

The whole beta process involves a NDA and some players in during the pre-design phase and yet betas go live with content unfinished and stuff all the time.So I'm not sure how taking those same people who get into beta early and giving them a private test area with an NDA slapped on it will be any different.Also how about focused feedback, the influencer program and the other dev picked small playerbase private forums that are already supposed to be doing this? Obviously they aren't working so what makes anyone think that another program doing the same thing will suddenly work?

cr0wangel

03-19-2009, 06:11 PM

Thank you for not bringing these changes live.

Zacarus

03-19-2009, 06:22 PM

<cite>cr0wangel wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thank you for not bringing these changes live.</blockquote>qfe

Yimway

03-19-2009, 06:40 PM

<cite>Gage wrote:</cite><blockquote>Also how about focused feedback, the influencer program and the other dev picked small playerbase private forums that are already supposed to be doing this? Obviously they aren't working so what makes anyone think that another program doing the same thing will suddenly work?</blockquote>I don't believe it is any big secret that the influencers program was more of a marketing initiative than information gathering for development purposes.Ultimately the success or failure of the previous and future endevours to include player feedback in design decisions is based directly at the level of involvment from the design team. It appears clear from the producers letter that a focus will be put into this directive, and what I'm hearing from folks at SoE is this is a strong 'top down' directive.I'm far more optomistic of what might come out of this than the previous programs.

BChizzle

03-19-2009, 06:44 PM

<cite>bezibul wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have spoken to several Guardians whom, like myself, greatly anticipated the arrival of the new up-date for the fighter class. Guardians and Beserkers alike, have only their taunts. But unlike Beserkers, We guardians have little to brag about when it comes to DPS. Therefore we were happy to know that our taunts were going to be improved upon. Now to make my argument, Shadowknights are supposed to be compared to the palidan but there is no compareson at all. other than they both have some sort of heal, and the palidan has nothing that compares to the SK damage. It is widely known that the sk is overpowered compared to most classes. The only people who would disagree are SK's. who will argue to the end because they dont want soe to do anyhing about it. In my opinion the SK is nothing but a caster (not a Tank) who weares plate armor, with all the taunts of a beserker and the damage of a wizzard. Now that makes the playing field totally unfair. give the rest of the casters plate at then it would be fair. I am a Guardian mostof the time and if SOE thinks that the players will give good input towards any new update, then please hire a new think team. All the players and I am including myself, will only be after what makes them more powerful. It is simply human nature to do so, therefore SOE should make the changes necessary to ensure a playing field by re-examine each character and the abilities of that character and make the necessary changes accordingly. Quit trying to please everyone because you will never please everyone, people will gripe and compane no-matter what you do or what changes you make, just make changes that continue to equal out the playing field for All players. If you really want to know who is and has been neglected by SOE and the programmers the most, then look at the Necromancers and the Conjurors. These classes ESPECIALLY on PVP servers have been totally neglected by SOE. These classes and their spells need special attention, and should be upgraded immediatly on PVP servers.</blockquote>I absolutely just hate when people say stuff like this. I am one of the top parsing monks in this game. I'll do 10k zw trash for palace, guess what my guard beats me. Guess what else? Our conj throws up 24-25k parses and is close to the top on the ZW. Guards have no problems dpsing especially when you factor in how much more effective you are at staying alive.

xKHONSx

03-19-2009, 06:49 PM

I agree with Atan. We need to be included in the design phase and not just the testing phase. Before the programmers even put one line of code into a compiler there needs to be a dialogue between the developers and players regarding what changes are going to be made. I wouldn't mind letting the developers come up with ideas and us not knowing anything at all about them until they reach test/beta.... except for the fact that the developers in this game have proven time and time again they don't have foresight, usually don't have the slightest idea what direction the game is heading (as evident by complete overhauls every so often) and some don't even have the slightest idea how certain mechanics work within their own game. If they had their finger on the pulse of the population I'd say let them do their thing but they clearly don't. If we aren't involved in the design phase to some degree then we could potentially have endless cycles of fighter revamp debacles.All they have to do is say "We are thinking about doing x, y and z. Give us your feedback." Maybe players will expose flaws in their ideas that they can't see. Maybe players will provide improvements to ideas or generally better ideas than what the devs proposed. Either way the devs still have the choice of what makes it into game. The difference is now they would have a better understanding of what the players want. We still won't know what makes it into the game until it reaches test/beta.Certain things don't need to be tested to understand how it is going to affect gameplay. Taunts aren't usable while in offensive stance. That really needs testing to understand how it affects gameplay? Buffs are being consolidated, and in some cases certain things are clearly being nerfed/taken away as a result. That really needs testing to understand how it affects gameplay? Paladins are being change from an aoe tank to a single target tank. That really needs testing to understand how it affects gameplay? The list goes on and on but you get the point. We need to be involved on a conceptual level in order to completely avoid garbage like this.They need to allow players to be more involved with the design phase since they have proven time and time again they really know how to disenchant an entire population quite easily.

Lohkei

03-19-2009, 07:40 PM

After all these years of Assassins and Rangers being unbalanced in DPS, despite rants and pleas. They pick now to listen to the fighters and stop a live update, go figure. I logged in to test_copy and tested the content. I am not a fighter class though and no real dps changes where made to my class so I was pretty happy with it.Maybe in the next update they can remove all hate transfers and increase all scout/mage DPS first, then we can focus on the fighter hate/threat aspect of the game. Perhaps fighter changes will be more welcome.Players that complain about content they have not tried on test or test_copy shouldn't be in the "In Testing Feedback" forums posting comments.

Gilasil

03-19-2009, 10:34 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Pexsus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>One does not need to play on test to be involved in the design process.</blockquote>I disagree 100%. There are too many changes that "sound bad" but are actually great additions to this game. People simply can not comprehend how a change will actually impact their playstyle until they actually interact with that change hands-on. When you have logged on test, interacted with the changes and formed an unbiased opinion, then that opinion should have impact on the changes being implemented. This tank change is a prime example. When it was announced all I heard was whinging from all sides about how no tank would ever be able to hold aggro with less DPS and no hate transfers yet amazingly, when everyone logged on test and interacted with the changes they found out that simply wasnt the case. Yes, there were other issues with the changes that needed some revision, but there were some really good changes made in this update that are just being thrown aside as well. In short, you cant speak intelligently on a topic you dont understand... unless you are running for office.</blockquote>I'm not sure you understand the difference between the design stage and the test stage of software development.Design happens before code is created, it is influencing the outcome before anything exists to test. Logging into the test server is not what qualifies who would be a worthwhile player to consult in this stage of the process. Testing is a QA process and often times the results of that QA instigate a reiterative design phase (back to the drawing board), but as I said to make a better outcome, player involvement needs to enter the process BEFORE code is written.Having been involved with large scale software development, I can assure you, the people that do the best work on the QA side are generally not the same people to involve in the design phase.</blockquote>I've been involved in large scale commercial software development for many years and I tend to agree with Pexes when it comes to commenting on things in testing. Most of the QA before it gets to beta (which I presume corresponds to Test Copy) has to do with more basic bugs and they don't need players for that. For actually trying out a feature I suspect you won't want to involve outside people any earlier. If you do you'll get people making all sorts of stupid comments about bugs they found which would be eliminated in the normal development cycle.Yes, there is the early design phase when nothing is implemented and for that you obviously can't go to test copy to try it out. To get input at that stage one common approach is focus groups (members of which would have to sign an NDA). Membership in focus groups should be constantly changing i.e. no single player should be in more then one or two focus groups ever. There's a couple hundred thousand players, there is no need for any one player to get in more focus groups. Giving input for the early design stage should not be a way for select players to get an "inside track" on upcoming changes or get more then their due share of influence. It's a way for devs to get more in depth input then they'd get from passing around a survey (which they could also do).I"m sure that once development starts, most of the effort is just on getting the $&#((@*$ thing to work at all and for that there's no need for outside input and it's probably best if there isn't any. Please do NOT let the people posting on these boards get access to alphas!! *cringes at the thought*When it's finally at beta hopefully it's close enough to the final form that the gameplay can be tried out. For that the only people who's opinions should count are those who actually tried it out (This is where I agree with Pexus). At this stage I'd give by far the greatest weight to things submitted in /feedback in-game since at least that way you know the person at least logged on with a test character. Of course they need to avoid introducing things into Test Copy which would skew the results. I.e. don't pass out mythicals and VP gear unless testing content only intended for players with mythicals and VP gear.It may be a good idea to routinely wipe Test Copy. But also make it quick and easy for live characters to be copied over. The current system is pretty good, but if they could make the copy much faster (such as if it could be done in the time it takes to log off and log back on again) that would be even better. Also, any way to reduce the patch time although I'm not sure that's possible (I THINK it's currently copying files unchanged between live and test from the live to the test subdirectory but am not sure; if not, see if it's possible to do it). In short, make it as easy and painless as possible for people to try things out on test copy. Finally, as I'm sure SoE is very much aware, you will NEVER get EVERYONE to like ANYTHING! Someone will ALWAYS hate what you do. Please don't let a few disgruntled players kill good ideas! Sure, it's alwas a good idea to seek the input of your users, but rememer that you can't please everybody and there will still come a point where someone is going to have to say go ahead despite the complaints some people are making. Otherwise nothing will ever get done.

Noaani

03-20-2009, 12:36 AM

<cite>Jarnhand wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jarnhand wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mulethree wrote:</cite><blockquote>Make a forum - like you do for Beta's - that only includes accounts which are active on the test servers. Assign a moderator - someone who deletes the flames, moves hijack posts to their own threads, and boots repeat offenders from the forum. You should be left with a much higher proportion of constructive participants - high enough that it would actually be worth the developers time to monitor and interact.</blockquote>I would support this approach. </blockquote>So would I, if it wern't for the fact that there is no limitation as to whom can post there.Anyone and everyone has unlimited access to the test server, and while this may keep players that have no interest in these things away, since those people have no interest, they tend to keep themselves away.Essentially, all this suggestion would amount to is a portion of these forums that have even heavier handed moderation.</blockquote>Moderate away. Plainly doing the same old thing is not getting us where we want to be. Let's try something different and then argue about it after we have some data on its efficacy. If it does not work, we stop and try something else. Such is human progress. </blockquote>I am so glad you are willing to come up with ideas that will cost SoE money.As an idea, I say we try it, and you pay for it all.

Yimway

03-20-2009, 11:50 AM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes, there is the early design phase when nothing is implemented and for that you obviously can't go to test copy to try it out. To get input at that stage one common approach is focus groups (members of which would have to sign an NDA). Membership in focus groups should be constantly changing i.e. no single player should be in more then one or two focus groups ever. There's a couple hundred thousand players, there is no need for any one player to get in more focus groups. Giving input for the early design stage should not be a way for select players to get an "inside track" on upcoming changes or get more then their due share of influence. It's a way for devs to get more in depth input then they'd get from passing around a survey (which they could also do)..</blockquote>While there is about 100k unique users in eq2, the number of users that fully understand all elements of game play and have even a general knowledge of all classes is a significantly smaller group of players. I think to get meaningful input from any design focus group for EQ2 your going to have to select players savy enough to understand some fairly complicated and not always self evident implications of potential changes. I would be weary of any random 50 players being able to provide meaningful feedback at that level. The potential noise to signal ratio may render the process worthless. In fact, if I was a PM who wanted to make sure we didn't have to do that going forward, I'd use the random 50 player method, as I'm sure it would result in failure so we could go back to the old way after the dust settles....I do agree with your other points, players don't belong in alpha. In general we let too many players, and often the wrong players into the beta stages as well, but all MMO's do that lately. Might as well just rename beta to 'load test' or 'soft launch'.

Sharakari

03-20-2009, 12:16 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>While there is about 100k unique users in eq2, the number of users that fully understand all elements of game play and have even a general knowledge of all classes is a significantly smaller group of players.</blockquote>Color me Dummy #1 <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />

Deson

03-20-2009, 08:35 PM

I just keep thinking of the Edsel when they talk about player feedback.

Amise

03-20-2009, 08:45 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just keep thinking of the Edsel when they talk about player feedback.</blockquote>I think of the old Simpsons episode where Homer designed a car for his long-lost brother.

Deson

03-20-2009, 08:46 PM

<cite>Amise wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just keep thinking of the Edsel when they talk about player feedback.</blockquote>I think of the old Simpsons episode where Homer designed a car for his long-lost brother.</blockquote>It was based on the Edsel.

Amise

03-20-2009, 08:48 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amise wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just keep thinking of the Edsel when they talk about player feedback.</blockquote>I think of the old Simpsons episode where Homer designed a car for his long-lost brother.</blockquote>It was based on the Edsel.</blockquote>Yes. I'm just not high-brow enough to actually think of the Edsel itself.

Gilasil

03-21-2009, 10:48 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes, there is the early design phase when nothing is implemented and for that you obviously can't go to test copy to try it out. To get input at that stage one common approach is focus groups (members of which would have to sign an NDA). Membership in focus groups should be constantly changing i.e. no single player should be in more then one or two focus groups ever. There's a couple hundred thousand players, there is no need for any one player to get in more focus groups. Giving input for the early design stage should not be a way for select players to get an "inside track" on upcoming changes or get more then their due share of influence. It's a way for devs to get more in depth input then they'd get from passing around a survey (which they could also do)..</blockquote>While there is about 100k unique users in eq2, the number of users that fully understand all elements of game play and have even a general knowledge of all classes is a significantly smaller group of players. I think to get meaningful input from any design focus group for EQ2 your going to have to select players savy enough to understand some fairly complicated and not always self evident implications of potential changes. I would be weary of any random 50 players being able to provide meaningful feedback at that level. The potential noise to signal ratio may render the process worthless. In fact, if I was a PM who wanted to make sure we didn't have to do that going forward, I'd use the random 50 player method, as I'm sure it would result in failure so we could go back to the old way after the dust settles....I do agree with your other points, players don't belong in alpha. In general we let too many players, and often the wrong players into the beta stages as well, but all MMO's do that lately. Might as well just rename beta to 'load test' or 'soft launch'.</blockquote>I think that if they've played a class to 80 and a little beyond that it's enough for many things. While the kind of changes under consideration should determine the kind of player invited, I think that in most cases confining a focus group to some small group of "elite" players is a very bad idea. Certainly something as sweeping as the fighter changes which were not subtle at all and affected players at all levels of gear, experience, and combat arts. For any player invited into a focus group there should be ample data that they've been playing the class under discussion extensively and are representitive of the type of players who will be affected by the changes, but I'd be careful about getting too elitist. In many cases it would be best to invite mixture of people, some of whom are mastered out, some with a mixture of masters and adept IIIs and yes, some with mostly adept I. For example. There are many people like the latter and they pay the same subscription fee as everyone else. If they're alienated enough their leaving will hurt the game just as much as if the most uber player of a class left.Basically, some people will NOT have mastered every fine point of their class, but that doesn't invalidate their opinion (and opinions are what devs are collecting most of all). If a class requires some little fine point which most people would miss in order to be workable, that's not a good thing and the devs should realize that most players might miss it.I've seen countless times when people with top end gear say things on these forums which make perfect sense for players geared similarly but which is TERRIBLE advice for lower level players with much worse gear. To let such high end players set the direction for all players would hurt the game a lot.

Prestissimo

03-22-2009, 07:30 AM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>Basically, some people will NOT have mastered every fine point of their class, but that doesn't invalidate their opinion (and opinions are what devs are collecting most of all). If a class requires some little fine point which most people would miss in order to be workable, that's not a good thing and the devs should realize that most players might miss it.I've seen countless times when people with top end gear say things on these forums which make perfect sense for players geared similarly but which is TERRIBLE advice for lower level players with much worse gear. To let such high end players set the direction for all players would hurt the game a lot.</blockquote>100% agreed.Personally, I believe thats why they should have the player's gear/spells be noted in the feedbacks wether actively or to indicate what the person is utilizing in order to test. If the beta buff bot allowed players to upgrade AND downgrade equally, and gear quality ratings were used, it would either give the developers a better sense of what section of the player base is most actively testing these things and therefore which level of gear/spells still need to be tested or accounted for, or it will tell them if a wide range of the players are testing the changes. For example, if they make a change such as a specific script being more difficult to work with in the shard of hate, and each piece of gear had a numerical value (increasing based on legendary or fabled and from what tier zone/contested/named it came from) it would tell if the feedback was from people appropriately geared for SoH and those that the change would be most appropriately affected, or if the player was wearing full avatar gear and was able to spank the content with minimal effort one way or another and thus the change would impact very minimally.

Animox

03-22-2009, 09:44 PM

From the producer's letter:We are also looking at incentives to get more of you playing on the Test server, for further feedback. We truly believe that if we can get more of you testing and contributing your feedback, we will know more about what you all want, what you all believe is best for the game. We want to acknowledge here that this is your game, and many of you are the experts at various aspects of this game. We want this to be a collaborative effort between SOE and its players. When we get the details of the Test server incentives worked out, we’ll be announcing it on the forums and on EQ2players. We’ll also be announcing the plan for improving our communication and creating an open two-way dialogue with you as soon as we’ve worked out all of the details.How about step one being that when the test server stops working for 3 days someone actually cares enough to get off their (censored) and fix it even if it is a weekend!

Froaknstein

03-22-2009, 11:54 PM

UGH This update needed to happen. When a tank is chosing dps over survivability, weather it be gear or spec/buffs, and forcing the healer to work their butt off or having to get 2 healers to keep your sorry butt up, there is something very wrong. You are TANKS, grow up and start acting like one. You were given something that you werent supposed to have because of lazy devs not keeping track of numbers when releasing an expansion, and now that it had the chance to disappear you're blubbering like babies. Very sad..........

Prestissimo

03-23-2009, 04:16 AM

I'd love the update if it wasn't forcing tanks to either be defensive taunt bots with no creative functions or playing what so ever and if it didn't require you to spec with X setup, press the same 6 buttons repeatedly and call that skill.The idea of the update please, but they can leave out the over heavy nerf bat and just simplify everything by making the tank do half the total damage output when in defensive, normal damage in regular, and more damage when in offensive. Not make offensive no-agro go nuts mode except that you're not gaining any dps beyond normal.

Noaani

03-23-2009, 06:07 AM

<cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'd love the update if it wasn't forcing tanks to either be defensive taunt bots with no creative functions or playing what so ever and if it didn't require you to spec with X setup, press the same 6 buttons repeatedly and call that skill.The idea of the update please, but they can leave out the over heavy nerf bat and just simplify everything by making the tank do half the total damage output when in defensive, normal damage in regular, and more damage when in offensive. Not make offensive no-agro go nuts mode except that you're not gaining any dps beyond normal.</blockquote>Strangest thing... we agree on this.I consider the changes that were on test an improvment over what is on live. They were not perfect, but they were a definate start to being able to improve things.Instead, we are now looking at a few months before any fighters get fixed, and all other classes now need to wait those same few months to even hear if they are going to get the fixes they need.

Prestissimo

03-23-2009, 07:16 AM

I've never been against the idea of tanks holding agro by taunts, I've been against the idea of a fighter not being able to fight, and only being able to use taunts and ONLY the same half dozen taunts to do everything from level 1 to the cap. Fighters already struggle enough when soloing content especially in RoK. If they really want tanks to tank in defensive, make the defensive better than offensive wether it be by making taunts more powerfull in defensive, or by making damage worth less hate in defensive, or what ever. The solution is not to nuke offensive, AND damage output in defensive as well, because thats just a heavy handed nerf across the board that just plain is not needed to that degree. THAT is what my objection as well as probably everyone elses is about.Personally, I'd rather wait those few months with something that functions than to prematurely push the change through and remove all intelligence from the tank classes or end up with something that results in a worse situation than before. Its much easier to change something in the development stage then to revamp the live content again because of a mistake the first time through.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-23-2009, 01:14 PM

Let us all wait with ample anticipation in the hope that the powers that be come to a fully realized fruition! Obama claimed public transparency on all legislation that is to pass through a public forum where posting could be done for up to 3 or 5 days...this never transpired. May the swindling of politicians not be duplicated herein.

Vonotar

03-23-2009, 02:30 PM

Create a new thread in each class forum, chuck out a few interesting and controvertial ideas on the future direction of the class and let the playerbase discuss. Then look at your respondee's and pick out a few literate people who obviously know their class and would embody the general sentiment of that classes playerbase. Get them to sign NDA's and start working on a true revamp of the way the classes work. Or you can keep it all locked in dev rooms with only /feedback and the forums for "player suggestions" that are then routinely ignored... oh wait, that didn't work before... did it.

Kiara

03-23-2009, 02:57 PM

Deson

03-23-2009, 03:01 PM

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-23-2009, 03:02 PM

<cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is rumor of some subset of the community being more directly involved in design and testing feedback going forward. I'm curious when we may know more about this, and what is the process for signing up to participate and/or what are the prerequisites you envision for participation within that group?</blockquote>And that is all this is. A rumour. We'll be coming up with several different options and asking for player feedback as to what they feel would be the most effective communication.Having a hand-picked subset of the community speaking for everyone will not be one of these options.</blockquote>I'm of the impression that having the elite, top tier raiders rallied into a particular team (where rewards are offered as well) would provide some of the cleanest, professional, and most in tune response for progress. I also don't think having other avenues for the less experienced to chime in is a problem. I think it's sour moves like this that are made to save face that could detract from the potency of such an attempt to increase communication and responsiveness between your consumers. There need be no preconceived notion that feedback inclusion can't be done in both a finer, exclusive realm and a broader one. Also, I would add, is the fact that information gathered from such a hand picked bunch need not be deemed as "speaking for everyone" (hence my denouncing of your [or your superior's parlayed] statement here as sour). No offense, just my objective objection, as I see it.(P.S. Kudos Deson.)(P.P.S. Thanks for the clarification below, Kiara. O_o) =]

Geothe

03-23-2009, 03:15 PM

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-23-2009, 03:22 PM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is rumor of some subset of the community being more directly involved in design and testing feedback going forward. I'm curious when we may know more about this, and what is the process for signing up to participate and/or what are the prerequisites you envision for participation within that group?</blockquote>And that is all this is. A rumour. We'll be coming up with several different options and asking for player feedback as to what they feel would be the most effective communication.Having a hand-picked subset of the community speaking for everyone will not be one of these options.</blockquote>Just a rumor, huh?So you're claiming that there already doesn't exist a Focused Feedback community where only select players have access to?LOL</blockquote>Yeah...honestly does sound kinda bad. = Heh;P

Kiara

03-23-2009, 03:41 PM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is rumor of some subset of the community being more directly involved in design and testing feedback going forward. I'm curious when we may know more about this, and what is the process for signing up to participate and/or what are the prerequisites you envision for participation within that group?</blockquote>And that is all this is. A rumour. We'll be coming up with several different options and asking for player feedback as to what they feel would be the most effective communication.Having a hand-picked subset of the community speaking for everyone will not be one of these options.</blockquote>Just a rumor, huh?So you're claiming that there already doesn't exist a Focused Feedback community where only select players have access to?LOL</blockquote>There absolutely does. But that isn't what he said, now is it?My point is that it won't be the chosen vehicle of improved communication in the future. If it remains active, it will continue to be what it currently is and not a forum with spokespeople for classes.

Yimway

03-23-2009, 03:58 PM

nvm, on 2nd thought that post was counterproductive.Still anxious to hear what you guys have in mind...

Sharakari

03-23-2009, 04:07 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>nvm, on 2nd thought that post was counterproductive.Still anxious to hear what you guys have in mind...</blockquote>LOL. I was about to make a comment about your original post here and thought, I wonder if he really meant to be that harsh? So I refreshed the page and you changed your comment. I repsect that and think it's much better to keep things civil.

Maroger

03-23-2009, 04:48 PM

<cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is rumor of some subset of the community being more directly involved in design and testing feedback going forward. I'm curious when we may know more about this, and what is the process for signing up to participate and/or what are the prerequisites you envision for participation within that group?</blockquote>And that is all this is. A rumour. We'll be coming up with several different options and asking for player feedback as to what they feel would be the most effective communication.Having a hand-picked subset of the community speaking for everyone will not be one of these options.</blockquote>Just a rumor, huh?So you're claiming that there already doesn't exist a Focused Feedback community where only select players have access to?LOL</blockquote>There absolutely does. But that isn't what he said, now is it?My point is that it won't be the chosen vehicle of improved communication in the future. If it remains active, it will continue to be what it currently is and not a forum with spokespeople for classes.</blockquote>Focused Feedback should be abolished. It creates the perception that a certain special group will have the ear of the developers and everyone else will get short shrift of have their threads locked. Focused feedback smacks of elitism which was one of the problem with the last testing cycling -- too many elites got to give special feedback while lesser players were ignored ( or at least that was the perception created).No one should have a special forum like a focused Feedback forum where their comments are shielded from other players views and critcisms. If you keep "Focused Feedback" you are starting off on the wrong foot.

Deson

03-23-2009, 04:55 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Focused Feedback should be abolished. It creates the perception that a certain special group will have the ear of the developers and everyone else will get short shrift of have their threads locked. Focused feedback smacks of elitism which was one of the problem with the last testing cycling -- too many elites got to give special feedback while lesser players were ignored ( or at least that was the perception created).No one should have a special forum like a focused Feedback forum where their comments are shielded from other players views and critcisms. If you keep "Focused Feedback" you are starting off on the wrong foot.</blockquote>Focused feedback forums are neccessitated by vocal posters on the forums who are abusive and largely wrong in their posts. Well picked members of such a forum just help make sure that concerns are actually heard.

Maroger

03-23-2009, 05:13 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Focused Feedback should be abolished. It creates the perception that a certain special group will have the ear of the developers and everyone else will get short shrift of have their threads locked. Focused feedback smacks of elitism which was one of the problem with the last testing cycling -- too many elites got to give special feedback while lesser players were ignored ( or at least that was the perception created).No one should have a special forum like a focused Feedback forum where their comments are shielded from other players views and critcisms. If you keep "Focused Feedback" you are starting off on the wrong foot.</blockquote>Focused feedback forums are neccessitated by vocal posters on the forums who are abusive and largely wrong in their posts. Well picked members of such a forum just help make sure that concerns are actually heard.</blockquote>It still creates the perception of elitism especially when their comments are out of the view and criticism of the rest of the community. I can assume from your support that you were part of this elite Focused Feedback group.Since no one know who is in focused feedback then there is no way of knowing with their feedback is nothing but fanboisim or constant agreement with whatever is put up. Again if no one can see and criticize then the perception of dealing with just a few players creates the wrong impression and will create the same situation as happened before.The corollary to vocal protesters are almost always wrong is that the elite focused feedback group is always right.If this next round is not well done interms of feedback it will rapidly degenerate into the EQ2 verision of the AIG Bonus Scandal.

Gaige

03-23-2009, 05:16 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Focused feedback forums are neccessitated by vocal posters on the forums who are abusive and largely wrong in their posts. Well picked members of such a forum just help make sure that concerns are actually heard.</blockquote>Haha 9x out of 10 the vocal abusive posters are part of the elitist programs anyway.

Deson

03-23-2009, 05:17 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Focused Feedback should be abolished. It creates the perception that a certain special group will have the ear of the developers and everyone else will get short shrift of have their threads locked. Focused feedback smacks of elitism which was one of the problem with the last testing cycling -- too many elites got to give special feedback while lesser players were ignored ( or at least that was the perception created).No one should have a special forum like a focused Feedback forum where their comments are shielded from other players views and critcisms. If you keep "Focused Feedback" you are starting off on the wrong foot.</blockquote>Focused feedback forums are neccessitated by vocal posters on the forums who are abusive and largely wrong in their posts. Well picked members of such a forum just help make sure that concerns are actually heard.</blockquote>It still creates the perception of elitism especially when their comments are out of the view and criticism of the rest of the community. I can assume from your support that you were part of this elite Focused Feedback group.Since no one know who is in focused feedback then there is no way of knowing with their feedback is nothing but fanboisim or constant agreement with whatever is put up. Again if no one can see and criticize then the perception of dealing with just a few players creates the wrong impression and will create the same situation as happened before.</blockquote>It's a necessary evil when many of the people who choose to speak on the forums are loud abusive and most importantly, often wrong. They have a pretty broad swathe of playstyles in it though. Doesn't matter either way; even without the focused feedback forums, some players almost always end up with "special access" because they are more reliable than others. It's life.Edit: Just caught your edit<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The corollary to vocal protesters are almost always wrong is that the elite focused feedback group is always right.If this next round is not well done interms of feedback it will rapidly degenerate into the EQ2 verision of the AIG Bonus Scandal.</blockquote>Vocal protesters are usually wrong though because they fail to actually fully look at the problem from any veiw but their own and as a consequence, come off as obnoxious and useless to those that would actually listen. The elite group may not always be right but they at least tend to respect the subject matter enough to have a clue.If the next round is not done well you may be right, of course, it could also fail because they are trying to please everyone with watered down solutions.<cite>Gage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Focused feedback forums are neccessitated by vocal posters on the forums who are abusive and largely wrong in their posts. Well picked members of such a forum just help make sure that concerns are actually heard.</blockquote>Haha 9x out of 10 the vocal abusive posters are part of the elitist programs anyway.</blockquote>That's why I keep connecting the point about being wrong heh. They may be dicks but they are dicks in service to the game giving good info.

Brindle

03-23-2009, 05:25 PM

I for one was in love with the corp concept of the revamp. Long before a fighter revamp was ever discussed I used to tell my friends how I hated being dependant on others for hate when playing my Paladin. That aside, where do you go from here?I don't like the prospect of players wading into the tall grass and making suggestions on individual powers without a clear concept of the full field of classes. I think that has to remain the domain of the developer.I think it would be fair to ask a player how they would like to play the game in a more broader sense. Example player feedback:I would like to see fighters be responsible for thier own hate generation. Variety in how this is done between fighter classes would be good. I would like to see the tie between hate generation and DPS broken(in ref to fighters). I would like to see defense and DPS tied together, so you could choose DPS vs suvivability. I would like hate kept as a seperate issue from DPS and defense. etc. etc. ....Once a Dev has this they go in the weeds and make changes. Then put them on test. The testing criteria is not just "is it bugged?" but also does it meet the player requests in a balanced way. This is the crux of the matter. There needs to be a meaningful test of the style of play being enjoyable and balanced. I'm certain there is a way to get feedback and get fighters into shape that makes them both fun to play and balanced in the scope of the game. I'm looking forward to it.

Maroger

03-23-2009, 05:28 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Vocal protesters are usually wrong though because they fail to actually fully look at the problem from any veiw but their own and as a consequence, come off as obnoxious and useless to those that would actually listen. The elite group may not always be right but they at least tend to respect the subject matter enough to have a clue.If the next round is not done well you may be right, of course, it could also fail because they are trying to please everyone with watered down solutions.<cite>Gage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Focused feedback forums are neccessitated by vocal posters on the forums who are abusive and largely wrong in their posts. Well picked members of such a forum just help make sure that concerns are actually heard.</blockquote>Haha 9x out of 10 the vocal abusive posters are part of the elitist programs anyway.</blockquote>That's why I keep connecting the point about being wrong heh. They may be dicks but they are dicks in service to the game giving good info.</blockquote>One person's definition of good info may not be the same as another person's good info. Elite groups never have a real clue - they, like everyone else, are basically interested in what effects them and their special play group. Elite groups always tend to be high level players which skews their perception of the fix and the game. The failure to get a broad spectrum of players doomed the last update since the perception was the developers were only interested in level 80 with mythical and were balancing everything accordingly. Not the way to go -- as it skews the game too much.

Deson

03-23-2009, 05:40 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>One person's definition of good info may not be the same as another person's good info. Elite groups never have a real clue - they, like everyone else, are basically interested in what effects them and their special play group. Elite groups always tend to be high level players which skews their perception of the fix and the game. The failure to get a broad spectrum of players doomed the last update since the perception was the developers were only interested in level 80 with mythical and were balancing everything accordingly. Not the way to go -- as it skews the game too much.</blockquote>I never said they weren't self interested, just that when they discuss mechanics and really game balance in general, they tend to have correct info. You need only compare the quality of info found on flames to the info found here to see how that works out.I do find it interesting that you are mentioning the changes as benefitting level 80 mythicalled players since those people were actually going to lose if the changes went live.

Stinky123

03-23-2009, 05:57 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>One person's definition of good info may not be the same as another person's good info. Elite groups never have a real clue - they, like everyone else, are basically interested in what effects them and their special play group. Elite groups always tend to be high level players which skews their perception of the fix and the game. The failure to get a broad spectrum of players doomed the last update since the perception was the developers were only interested in level 80 with mythical and were balancing everything accordingly. Not the way to go -- as it skews the game too much.</blockquote>I never said they weren't self interested, just that when they discuss mechanics and really game balance in general, they tend to have correct info. You need only compare the quality of info found on flames to the info found here to see how that works out.I do find it interesting that you are mentioning the changes as benefitting level 80 mythicalled players since those people were actually going to lose if the changes went live.</blockquote>I disagree, focus feedbacks become groups of "friends" or people who "know" devs. If you say its not then explain how some people get access to these forums when they are NOT activly playing the game? Sure there are always private groups we can't get around that, but your assertion that they know more is not always true.

OutcastBlade

03-23-2009, 06:02 PM

Deson

03-23-2009, 06:10 PM

<cite>Stinky123 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>One person's definition of good info may not be the same as another person's good info. Elite groups never have a real clue - they, like everyone else, are basically interested in what effects them and their special play group. Elite groups always tend to be high level players which skews their perception of the fix and the game. The failure to get a broad spectrum of players doomed the last update since the perception was the developers were only interested in level 80 with mythical and were balancing everything accordingly. Not the way to go -- as it skews the game too much.</blockquote>I never said they weren't self interested, just that when they discuss mechanics and really game balance in general, they tend to have correct info. You need only compare the quality of info found on flames to the info found here to see how that works out.I do find it interesting that you are mentioning the changes as benefitting level 80 mythicalled players since those people were actually going to lose if the changes went live.</blockquote>I disagree, focus feedbacks become groups of "friends" or people who "know" devs. If you say its not then explain how some people get access to these forums when they are NOT activly playing the game? Sure there are always private groups we can't get around that, but your assertion that they know more is not always true.</blockquote>No, it's not always true but it's mostly true. If you spewed "wrong" info to your dev friend all the time, how much attention do you think will be payed to you?Assuming the dev is competent.<cite>Kanolth@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Focused Feedback should be abolished. It creates the perception that a certain special group will have the ear of the developers and everyone else will get short shrift of have their threads locked. Focused feedback smacks of elitism which was one of the problem with the last testing cycling -- too many elites got to give special feedback while lesser players were ignored ( or at least that was the perception created).No one should have a special forum like a focused Feedback forum where their comments are shielded from other players views and critcisms. If you keep "Focused Feedback" you are starting off on the wrong foot.</blockquote>Focused feedback forums are neccessitated by vocal posters on the forums who are abusive and largely wrong in their posts. Well picked members of such a forum just help make sure that concerns are actually heard.</blockquote>Yah, because you know these focused feedbackers did a bang up job on the last update.</blockquote>They did.The ones I know of opposed it. They supported the idea because it was to fix mechanics they'd been complaining about for a while but when they were advertised they were against it.

Maroger

03-23-2009, 06:57 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>They did.The ones I know of opposed it. They supported the idea because it was to fix mechanics they'd been complaining about for a while but when they were advertised they were against it.</blockquote>It did a lot more than just fix ONE mechanic. In short it tried to do too much and took too big a bit at the apple. Instead of starting small developers jumped in with both feet and did nothing but create a hugh "verbal brawl" over the topic.They should start with small things like raising taunts, hate meter - adding aggro to some spells etc. But don't start out by taking choice away from players, reducing spell damage and duration. That is just asking for angry threads amd flames which keep the mods up working overtime.If the developers jump in again with both feet- the same thing will happen all over again. Do little things not big wholesale changes. See if you can get the small stuff to work well. Overhauling the game and the classes at this point in time is just a recipe for another train wreck and a lot of time, money and resources were wasted cleaning up after the last train wreck.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-23-2009, 07:10 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>They did.The ones I know of opposed it. They supported the idea because it was to fix mechanics they'd been complaining about for a while but when they were advertised they were against it.</blockquote>It did a lot more than just fix ONE mechanic. In short it tried to do too much and took too big a bit at the apple. Instead of starting small developers jumped in with both feet and did nothing but create a hugh "verbal brawl" over the topic.They should start with small things like raising taunts, hate meter - adding aggro to some spells etc. But don't start out by taking choice away from players, reducing spell damage and duration. That is just asking for angry threads amd flames which keep the mods up working overtime.If the developers jump in again with both feet- the same thing will happen all over again. Do little things not big wholesale changes. See if you can get the small stuff to work well. Overhauling the game and the classes at this point in time is just a recipe for another train wreck and a lot of time, money and resources were wasted cleaning up after the last train wreck.</blockquote>Good words from Maroger. I definitely feel most agree that the threat/aggression mechanics and advances made were those beneficial to live servers. Just be careful not to ninja nerf moves like Eagle Spin due to the assumption that players think it's an equal trade off when they already know that Brawler endlines don't compensate for the base stat mods like those found in other fighter trees. Ninja nerfs are just, plain and simply put, very confidence busting when it comes to player perceptions on those who are in charge of gameplay conceptions. I also heard Bruisers somehow lost their DPS buff on Test at the moment, something which sounds kiiinda unsavory if true! x_x Not sure on this though.

Seomon

03-23-2009, 07:36 PM

Pretty sure anyone who's been playing this game since day 1 (raises hand) should be allowed to give focussed feedback on subjects pertaining to drastic game changes.

Rijacki

03-23-2009, 07:46 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Vocal protesters are usually wrong though because they fail to actually fully look at the problem from any veiw but their own and as a consequence, come off as obnoxious and useless to those that would actually listen. The elite group may not always be right but they at least tend to respect the subject matter enough to have a clue.If the next round is not done well you may be right, of course, it could also fail because they are trying to please everyone with watered down solutions.<cite>Gage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Focused feedback forums are neccessitated by vocal posters on the forums who are abusive and largely wrong in their posts. Well picked members of such a forum just help make sure that concerns are actually heard.</blockquote>Haha 9x out of 10 the vocal abusive posters are part of the elitist programs anyway.</blockquote>That's why I keep connecting the point about being wrong heh. They may be dicks but they are dicks in service to the game giving good info.</blockquote>One person's definition of good info may not be the same as another person's good info. Elite groups never have a real clue - they, like everyone else, are basically interested in what effects them and their special play group. Elite groups always tend to be high level players which skews their perception of the fix and the game. The failure to get a broad spectrum of players doomed the last update since the perception was the developers were only interested in level 80 with mythical and were balancing everything accordingly. Not the way to go -- as it skews the game too much.</blockquote>Maroger, your forum name is cyan and you have 'Tester' as the descriptor for your access here. Thus, YOU are a member of an 'elite' group such that you are decrying. Not everyone has access to the Testers Only (test server) forum. You have to either request access (which can be denied or delayed) or you have to be requested to join that forum.Deson isn't in the specifically named Focused Feedback group. He's not even a member of the 'elite' Testers Only feedback group. I don't know if he's a member of any other.There are several different 'feedback' groups, some of which were started back before the game launched. Most of the by-invite or by-request groups don't have overlapping members.The biggest of the feedback groups, which is an 'elite' by-request group since it is only a subset of all players, is these forums as a whole, the entire forums. You have to opt in to a group in order to be able to post here. You have to even access the forums at all to be able to read or post here.More to the point:Will the devs try to garner information in different ways from different groups of people? YES, they would be stupid not to.Will -some- of the information solicited come from smaller feedback sources such as the Influencers group (formerly called Summit), the Test Server forum, the "Focused Feedback" group, beta testers, or other groups of people? Most likely. Why shouldn't it, they are players, too.Would targetted feedback have any more 'weight'? Most likely not except it would be a lot easier to read a 2-3 page thread vs a 47+ page thread.Would the information in a targeted feedback be different? Not really. By all indications in the past, a lot of would not only be the same, but would draw specific attention to the concerns and posts of some in the longer thread either as summaries, with links, or even direct quotes. (even some of your posts, Maroger, might be the ones used to illuminate an issue).Will the devs grant every single request to every single player? NO, there are even many conflicting opinions amoung players for the same exact element of game play. Some very vocal players liked the 'hate meter' that was on Test, other ver vocal players thought it was completely abhorent and should be abolished with nothing like it -ever- coming to the game. If you agree with the later, if the meter does Live, would it mean the devs didn't listen at all to those who disliked it and only listened to those who did? If you agree with those who want it, does it mean that the devs added it because of the player support?

Maroger

03-23-2009, 08:02 PM

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Vocal protesters are usually wrong though because they fail to actually fully look at the problem from any veiw but their own and as a consequence, come off as obnoxious and useless to those that would actually listen. The elite group may not always be right but they at least tend to respect the subject matter enough to have a clue.If the next round is not done well you may be right, of course, it could also fail because they are trying to please everyone with watered down solutions.<cite>Gage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Focused feedback forums are neccessitated by vocal posters on the forums who are abusive and largely wrong in their posts. Well picked members of such a forum just help make sure that concerns are actually heard.</blockquote>Haha 9x out of 10 the vocal abusive posters are part of the elitist programs anyway.</blockquote>That's why I keep connecting the point about being wrong heh. They may be dicks but they are dicks in service to the game giving good info.</blockquote>One person's definition of good info may not be the same as another person's good info. Elite groups never have a real clue - they, like everyone else, are basically interested in what effects them and their special play group. Elite groups always tend to be high level players which skews their perception of the fix and the game. The failure to get a broad spectrum of players doomed the last update since the perception was the developers were only interested in level 80 with mythical and were balancing everything accordingly. Not the way to go -- as it skews the game too much.</blockquote>Maroger, your forum name is cyan and you have 'Tester' as the descriptor for your access here. Thus, YOU are a member of an 'elite' group such that you are decrying. Not everyone has access to the Testers Only (test server) forum. You have to either request access (which can be denied or delayed) or you have to be requested to join that forum.Deson isn't in the specifically named Focused Feedback group. He's not even a member of the 'elite' Testers Only feedback group. I don't know if he's a member of any other.There are several different 'feedback' groups, some of which were started back before the game launched. Most of the by-invite or by-request groups don't have overlapping members.The biggest of the feedback groups, which is an 'elite' by-request group since it is only a subset of all players, is these forums as a whole, the entire forums. You have to opt in to a group in order to be able to post here. You have to even access the forums at all to be able to read or post here.More to the point:Will the devs try to garner information in different ways from different groups of people? YES, they would be stupid not to.Will -some- of the information solicited come from smaller feedback sources such as the Influencers group (formerly called Summit), the Test Server forum, the "Focused Feedback" group, beta testers, or other groups of people? Most likely. Why shouldn't it, they are players, too.Would targetted feedback have any more 'weight'? Most likely not except it would be a lot easier to read a 2-3 page thread vs a 47+ page thread.Would the information in a targeted feedback be different? Not really. By all indications in the past, a lot of would not only be the same, but would draw specific attention to the concerns and posts of some in the longer thread either as summaries, with links, or even direct quotes. (even some of your posts, Maroger, might be the ones used to illuminate an issue).Will the devs grant every single request to every single player? NO, there are even many conflicting opinions amoung players for the same exact element of game play. Some very vocal players liked the 'hate meter' that was on Test, other ver vocal players thought it was completely abhorent and should be abolished with nothing like it -ever- coming to the game. If you agree with the later, if the meter does Live, would it mean the devs didn't listen at all to those who disliked it and only listened to those who did? If you agree with those who want it, does it mean that the devs added it because of the player support?</blockquote>The testers only forum is rather a useless forum since the better discussions take place elsewhere - so your comments are as usual irrelevant.When the developer deal with specific class changes they would be better off to have that dicussion in the class forums.Personally I hated the "HATE METER" but it had the advantage that you didn't have to use it - it was an option I seldom object to options open to everyone -- like Marketplace, it is an option you can use it or not as you choose. I think making a fuss over an option is silly.I am totally opposed to groups like influencers as I think they are too often fanbois who say "YES SIR, HOW HIGH" and by keeping their comments secret they never get subject to the criticism that I suspect most of their comments deserve.This time if SOE want to avoid another expensive train wreck they should make sure that ALL player comments are public and open to scrutiny, comment and criticism. NO SPECIAL GROUPS or they will be looking at another train wreck. I suspect that the last train wreck was partially caused by the "influencers" group saying - ""OOOOHH WONDERFUL I LOVE IT" to every change that took place. And since all of this was secret and went on behind virtual closed doors the efforts to make the "revamp" viable went all well past the time to surrender and face the fact that it was a disaster for the game and would have damaged the game. This time should be all about TRANSPARENCY.If they don't start out small and so small things but once again try to do too much at one time they will have the same problem as they had last time.I think one thing they might want to think of is bringing Gallenite back as a consultant to guide this change(whatever it turns out to be) through more smoothly and with less acrimony. He was always good at that.

Yimway

03-23-2009, 08:04 PM

<cite>Seomon wrote:</cite><blockquote>Pretty sure anyone who's been playing this game since day 1 (raises hand) should be allowed to give focussed feedback on subjects pertaining to drastic game changes.</blockquote>I'll agree with that as a universal litnus test.

Rijacki

03-23-2009, 08:10 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The testers only forum is rather a useless forum since the better discussions take place elsewhere - so your comments are as usual irrelevant.</blockquote>Grass is always greener....I've seen better discussions in the Testers Only forums AND on the test server in the /test channel than I have known about in any targeted group.The way you dismiss everyone, one would think that your belief is that your own opinions are the absolute only ones which matter.

Maroger

03-23-2009, 09:13 PM

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The testers only forum is rather a useless forum since the better discussions take place elsewhere - so your comments are as usual irrelevant.</blockquote>Grass is always greener....I've seen better discussions in the Testers Only forums AND on the test server in the /test channel than I have known about in any targeted group.The way you dismiss everyone, one would think that your belief is that your own opinions are the absolute only ones which matter.</blockquote>Because the TESTERS ONLY forum is exlcusive rather than inclusive, it does better with small topic and small changes and projects. It fails miserably on large topics which affect almost the entire player base like the fighther revamp. Discussion are more lively and better due to the greater the participation.I realize that you prefer exclusive areas as it suits your view of the value of your opions of the game. I prefer a more rough and tumble environment where every one can jump in -- even if it ends up looking like "mud wrestling" I think it is a good thing. Exclusivity is just wearing a set of blinkers and shielding yourself and your changes from too heavy a public scrutiny. I know that some people prefer this shield as you apparently do, I like everything out in the open.I want TRANSPARENCY, OPENESS and I WANT TO SEE A PLAN -- DON"T RELEASE CHANGES WITHOUT A DETAILED PREVIEW OF A PLAN/DESIGN. Putting a design document out up front will save time and money in the long run.

Whilhelmina

03-23-2009, 09:50 PM

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Grass is always greener....I've seen better discussions in the Testers Only forums AND on the test server in the /test channel than I have known about in any targeted group.The way you dismiss everyone, one would think that your belief is that your own opinions are the absolute only ones which matter.</blockquote>I agree with you on this one.But what's the point of this argument ? There are pro and cons to all form of feedback groups.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-23-2009, 09:56 PM

IMO, focus groups should be of the elite experts and forums are where members of the focus groups could be required to report. Those of such an exclusive sort, I feel, should be top-tier, high-end players, those who are most able to test numbers and accurately analyze and convey the data, as what most typical poster get behind is a suppositional, incredulous tirade of emotion absent any number crunch that would destroy or employ such thoughts that are often let to be as trying as a toy. Good for a moment, but not to be used as a rubric in reasonable discernment. Though some would call a MMORPG a toy, I believe it's far beyond that, as I do feel many or most see them as a practical, whole community.

Spyderbite

03-23-2009, 10:20 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>I want TRANSPARENCY, OPENESS and I WANT TO SEE A PLAN -- DON"T RELEASE CHANGES WITHOUT A DETAILED PREVIEW OF A PLAN/DESIGN. Putting a design document out up front will save time and money in the long run.</blockquote>That's not your right. As a player. As a Consumer. As Anything. Not even as a Citizen.Where in the Terms of Service does it state you'll be presented with a blueprint of the future of the game before they go forward with it? So, why are you demanding it?Who's "time and money" is it saving? Yours? You pay $15/account/month. Theirs? They pay tens of thousads of dollars per month to keep the servers running and development ongoing.Now, putting out Test server updates with detailed changes is what I think you're looking for. Where the details are laid out as they update the Test servers for you to try and leave constructive feedback about.*blinks*Oh.. that's right.. they already do this..

Pins

03-23-2009, 10:55 PM

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now, putting out Test server updates with detailed changes is what I think you're looking for. Where the details are laid out as they update the Test servers for you to try and leave constructive feedback about.*blinks*Oh.. that's right.. they already do this..</blockquote>No, they do not do this. Whether it is by accident or not, there are tons of changes that just slip through the cracks of the patch note process. They even admit to this, so it is hard to test changes that don't get released in patch notes. Not to mention, when you see a huge change, people freak out especially if there isn't a plan to go along with the change and it leads to a rash decision/hating of the change because "change is always bad". But of course we all know to you, anything SOE does is never a problem, so it doesn't matter to even be civil with you.

Gaige

03-23-2009, 10:58 PM

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>They pay tens of thousads of dollars per month to keep the servers running and development ongoing.</blockquote>Even if EQ2 only has 50k subs they're making 750k a MONTH on the game. Quit acting as if they're going broke trying to host EQ2 and its small development team.

Prestissimo

03-24-2009, 04:11 AM

As long as the developers do not focus exclusively on raid content, IE test the solo, heroic, and epic content equally and get feedback from all 3 levels objectively, there shouldn't be a problem because they'll have the numbers and experiences to find the majority of problems with the content and to patch accordingly. It doesn't seem to work this way though and I'm suspecting that is a large portion of the problem.Not all raiders are fully versed in the functions and tricks of their class, and not all that are fully versed in the fuctions and tricks of their class are raiders. This is what I believe is being missed when you look at X portion of a community for advise and feedback assuming that they know alot about it purely because they play it. It very well may be that they just spam all their buttons or are wearing overpowered enough stuff that it doesn't really make a difference wether they are average or elite because their spells, gear, or group/raid members can make up the difference.The entire update and the majority of where EQ2 is currently headed feels like they're not staying objective because on the lower levels, all that needs fixing is dps needs to be offset by other functions, namely taunts which the update was going to do but to a too far extreme, and as far as the top tier, the majority of the problem is that things have progressed into such beyond rediculous levels that it's no longer within the realm of reasonable levels that the system was designed to compensate for. The EQ2 system just like every system in existance has its flaws, and to pretend it doesn't is just ignorant and asking for trouble. Rather than trying to bandaid the problem with an alternative that may or may not work, why not just simply look at what is causing the problem, and solve the reason that the problem is being created in the first place? That is ultimately going to be the answer to the game's balance, not trying to recreate the mechanics well beyond the appropriate timeline for such a change.The best way to design for the EQ2 system is to use the variety and complexity to make multiple paths that players can take and chose in which to do their roles, and designing the content to be all about putting more dps into the player or putting more dps into the mob is not the way you design such content that will have replayability value. But thats my 2 cents worth and observations upon the games that are replayable even to this day purely because it wasn't designed to be a farm fest as much as it was designed to challenge the player and give rewards for overcoming those challenges. The "challenge" of how many times can you farm the zone before the RNG favors you is not enjoyably replayable in the long run, and the game should not keep following the path of farm more & farm faster or any of the proposed changes no matter how inline with the origional design concept will not amount to anything.

Vonotar

03-24-2009, 07:22 AM

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>I want TRANSPARENCY, OPENESS and I WANT TO SEE A PLAN -- DON"T RELEASE CHANGES WITHOUT A DETAILED PREVIEW OF A PLAN/DESIGN. Putting a design document out up front will save time and money in the long run.</blockquote>That's not your right. As a player. As a Consumer. As Anything. Not even as a Citizen.Where in the Terms of Service does it state you'll be presented with a blueprint of the future of the game before they go forward with it? So, why are you demanding it?Who's "time and money" is it saving? Yours? You pay $15/account/month. Theirs? They pay tens of thousads of dollars per month to keep the servers running and development ongoing.Now, putting out Test server updates with detailed changes is what I think you're looking for. Where the details are laid out as they update the Test servers for you to try and leave constructive feedback about.*blinks*Oh.. that's right.. they already do this..</blockquote> Spyderbite, I know it's your natural reaction to defend SoE whenever possible and I understand that in a typical MMO-Player situation the MMO developers set out their vision and the players choose whether to pay'n'play or not. However we've reached a point with EQ2 where quite frankly the game is lost, there appears to be a gulf between the developers view of each class and the playerbase. Worse than that, neither view seems to tie up with either the original descriptions of the classes (as printed in the original guide books) or even tie up with what is available on the class selection screen when rolling a new toon. We've reached a point where everybody appears to have split into several islands of opinion, it's time to have OPEN and FRANK discussions on where each class should be, their relative strengths and weaknesses, how they differ from their evil-good counterparts and how they differ from other classes in the same archtype. Once we've all largely agreed on the same starting position, we can go back to the approach of dev's making tweaks and putting them on Test to be looked at, without having to consult the playerbase first. Usual service can be resumed in the future, but we need an exceptional re-examination of the game NOW in order to get our (collective) house in order. When new players join the game, they should find an informed playerbase largely singing the from same hyme book as the devs.

Thunderthyze

03-24-2009, 07:41 AM

<cite>Gage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>They pay tens of thousads of dollars per month to keep the servers running and development ongoing.</blockquote>Even if EQ2 only has 50k subs they're making 750k a MONTH on the game. Quit acting as if they're going broke trying to host EQ2 and its small development team.</blockquote>I for one am so grateful for the act of social, altruistic philanthropy SOE provides by way of EQ2.(BTW I'm being sarcastic)Spyder...it's a business. The day SOE stops making a profit is the day the plug will get pulled.

Kiara

03-25-2009, 04:34 PM

Please, let's not degenerate into bickering.As for the communication plan for the future... We're working on coming up with several different options that we feel can best serve everyone.When we get the details hammered out on these, I'll present them to you and we'll figure out which of them works best from your point of view.Personally, I want whatever plan we eventually settle on to be as inclusive as possible. While not all of the feedback we get will necessarily be useable, it will all be valuable as a measure of where you guys are with the game. From there, we'll try and get all of us to the happy middle ground.

Grimmly

03-25-2009, 05:24 PM

If you would like an example of great communication between developers and players, you need to talk to Ryan James Favale on the Graphics Programming team! (See this <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=444895" target="_blank">post</a>)This guy is brilliant!! He has single handily converted my opinion of SoE developing team. He has provided detailed responses that might be over our heads, but still gives us a sense that he knows what he is doing. He has taken all the posters feedback into consideration and has either explained why the game is reacting the way it is or has stated that it is a bug that will be examined.My vote: Put him in charge of the communications between developers and players!

Deson

03-25-2009, 05:47 PM

<cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally, I want whatever plan we eventually settle on to be as inclusive as possible. While not all of the feedback we get will necessarily be useable, it will all be valuable as a measure of where you guys are with the game. From there, we'll try and get all of us to the happy middle ground.</blockquote>Possible? Bleh. Stick with practical/practicable. While certainly the broad feedback paths are viable, the forums have them already as far as "possible" goes. Possible also leaves open too many expectations on the forums themselves unless you're getting your own team to scour through everything. The worst thing "possible" does is lead you to bad decisions trying to please as many people as such.<cite>Grimmly@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you would like an example of great communication between developers and players, you need to talk to Ryan James Favale on the Graphics Programming team! (See this <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=444895" target="_blank">post</a>)This guy is brilliant!! He has single handily converted my opinion of SoE developing team. He has provided detailed responses that might be over our heads, but still gives us a sense that he knows what he is doing. He has taken all the posters feedback into consideration and has either explained why the game is reacting the way it is or has stated that it is a bug that will be examined.My vote: Put him in charge of the communications between developers and players!</blockquote>He'll have to fight Domino supporters!Nothing against Kiara but the official communications team seems to be trying to re-find its place and it's felt that way since Moorgard and Blackguard left. It's felt like every couple of months the rules and standards have changed to the point where if I'm not in direct communication with a dev, I don't feel like I'm going to get an answer.

Grimmly

03-26-2009, 10:55 AM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>He'll have to fight Domino supporters!Nothing against Kiara but the official communications team seems to be trying to re-find its place and it's felt that way since Moorgard and Blackguard left. It's felt like every couple of months the rules and standards have changed to the point where if I'm not in direct communication with a dev, I don't feel like I'm going to get an answer.</blockquote>Domino is another GREAT example of superior developer / player communications. Seriously SoE, use the assests you already have in place. Learn from those SoE Developers that do a good job already!!And Kiara, this is no flame on you or your team. I am just pointing out examples of great communication that alread exist in the developer community.

Kendricke

03-26-2009, 05:31 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nothing against Kiara but the official communications team seems to be trying to re-find its place and it's felt that way since Moorgard and Blackguard left. It's felt like every couple of months the rules and standards have changed to the point where if I'm not in direct communication with a dev, I don't feel like I'm going to get an answer.</blockquote>With Moorgard and Blackguard, there was a sense that they understood what they were talking about, that they genuinely cared, and that they had a good handle on the answers the provided. They didn't play games on the forums for the most part and when they did post, it was a good, solid answer 90% of the time (even if it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear).

Deson

03-26-2009, 07:15 PM

<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nothing against Kiara but the official communications team seems to be trying to re-find its place and it's felt that way since Moorgard and Blackguard left. It's felt like every couple of months the rules and standards have changed to the point where if I'm not in direct communication with a dev, I don't feel like I'm going to get an answer.</blockquote>With Moorgard and Blackguard, there was a sense that they understood what they were talking about, that they genuinely cared, and that they had a good handle on the answers the provided. They didn't play games on the forums for the most part and when they did post, it was a good, solid answer 90% of the time (even if it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear). </blockquote>It's more than that. It's as if the governing philosophy is such that the team is actually crippled by it, either because it's non-existent or so convoluted it's better off being such.

Kendricke

03-27-2009, 03:45 AM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nothing against Kiara but the official communications team seems to be trying to re-find its place and it's felt that way since Moorgard and Blackguard left. It's felt like every couple of months the rules and standards have changed to the point where if I'm not in direct communication with a dev, I don't feel like I'm going to get an answer.</blockquote>With Moorgard and Blackguard, there was a sense that they understood what they were talking about, that they genuinely cared, and that they had a good handle on the answers the provided. They didn't play games on the forums for the most part and when they did post, it was a good, solid answer 90% of the time (even if it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear). </blockquote>It's more than that. It's as if the governing philosophy is such that the team is actually crippled by it, either because it's non-existent or so convoluted it's better off being such.</blockquote>I think I know what you mean. It used to be that when Moorgard or Blackguard posted, it almost felt as if they WERE developers. You didn't feel like you were going through a middle man. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure everyone since is trying their level best to do a good job (I don't think there have been any bad community managers), but Moorgard and Blackguard (especially Steve) seemed to really have a handle on what they were posting and when/where to post. I can still pull up posts from Moorgard from 2004 or 2005 that are simply that strong. He didn't just respond to a thread - he answered questions.

Rijacki

03-27-2009, 11:13 AM

<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nothing against Kiara but the official communications team seems to be trying to re-find its place and it's felt that way since Moorgard and Blackguard left. It's felt like every couple of months the rules and standards have changed to the point where if I'm not in direct communication with a dev, I don't feel like I'm going to get an answer.</blockquote>With Moorgard and Blackguard, there was a sense that they understood what they were talking about, that they genuinely cared, and that they had a good handle on the answers the provided. They didn't play games on the forums for the most part and when they did post, it was a good, solid answer 90% of the time (even if it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear). </blockquote>It's more than that. It's as if the governing philosophy is such that the team is actually crippled by it, either because it's non-existent or so convoluted it's better off being such.</blockquote>I think I know what you mean. It used to be that when Moorgard or Blackguard posted, it almost felt as if they WERE developers. You didn't feel like you were going through a middle man. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure everyone since is trying their level best to do a good job (I don't think there have been any bad community managers), but Moorgard and Blackguard (especially Steve) seemed to really have a handle on what they were posting and when/where to post. I can still pull up posts from Moorgard from 2004 or 2005 that are simply that strong. He didn't just respond to a thread - he answered questions. </blockquote>I also think you, and others, remember them as greater than they were.They, too, had many many many complaints about lack of information. They, too, played forum games (even starting many of them) with complaints about them playing games instead of taking care of 'real stuff'. They, too, spread their fair share of bad information or information that later was changed. They, too, had posters positive they were 'out to get them' or plain hated them and didn't deserve their jobs. They, too, had many posters accuse them of favouritism for classes, races, other posters, etc. They, too, made sweeping statements that turned out to be VERY wrong ("There are no plans for PvP" was one of them). They, too, have made pronouncements which later turned out to be major headaches for the development team (the whole T1, T2, etc, damage categories was one of them).Nostoligia tends to fade the negative and accentuate the positive. It's only normal. It's why there is the quote 'you can never go back home again', because it won't and can't match your memories.You were/are a friend of Moorgard and Blackguard, so of course you remember their regime a lot more favourably than someone who was nuetral or, even moreso, someone who was 'on the outside' or even someone who didn't get along with them.

Kendricke

03-27-2009, 12:20 PM

Well, of course my arguments are void and without substance because it's obvious I'm nothing more than a Moorgard/Blackguard fanboi, right? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /> I'm sure Deson was buddy/buddy with Moorgard as well, right? This has little to do with whether or not I agreed with Moorgard's posts. What Deson and I are talking about here is whether or not Moorgard could even make the same posts if he were the Community Manager of Everquest II right now. Could he perform the same job today under the current system as he did in 2005? There are several layers of heirarchy that exist now that simply didn't exist in 2003-2006. Moorgard has posted a few times in various locations how he was brought on in as a community manager that was involved in the design process right from the word go. Unless you can tell me that the community managers today have the same level of design involvement and empowerment as they did in 2005, then we're basically in agreement that things have actually changed.

Danelin

03-27-2009, 12:41 PM

I originally posted this in the in-testing feedback, but it got no replies and scrolled off in nothing flat after all of the arguing that was going on. I am cross posting it here to maximize the chances of it being seen by the devs. So Fighter revamp 2.5 is going to begin being designed, and unlike 2.0, is going to be built incorporating player feedback.The first thing that I think we should address about potential game changes, is where and how to discuss them before they happen. The following are my ideas/recommendations.<hr />Major game changes - Please realize any examples I give are completely arbitrary and do not represent any specific feelings I have regarding in game numbers. The point of this is feedback methods, not game mechanics changes:Stage 1 - Developers decide that fighters need to be revised. Identify the problems that cause the need for the change. Identify how these things negatively impact the game. Identify how these negative impacts effect the overall game balance and elements of potential forward growth.Stage 1.5 - Developers report what they have identified to the population, players are given a chance to provide feedback and ask questions. Is a percieved problem seen completely differently by the population than it is by the Development team? What aspects of the percieved problems cause the most issues for the community? If so, return to step 1 and revise, or provide reasoning why player concerns are being overridden.Stage 1.9 - The major elements of these interactions (The developer's final decision regarding basic direction, player feedback that was implemented regarding revisions to the plan, major player objections that were overridden) are moved to a locked thread for reference during the continuing development.Stage 2 - Developers build a basic model of what they would like to change in the upcoming revisions. General targets for post-change effects are worked out. (Example - Fighter maximum DPS will fall between 4000 and 5000 at the top end when tanking, and will be in the order of Bruiser-Monk-Berserker-Shadowknight-Paladin-Guardian from most to least.)Stage 2.5 - Developers report what they have worked out in Stage 2. Players are given a chance to provide feedback and ask questions. Have the developers taken certain potential problems into account? Is this going to negatively impact X content? Is this specific method of change unacceptable to a class because of X? Will this change be more acceptable if X detail is changed? Revisions to Stage 2 are made, or reasonings for player objections being overridden are provided.Stage 2.9 - The major elements of these interactions (The developer's final decision regarding general numbers , player feedback that was implemented regarding revisions to the plan, major player objections that were overridden) are moved to a locked thread for reference during the continuing development.Stage 3 - Developers work out initial specific changes for effected classes - specific changes are made for the effected classes/mechanics, and these changes are pushed onto test.Stage 3.5 - Players begin playing on test or testcopy, checking the impact of the upcoming changes on the game. Specific issues are identified and reported to the developers via /feedback and forums. Developers revise as needed.Stage 3.9 - The major elements of these interactions (The developer's final decision regarding general numbers , player feedback that was implemented regarding revisions to the plan, major player objections that were overridden) are moved to a locked thread in a special forum for reference regarding continuing game development. This means that major game changes and the reasoning behind them are now archived for easy reference as the game moves forward.<hr />Ongoing subclass feedback: This should be established in the existing subclass forums. Locked threads containing existing class issues as percieved by the players should be created, and edited by a subclass representative on a regular basis, using feedback within the forum. One 'top ten issues' thread should be established and modified as developer responses come in. The community representative should have the ability to create polls using posted issues from the forums in order to establish what the top ten issues really are. Ideally, these polls would make use of the /survey command in-game.<hr />Itemization feedback: This should be handled similar to class feedback, with a community representative in charge of maintaining a locked thread with top issues. Due to the sheer number of items in the game, this will probably need to be longer than a top ten. Something like top 25 itemization issues or top 50 might be more appropriate.<hr />Tradeskill feedback: Although Domino is notably very active in the forums and probably the best model of customer relations in the existing development team, I think that for the purposes of uniformity, establishing a similar model would be worthwhile. Having a top issues thread allows 'at a glance' refreshers regarding player feedback for the developers.<hr />Any comments, suggested revisions, objections, etc. To this model are greatly appreciated, especially any developer responses.

Gaige

03-27-2009, 12:59 PM

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>You were/are a friend of Moorgard and Blackguard, so of course you remember their regime a lot more favourably than someone who was nuetral or, even moreso, someone who was 'on the outside' or even someone who didn't get along with them.</blockquote>Moorgard IS one of the best community managers in the business. You can't blame some of his misleading posts on him when he was forced to make them by his boss.Anyone at all who has talked to, or still talks to, Moorgard or reads his blogs understands his passion for the role of community manager and it isn't a simple matter of rose colored glasses.Kendricke is right, and that isn't a fault on other community managers, it just shows how well Moorgard did the job.When Moorgard was CM and BG/Faarwolf were mods these forums had tons of traffic and you could actually discuss things without mass bannings and lockdowns.It just feels like a totally different community now.

Aeralik

03-27-2009, 02:25 PM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ongoing subclass feedback: This should be established in the existing subclass forums. Locked threads containing existing class issues as percieved by the players should be created, and edited by a subclass representative on a regular basis, using feedback within the forum. One 'top ten issues' thread should be established and modified as developer responses come in. The community representative should have the ability to create polls using posted issues from the forums in order to establish what the top ten issues really are. Ideally, these polls would make use of the /survey command in-game.<hr />Itemization feedback: This should be handled similar to class feedback, with a community representative in charge of maintaining a locked thread with top issues. Due to the sheer number of items in the game, this will probably need to be longer than a top ten. Something like top 25 itemization issues or top 50 might be more appropriate.</blockquote>You don't need a community representative to post feedback about issues. Most class forums have a list of issues and if yours doesnt have one feel free to start one. You can include itemization issues in here as well. These are the first place we will look when investigating issues. Just keep in mind though that we won't necessarily fix every bullet point or fix it in the manner perscribed in the thread but we do read those threads.

Deson

03-27-2009, 02:29 PM

Kendricke

03-27-2009, 02:48 PM

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ongoing subclass feedback: This should be established in the existing subclass forums. Locked threads containing existing class issues as percieved by the players should be created, and edited by a subclass representative on a regular basis, using feedback within the forum. One 'top ten issues' thread should be established and modified as developer responses come in. The community representative should have the ability to create polls using posted issues from the forums in order to establish what the top ten issues really are. Ideally, these polls would make use of the /survey command in-game.<hr />Itemization feedback: This should be handled similar to class feedback, with a community representative in charge of maintaining a locked thread with top issues. Due to the sheer number of items in the game, this will probably need to be longer than a top ten. Something like top 25 itemization issues or top 50 might be more appropriate.</blockquote>You don't need a community representative to post feedback about issues. Most class forums have a list of issues and if yours doesnt have one feel free to start one. You can include itemization issues in here as well. These are the first place we will look when investigating issues. Just keep in mind though that we won't necessarily fix every bullet point or fix it in the manner perscribed in the thread but we do read those threads.</blockquote>That's accepteable but can you at least put why/why not next to the issues you decide not to touch or otherwise provide some measure of closure to it?</blockquote>...or just some form of occasional, regular response - whether or not it includes reasoning. Sure, people get upset when their specific issues aren't addressed, but there's <a href="http://www.projectsatwork.com/content/articles/232486.cfm" target="_blank">a certain level of frustration that comes from silence</a>:"I wish I understood earlier that people don’t operate on a wholly rational basis where, once the logic of a solution is explained to them, they will embrace it and move on. I wish I had understood that in the absence of information, people often fill the void with their worst possible imaginings." - Mark Mullaly, PMP

Rijacki

03-27-2009, 03:08 PM

<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, of course my arguments are void and without substance because it's obvious I'm nothing more than a Moorgard/Blackguard fanboi, right? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /> </blockquote>And that wasn't what I said, was it. *rolls her eyes at someone oversimplifying*Has the climate changed? yes, I think just about the entire development team has changed so that alone would make it different. Duh.<ul><li>Did Blackguard and Moorgard walk three feet above water as your posts indicate? no. </li><li>Were they excellent communicators and community managers? yes, they did their job well.</li><li>Were they given more direct access than perhaps the current community managers have? probably, it was, as we all can agree, a different development team then.</li><li>Has the current team been more reluctant to make sweeping statements like the T1, T2, etc damage pigeonholes? probably, in my opinion, they're also trying not to paint themselves into as many corners and to even try to get out of many of the corners painted by the former team(s).</li><li>Was every decision, direction taken, and communication given by the former team(s) perfect? no, not by a long shot</li><li>Is every decision, direction taken, and communication given by this current team perfect? no, and I never indicated it was.</li><li>Are decisions made, directions taken, and communications given by one team vs another better/worse? -that- is entirely subjective and, with past teams, can be coloured by nostolgia or its opposite. If you preferred one team over another, for whatever reason, your bias -will- colour your memory on how they performed. Naturally. it doesn't make your opinion invalid, just biased, whether positively or negatively.</li></ul>Kendricke, one of your favourite comments to me even when I am merely relating the history and source of certain tradeskill related changes (even when making a 100% neutral remark), specifically those of the former tradeskill dev, you bring up how long ago he left and exclaim I (or we, if you're referencing crafters as a whole) can't "hold a grudge forever" or should get over it because it's so long ago and it was under a different development team, etc. You're doing the same thing, you hold the time with the 'Gards in such high esteem no other team could ever measure up in any way.

Maroger

03-27-2009, 03:13 PM

Personally I think the best example of communication was Gallenite. He actually explained stuff in detail and was probably, IMHO, the best designer/producer EQ2 ever had or ever will had. Too bad they can't bring him back at least as a consultant.

Naughtesn

03-27-2009, 03:42 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ongoing subclass feedback: This should be established in the existing subclass forums. Locked threads containing existing class issues as percieved by the players should be created, and edited by a subclass representative on a regular basis, using feedback within the forum. One 'top ten issues' thread should be established and modified as developer responses come in. The community representative should have the ability to create polls using posted issues from the forums in order to establish what the top ten issues really are. Ideally, these polls would make use of the /survey command in-game.<hr />Itemization feedback: This should be handled similar to class feedback, with a community representative in charge of maintaining a locked thread with top issues. Due to the sheer number of items in the game, this will probably need to be longer than a top ten. Something like top 25 itemization issues or top 50 might be more appropriate.</blockquote>You don't need a community representative to post feedback about issues. Most class forums have a list of issues and if yours doesnt have one feel free to start one. You can include itemization issues in here as well. These are the first place we will look when investigating issues. Just keep in mind though that we won't necessarily fix every bullet point or fix it in the manner perscribed in the thread but we do read those threads.</blockquote>Honestly, we would never know - no one even stops by to comment, acknowledge or otherwise admit the existence of the issue thread, in most cases. /hint summoner thread.One good way of keeping those threads productive and constructive is to at least stop by....otherwise it tends to spiral out of control then get feedback from a dev that "Oh we son't read that because it has too many 'Change this NOW''s and 'OMG and WT*''s.But ignoring them completely is kinda insulting, particularly when you and other devs are either a) responding directly to posts saying 'ATTN DEVS' or 'HEY AERALIK' or b) popping in some fluff thread to offer a fluff comment or c) popping in a real issue thread , making a comment, but ignoring the issue of the OP. So it isn't always that you don't have the time to read or reply.....just saying.A periodic "Hey, you are on the radar! Great job on the issue thread! or even, "Suck it up - you aren't broken!" would be nice.

Yimway

03-27-2009, 04:38 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally I think the best example of communication was Gallenite. He actually explained stuff in detail and was probably, IMHO, the best designer/producer EQ2 ever had or ever will had. Too bad they can't bring him back at least as a consultant.</blockquote>I hold him responsible for soloquest and will never involve myself with a title he touches again.

Froed20

03-27-2009, 04:49 PM

Rijacki

03-27-2009, 04:58 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally I think the best example of communication was Gallenite. He actually explained stuff in detail and was probably, IMHO, the best designer/producer EQ2 ever had or ever will had. Too bad they can't bring him back at least as a consultant.</blockquote>I hold him responsible for soloquest and will never involve myself with a title he touches again.</blockquote>This underscores what I was saying before. One person sees, remembers things differently than another. If one really really likes thus and so, they'll remember it in a more positive light. If they don't like something, they'll remember it in a more negative light. It doesn't make either perception wrong, actually.The ONLY thing that can be said with 100% surity is that it is a different team which as a different approach. They may have things they need to improve on with their communication style. In the past there was a different team with a different communication style (that some liked, some didn't, and some excused, especially the more time that passes) that probably had elements which could be improved on.

ShinGoku

03-27-2009, 05:15 PM

Yimway

03-27-2009, 05:19 PM

<cite>ShinGoku wrote:</cite><blockquote>With the greatest of respect, the class forums are absolutely the last place I like to post issues as no dev ever posts in them. You yourself have only posted in the monk forums twice in the last year at my last check (haven't checked recently) and please don't take this as an attack, its truly not, this is just me showing some frustration in general.</blockquote>I have to agree, the class forums are a vapid wasteland on the official forums. Just the occasional noob asking the same questions that have been asked 1000x.IMO, asign class leads and moderators for these forum sections similar to how flames runs theirs. If we can't manage the threads, sticky important information, and make them somehow more meaningful, players just wont use them.I'd have to dig back a long way to find something useful in the guard class forums here.

Nuhus

03-27-2009, 05:59 PM

The class forums seem relatively inactive, looking back I'm not so sure the general gameplay was a good addition to the forums. It's become much like SWG's. Everyone wants to post there because that's where most of the activity is. IMO it should be scrapped.

Kendricke

03-27-2009, 06:17 PM

<cite>Nuhus wrote:</cite><blockquote>The class forums seem relatively inactive, looking back I'm not so sure the general gameplay was a good addition to the forums. It's become much like SWG's. Everyone wants to post there because that's where most of the activity is. IMO it should be scrapped.</blockquote>Absolutely. Red posts are seen as rewards. If red posts occur more in forum X than in forum Y, then that's going to be seen as incentive. If developers want more interest in forum Y, they could easily encourage that with just a few posts.

Gaige

03-27-2009, 06:25 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I hold him responsible for soloquest and will never involve myself with a title he touches again.</blockquote>Heh. Someone who doesn't like Gallenite. That is pretty rare.

Deson

03-27-2009, 06:28 PM

<cite>Gage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I hold him responsible for soloquest and will never involve myself with a title he touches again.</blockquote>Heh. Someone who doesn't like Gallenite. That is pretty rare.</blockquote>Yeah well he did close on RoK, the only expansion that actually made me quit.

dawy

03-27-2009, 09:59 PM

I think given the huge improvements Gallenite made from when he took over i think we should forgive him for ROK.The game was a shambles before he got ahold of it and dragged it kicking and screaming into the present day.

CuCullain

03-28-2009, 01:21 AM

Danelin

03-28-2009, 06:54 AM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ongoing subclass feedback: This should be established in the existing subclass forums. Locked threads containing existing class issues as percieved by the players should be created, and edited by a subclass representative on a regular basis, using feedback within the forum. One 'top ten issues' thread should be established and modified as developer responses come in. The community representative should have the ability to create polls using posted issues from the forums in order to establish what the top ten issues really are. Ideally, these polls would make use of the /survey command in-game.<hr />Itemization feedback: This should be handled similar to class feedback, with a community representative in charge of maintaining a locked thread with top issues. Due to the sheer number of items in the game, this will probably need to be longer than a top ten. Something like top 25 itemization issues or top 50 might be more appropriate.</blockquote>You don't need a community representative to post feedback about issues. Most class forums have a list of issues and if yours doesnt have one feel free to start one. You can include itemization issues in here as well. These are the first place we will look when investigating issues. Just keep in mind though that we won't necessarily fix every bullet point or fix it in the manner perscribed in the thread but we do read those threads.</blockquote>You're right. The point of a community representative with limited forum administration is not because it is strictly necessary. The point is to get people who are willing to do it to increase the bi-directional flow of communication. A good community representative will read through the various and poorly connected threads of their class forums and draw together what the potential issues are, then narrow it down. They will be able to edit the thread where it is contained in order to add responses, allowing for whichever dev is working most closely with a specific aspect of one of the issues to simply PM them and they can then edit current response to the bullet points. One of the points is that you do read those threads, but you very rarely respond to them. The existing communication (and the fact that forums have been broken on more than one occasion since launch) results in these forums being FAR less active than their EQ equivelants ever were. If the feedback methods improve, that could very well change.I do realize that itemization complaints could be kept seperated into the subclass threads, but it is not very effective for most gear, as only top-end raid gear tends to be subclass specific. There will always be other people with access to the same items, and having a consolidated location to do that feedback in would be beneficial overall.Also as an additional note - While I know the dev team doesn't have time to give a detailed response to every bullet point in a feedback forum, it wouldn't take that long to do a bullet by bullet quick response. Something like:<ul><li>Guardian taunts are numerically inferior to a standard autoattack (Being reviewed)</li><li>Unyielding will should trigger after all other forms of death prevention (No change planned at this time)</li></ul>Something as simple as this, hopefully with some form of regular updates (I believe the EQ1 dev team did it once per month after the guild summit) would go a long way toward making it feel like the communication street goes two ways.Thank you for responding to some part of my post.

Bhagpuss

03-28-2009, 07:23 AM

<cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please, let's not degenerate into bickering.As for the communication plan for the future... We're working on coming up with several different options that we feel can best serve everyone.When we get the details hammered out on these, I'll present them to you and we'll figure out which of them works best from your point of view.Personally, I want whatever plan we eventually settle on to be as inclusive as possible. While not all of the feedback we get will necessarily be useable, it will all be valuable as a measure of where you guys are with the game. From there, we'll try and get all of us to the happy middle ground.</blockquote>As I just commented on another thread, how representative are views expressed on forums of the average player? I know you can only work with what you get, but in all my years of playing MMOs, when I have talked in guilds or channels about debates that are taking place on that game's official forums, few people have even been aware the discussions were taking place and virtually no-one had actually participated.Personally, I preferred it when game designers had their own ideas on the game they wanted to make and players made the decision either to go along with it or look elsewhere. I don't think it's possible to please all the people all the time, and the harder you try, the fewer people end up pleased.The way most MMOs have gone seems to be towards a collaboration between the game designers and the most motivated, articulate and assertive player factions (often, but not always, bleeding-edge guilds). It's no coincidence that MMOs seem to have the greatest clarity of purpose and individuality in the first few months after launch (once the bugs are largely squashed), when players are playing the content they have been given with the systems they have yet to parse to destruction and before the debates begin on how it should all be changed.It's probably too late for EQ2 now, which is deeply mired in this quasi-democratic, co-op model, but I'd hope that you might place more weight on your exhaustive logs of in-game activity and your own ideas of where you'd like the game to be heading than on special pleading from the forums.

Lolianna

03-29-2009, 04:33 PM

I 100% agree with Bhagpuss. It will become Everbicker. Changes to the game will take months the development team collaborates with the population. It has already been weeks since they announced their endeavor at more communications and, yet, they are still trying to put together exactly how that will work. Can you imagine how long it will take to repair the game once they do start conversing with all 24 classes?I'm surprised SoE is even taking this direction, since it is clear the population will never agree with one another about their own class role, much less the roles of others. In the end, there will always be someone unhappy. As Bhagpuss said, there is no pleasing everyone.The game will have to read: Welcome to Everbicker: where your only quest is for dps. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I'm sticking around for now, just for the entertainment value. The new direction will either raise EQ2 to new heights, or, the game will crash and burn as it chases it's tail trying to make everyone happy in all 24 classes. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground atm. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Gilasil

03-29-2009, 06:30 PM

I have to agree with you too. For the most part, the views of most of the vocal people posting in these forums don't correspond with the rank and file people I talk to in game. I have seen people here present themselves as uber players of their class and then give HORRIBLE advice to newbies; most likely because it's been so long since they were a newbie in that class they've completely forgotten key points (Example: don't tell a level 20 brawler to feign flop all the way through a long and difficult area packed with heroic mobs. They won't make it with their 50% feign death. That doesn't keep people with a 98% feign death from telling them to do it). I shudder to think what would happen to a class if those arrogant uber players had control of the direction of their class.Personally, I don't think the hate changes were all THAT bad. It looks like couple dozen or so people playing fighters -- who forgot that their job was tanking and not DPS -- have killed the whole revamp.Moral of the story: You CAN influence the direction of the game. You don't have to be in the majority. Just get a dozen friends, sit on the boards and throw tantrums. Basically the same approach spoiled kids use to get what they want.If SoE listens to that kind of *input* then this game is dead.

Prestissimo

03-29-2009, 07:23 PM

The hate changes were a great thing in their concept, but it's excecution was poor. THATs what all the bickering was over. If they can do the fighter revamp without castrating a class and riping out the one thing that class is able to bring to a group or raid that makes them desireable beyond standing there and being a meat shield that can afk tank by spaming the 1-6 buttons, and (the major one) actually succeeds in doing what it was intended to do, then by all means send it on through to live.The revamp punished those that desired to get better at their class by making those efforts trivialised since tanking in general became way to easy from level 1 up to 80 until you reached a break point in group member's dps where you were forced to become good at understanding how to min/max your class to progress. Tank's hate was going to be solely reliant on their aggression, and their taunt spell quality and nothing else until you reach a level of dps that taunts cannot hold hate anymore because the taunts were not able to be increased past that point. At lower levels, there is NO aggression gear which means tank taunt masters will be so rediculously desired that it will make them effectively unobtainable other than by the proposed RA. It also means that tanks will be severely punished by doing anything in their AA tree other than pooling into taunts alone, and unlike all other classes, that leaves all tanks with ONE way to build all tank specs and it destroys any individualism they could have until they've capped out taunts and aggression to it's effective limit and have about 160 AAs. Since the hate increasing gear only drops from the high end raid content, it's effectively come past it's usefull point and those tanks are already using dps oriented gear, and the revamp has caused people to deviate even further and harder from the tank's intended focus due to lack of itemization across the entire board that is sorely needed before that revamp goes live. That means that in addition to the revamp, basically all tank gear in all levels needs to additionally be revamped in order for the hate change to work, and the developers did not indicate any intention of doing that much gear changing if any at all.For the instancers and non-raiders, it meant that you'd have to min/max at the point when a dps class has a good group setup and full T2 shard armor with decent jewelry from the group instances, and the mythical weapon will push them above the point where taunts can reach. Therefore, every tank will STILL either make or break their hate control by dpsing, or you will effectively no longer be able to run with anyone that is actually good at dpsing and it will punish those that are actually skilled at their jobs on pure dps classes more than anyone else and it will force alot of tanks to run with either people that are worse geared or that have no clue what they're doing and the revamp will fail in it's goal due to those bleeding-edge raiders that the revamp was intended to focus on and completely neglected to address at all.The revamp was if nothing else actually a detrimental thing to the longevity of EQ2 only because of the cause/effect it would have had in it's current state since it essencially would have done nothing to the majority of instances and raids. The intended target of the revamp was to make tanks no longer tank by dps, yet it reinforced that sentiment three times harder than before, and it would make life a little more annoying and complicated while easy streeting it for everyone else along the way and teaching them that you did not need to know anything about your class, hate, or dpsing, just spamming the taunt buttons and then slapping them in the face at the end with the task of learning how to min/max before they can go anywhere despite their trip up to that point.I agree 100% with Bhagpuss (well, other than the go with it or leave it part), but let me also say that regardless of the fact that there are alot of players whether it be raiders or just those that are out of touch with where they stand in the pecking order screaming bloody nerf of appocalypse proportions when it really isn't, there are a few of us that actually do have a very valid point that is being overlooked or scoffed at or being discredited because others think that this person is one of those that is an out of touch or out of place player. There are also those of us that have been noobs, have been extreme raiders, have been heavily involved crafters, and still remember all of the above. It's actually rather insulting when someone believes that just because you have a "vested interest" that you are also keeping in mind and trying to advocate what you believe to be in defense of the future well being of others and their future progressions.