Log in

View Full Version : As intended...


SageMarrow
03-23-2005, 07:44 PM
<DIV> <DIV>The point of this thread to is to shed light on an issue and a term that we, i, and every poster that has posted anything about class balance and just about any issue at all for that matter very loosely.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As intended is a great term that we seem to use in almost any given situation where something is not working properly, as WE think it should based upon snippits of developer information.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This most recent discovery within the fighter archetype balance **issue** tends to make one question what validity that the phrase, "working as intended" holds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now first thought honestly is always, well moorguard told me so. But how often does a spell do something totally different from its description? How often are classes nerfed before any fixes at all have been made? In this most recent issue, how broken is the system in place within itself and what measures will have to be taken in order to alleviate the **issue**.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Since we can all agree that outside of "in testing" notes, they are just as flexible in opinion and overall game direction as any player is, just sometimes from a seemingly more sheltered point of view.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, given that moorguards past few post have illustrated a small lack of patience in his approach as though he is constantly trying to passively and tactfully calm fire storms, which can be hard to do. We all have different expectations of everquest 2 -- some perfection, others "just be decent enough". </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Either way i propose a more stabalized approach to matters such as these, also given that a both quick and efficient solution is needed on the present issue, (which will be nearly impossible to achieve both saying as though they are still in the "talking about it" phase) we should instead of bickering and spending a full month amongst ourselves in times like these, we should merely ask for what we think is needed based upon the core concepts of what balance is supposed to be in this game overall. and respect anothers opinion to the extent of critiquing it, instead of striking it down with holy rath because it does not co-inside with your own. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In order to both hasten the development process, as well as get a rounded sense of what everyone is experiencing at a given time, on a given issue, and come to a conclusion that will befit everyone at once as to lose this, " i dont care if you dont like it, i want it this way" mentality.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just a thought. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>peace.</DIV></DIV>

node1
03-23-2005, 08:31 PM
"Intended" in this case is that monks should have clearly higher avoidance than other fighters and yet they do not in all cases, what is to discuss? or am I missing the point of your post, it's hard to discern what your actually talking about amidst all the waffle. <div></div>

NeVeRLi
03-24-2005, 02:14 AM
I think the dev's are seeing that the combat in EQ2 is flawed and needs some tuning and tweaking. In most cases the monsters are conned wrong and dmg out put and the rate they hit you does not scale correct. The game needs to be fun and a challenge and its neither. In PF now the lvl 49 bears are easier to kill than the lvl 44 fright skeletons... is this intended? This just something I noticed since I solo alot and spend hours LFG. I personally dont feel challeneged soloing anything thats a solo mob. Yes somethings hit me more and others dont. (I'm not talking about caster type monsters that nuke with say Nil Distortion, I dont mess with any type caster monster since they nuke for insane damage... example is lvl 45-49 wizards and warlocks soloing lvl46-49^^). I see the ^^ group monsters either to easy or to hard there is no balance or scaling its either they dont hit you and if they do its for low damage or they hit you all the time and hit you for 500 - 1,300+ damage. Goodluck with balancing this dev's. <div></div>