Asheras wrote on Apr 15^th, 2013 at 11:04am:


And we were right about all of that shit so eat a dick and die in a fire.

rest wrote on Apr 15^th, 2013 at 11:37am:


I am in agreement with everyone who says that Turbine's track record on listening to customer feedback on Lamannia is about as awful as it gets.  They absolutely have dropped that ball a thousand times.  I can't really fathom why they would even release something like this in an Alpha format and try to convince the player base that it is going to be different.  The player base is too jaded at this point. 

It's a very poor marketing choice on their part.

I just wish they would take the DnD name off of this abortion, then they could do whatever they want with this leftover.

Asheras wrote on Apr 15^th, 2013 at 11:47am:


Given that this is coming from a turbine apologist...


lolz thanks for the laugh

oh, and seriously, shut the fuck up moron.

Asheras wrote on Apr 15^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Panic? I don't see any of that here. What I see is a bitter disappointment, combined with a high degree of skepticism that is solidly based on experience with this group of developers. Devs like Eladrin are in love with their own work, and cannot see flaws in the same way that every mother thinks her child is beautiful.

I'm familiar with alpha - back in the late 90s I used to run the Mozilla milestone builds for my main web browser, and I ran Debian Sid for years as well.

Alpha means it mostly works, the core is done, it has bugs, most of the features are in place, and it is testable. It would be comparable to 50% design drawings for a building. A 50% design that looks like a straw hut is not going to turn into the Empire State Building by the time of the construction drawings, just like an alpha version that looks like a Lada is not going to metamorphize into a Mercedes. This is not the cocoon that is concealing a beautiful butterfly. They passed that stage months ago during the scoping, requirements, and other planning work.

I write a lot of reports at my job. If I were to:

• spend four years discussing what I am going to deliver in detail
• during that period, produce a few sections that are complete, and a few others that are half-done, and tweak them based on feedback
• solicit feedback on the remainder
• commit to finishing the job, and
• show up a year later with a draft report written in crayon that ignored the feedback, tossed out the approved sections that were completed in the past four years, and delivered on only a tiny fraction of the report that was promised.....

...yeah, pretty sure I'd get shown the door.

By the way, I logged on to Lama on Thursday and Friday, reviewed the cleric trees in detail, ran a comparison with live enhancements on a character, posted 10 bug reports, and wrote a bunch of what you would doubtless consider to be dooOOoooOmmMMmm on the lama forums.

Kimberlite wrote on Apr 15^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:


At least we have a chance of getting a free tech, though.

pape wrote on Apr 15^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:


This shows how clueless you really are.  Stop posting, dumbass.  Grown ups are trying to have a conversation.

Quote:


I'm with you Gawna.  And others who don't like some of the classes that were released in this first week.  Especially those who are upset about the Cleric stuff.  The Cleric domains look really weak so far.  To call the Cleric stuff half baked would be a compliment.  There are very few veteran clerics who are all that worried about healing.  Most play their cleric to do something else (offensive cast, CC, melee, etc).  To leave off those features is unacceptable.

At a bigger picture design level: Trees are fine for requiring a minimum level to access/minimum AP spent to access (so that a 2 level splash can't get serious class features) but requiring a lot of pre-reqs in terms of other specific enhancements is dicey.  That leads to having to spend AP on things that might not be adding any value to the build.  That should be reserved for the PrE paths and a few special exceptions.  Most of the regular stuff should become automatically select-able at a certain class level and/or total AP spend (not just spend in that tree).

Look, I'm not saying it is all good and I'm happy with what I'm seeing in the new Enhancement Trees that have been released.  But I've seen several people on this and the other forums getting really aggravated about the entire thing (including classes that haven't even been documented yet) and having it affect their current desire to play the game today.  And I just don't get that level anguish at this point in the process.

YOU ARE CLEARLY AT 2:15 AND THE REST OF US ARE AT 6:00 WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU(#)*$)@(#*$@_)#  -Belwaar

Feedback is a double-edged sword.  While it's good to hear critiques early in the design process,  people don't like it when their critiques are discounted.  It also takes a lot of effort to address ALL of the feedback, including that which is discounted.  It's not easy, and frankly, I think it's rare to find someone who can do a good job at gathering, categorizing, and finally addressing feedback.  At some point someone will need to make decisions, and not all comments will be addressed, and people will get mad. 

At any rate, I agree that the vast majority feedback on Lammania has historically been met with deafening silence.  It doesn't foster confidence.  I'd like to believe that Turbine has done what's necessary to ensure they manage and address comments in a controlled fashion, but I have huge doubts.

As for the content of the changes, eh, I'm not as worked up about them as some.  DDO is already "not-D&D" to me, so it's more a comparison of the merits of one system vs. the other.  I always felt the PrE system was clunky and incomplete, and a lot of the costs out-of-whack.  I'm not terribly disappointed about overhauling it. 

I understand that people have a lot vested in their characters.  It's hard to accept change if you can't see how it will be better.  If Turbine wants people to put down the pitchforks, they need to create a clear picture of how this system is better than the existing system and then sing it loud.  Still, this may be the change that brings me back after a 6 month hiatus, even if it's just out of curiosity.

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt for now to the devs and assume they are working on all the feedback. How, I don't know, and that's the problem I have.

When I was at the Turbine PAX party, I got into a discussion about communication with the player base with Jerry and Gazebo. I told them that one of , on bugr biggest problems (in case it wasn't obvious) was the spotty communication with the players. In any business, that communication and perception of whether the business is actually listening or not is absolutely vital, and in a situation like Turbine has where there is already a bad perception, it's even more so. I told them  that constant communication engaging the players and acknowledging their concerns while trying to address them as much as possible (including on the forums) was the way it should function.

This is a prime example. There are definitely serious issues with the enhancement pass. I appreciate that it is alpha and they are bringing it early so we can have feedback and they can act before it's too late. I also assume that they are taking our feedback and working frantically on it before they hit deadlines. MajMal has said as much. But what there is lacking is engagement with the players about their concerns. There is almost nothing like, "I hear your concerns about spell pen, and we are looking at ways to address that before beta." or "Can you explain exactly how you feel the additional skills for spellpower and heal will affect your builds so we can have something concrete to compare?" or ANYTHING like that. MajMal has tried a bit, but his job is such that he is too busy to constantly be on the forums. Squeak has tried a little bit too. But for the magnitude of the changes and concerns, there is simply not enough communication and engagement. And when that happens, players will assume the worst and stop engaging in a constructive manner.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Kimberlite wrote on Apr 15^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:


Asheras wrote on Apr 15^th, 2013 at 11:04am:


Each of these changes detracted from the game significantly, IMO.  The Tempest change ruined TWF Rangers and exploiters.  The offhand proc and the speed of attack is what made these builds enjoyable.  Replacing that with a shitty doublestrike didn't make up for what was lost.  I couldn't pay my Exploiter anymore because it just didn't feel fun anymore.  The AC changes made a flawed system worse.  The To-Hit changes that went them are a debacle.  My opinion on the store is well known so I'll skip that.  These changes are what drove myself and others away from this game. 

Quote:


This.  These enhancement changes are going to have a far and wide impact on one of the few remain pieces of DnD that keeps people playing.  Build diversity and the ability to create and experiment with builds. 

It is Alpha so it could change but they are pretty obviously set on the trees which is no different than WoW, SWTOR, etc.  Each class gets three trees and a limited number of points and you funnel up the tree.  This is a big difference from the current overall points spent and level method. A lot of builds will be severely impacted.

Grace wrote on Apr 15^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:


That's why I said that properly managing and addressing feedback is a tough job, and one that requires dedicated resources.  I'm not sure Turbine recognizes or understands how to do it, and that's why I have huge doubts about their ability to pull it off to satisfaction.