Dev Diary - February 2017

[Collateral]

The idea of sets giving anywhere between 2-5 MP is good imo. That way sets open different builds as well, not only provide stats. And I'm not saying points in certain tree, but points in general. I am also not sure if I agree with RR not giving MP anymore. We will see.

There are so many possibilities when you look at the trees, I can speak for the BO myself. The Boss tree is pretty much useless when compared to the other two. It's a really interesting tree though, I would like to try out, but the abbilites themselves could be made much better, they could be similar to guardians in GW2, with some group healing and all that (but that's another topic).

[Soulcheg]

Spoiler:

We do it for the salt. Specifically because it annoys you.

Seems legit. We can rollback to RR40 instead. Want to be absolutely certain it feels like too much.

We do what we must, because we can.

We will do more or less as we please, and you're along for the ride. Read the rules, and stop whining for the sake of whining.

I really hope that old Wargrimnir is just sold his account, and this is a new member of a team under his account.

Warning given, read the rules and show staff respect - Torque

[Eathisword]

Ahhh, I guess we wait and see. But like many others, although I am very happy with the majority of changes announced (mainly renown ability rebuilds)... the mastery points uncertainty concern me.

2H IB and BG, my 2 main classes, are already close to the bottom of the tank food chain... yet they both require 29 points (40-RR70) for optimum specs, be it for solo play or group play. Whereas knight, for example, can easily get all he needs (DT, ST, FM and SC) with 23 points at level 38...

I understand nothing is set in stone atm probably, but I feel like there is room for legitimate concerns from the players here.

[Luth]

No one wrote explicitely that additional mastery points are removed in the future.

Spoiler:

Renown Mastery
Objectives that we have in changing the system will be to address power creep, in particular the backend advantages of a free mastery point every 10 RR’s.

This could also mean that the additional mastery points will be available to everyone (regardless of renown rank), or they will be removed, or something else will be done (including "nothing").
Just wait until more information is available; flooding the forum with salt won't affect any decision. Everyone is aware that some classes profit from some additional mastery points, while it makes virtually no difference for others.

[Dresden]

.

[Morf]

Oversights happen and have happened with ror in the past, no "salt" just concerns.

I would think that being open in regards to what mastery changes are coming can only be a good thing, whats to hide ? a few minds behind the scenes may not see an issue that hundreds of players will see.
All we have read is that there will be changes, without knowing what changes to expect ppl will look at what negative impact it could possibly have which can never be a bad thing because thats where you find problems that may arise and can fix them before 20 pages of whining if something didnt go quite right.

[Dresden]

Oversights happen and have happened with ror in the past, no "salt" just concerns.

I would think that being open in regards to what mastery changes are coming can only be a good thing, whats to hide ? a few minds behind the scenes may not see an issue that hundreds of players will see.
All we have read is that there will be changes, without knowing what changes to expect ppl will look at what negative impact it could possibly have which can never be a bad thing because thats where you find problems that may arise and can fix them before 20 pages of whining if something didnt go quite right.

Indeed.

#LongLiveRoR

[wargrimnir]

Oversights happen and have happened with ror in the past, no "salt" just concerns.

I would think that being open in regards to what mastery changes are coming can only be a good thing, whats to hide ? a few minds behind the scenes may not see an issue that hundreds of players will see.
All we have read is that there will be changes, without knowing what changes to expect ppl will look at what negative impact it could possibly have which can never be a bad thing because thats where you find problems that may arise and can fix them before 20 pages of whining if something didnt go quite right.

Unfortunately a large portion of players that would offer such help have repeatedly shown bias towards their own personal preferences and would push in that direction, rather than the direction we're aiming for. That, or show up for "discussion" simply to argue and stifle any direction at all to maintain the status quo. This drives dev teams to being more and more particular about who is allowed to whisper in their ears. We're no exception.

Back-end power creep means, the higher up the ranks you go, the more powerful you become. What we can do about this was not detailed, or specific, because we haven't worked out a solid series of changes that would address it. What was mentioned, is that when we do rework a system of this sort it would be accompanied by a Renown rollback. The nature of a dev diary in the first place is to give a guide to what we're looking at working on next. If it were done, we would just release it.

[bloodi]

Unfortunately a large portion of players that would offer such help have repeatedly shown bias towards their own personal preferences and would push in that direction, rather than the direction we're aiming for. That, or show up for "discussion" simply to argue and stifle any direction at all to maintain the status quo. This drives dev teams to being more and more particular about who is allowed to whisper in their ears. We're no exception.

This makes little sense, players are biased i agree but why would a biased player giving a biased opinion change anything?

What people is asking is what are you going to do with masteries, nothing more, saying "we cant tell because people are biased out there" is nonsensical.

[sotora]

Unfortunately a large portion of players that would offer such help have repeatedly shown bias towards their own personal preferences and would push in that direction, rather than the direction we're aiming for. That, or show up for "discussion" simply to argue and stifle any direction at all to maintain the status quo. This drives dev teams to being more and more particular about who is allowed to whisper in their ears. We're no exception.

Back-end power creep means, the higher up the ranks you go, the more powerful you become. What we can do about this was not detailed, or specific, because we haven't worked out a solid series of changes that would address it. What was mentioned, is that when we do rework a system of this sort it would be accompanied by a Renown rollback. The nature of a dev diary in the first place is to give a guide to what we're looking at working on next. If it were done, we would just release it.

I think that in at least some cases such view of player posts is unwarranted.

In example in this particular case we're speaking of - it is not clear what exactly in the overarching goal. I think most people that commented read and understood that immediate goal is to adress back-end power creep, but what is overarching goal? Renown rank is alternative levelling which does bring more power. If direction of changes is to remove such back-end power creep from game - then what function of renown rank is the goal that your direction strive for? Just bragging rights? Something else?

I think people in staff too often categorize concerns of user base as partisan tactic to sabotage changes and keep status quo.
Me in example - I haven't even played AOR so I am not a player that stroves for ROR to be AOR clone in order to use my old comfort zone tactics&builds to "pwn noobz".