Patch Notes 23/10/2020

[hammerhead]

It would be nice for every (meaningful) patch to have a short note for the new forum bot to fill out. You don't need any names or personal opinions. The internal kitchen must remain a secret. And the forum fighters will have food for thought and some minimum on which to rely in their holy wars.

[Silverbow100]

Imagine there's longer more detailed conversations, or even arguments, about what to do with each balance change and it wasn't a simple whimsical swapping of some data. We don't need to have those hard conversations with a hundred more people on the forums, you guys are doing just fine talking to each other.

Also imagine giving a long-form explanation, as requested, to have a single point cherry-picked, misrepresented, so you can ask for it to be reverted, ignoring all other context of the post. I'm sure that's going to generate a desire to post long-form reasoning for balance changes in the future right?

Isn't it a bit... hypocritical of you to say this? Considering there have been many a long-form explanation(Which as you pointed out is requested apparently) Only to have you, exceedingly rudely might i add, cherry pick and mis-represent, and ignore all context of the post? O.o Take this how you wish, just pointing out facts. You should try responding positively to good(or even bad) feedback rather than... doing the thing you tell others not to do. What is the saying? Treat others how you wish to be treated. You don't see Secrets or any others treating people on the forum and suggestions as rudely as you do, regardless of how they act or what they say. Again, take this how you wish, I'm just trying to understand why the point-guard GM on the forums is so astoundingly rude.

[hammerhead]

Imagine there's longer more detailed conversations, or even arguments, about what to do with each balance change and it wasn't a simple whimsical swapping of some data. We don't need to have those hard conversations with a hundred more people on the forums, you guys are doing just fine talking to each other.

Also imagine giving a long-form explanation, as requested, to have a single point cherry-picked, misrepresented, so you can ask for it to be reverted, ignoring all other context of the post. I'm sure that's going to generate a desire to post long-form reasoning for balance changes in the future right?

Isn't it a bit... hypocritical of you to say this? Considering there have been many a long-form explanation(Which as you pointed out is requested apparently) Only to have you, exceedingly rudely might i add, cherry pick and mis-represent, and ignore all context of the post? O.o Take this how you wish, just pointing out facts. You should try responding positively to good(or even bad) feedback rather than... doing the thing you tell others not to do. What is the saying? Treat others how you wish to be treated. You don't see Secrets or any others treating people on the forum and suggestions as rudely as you do, regardless of how they act or what they say. Again, take this how you wish, I'm just trying to understand why the point-guard GM on the forums is so astoundingly rude.

Probably because many of us deserve it. You accept some kind of change as the final stage of the project and after that there are two types of absolutely childish reactions. Or you first require five pages of a detailed report so that you can send, demand to return everything as it was. Or try to manipulate the condition that you and everyone together with you leave the project immediately and this project isn't worth the time.
People made a project for themselves and gave you a try on a voluntary basis. You use an argument like my class is offended and that means the project and developers are bad. In that case, Wargrimnir reaction is understandable. He does not protect a specific ability or your class, he protects what is dear to him the people behind the project whom you do not care and do not know but pounce on them as if you have the right to do so. You've been given something for mega hours of work and cleaning. And you, in gratitude, go into someone else's house and spit in the corners.

[wargrimnir]

Imagine there's longer more detailed conversations, or even arguments, about what to do with each balance change and it wasn't a simple whimsical swapping of some data. We don't need to have those hard conversations with a hundred more people on the forums, you guys are doing just fine talking to each other.

Also imagine giving a long-form explanation, as requested, to have a single point cherry-picked, misrepresented, so you can ask for it to be reverted, ignoring all other context of the post. I'm sure that's going to generate a desire to post long-form reasoning for balance changes in the future right?

Isn't it a bit... hypocritical of you to say this? Considering there have been many a long-form explanation(Which as you pointed out is requested apparently) Only to have you, exceedingly rudely might i add, cherry pick and mis-represent, and ignore all context of the post? O.o Take this how you wish, just pointing out facts. You should try responding positively to good feedback rather than... doing the thing you tell others not to do. What is the saying? Treat others how you wish to be treated. You don't see Secrets or any others treating people on the forum and suggestions as rudely as you do.

There have been direct responses on this change. Go back to page 3 when I gave a brief answer. It was met with hostility. I don't have infinite patience.
I responded a second time on page 12 to warn about TOS violations.
Secrets responded on page 13 with his thoughts.
Ramlaen reflected on a single line of Secrets long form response, and in the only other sentence of his post, asked for the change to be revoked. Not much of a conversation there.
I responded with the above, as I felt picking out a single line of Secrets recollection of events from several months/years ago was unfair to make that sort of assessment, particularly with all the other context he gave. Not exactly inspiring future dev interaction on the forums.

This isn't a complicated change, we were aware it would be an unpopular one, I warned as much during our brief discussion on it. However, it opens up the ability for us to make future changes. Balance conversations internally can be brief, or they can go on for days or weeks. When we find consensus things usually move quickly.

The problem with being hypercritical and accusatory is none of the staff here are required to explain themselves. They do it for their own reasons. Generally I think it's a great thing when devs are forthcoming about changes, and I personally enjoy reading long form thoughts on them myself. I would encourage that sort of response. That doesn't happen when a thread is filled with insinuations of poor intent, biases, and harassment. If you, in the broad generalized sense, want devs to talk on the forums, then you should be quite a bit more respectful and welcoming so they actually feel like it's worth their time.

Otherwise you get me, because I get to patrol the forums for people breaking our rules. My role is not optional, and there's not a lot of desire to moderate forums these days. Lots of thankless work with no payoff and a bunch of angry players yelling into the void. When I come off grumpy, it's because I am. If you catch the wrong end of it and it's not deserved, I apologize in advance. Maybe I should put that in my signature.

[nat3s]

In my opinion, the next round of changes, if any, should be aimed at reverting Knights/Chosens, then Ranged SH, then 2H Choppa / 2H Slayer plus a re-tune of Choppa's standard 1h AOE abilities versus the output of Slayer 1h AOE abilities, followed by AM/Shaman mechanic changes, and that's it. Maybe something to solve the fact that WH triggers their bullets on finishers only which leads to WE having a massive advantage in that field.

Wow agree with all of that, particularly the ordering. That would make an excellent developer roadmap, these few lines more than anything else in this thread have sold so much confidence in the dev team from my perspective. You should really consider some sort of roadmap blog that goes into a bit more detail around these.

Spot on!

Some personal suggestions: Sham/AM AP drain needs toning down, it's an i-win button at present where it doesn't interrupt detaunt. Perhaps bring up the heal specs as compensation. Not sure about WH, if you buff their finishers whilst leaving them with the double Parry buffs, why would anyone roll a WE? As it is WH destroys WE in a 1v1 which is a lot of your fights as a stealther.

[anarchypark]

Spoiler:

Imagine there's longer more detailed conversations, or even arguments, about what to do with each balance change and it wasn't a simple whimsical swapping of some data. We don't need to have those hard conversations with a hundred more people on the forums, you guys are doing just fine talking to each other.

Also imagine giving a long-form explanation, as requested, to have a single point cherry-picked, misrepresented, so you can ask for it to be reverted, ignoring all other context of the post. I'm sure that's going to generate a desire to post long-form reasoning for balance changes in the future right?

Wait, your argument against long form reasoning for balance changes is because different people respond to different parts of a long list of topics?

But since you made the assertion, what did I misrepresent here;
-snipping big image-

Just to be clear because keyboard warriors LOVE to misrepresent my words taken out of context:

-Natherul wanted to nerf Runefang
-I was opposed to nerfing Runefang because Runefang was very heavily in knight's class identity
-Natherul was adamant on nerfing Runefang, and not giving Chosens an equal nerf - because Chosen was 'in a bad spot' according to him.
-I made the point of, "Well, if you're nerfing Runefang to the same scaling as Daemonclaw, why not mirror them instead as Knight and Chosen are in a similar spot in terms of damage?" which lead to, "No; Knights are too OP and need tuned down."
-There was a 3 hour back and forth about nerfing Runefang and such; eventually, we decided on Mighty Soul as baseline, and the Chosen Mirror of Daemonclaw having Str/WS and Knight having Ini/WP.

In hindsight, I really would have liked this:
-Revert the Mighty Soul tactic changes, revert the knight elemental damage ability changes
-Restore Chosen's old defensive tactic (10% reduced chance to be crit tactic? I think it was)
-Mirror old Runefang with Daemonclaw, but in different trees like they were before (Chosen Daemonclaw in 2h tree, Knight MS in Utility tree, Runefang Baseline, Chosen MS-like ability removed)

and that's it. I don't want too get into any discussion beyond that, and it's clear that Knight and Chosen players are not happy with this change, but that's what I *really* wanted to begin with.

For the record, I am against too much functionality changes. I think those kind of changes are piss-poor, and small incremental value changes serve us much better long-term. New abilities should be introduced only on gear sets in the form of procs or raw stats, and general balance has been fine for quite some time and I remain adamant in keeping it the way it is.

I am pretty sure the team as well is getting sick of wasting time placating specific groups of people because they think something is OP and they think it's unfair the opposite faction has something, and then changing it so the opposite side has something and ending up getting entire swaths of people upset in return, repeating the cycle.

In my opinion, the next round of changes, if any, should be aimed at reverting Knights/Chosens, then Ranged SH, then 2H Choppa / 2H Slayer plus a re-tune of Choppa's standard 1h AOE abilities versus the output of Slayer 1h AOE abilities, followed by AM/Shaman mechanic changes, and that's it. Maybe something to solve the fact that WH triggers their bullets on finishers only which leads to WE having a massive advantage in that field. Those are probably the only classes that need touched, though. Beyond that? I don't agree much else needs adjusting beyond small damage values. Nothing else should be massively sweeping like we have been doing to Knight/Chosen class identity over the last 2 years.

We've already killed every stupidly OP meta mechanic beyond that, and everything else is pretty much down to rock-paper-scissors mechanics at this point, and very few classes are left without a counter of some sorts.

about the runefang and crippling strike.
in my memory, crippling strike was the first attempt to fix this OP class.
it's in offensive tree. doing -25% dmg reduction if u critically hit.
you go offensive all you want, and huge dmg reduction follows.
synergy with aoe, cd decrease, crit buff/debuff.
you know slashing blade and whirling axe, imagine 4k armor doing it as applying dmg reduction too.
back in that era, tactic wasn't able to cleans, iirc.

it was signature and identity of the class. and OP af.
after first attempt, it's value reduced to 10%. then crit buff then something else to daemonclaw.
IMO, defense buff in offense tree was the problem at first place.
balance seems at almost end. but i see reverting discussion.
plz reconsider.

for runefang, problem is same. passively applying OP buffs.
consider their mechanic : aura. do you see the pattern? passive play.
use 1 skill and everything is done automatically. offense+defense

passive play could be one of style. though passively at top effective, that's problem.
plz don't bring them back.
i think passively at mediocre effect, to increase performance you need extra input.
just my 2cent.

[Charon]

Spoiler:

Wait, your argument against long form reasoning for balance changes is because different people respond to different parts of a long list of topics?

But since you made the assertion, what did I misrepresent here;
-snipping big image-

Just to be clear because keyboard warriors LOVE to misrepresent my words taken out of context:

-Natherul wanted to nerf Runefang
-I was opposed to nerfing Runefang because Runefang was very heavily in knight's class identity
-Natherul was adamant on nerfing Runefang, and not giving Chosens an equal nerf - because Chosen was 'in a bad spot' according to him.
-I made the point of, "Well, if you're nerfing Runefang to the same scaling as Daemonclaw, why not mirror them instead as Knight and Chosen are in a similar spot in terms of damage?" which lead to, "No; Knights are too OP and need tuned down."
-There was a 3 hour back and forth about nerfing Runefang and such; eventually, we decided on Mighty Soul as baseline, and the Chosen Mirror of Daemonclaw having Str/WS and Knight having Ini/WP.

In hindsight, I really would have liked this:
-Revert the Mighty Soul tactic changes, revert the knight elemental damage ability changes
-Restore Chosen's old defensive tactic (10% reduced chance to be crit tactic? I think it was)
-Mirror old Runefang with Daemonclaw, but in different trees like they were before (Chosen Daemonclaw in 2h tree, Knight MS in Utility tree, Runefang Baseline, Chosen MS-like ability removed)

and that's it. I don't want too get into any discussion beyond that, and it's clear that Knight and Chosen players are not happy with this change, but that's what I *really* wanted to begin with.

For the record, I am against too much functionality changes. I think those kind of changes are piss-poor, and small incremental value changes serve us much better long-term. New abilities should be introduced only on gear sets in the form of procs or raw stats, and general balance has been fine for quite some time and I remain adamant in keeping it the way it is.

I am pretty sure the team as well is getting sick of wasting time placating specific groups of people because they think something is OP and they think it's unfair the opposite faction has something, and then changing it so the opposite side has something and ending up getting entire swaths of people upset in return, repeating the cycle.

In my opinion, the next round of changes, if any, should be aimed at reverting Knights/Chosens, then Ranged SH, then 2H Choppa / 2H Slayer plus a re-tune of Choppa's standard 1h AOE abilities versus the output of Slayer 1h AOE abilities, followed by AM/Shaman mechanic changes, and that's it. Maybe something to solve the fact that WH triggers their bullets on finishers only which leads to WE having a massive advantage in that field. Those are probably the only classes that need touched, though. Beyond that? I don't agree much else needs adjusting beyond small damage values. Nothing else should be massively sweeping like we have been doing to Knight/Chosen class identity over the last 2 years.

We've already killed every stupidly OP meta mechanic beyond that, and everything else is pretty much down to rock-paper-scissors mechanics at this point, and very few classes are left without a counter of some sorts.

about the runefang and crippling strike.
in my memory, crippling strike was the first attempt to fix this OP class.
it's in offensive tree. doing -25% dmg reduction if u critically hit.
you go offensive all you want, and huge dmg reduction follows.
synergy with aoe, cd decrease, crit buff/debuff.
you know slashing blade and whirling axe, imagine 4k armor doing it as applying dmg reduction too.
back in that era, tactic wasn't able to cleans, iirc.

it was signature and identity of the class. and OP af.
after first attempt, it's value reduced to 10%. then crit buff then something else to daemonclaw.
IMO, defense buff in offense tree was the problem at first place.
balance seems at almost end. but i see reverting discussion.
plz reconsider.

for runefang, problem is same. passively applying OP buffs.
consider their mechanic : aura. do you see the pattern? passive play.
use 1 skill and everything is done automatically. offense+defense

passive play could be one of style. though passively at top effective, that's problem.
plz don't bring them back.
i think passively at mediocre effect, to increase performance you need extra input.
just my 2cent.

additionality - removal of CS was conected or rather balanced by BO/SM and BG changes. Chosen pasive buff/debuff play was nerfed while it st dmg was masivelly increased (st off Chosen outdmgs st off SM + has it cc utilities). Additionality BO got WAAAGH (so op cooldawn decreaser wich destro never had at live) and BG path of Malice rework, which made both BO and BG best offensive rvr tanks in the game. SM got rather inferior version of CS (RT tc) with masive drawbacks and lost it 2-end spirit debuff. This trade off made SM somehow usefull as snb tank while decresed his dmg (at life SM was worst tank in the game...realy) but also reinforced destro tanks dominance over order tanks atleast in rvr/wb play. So if anyone want give Chosen CS or rather RT version again should also implement nerf to BG and BO utilities and Chosen dmg potential.

I dont think those changes are for now usefull for anyone..

[Rumpel]

In my opinion, the next round of changes, if any, should be aimed at reverting Knights/Chosens, then Ranged SH, then 2H Choppa / 2H Slayer plus a re-tune of Choppa's standard 1h AOE abilities versus the output of Slayer 1h AOE abilities, followed by AM/Shaman mechanic changes, and that's it. Maybe something to solve the fact that WH triggers their bullets on finishers only which leads to WE having a massive advantage in that field.

Not sure about WH, if you buff their finishers whilst leaving them with the double Parry buffs, why would anyone roll a WE? As it is WH destroys WE in a 1v1 which is a lot of your fights as a stealther.

Amen. Mirroring pls for both not only one side. The last buff patch to both were perfect.

[KissShot]

In my opinion, the next round of changes, if any, should be aimed at reverting Knights/Chosens, then Ranged SH, then 2H Choppa / 2H Slayer plus a re-tune of Choppa's standard 1h AOE abilities versus the output of Slayer 1h AOE abilities, followed by AM/Shaman mechanic changes, and that's it. Maybe something to solve the fact that WH triggers their bullets on finishers only which leads to WE having a massive advantage in that field.

... Not sure about WH, if you buff their finishers whilst leaving them with the double Parry buffs, why would anyone roll a WE? As it is WH destroys WE in a 1v1 which is a lot of your fights as a stealther.

In my opinion, the next round of changes, if any, should be aimed at reverting Knights/Chosens, then Ranged SH, then 2H Choppa / 2H Slayer plus a re-tune of Choppa's standard 1h AOE abilities versus the output of Slayer 1h AOE abilities, followed by AM/Shaman mechanic changes, and that's it. Maybe something to solve the fact that WH triggers their bullets on finishers only which leads to WE having a massive advantage in that field.

Not sure about WH, if you buff their finishers whilst leaving them with the double Parry buffs, why would anyone roll a WE? As it is WH destroys WE in a 1v1 which is a lot of your fights as a stealther.

Amen. Mirroring pls for both not only one side. The last buff patch to both were perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Deg7VrpHbM

[Rumpel]

In my opinion, the next round of changes, if any, should be aimed at reverting Knights/Chosens, then Ranged SH, then 2H Choppa / 2H Slayer plus a re-tune of Choppa's standard 1h AOE abilities versus the output of Slayer 1h AOE abilities, followed by AM/Shaman mechanic changes, and that's it. Maybe something to solve the fact that WH triggers their bullets on finishers only which leads to WE having a massive advantage in that field.

... Not sure about WH, if you buff their finishers whilst leaving them with the double Parry buffs, why would anyone roll a WE? As it is WH destroys WE in a 1v1 which is a lot of your fights as a stealther.

Not sure about WH, if you buff their finishers whilst leaving them with the double Parry buffs, why would anyone roll a WE? As it is WH destroys WE in a 1v1 which is a lot of your fights as a stealther.

Amen. Mirroring pls for both not only one side. The last buff patch to both were perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Deg7VrpHbM

Reminds me watching Space Jam again.