Changehammer

[Chaoself]

Lately we are having lot of changes, some of em worthless (Destroy Confidence), some of em just crazy (engis), and some others aren't just coming (Black Guard). My question is: Are we really wanting to play Warhammer Online or just a very different game?
Most of us liked the game in every state as it was on live with some bugs, and stuff. Personally I'm used to this non-perfect game with everything on it, good or bad. I don't see the point of changing everything on it. I respect the devs work on this, but i feel like we are not likeing the same game nor playing the same game. But is just an opinion.
P.D: If you are going to say anything about whinning, feel free to leave or stuff, save it for yourself.

[Natherul]

this is not a proposal for gameplay and balance.

Moving thread.

And to answer your question we all love WAR really much but we see potential for so much more in the game. And we are still in alpha, many things are yet to come and change.

[Jaycub]

Destroy Confidence nerf was not worthless, a small minded view that doesn't realize that it's necessary for future balance. Yes knight just switches to focused mending and nothing really changes for now.

Engineer/Magus changes cemented their role as stationary DPS, a few buffs/changes to trees and abilities and they might actually perform on par with other RDPS. The problem is, if anything this buff just made them king of PUG scenarios/ORvR... and honestly who gives a **** about low level play. If you are still having trouble with engineer/magus maybe group up with a healer or non braindead players.

BG isn't getting buffs because Tenton is awol, and I deleted mine so I'm disinterested in making any kind of proposals. There was only 1 proposal for BG, and it made it to discussions btw.


The skeleton crew in charge of WAR near the end, hell even half way through were plain trash. Wanting to preserve their """legacy""" is laughable, the game needs to be balanced.

[Ninepaces]

There was only 1 proposal for BG, and it made it to discussions btw.

Not quite. viewtopic.php?f=97&t=17863
-----------

@OP: I assume BG changes are in the pipeline. But I am concerned they will be the wrong changes.

[Luuca]

Do Like I did, OP, adopt a wait and see attitude. FOTM classes due to buffs never last all that long and the really good players in that class are always formidable. The undergeared and unsupported FOTM players never last long enough to be anything to worry about.

What we have now is a Ranged Heavy Order Balance versus a traditionally Melee Heavy Destro Balance and it's about as much fun as using a running chain saw as a back scratcher in some scenarios and in just about every inch of the ORvR Lakes.

The pendulum will swing back someday. Wait and see.

[daniilpb]

There was only 1 proposal for BG, and it made it to discussions btw.

Not quite. viewtopic.php?f=97&t=17863
-----------

@OP: I assume BG changes are in the pipeline. But I am concerned they will be the wrong changes.

As a pretty experienced BG player I agree.
These skills swap will do nothing. The biggest problem for me that our ACTIVE buffs/debuffs are inferior to PASSIVE and AOE bullshit of chosens/kotbs. It is a joke. Mad one.
Sorry, I didn't want to complain, just expressed my opinion. I know that any kind of complaining, arguments and whining won't help. Sadly

[Natherul]

keep in mind that quite a lot of balance changes requires us to get client control, and while yes we are in the process of obtaining that but it may take a while and until then we can only do minor adjustments.

[Azarael]

As written in the rules now, what you give back for playing here, aside from the testing and reporting of bugs that very few do and that is at this point a secondary part of the agreement, is respect for our experiments in direction and acknowledgement that we have the right to make changes. You have direct access to me and other members of the team, an arrangement made so that we can shape the game together. There is no hiding behind a wall on the part of the staff here - you're not pissing in the wind when making criticisms, like you might on the forum of a larger developer. You get responses directly from me, and I will (aggressively) defend my decisions, just as I will retract decisions or ventures if the feedback on them and the points made are sufficiently persuasive.

But you? You've spat in our faces. You've made a topic denying our right to change things in a subtle manner, by saying "Most of us liked every state that was on live" == "I don't accept your right to make any change that I don't like because you're not the original developer". You've also tried to claim you speak for the rest of the community (you don't, thank you) and outright denigrated changes that were made without providing any further justification - I think Jaycub destroyed you quite comprehensively for that, and so I won't bother to defend the changes personally. Not only that - but worst of all, you revealed your true nature by saying "We liked what it was, good OR bad", outing yourself as a purist and exactly the kind of person I'm never going to listen to. Sorry, but outright refusal to acknowledge that flaws can and should be improved means that you are irrational and shouldn't be listened to.

All of this is in contravention of the board rules, so yes - you are whining, and I'm going to call you on it.

Like I said before - I don't care what you think, I care why you think it. If you are motivated by selfishness and unwillingness to adapt to even the smallest of changes, as the current changeset regarding careers is, then I don't have time for you, just as I never had time for the tiny minority that made my last project difficult at every turn by using the same tactics as you are, while never quite realising that they were about ten people in total, and in the end... they represented no one but themselves.

In short - bring some arguments to the table or step off and let someone else do so. This game is still Warhammer, and it doesn't stop being or playing like Warhammer because Engineer and Magus can get 40% more range, because SM and BO knock down at 9 points, because you can stack 5% less crit or because Knights can't gimp Shamans with one tactic.

[Yaliskah]

Most of us liked the game in every state as it was on live with some bugs, and stuff.

I don't understand this sentence. I remember a Warhammer with BW in head of warbands killing tons of players just hitting the floor. I remember a Warhammer where you should do PQs Scs and some work on inferior Tiers so lock an area. I remember a RvR system with Resources carrier and one without. I remember a Rvr with skavens, and another without. I won(t talk about Capital sieges at least 3 different versions. WIth or without fortresses, One version with bugged LOTD talis and RR100 overpowered stuff, etcetcetc..

So, which version of warhammer exactly are you talking about?

Now if this post point that we don't make the rights choices instantly to make ( in the limit of our abilities) this game as balanced as possible and incentive, i just would like to underline 1 thing : Don't expect we success to do this in 2-3 month AND blindfolded when orginal version failed in many years.

[sotora]

I think some people came here to play imagining that this server will produce (&aim to produce) 100% snapshot of last (or one of latest) Warhammer Live version/patches.

Once it will sink in that is not the case and not the aim for this server, such topics should be rarer. Maybe.