Balancingteam, Developers and the community

[szejoza]

'by community'
that's fun

[Mausini]

I had a PM discussion with lefze about WB viability of WL and he insisted, that more or less the only important thing for WB viability is the ability to bomb hard.
I strongly disagree with that point of view. Pure bombing builds have always been the curse of Warhammer online.
WB play should not only evolve around what side can dish out more pure damage. It should be about who plays more clever and uses its utility to his advantage.

I do think that the one sided situation in RvR right now is a matter of tools and utility, with Chopper and tank SH engaging and breaking frontlines much to easy. The lacking damage dealer options for order WB do come on top but is the minor problem.

So please don't try to change WL into a pure bombing tool. Give him good ways to deal AOE damage but keep him flexible by giving him 1 or 2 things that contribute into a WB without just using him as a dedicated frontline bomber.

And you will notice that the end product had utility built into it and the damage was actually not that high (had any community member bothered to actually read the math).

Also you are taking the opinion of 1 of what was 7 balance members. There is a reason we had 7 different perspectives creating the proposal in addition to the white lion think tank that fed us ideas.

Balance has been neutered to small changes and half measures that are at the whim of one man (that is the end reality).

Thats bs. You took away all the utility by making Woodsman a forced loner spec without even the chance to stance dance into another stance that gives you the rest of your utility back. (silence, pull, pet debuffs, etc.). IF you want your pet back you just needed to change stance (5 sec channel) and summon your pet (2 or 3 sec) and voila, you have you pet and utility back.

It was just a fail. The fact that the proposal didn't went through speaks worlds.
Or to be a little be more precise. All 7 balance members failed and the think tank on top. And you dare to show up here and claim that "the end product had utility build into it" after you took away all the rest of his utility and his class mechanic?

Woodsman was clearly aimed to be a AOE bombing spec like mara has but without the option to use any other stance or tool or whatever and no survivability at all.
You focused on RVR balance and completely forgot to take care about having a "complete" class with a healthy amount of build varieties and a working class mechanic.

[lefze]

Spoiler:

I had a PM discussion with lefze about WB viability of WL and he insisted, that more or less the only important thing for WB viability is the ability to bomb hard.
I strongly disagree with that point of view. Pure bombing builds have always been the curse of Warhammer online.
WB play should not only evolve around what side can dish out more pure damage. It should be about who plays more clever and uses its utility to his advantage.

I do think that the one sided situation in RvR right now is a matter of tools and utility, with Chopper and tank SH engaging and breaking frontlines much to easy. The lacking damage dealer options for order WB do come on top but is the minor problem.

So please don't try to change WL into a pure bombing tool. Give him good ways to deal AOE damage but keep him flexible by giving him 1 or 2 things that contribute into a WB without just using him as a dedicated frontline bomber.

And you will notice that the end product had utility built into it and the damage was actually not that high (had any community member bothered to actually read the math).

Also you are taking the opinion of 1 of what was 7 balance members. There is a reason we had 7 different perspectives creating the proposal in addition to the white lion think tank that fed us ideas.

Balance has been neutered to small changes and half measures that are at the whim of one man (that is the end reality).

Thats bs. You took away all the utility by making Woodsman a forced loner spec without even the chance to stance dance into another stance that gives you the rest of your utility back. (silence, pull, pet debuffs, etc.). IF you want your pet back you just needed to change stance (5 sec channel) and summon your pet (2 or 3 sec) and voila, you have you pet and utility back.

It was just a fail. The fact that the proposal didn't went through speaks worlds.
Or to be a little be more precise. All 7 balance members failed and the think tank on top. And you dare to show up here and claim that "the end product had utility build into it" after you took away all the rest of his utility and his class mechanic?

Woodsman was clearly aimed to be a AOE bombing spec like mara has but without the option to use any other stance or tool or whatever and no survivability at all.
You focused on RVR balance and completely forgot to take care about having a "complete" class with a healthy amount of build varieties and a working class mechanic.

Wat. That's not what we talked about. You wanted woodsman to be some kind of tanky solo cheese. Your concern was smallscale utility and sustain. I never said that. And obviously the tree had warband utility aswell, so what the hell.

[dansari]

Spoiler:

I had a PM discussion with lefze about WB viability of WL and he insisted, that more or less the only important thing for WB viability is the ability to bomb hard.
I strongly disagree with that point of view. Pure bombing builds have always been the curse of Warhammer online.
WB play should not only evolve around what side can dish out more pure damage. It should be about who plays more clever and uses its utility to his advantage.

I do think that the one sided situation in RvR right now is a matter of tools and utility, with Chopper and tank SH engaging and breaking frontlines much to easy. The lacking damage dealer options for order WB do come on top but is the minor problem.

So please don't try to change WL into a pure bombing tool. Give him good ways to deal AOE damage but keep him flexible by giving him 1 or 2 things that contribute into a WB without just using him as a dedicated frontline bomber.

And you will notice that the end product had utility built into it and the damage was actually not that high (had any community member bothered to actually read the math).

Also you are taking the opinion of 1 of what was 7 balance members. There is a reason we had 7 different perspectives creating the proposal in addition to the white lion think tank that fed us ideas.

Balance has been neutered to small changes and half measures that are at the whim of one man (that is the end reality).

Thats bs. You took away all the utility by making Woodsman a forced loner spec without even the chance to stance dance into another stance that gives you the rest of your utility back. (silence, pull, pet debuffs, etc.). IF you want your pet back you just needed to change stance (5 sec channel) and summon your pet (2 or 3 sec) and voila, you have you pet and utility back.

It was just a fail. The fact that the proposal didn't went through speaks worlds.
Or to be a little be more precise. All 7 balance members failed and the think tank on top. And you dare to show up here and claim that "the end product had utility build into it" after you took away all the rest of his utility and his class mechanic?

Woodsman was clearly aimed to be a AOE bombing spec like mara has but without the option to use any other stance or tool or whatever and no survivability at all.
You focused on RVR balance and completely forgot to take care about having a "complete" class with a healthy amount of build varieties and a working class mechanic.

This is such a shallow viewpoint. Did the balance group get some things wrong on WL v1? Yes. Was the v2 going to be much more in line with what people wanted? Yes. The group didn't get the chance to move forward with that proposal, but you can keep harping about outdated and irrelevant information if it makes you feel better.

[Saltos]

Balance has been neutered to small changes and half measures that are at the whim of one man (that is the end reality).

Thank you for answering my question.
It's not that the subtle hints of the other 'think tank' members were in vain, but there was an element of deniability in them.

And as for joining the project as a coder ofc I might be biased due to my position but I would do it in a heartbeat for the time that I have available as I love the game.

The staff has my utmost respect Natherul, I generally see where you are coming from...
However, at some point or another the rose-tinted glasses, passon and bias do more harm than good, regardless of intention.

[Ramasee]

I had a PM discussion with lefze about WB viability of WL and he insisted, that more or less the only important thing for WB viability is the ability to bomb hard.
I strongly disagree with that point of view. Pure bombing builds have always been the curse of Warhammer online.
WB play should not only evolve around what side can dish out more pure damage. It should be about who plays more clever and uses its utility to his advantage.

I do think that the one sided situation in RvR right now is a matter of tools and utility, with Chopper and tank SH engaging and breaking frontlines much to easy. The lacking damage dealer options for order WB do come on top but is the minor problem.

So please don't try to change WL into a pure bombing tool. Give him good ways to deal AOE damage but keep him flexible by giving him 1 or 2 things that contribute into a WB without just using him as a dedicated frontline bomber.

And you will notice that the end product had utility built into it and the damage was actually not that high (had any community member bothered to actually read the math).

Also you are taking the opinion of 1 of what was 7 balance members. There is a reason we had 7 different perspectives creating the proposal in addition to the white lion think tank that fed us ideas.

Balance has been neutered to small changes and half measures that are at the whim of one man (that is the end reality).

Thats bs. You took away all the utility by making Woodsman a forced loner spec without even the chance to stance dance into another stance that gives you the rest of your utility back. (silence, pull, pet debuffs, etc.). IF you want your pet back you just needed to change stance (5 sec channel) and summon your pet (2 or 3 sec) and voila, you have you pet and utility back.

It was just a fail. The fact that the proposal didn't went through speaks worlds.
Or to be a little be more precise. All 7 balance members failed and the think tank on top. And you dare to show up here and claim that "the end product had utility build into it" after you took away all the rest of his utility and his class mechanic?

Woodsman was clearly aimed to be a AOE bombing spec like mara has but without the option to use any other stance or tool or whatever and no survivability at all.
You focused on RVR balance and completely forgot to take care about having a "complete" class with a healthy amount of build varieties and a working class mechanic.

Let see proposal v1 gave you aoe morale drain, aoe knockdown, aoe initiative and weaponskill debuff, and lowered the ap cost of your aoe damage rotation (plus buffing it's damage), but you think the loss of a single target knockdown, a single target pull, a single target silence, and a aoe aa speed debuff (from pet).

Yeah those things definitely do not sound like utility at all. Oh wait to use your words, that's bs.

Proposal v2, which you would know some about if you had bothered to actually read this thread, never got to see the light of day beyond the addition to the career builder. And v2 wasn't declined by the community it was vetoed by one guy before you saw it. You are welcome to look over it.

My absolute FAVORITE part of all of this, is that everyone assumed you HAD to use TTS to use the right tree, when in fact only the aoe kd and spirit bypass needed tts. You could have used TTK or TTH with right tree stuff if you so pleased and kept your pet. During no proposal was anyone FORCED into loner spec, which is the primary reason we attached it to a training. You get the damn choice.

This is very similar to a hoeth/vaul sm still choosing to use natures blade. Also look back in this thread and you will see 5 distinct ways to build white lion.

[Saltos]

Spoiler:

And you will notice that the end product had utility built into it and the damage was actually not that high (had any community member bothered to actually read the math).

Also you are taking the opinion of 1 of what was 7 balance members. There is a reason we had 7 different perspectives creating the proposal in addition to the white lion think tank that fed us ideas.

Balance has been neutered to small changes and half measures that are at the whim of one man (that is the end reality).

Thats bs. You took away all the utility by making Woodsman a forced loner spec without even the chance to stance dance into another stance that gives you the rest of your utility back. (silence, pull, pet debuffs, etc.). IF you want your pet back you just needed to change stance (5 sec channel) and summon your pet (2 or 3 sec) and voila, you have you pet and utility back.

It was just a fail. The fact that the proposal didn't went through speaks worlds.
Or to be a little be more precise. All 7 balance members failed and the think tank on top. And you dare to show up here and claim that "the end product had utility build into it" after you took away all the rest of his utility and his class mechanic?

Woodsman was clearly aimed to be a AOE bombing spec like mara has but without the option to use any other stance or tool or whatever and no survivability at all.
You focused on RVR balance and completely forgot to take care about having a "complete" class with a healthy amount of build varieties and a working class mechanic.

Let see proposal v1 gave you aoe morale drain, aoe knockdown, aoe initiative and weaponskill debuff, and lowered the ap cost of your aoe damage rotation (plus buffing it's damage), but you think the loss of a single target knockdown, a single target pull, a single target silence, and a aoe aa speed debuff (from pet).

Yeah those things definitely do not sound like utility at all. Oh wait to use your words, that's bs.

Proposal v2, which you would know some about if you had bothered to actually read this thread, never got to see the light of day beyond the addition to the career builder. And v2 wasn't declined by the community it was vetoed by one guy before you saw it. You are welcome to look over it.

My absolute FAVORITE part of all of this, is that everyone assumed you HAD to use TTS to use the right tree, when in fact only the aoe kd and spirit bypass needed tts. You could have used TTK or TTH with right tree stuff if you so pleased and kept your pet. During no proposal was anyone FORCED into loner spec, which is the primary reason we attached it to a training. You get the damn choice.

This is very similar to a hoeth/vaul sm still choosing to use natures blade. Also look back in this thread and you will see 5 distinct ways to build white lion.

To compile relevant information for once:

Given you are actively involved (and seem to be mostly unbiased), can you (other members of the balance team are invited, too) share some insight as to:
i.) How the workflow is meant to function.
ii.) How the workflow effectively functions.
iii.) Who is meant to be involved (#, expertise).
iiii.) Who is effectively involved.
iiiii.) What the gameplan effectively is; whether one exists.

Judging by various statements:
- There, at one point, existed a 'balance team', according to current and former members the majority of the team has since left.
- Changes have been veto'd by:
Multiple leads - according to Natherul.
A single individual - according to various members of the 'balance team'.

It's getting inarguably confusing.

E1: Asking and answering questions won't do harm, atleast not more harm than missinformation, missunterstandings and general confusion.
E2: Spelling, grammar. Added relevant sentences.

[lefze]

Spoiler:

Thats bs. You took away all the utility by making Woodsman a forced loner spec without even the chance to stance dance into another stance that gives you the rest of your utility back. (silence, pull, pet debuffs, etc.). IF you want your pet back you just needed to change stance (5 sec channel) and summon your pet (2 or 3 sec) and voila, you have you pet and utility back.

It was just a fail. The fact that the proposal didn't went through speaks worlds.
Or to be a little be more precise. All 7 balance members failed and the think tank on top. And you dare to show up here and claim that "the end product had utility build into it" after you took away all the rest of his utility and his class mechanic?

Woodsman was clearly aimed to be a AOE bombing spec like mara has but without the option to use any other stance or tool or whatever and no survivability at all.
You focused on RVR balance and completely forgot to take care about having a "complete" class with a healthy amount of build varieties and a working class mechanic.

Let see proposal v1 gave you aoe morale drain, aoe knockdown, aoe initiative and weaponskill debuff, and lowered the ap cost of your aoe damage rotation (plus buffing it's damage), but you think the loss of a single target knockdown, a single target pull, a single target silence, and a aoe aa speed debuff (from pet).

Yeah those things definitely do not sound like utility at all. Oh wait to use your words, that's bs.

Proposal v2, which you would know some about if you had bothered to actually read this thread, never got to see the light of day beyond the addition to the career builder. And v2 wasn't declined by the community it was vetoed by one guy before you saw it. You are welcome to look over it.

My absolute FAVORITE part of all of this, is that everyone assumed you HAD to use TTS to use the right tree, when in fact only the aoe kd and spirit bypass needed tts. You could have used TTK or TTH with right tree stuff if you so pleased and kept your pet. During no proposal was anyone FORCED into loner spec, which is the primary reason we attached it to a training. You get the damn choice.

This is very similar to a hoeth/vaul sm still choosing to use natures blade. Also look back in this thread and you will see 5 distinct ways to build white lion.

To compile relevant information for once:

Given you are actively involved (and seem to be mostly unbiased), can you (other members of the balance team are invited, too) share some insight as to:
i.) How the workflow is meant to function.
ii.) How the workflow effectively functions.
iii.) Who is meant to be involved (#, expertise).
iiii.) Who is effectively involved.
iiiii.) What the gameplan effectively is; whether one exists.

Judging by various statements:
- There, at one point, existed a 'balance team', according to current and former members the majority of the team has since left.
- Changes have been veto'd by:
Multiple leads - according to Natherul.
A single individual - according to various members of the 'balance team'.

It's getting inarguably confusing.

E1: Asking and answering questions won't do harm, atleast not more harm than missinformation, missunterstandings and general confusion.
E2: Spelling, grammar. Added relevant sentences.

The entire "new balance team" left. Every single person. All that is left is the good old balance moderators. And as we saw today, any form of process is pretty much thrown out of the window by certain people despite balance moderators trying their best to follow it.

As such, I don't have much to add other than the attempt failing. It's heartbreaking. The community deserved so much better, and Dan and Jon still struggling on for the sake of the community, with the massive opposition they face, is just insane to watch. To put it lightly, it pisses me off beyond words.

[ragafury]

should leave the remaining ppl. who want to give you guys a game for free alone / do there job.

the ppl. who left, left. period.

everybody had there reasons.

as far as it concerns me, yali knows, it's solved, I didn't quit with bad blood or anything, I just wanted a clear and fast cut.

in hindsight, it's also was not worth my freetime.

was an experiment, failed. period. carry on.
even though it's heartbreaking.

patchnotes of today , are alarming and the opposite of what was preached.

I left all relevant info sources like discords, groups and so on, with keeping only my guilds discord in my list.
hard to say if I find motivation to play in the upcomming days or at all again.
todays runepriest and BW patchnotes felt like an additional nail. (hammer and brush Kappa)

which is a sad outcome tbf, cause I was pretty damn active, even before the last 6 weeks crap.
but I've done that to myself and can't blame anyone.
I basically disillusioned myself. and that's my fault.

[Ramasee]

Spoiler:

Thats bs. You took away all the utility by making Woodsman a forced loner spec without even the chance to stance dance into another stance that gives you the rest of your utility back. (silence, pull, pet debuffs, etc.). IF you want your pet back you just needed to change stance (5 sec channel) and summon your pet (2 or 3 sec) and voila, you have you pet and utility back.

It was just a fail. The fact that the proposal didn't went through speaks worlds.
Or to be a little be more precise. All 7 balance members failed and the think tank on top. And you dare to show up here and claim that "the end product had utility build into it" after you took away all the rest of his utility and his class mechanic?

Woodsman was clearly aimed to be a AOE bombing spec like mara has but without the option to use any other stance or tool or whatever and no survivability at all.
You focused on RVR balance and completely forgot to take care about having a "complete" class with a healthy amount of build varieties and a working class mechanic.

Let see proposal v1 gave you aoe morale drain, aoe knockdown, aoe initiative and weaponskill debuff, and lowered the ap cost of your aoe damage rotation (plus buffing it's damage), but you think the loss of a single target knockdown, a single target pull, a single target silence, and a aoe aa speed debuff (from pet).

Yeah those things definitely do not sound like utility at all. Oh wait to use your words, that's bs.

Proposal v2, which you would know some about if you had bothered to actually read this thread, never got to see the light of day beyond the addition to the career builder. And v2 wasn't declined by the community it was vetoed by one guy before you saw it. You are welcome to look over it.

My absolute FAVORITE part of all of this, is that everyone assumed you HAD to use TTS to use the right tree, when in fact only the aoe kd and spirit bypass needed tts. You could have used TTK or TTH with right tree stuff if you so pleased and kept your pet. During no proposal was anyone FORCED into loner spec, which is the primary reason we attached it to a training. You get the damn choice.

This is very similar to a hoeth/vaul sm still choosing to use natures blade. Also look back in this thread and you will see 5 distinct ways to build white lion.

To compile relevant information for once:

Given you are actively involved (and seem to be mostly unbiased), can you (other members of the balance team are invited, too) share some insight as to:
i.) How the workflow is meant to function.
ii.) How the workflow effectively functions.
iii.) Who is meant to be involved (#, expertise).
iiii.) Who is effectively involved.
iiiii.) What the gameplan effectively is; whether one exists.

Judging by various statements:
- There, at one point, existed a 'balance team', according to current and former members the majority of the team has since left.
- Changes have been veto'd by:
Multiple leads - according to Natherul.
A single individual - according to various members of the 'balance team'.

It's getting inarguably confusing.

E1: Asking and answering questions won't do harm, atleast not more harm than missinformation, missunterstandings and general confusion.
E2: Spelling, grammar. Added relevant sentences.

i.) How the workflow is meant to function.
I posted a step by step elsewhere but I'll give a summary here.
A. Information and ideas are gathered from every source imaginable and kind of posted at random and briefly discussed between the balance group's 7 members. Eventually 1 or more members "champions" an issue (or group of issues) and posts it to the workflow sheet and priority is determined (according the list we made public) and a document is created and a think tank is created using other community members that play that class or its mirror.
B. Once the idea gets for fleshed out, a dev is flagged down to ask about the viability of implementation. Then the 7 balance group members would make it to a formal proposal.
C. This proposal gets pushed to the "dev forum" for anyone with access to make comments on.
D. Eventually this gets pushed to the public forums for you guys to discuss. If the community votes yes we go to stage F, if the community votes no it goes to stage E
E. Balance group takes the feedback from the community and modifies the proposal to be reproposed to stage C.
F. The changes are handed to the devs to be coded.
G. changes are tested on test server before pushed to live
H. Changes are monitored on live.

ii.) How the workflow effectively functions.
AB same
C same but rarely get much
D same
E same
F the only dev who has the ability AND time to change the client decides whether or not he wants to do it. If no proposal is tanked. If yes GH

iii.) Who is meant to be involved (#, expertise).
Everyone at different stages. Everyones gives ideas and input. 7 core balance group does most of the pre-proposal math and discussion involving multiple aspects of the game; these 7 are supplementing by the corresponding think tank.

iiii.) Who is effectively involved.
Doesn't really change from the above, except only one person's idea effectively matters.

iiiii.) What the gameplan effectively is; whether one exists.
Ask Dan and Jon, they did stay to help out the community. (They are also masochists, its a bit of an inside joke. They like nipple clamps )
All other members and their perspectives have left for our sanity. The conditions upon which we joined turned out to be flat lies and we put a lot of ourselves into it. We were having fun in our exceptionally heated debates; and we wanted to help better the game. It took 5? soul crushing incidents before we were out.

Both what Natherul has said and what I have said are true. There were more than one lead that had an issue with us, but it was only one lead that did the veto. Yeah we **** up v1 proposal for WL; we had a v2 and it wasn't the leads or Yali keeping us from proposing v2. (Natherul was on this group as well)