Return of Reckoning

Like we say in Poland - "when y look for tree, you can miss forest" if we follow parallels:).
Buran says perfectly what i have on my mind.
We need a -STRATEGY of progress, common for developers and players. It must be more detailed, than assumption about making this game good as possible.
That a not a criticism for great work of developers, that is what must be done to save this work from being ignored.

Dajciekrwi wrote:Like we say in Poland - "when y look for tree, you can miss forest" if we follow parallels:).
Buran says perfectly what i have on my mind.
We need a -STRATEGY of progress, common for developers and players. It must be more detailed, than assumption about making this game good as possible.
That a not a criticism for great work of developers, that is what must be done to save this work from being ignored.

The developers have a strategy... They just don't have to share it with us the testers. We don't "get" a say; we get the opportunity to tell them how we feel about things but we have no direct influence at all over their decisions or priorities.

Dajciekrwi wrote:Like we say in Poland - "when y look for tree, you can miss forest" if we follow parallels:).

brilliant. I think nobody can say better!

Manatikik wrote: We don't "get" a say; we get the opportunity to tell them how we feel about things but we have no direct influence at all over their decisions or priorities.

No one can, without our consent, to dispose of our life and our work product.

Buran wrote: No one can, without our consent to dispose of our life and our work product.

What?

shaggyboomboom wrote:
Click here to watch on YouTube

Haha

Oh. So Buran is one of those "big picture" guys...

Sounds like a cop-out to me. If you have this grand plan for how it "should be" go make a proposal. Or keep spouting utter nonsense.

Dabbart wrote:Oh. So Buran is one of those "big picture" guys...

Sounds like a cop-out to me. If you have this grand plan for how it "should be" go make a proposal. Or keep spouting utter nonsense.

"big picture" = all of order in 1 big zerg doing stuff "together" in this case

Many fancy words and bleh...
How about we get back on topic? Things I'd like to see tested:

1) Mastery points decoupled from RR for a week or so, to see how things change once everyone has access to the most potent specs.
2) Procs and other statuseffects (e.g.: CC, AP drain, dmgprocs, ...) to be carried over with guarddamage, to see how things would pan out.
3) Removal of the targetcap (unconditionally), or a substitution of it with diminishing returns.
4) Change morale traits (undefendable/cleansable) based on AAO / group size / # of targets affected.
5) Swap morales with static stat increases, preferably wounds - or stats based on archetypes -, as longer a fight drags on as more potent people become while yet there'd be no 'click-boom-death'... ~ alternatively other non-actives*.

*One could add a new layer of costumization with that; a pool of stat boni or ability traits that can be chosen from and that unlock gradually in a fight (e.g.: ability X gets a shatter-enchantment trait at M1, ability Y gets a +critdmg trait on M2, ability Z gets a snare trait at M3, ability XYZ gets a major CD reduction at M4 // players get +100 toughness at M1, +100 wounds at M2, +150 mainstat at M3 and +200 me/ma/ra-power at M4 - or stats based on their choices respectively).

Hoy. Dev diary tomorrow.