Ruin Mage

As pointed out before somewhere, the valid feedback they look for is from testers. Actual testers. Not people who grab a change from the Patch Notes and ride or die it until they've given devs a reason to not engage. If you cannot put the effort into testing because of limited space, that's...one thing I guess? However, if you willfully choose not to put minutes (or more) into testing out the changes and making clear feedback based on experience? Well, that isn't valid feedback - not in the sense that it gets anything major done. Patch Note Reactors is what made the forums 10x worse during Page 4 and a shadow of it has reoccurred for Page 5. People need to realize that feedback NEEDS evidence in numbers and actual testing rather than "I don't like this." or "I feel like this is bad." because that tells the developers nothing. It makes sense that if your only feedback is from reading the patch notes? You're not actively aware of how it plays out or what it's done to the gameplay of whatever has been changed. Experience speaks more than feelings in other words.

Why did it take 7 pages for someone to go "bad" and "page 4" in the same breath. I expected it much sooner.

The casual nature came more so from HC's QOL, not Live/Retail's length. Live was far from a casual MMO towards the end.

Do you have a source for this?

Correct. SEGS is trying to build something akin to this. Sort of? I don't quite understand it myself.

That would not get anywhere good, as the forums proved with last page. I am sorry, but community consultation is not a standard (not that it is a standard anywhere of worth) I'd want implemented here. As it stands, the devs put out their ideas/their spins on requested ideas and allow us to give feedback on what's there. If testing became bogged down by higher consultation, I could imagine even slower Pages / Updates. Given as well that the community is split on what powersets "need" work and what they feel the devs should work on? It would be a loss to change the process at this point. It does involve the players enough as is. There's a "Closed Beta" server (where things cannot be shared outside of it, like any Alpha/NDA-y place might) -> Several patches on said server -> Open Beta/Brainstorm -> 1 or more patches to reach Release Candidate -> Live. During this process, feedback from testers (and not patch note reactors, usually) is taken in to shape the changes to be in a better place. The closed beta even has a Discord somewhere around here, but I lost the invite. That process is the most involved it should ever be.

Looking at strike force/task force levels? Just Mantis/Yin, unless these changes also makes the other pre-50 TFs easier (FP, Renault, Tarikoss, Mistral) - but it really shouldn't in massive ways.

Just on Brainstorm.

I mean, it won't stop so long as people believe they are owed something for donating. It won't stop so long as people believe they know better than the people actually working with the math and the coding. It's the cycle of life.

Its in the costume options, Doc. Melee weapons only at the moment. It's a toggle under the weapons section.

Necessary to bring certain sets up to par with Post-Freedom/F2P sets or otherwise make them not feel clunky/bad.

Burn got changed.

I have a collection of knives waiting for you, Glacier.

Hide, not delete. I think deletion is like last resort or reserved for the once-in-a-blue-moon spambot. Also I'm secretly the entire Dev Team in disguise.

Personally, it may be worth looking into a better respec UI/revamping the UI for Respecs. Just an idea.

How other people feel is entirely fair to them, but I have been otherwise rather polite towards most folks during this Page's testing. Last page? Sure, I went hard at particular people - who were Patch Note Reactors and not testers. I would wonder why you're suddenly being so hostile with me, PeregrineFalcon. My signature about being a forum cop is a shitpost. I do what I do not because I agree with the developers, but because I disagree with the approach and/or mentalities offered by other posters. The idea that we are owed anything is non-sensical at best and childish at worst - given prior points uttered in this thread many times over by now. Not too much to ask, but neither required nor needed especially given certain posters. Given that there are stories out there of the harassment and threats devs receive? I would not, in their shoes, blame them for being only marginally interactive. Cobalt being as active and chatty as he is across Discords is a god-send for example, but is not a requirement of being a developer. Correct, and they do not have to run these servers either. Donations only go so far, and are not the pathway to letting people see more under the hood/behind closed doors.

Do not confuse donations for subscription pay or whatever else, it's what leads to entitlement and other issues. We are not paying for anything. The game is entirely free to play. The optional money is going towards other services and does not go to anyone within the team. Which is entirely intended given its a private server.

It is entitlement. We are not paying for a service. I do hate to break it to you, but its donations not payments. The money doesn't go to the developers, but to other services. This does not owe us anything and never has nor never will as a standard. If this were a typical pay-to-play (subscription) type game environment I might sway the other way. They could easily just turn off the servers of their own free will. This is their playground more than it is ours, but we are allowed to be here. They do, by the grace of goodness, sometimes allow our voices to influence their design. This is how it works, and sometimes we get thrown a good bone for it. This is how any private server works for any game - WoW being the most prevalent. We are and always have been at the whims of the HC team not vice versa. Consulting the community is not a general standard and has never been a standard across games. There's a very good reason for this - boiled down to the terminology of "Armchair Developer". The amount of feedback we are allowed seems fine enough to me - any more and I think we'd be worse off or with a much slower patch cadence then we have now. My evidence for this is Patch Note Readers + the Suggestions & Feedback forum. Plus the last page. It's clear and evident by those three things that leaning more into the community would be a bad thing.

The only posts that get hidden are those that are not helpful/those that break the rules of the beta forums, to be fair. They want feedback, not circular argumentation on someone's feedback - which some people can't help themselves.

Well, maybe not five but 1hr (or less) TFs is always pretty good in my eyes. Time will tell if this does anything towards that.

Personally, I'd rather see what the actual people who know the code be able to develop their vision unhindered w/ a chance for our feedback to tweak or change ideas. I don't need a roadmap, but I know that isn't some universal stance. It is only a game and there are alternative servers if a single (or more) change whips someone up so bad. That's my takeaway at least.

As would I, but not when we have people going "WHY DIDN'T THEY CONSULT US?" No active game developer consults before making changes - not even all the time. It's not a standard.

And that right there is the crux of the issue. Entitlement. Not a single soul is entitled to a thing simply because we donate some of our money to help keep the servers alive. Good thing its their time and its their decision on what to use their time on.

I think your gif broke, Omega. Or maybe its just me.

I'm sorry, but what? Where is the invalidation and alienating? I doubt a majority are looking to do this for a dev spot. That isn't how things work. However, on the other side of the coin its equally annoying to see the same "devs bad/change bad" spiel from non-testers. Always two sides to a coin.