Re-tuned HAs

I agree with both of you in part.

Lets think of it this way... If they see they made a big mistake you don't want them rushing to fix it and risking another big mistake. That is one side of things. The problem here is they totally missed how big of an issue this would be which makes them seen very out of touch with the game.

So them saying nothing right away was fine they had to decide what they were going to do. BUT the fact they didn't realize how big a deal this would be is a problem. I think a big part of the problem is that raids tend to be the hardest things to tune in the game and almost all of the time they spend working with players is working with raiders on the tuning of these things. There is no hardcore casual player lobby that works with the devs on the casual game. This is why they completely lose touch with the casual game and why the casual game is slowing dying off.

Fell foliage is barely any different to how it was when they first retuned it, they have done some changes but not enough, this is what I'm expecting from the HA retune. Followed by ignoring the player base who still say its too hard.

The bench mark I would expect for HAs is for them be as hard at 110 as they were at level 105 for level 105 players. Completable with 2-3 players + mercs taking 30 - 45 minutes to complete. This is how they were when they were introduced at level 105 and how they should scale up at 110.

And spells and abilities should be removed from 106+ NPCs in 105 & lower HAs.

How Daybreak think the exp should be is a different question and I'm not expecting the same EXP as ROS but then, the HAs shouldn't be as hard as ROS as they don't have such stupid dots.

Last year, at 105 and in EoK raid gear, I ran some alts through TBM progression. It was so easy that I stopped bothering to play them all and just moloed it with my raid paladin and merc healer. Crypt of Sul, for example, was so easy I realized it was a great place to solo (not even a merc) with lesson on.

Two days ago I went to do Into the Temple B on another alt (with hundreds of thousands of remnants, why not for some basic type 5s?). The difference at 110 with almost full RoS raid gear was palpable. Not even close. I would need to burn everything I had to true solo a single trash undead (I could do it, but I'd be oom after 2 mobs). With a merc, I could go for a long time, but took forever to kill anything, and these things hit hard.

When I got to the end with the 10 bokon, I died 3 times, on the first wave until I managed to get 1 solo (kept getting 2). I could molo the entire wave before without thinking about it. So how would this be to a non-raider? While a full group would have more dps and healing, they certainly couldn't tank it better. So should this really be this hard? Or even close?

Really need to not just "tone it down". As someone else said, if the mobs and exp scales up, the content difficulty should scale up where it is just as easy/hard at 110 as it is at 105. Either that, or don't scale and let people bottom feed as the content gets older so they can do old achievements.

With how hard that was, I can't imagine how anashti is now, for a non-raider especially. At this point I'm thinking about building a tank to stop at 100 or 105, twink the heck out of it, just to be able to go molo those progression missions for people in the future. And that is ridiculous. Glad I don't need the stuff for any character that matters to me.

I think what this whole retune issue along with the itemization progression between raid and group gear shows that there is no Tier 1 entry zones in ROS for EOK gear players. everything's either tuned to Tradeskill or ros 2 level gear.

That's fine for Tier 2 zones but not fine for an entry level zone for an expansion with a level increase.

I was mostly posting on here because of how the Retune impacted me at 102. but the more I look at This RoS the more eveidence presence itself that the overall design is not "hard" but shortsighted and counterproductive,

I was expecting to buy the expansion in February. These changes are making buy ROS sooner.. instead I will probably be waiting for the next expansion as this patch has delayed my completing the last TBM pre crypt HA mission, and stopped my getting Saviour achievement in COTF.

Instead of working up my aa's and leveling to 105 to upgrade to TBM gear then work my way through EOK.

I am messing around in ROF, and TDS as well as gearing up my guildies so they an do ha's before they get hit by the over tune.

Looking forward to testing the changes.

Why would anyone want to share information on any level other then being forced to by higher up's in the company .. with a base of about 30 hard core posters .. who claim to speak for everyone left in the game ..

And when they DO share with those people .. those very people just talk 30 pages of smack to / about / against the company .. the individual dev .. all dev's collectively .. on any / all levels ?

I know if I was a dev, an read half .. of what everyone was posting negatively against me / my employer / the game I help to create .. I'd go off on them people .. every one of them ..

You hate when they do not share information .. you hate when they do ..

/sigh ..

I don't seem to have a problem when they share information and understand when they don't so your point is what exactly? Oh right you don't have one.

And most of the posters are not talking smack nor claiming to speak for everyone.

What I really don't understand is you quote my post then what you say has nothing to do with it. And 30 hard core posters for the casual game in eq is an heck of a lot of players. Usually its the hard core raiders who doggedly push their agenda.

Appreciate the update, but I already unsubscribed. Not testing this change broke my interest in progressing my characters again now that I have actually free time.

We need to get Whulfgar the surname Planedefiler.

But it exactly means that!
After all - how was the credo at one time...
The customer's always right!?

I like the tone and the gist of your post in it's entirety!
Just the quoted part i have to comment on, because well...
Yes, respect is a two-way-street.
And if you show (what is perceived as) disrespect to your customers by a) marketing something as something different (an add-on for an expansion) and b) releasing, once more, an "unfinished" product...
Isn't it then perfectly understandable that there's "unrest" among your customers?
Who was first, hen or egg? and who needs to break that circle - the customers that are reacting in typical human fashion, or the company that caused that reaction?

I mean since the discussion here has drifted to "respect", i feel reminded of the so-called Diesel-scandal.
While we all agree that it would have been much, much better if cars would have "simply" fulfilled specifications and expectations of the legislation and the customers - who'd you rather be?
The american customer that receives compensation or a hardware-upgrade?
Or would you rather be the german one that merely gets a forced software-update that is likely to cause the engine to beak that much sooner and require that much more garage-time?
One part of their customers gets treated with the respect they deserve, while the other gets a kick to the head that pushes you back into the cold water and is told "learn to swim".

I am, we are.
We are still here, waiting for the best while voicing our concerns (that have proven to be justified over and over).
We are waiting to be shown respect that we feel we deserve, just FOR holding out despite of over a year of chat-lag that still not fixed and the HA situation and other issues we're experiencing that takes from the fun we expect(ed, when we bought and subscribed it) of the product.
And while i DO think that communication from the company WAS polite and all, i also think it was lacking - both in "reaction time" and significance. And that lack of a significant answer in a timely manner (note the connection between the two) is seen by some as disrespect in itself.
A hyperbole? perhaps. But an understandable one from where i stand.

Not always.
Example: I pay to go to a sporting event so I am the customer. A referee makes a call which I disagree with. However a portion of the crowd believes it was the correct call. Which one is right? We are both paying for the same product yet we both have different views on what is right.

In a sense the Devs are referees making calls on the game. Some will agree, some wont. This isn't where a situation where everything is black and white. There are a lot of grey areas and the above credo cannot hold true in those situations.

I have said in other posts, I don't agree with the changes. I just don't think this treatment of the Devs is fair.

Also remember there also the saying 'Caveat Emptor'.

The fact aside that the OP is from JAN17th, which was just over 3weeks ago, you are darn right: "Dev's are discussing it" isn't good enough.
For many.

Because "discussing it" isn't equal to "fixing it" or "presenting a roadmap".
If "discussing it" would suffice, we'd ALL have no problems with the climate, with diesel cars, with fossile fuel, with hunger in the world, with wars and nuclear weapons and whatnot.
Because all those things have been "discussed" for years and ages.
So i think you need to remember what they say about the burnt child, even if the scope differs much...

And of course you can voice your opinion even when it differs from others - this isn't China or North Korea or Turkey.
I am just not as sure on insinuation that "all others" were "misbehaving" because they differ from you.
Because that sounds like those countries and causes "instant-resistance" in me. I hope you can forgive me for my insolence!

Time to pull out the BS translator.

"Some tweaks" = we are convinced we're right, but enough ppl have quit so we are forced to do something. So expect something minor like 10% less DPS and mob HP and call it a day.

Not 'we made a mistake', NOPE.
Not 'grossly mistuned', NOPE.
Just 'some tweaks'.

If you already quit, don't bother coming back because 'some tweaks' are promised 'soon' (tm).
If you were on the fence, you just saw the writing.
If you are good with the way things are, then stick around.

I haven't done any of the cotf/tds/tbm era HA's but I've been picking at a couple EoK ones trying to wrap up hunter on an alt. At 110 (where I presume the mobs have leveled up?) they are easier than the static zones that did not level up. And I've fought plenty of mobs in them since I'm not a huge fan of sneaking around so I just kill everything.

I have been considering coming back full swing, but with the recent changes made i am now holding off because i just can not see spending 35$ x 4 accounts plus 15$/mo x 4 accounts on content i can not do at all. All my characters are 105 , Tbm group and raid(mixed) geared, maxed aa for Tbm, and from the looks of it i could not even do Eok progression, let alone do RoS at the moment. Please do not get the wrong impression, i am not one of those that wants it all now, for no work to get it. I am willing to do everything needed to get it done but if i can not box it all 100% then i will play some of my other games. Yes i love to group but no one can always get a group 100% of the time therefor i box a lot. Imo the harder you make it the more you push people away.

Anyone experiencing something different from the announced or experiencing something "unplayable" i would guess.

Ah yes.
Requested by whom?
I think "The Dev's" is usually used as a synonym for "the people in the companies' employ that make decisions" - at least it's mostly used that way by me.
That the individual coder or artist or zone-designer did as he was told to - that may well be.
And contrary to the court in Den Haag, i think people ARE justified to some extent by quoting "orders" - they've got themselves and likely familiy to feed and like/want to keep their jobs.
And you are oh-so-right: what we see could very well be the exact result of of some change-request.
But whatever the request was: if the outcome isn't to my expectations i can well say - totally within my bounds as a customer - that they "did a poor job". Especially when, as you say the end result wasn't even intended. Only that the "they" in this case does not refer to "those that implemented the change" as you took it, bat instead to "those that requested it in it's current form" (as i use it).
Then the idiocy isn't in the stating of someone having done a poor job, but in the denying of it.
Very important thing, that - thinking through the other's eyes. Which sometimes is also called "empathy" or "soft skills".
The only necessary change perhaps - and you right with THAT argument - is who should feel adressed when "the Dev's" are referred to.
As you said, we do not know a whole lot - for the common player, DB is a black box.

Wow, you're really digging this, aren't you?
You say you are a developer - well, i am too. Certainly not an EQDev, but still.
As such, we both know about the realities in software projects and "quality" being defined as "fulfilling the given specifications" as opposed to "meeting (unsaid) expectations" or "delivering the most for the least money", and we both know about scope creep and other such issues.
Let me not be mistaken: i respect ANYONE who's doing their job. Especially the coders or generally "do'ers".
I even respect them when they make mistakes.
But if i view "the Devs" as a black box, as a customer tends to do (he generally has no other choice), then it's clear that "the Dev's" (i.e. at least someone withIN that black box) has messed up royally.
By neglect, by oversight, by intent - who knows. But messed up. Now, that's still nothing to get all excited and angry over, now that the hit the fan, it just comes down to things are being handled.
Typical project-lead work, identifying stakes and stakeholders and making ends meet - including handling CR, even if he delegates that.
And my respects takes a rather sudden and steep drop if a "mistake" that can happen to anyone isn't handled properly or tried to be covered up or when, even worse, fingerpointing and the BartSimpson tune of "i didn't do it, it was Lisa" is starting.

"Threats" and "snide comments" are a fact of life - if you are trying to do business, you have to be ready to deal with it.
I too would welcome a non-hostile and more matter-of-factly discussion.
Problem with that:
a) "the Dev's" haven't exactly been forthcoming in the first place, we are usually thrown stuff at us.
i.e. the "discussion culture" is lacking, historically. And once it's lacking, it's ever more tedious to implement it.
(same thing why "workarounds" are so often ending up as "lasting solutions" as you well know as a fellow developer)
b) EQ is more than a coffee-machine - there's emotions involved, so emotions must be dealt with.
For some, their Thermomix is an altar to their kitchen-religion while for other's it's but an overpriced and superfluous tool - same thing.

While i am all for an actual discussion, i feel the ball is "in their half".
I've stated before that i expect a full reset of THIS aspect of the patch.
And THEN, we can talk about the goal and how to best reach it and be generally productive and respectful with other again.
That doesn't even mean that the code need or should be thrown away - just not used at the moment.
You know, along the lines of:
IF flag_DiscussionStillGoingOn
THEN dldCodeWithNewName;
ELSE do_NewCodeWithOldName;
ENDIF;

Do i get what i want? probably not. Do i have the right to want what i want? certainly!
Do i have the right to get what i want? that depends if you look at it from a legal or moral side.
When a customer who doesn't get what he wants decides to go, then that's not unfair or a threat - it's a consequence and a choice. Nothing to be upset about and no reason for forum rage either.

We, the customers, have had this (like many other things in the past) thrown at us without a warning, without a discussion and without a stated goal. "eat or die" as we say in Germany.
Like you demand respect for "the Dev's", i demand respect for "the customers" (in all their variety, but especially for myself of course - i am very egocentric in that regard).
And while i am standing here with one hand outstretched and the other tightly around my wallet, keeping it closed, i expect "the solution" (and the discussion leading up to it) to be initiated by the party that's caused the situation - and that wasn't me.

Looks can be deceiving.
While you might be right with RoS progression in TBM raid gear, you are certainly wrong about EoK progression, even if just partly TBM raid geared.
While you will probably encounter the "typical" problems, especially when trying to solo it, it's basically all in static zones and as such totally unaffected by what's discussed in this thread.
EoK has but 5HAs (which i am not sure if they are affected much), but none of those are needed for progression. The entirety of EoK progression takes place in static zones, and the only problems you will encounter are the typical "need more DPS" or "need CC" problems in a FEW situations or task steps. Depending on the quality and makeup of your box team, you might not have any issue at all - or you could run into a "blocker" at the first ambush with just two mobs per triggering character.
So, read up on progression and do it wisely - but don't let THIS discussion deter you.

He may not "owe" it to us, but it's good form. a good example of speaking to a customer eye-to-eye even though we all know we aren't.
When customers feel respected, they're far more open to "reason".
Ever been to France and been ripped off by a waiter? Or ever experienced the proverbial "service" of a taxti-driver (or ANY servicing personnel for that matter) in Berlin? Then you know what i speak about.

Indeed.
And it probably cost him some effort to stay calm and phrase his replies carefully in the light of some responses. But he did, and he got the reaction you described.
Here, we haven't seen such and you're seeing the reaction you complain to us about.
See the action-reaction chain?

For much the same reason that they were - following your picture - listening to the same 5hardcore posters that claim to speak for all when it came to design "hard stuff" i'd guess.
i.e. none particular.

Even though the two "you"s there are entirely different crowds, this is all too true, sadly.
As with any communication, one can hardly ever "make it right" for all.
But "no communication" because of that - is that a solution then because of that?
Or wouldn't it be better to "simply" (no, not simple, requires lots of effort and skill) keep on communicating, matter-of-factly and especially in a NOT denying/downplaying fashion?
Which worked better on you - the Mercedes boss saying "we messed up" or the VW one that had to be presented proof before he acknowledged that "there might be a problem"?
The "salami tactic" as we call the revelation of information piece by piece isn't particularly fit to curb speculation or stifle opposing voices.