Re-tuned HAs

Feel bad for more casual....I run these nightly as I always usually have people...but I see people paying krono for ta's to end of empire etc.

Fell foliage probably achievable for some casual group with a decent makeup of people who can play their classes, but if you're trying to just chill and knock these out, not possible. If you can't kill the boss after the first add, you may as well reset. If you can't get it close, no point in trying.

DW? What is DW exactly? If you're talking about a guild who's initials of DW, you're mistaken. I've never been in a guild "DW".

Edit: I didn't call running HA's dumb. I called the Raging constantly at everything dumb. It's the trend in EQ, it's the trend online period. Every little thing that pisses someone off, people rage rage rage.

I play this game since 1999 and don't see DB doing a good job, but I wont discuss with you as your reading comprehension skills aren't that good.

On a more serious note, I don't get why people are being so critical of one another in this thread. Democracy is meant to be an open discussion of opinion, some may appreciate the communication while others are reserved until they see more - either way you should be able to voice your opinion. Some people need to seriously get a thicker skin, for the same reason a number of people posted that they were withdrawing their subs, Sindance can say he's keeping his withdrawn for the time being. He wasn't cursing or name-calling, he was just being pessimistic about their approach.

The rage about this has been non stop for a month, despite the devs saying they're discussing it. But nope, that's not good enough for anyone. Everyone expects things to just be rolled back instantly to how it was despite the fact that's not really possible the way EQ's code works. It takes a full patch to do it. People have been posting thread after thread about it. And if it's a democracy, and everyone can voice their opinion, I can voice MINE on the ridiculous amount of rage going on non stop.

I don't remember commenting on anything you said other than that last post. I'm relatively sure I haven't told anyone here at all that their opinion is irrelevant or that they shouldn't voice it. I've just argued that just because it works for one group, doesn't mean others weren't unhappy and I didn't understand the thought process behind the change (wasn't exactly broken to begin with in my opinion). I would be interested in hearing how you're so familiar with EQ code or a technical explanation about why a rollback isn't possible - the previous data could have been archived and accessible.

I see. > <

I have no problem if you want express your disappointment with the game and desired changes. That's great! Feedback is good for the game. But your verbal diarrhea about the devs ruining the game and should give the money back is loathsome. Your drivel paints you as a person with a sense of entitlement just because you pay for the privilege to play on the server/in an expansion. The company does not owe you an explanation of what they are doing nor why. That is not what your contribution pays for. Should you decide that is not something you want and your constructive criticisms don't seem to get the restitution that you feel you are owed, you can certainly stop paying and express your concerns. However, when you come here and throw a tantrum and call for them to "burry" [sic] the game, then you are reducing *my* chance of having a meaningful dialogue with those devs. So, I have a problem with that.

Now that the trolls are fed, let me get back on course. Daedly - I would gladly help test the changes once they are on TEST. I will /testcopy a range of players up to 105 because...well, Fippy.

For someone so upbeat about respect Gana, you just failed to show any. "verbal diarrhea", "loathsome", "drivel"??? Didn't you say respect is a two way street? oh well

And your point is?
Fell foliage was made harder in the last patch, it was made easier in the hotfix, it is still to hard for group players.

Yes they have said they will make HAs easier the question is how much easier? If they treat the retune the same as they did Fell Foliage retune via hotfix they will miss the mark yet again.

I'm camping the forums waiting for a patch to the test server, looks like it will be next week now. Last test patch was 4 weeks ago. /cry

Because they've replied MANY times over the last 19 years that they can't do it. If they could, they would have over the many years. Do you really think they WANT an unhappy community?

Perhaps you missed his comment on my reading comprehension. Unlike the support representatives, I can and will defend myself. I am not looking for him to show me respect...just the game, the developers and the community representatives. That lack of respect impacts more than just himself as the game staff does not respond to threads wherein those comments exist. They explicitly stated that earlier. Nothing that Speathdell has offered in this thread has been conducive to further discussion nor has it been respectful. He all but threatened Smokezz. Someone has to stand up to a bully.

For your comment, Mordeen, I can offer up that while you disagree with my comments, you were very clear and for the most part, inviting to a more constructive conversation. I applaud that and whole-heartedly agree with what you said. My comments were not respectful to the message that he was sending. I will, however, say that the "oh well" changes your tenor to one of confrontation rather than conversation. And it is those quips that I am championing that people refrain from saying. Without that, I feel the environment would be more conversational and pleasant for the devs.

So, back to the point of the thread. Thank you, Yinla, for your post above.

I'm not even sure what he was talking about yet. Perhaps plans to make up something about a time in a guild, that I wasn't even in?

How, exactly, will they miss the mark in your book? Not reverting them back to before the tuneup? Not making them moloable? What is the benchmark that you (collectively) are looking for in regards to them making the mark?

Basically, the situation looks like this: They want a tuneup of the HAs. Player base doesn't. Neither side is budging, but there has got to be some middle ground that can be reached. What would that middle ground be? Or is the player base so entrenched that they won't accept a middle ground?

-MIlk
-Cheese
-Low Fat Cottage Cheese
-Sam. Rolls
-Bread
-CoCo Puffs
-Berserker Track
-Spinach Mix
-Contact Solution
-Guldens Mustard

Gana, you are not on some moral high ground. You certainly don’t express the civility or respect you keep running your mouth about. You also seem to have a problem when people express their opinions (when they aren’t your pro-dev ideology) and stop paying for subs. There are concerns you try to whitewash as anti-dev. Your opinions are no better or worse than anyone else’s, so if you could get off your high horse and try to class it up a bit, that would be great. No one owes devs respect for doing a poor job at doing their job. Once again, there is a TEST SERVER for a reason.

[Setting: Back in the conference room in the DBG bunker]

AlcoHowlic: I want to thank everyone for submitting their proposals to deal with the HA re-tuning matter. I trust everyone has reviewed them. LadyGoDiva, why don't you begin.

LadyGoDiva: Very well. As you've directed, none of the proposals includes a complete rollback. There is a consensus that the HA re-tuning went too far, especially as it relates to progression HAs in older content when a level 106+ enters the HA. The proposal most have supported appears to be a combination of making older HAs easier for 106+ troops to complete but to reduce the exp/AA rewards for those so that the players have to move to harder content to efficiently achieve AAs.

Coderx: That isn't too difficult to do. The question will be where to draw the lines. Also, there is the issue of whether re-tuning of some HAs for under 105s was too much. What type of gear should we be concerned about in those situations?

SirLancedAlot: Some TBM missions became too difficult for TBM group-geared players. That really shouldn't be the case. Increasing the difficulty somewhat for EoK and RoS equipment and spells makes sense, sort of. The problem as I see it is that the history of EQ is that players who are less-than-highest geared skip progressions until they level a little more and get better gear/spells and then go back to complete the progression. Isn't that something we want?

LadyJane: Well, that is the crux of the matter for a large segment of those who posted on the boards. They like being able to go back a little stronger and complete progressions such as TDS and TBM. Our re-tuning took that away from a significantly sized group. It would probably be best to make older HAs easier.

MasterRocksforJox: The casuals who play this game want to go back stronger and demolish older content. Just look at the number of times Slate gets creamed even today, or PoP progression is done. That has always been an enjoyable time for casual game players. I understand the need to limit AA rewards for 106+ in older content, but there really was not much reason to make them so incredibly difficult.

AlcoHowlic: OK, so we make the HAs easier and we re-tune the rewards to discourage 106+ players from building AAs through Gribbles and such. Do we just roll back the difficulty on TBM and TDS HA progression for 100+?

LadyJane: It would appear that a good segment of the community wants exactly that result. Maybe a small increase in difficulty, but not much.

AlcoHowlic: Coderx, start with that and let me know if there are any problems.

SirLancedAlot: What next? Open access to all the TDS islands regardless of progression? Make it easier for Anashti to be killed? Bah, dumbing down the game to Diablo level hack and slash . . . I suppose you're going to make warriors a lot stronger too?

AlcoHowlic: Let's not go there.

I am a fairly reasonable person and am willing to accept meeting in the middle if it is warranted. For this to happen there has to be an explanation as to why I as the paying customer should have to agree on said middle ground. What's the logical reasoning for said changes, it's intended goal, and how does meeting in the middle make it a win for everyone involved? I will reserve my opinions about the changes until they are actually made but anything less than a return to its previous level of difficulty will be disappointing to say the least. I get that some people don't think this content should be soloable although I don't agree with their opinion no more than I agree that a full raid force should required at 105-110 to down POP raid bosses for planar progression. I mean after all they are meant to be killed with a raid force and not a one man wrecking ball. I can only imagine the grief that would occur if they scaled those mobs too based on the average player level within combat range. This makes no more sense to me than scaling up HA's. I will patiently wait and see what the outcome is but no I won't meet in the middle unless they explain to me how this middle ground is better than the how things were before these changes.

People will continue to complain until it changes.. complaining about complaining that's a good way to derail the conversation.
The retune impacted those under 106- this has been proven
Those moving from level 105 to 106 see a dramatic increase in difficulty. -this has been proven.
The 110 versions are on par with ROS which has very little content for 106-109 - this has been proven
The Ha's take twice as long to complete even if they are reasonable to complete- this has been proven

As of today although there has been an indication of incoming changes nothing has been implemented.

so people indicating their displeasure however they want to is certainly merited.

Prathun posted essentially that he didn't believe there was any way to have a productive conversation with us on the topic even though multiple post by a variety of different posters indicated otherwise.

We haven't been told if 106= mobs in 105 nd under ha's is gonna be addressed. We haven't been told if the AI is gonna continue to cast 106 spells in these ha.

We haven't been told if the HA's 106 -110 are gonna be adjusted to a different gear and aa expectations

What we haven't seen is a 110 version of TBM and COTF gear progression one would exepct for scaling content between 105 eok2 gear and ROS T1 gear. nor any announcement of filling that void.

Lets compare bp's though for an SK ( of course this is scaling gear for the 106)
Group
EOK T2 607 AC 4530 HP
ROS T1 644 AC 4785 HP
Raid
EOK and Seb gear 788 AC 6040 HP
ROS Tier 1 Raid crafted 885 AC 6710 HP
ROS tier 1 BP 932 AC 7085 HP

Look at the jump from the Raid gear in ROS compared to Group gear in ROS.
Then lets look at ROS group Itemization
Tier 1 ROS Group 644 AC 4785 HP
Tier 2 ROS Group 718 AC 5285 HP


Now the devs can say they tune for the entire set not just individual pieces but this trend carries over to the other visibles as well

so where the boost? is it in the tradeskill gear?
Tier 1 Conflagrant group gear. 681 AC 5035 HP

Minimal boost applied to group gear in Ros1 because they wanted to to make Tier 1 tradeskilled gear the real tier 1.

Meanwhile the tier 1 ros could of been itemized for COTF and TBM Marks of Valor and Remnants.
and the ROS Tier1 could of been given a 3%- 5% boost

This is a disaster in group Itemization as raid gear received almost a 15% increase to ROS tier 1 from the prior expansion and the Group gear did not.

Since the real gear progression is for group and raid
Tradeskill tier 1
ROS 2 Tier 2

Then the Weak throw in ROS1 tier group gear should be included in the 106-110 Scaling HA expansion TBM and COTF.

Edit. The COTF HA's 106-110 could be left at current difficulty( as long as it doesn't impact ha's where the highest is 105 or under) with a version of the mission called remnants - Those HA's would award remnants( a Lower percentage than TBM missions) instead of Marks of Valor. This would allow people to work on getting their conflagrant and visible upgrades to start working on ROS.

Then you could make the next Ha base expansion with a minimum of 105 or 110

The civility and respect I keep running my mouth about is for the game and people that serve the game. I have certainly maintained that decorum. For people that show no respect and call for an untimely demise for this game, I have no patience for. I don't mind people expressing their displeasure with the game and changes by stopping paying as well as making *constructive* criticisms. If all you want to say is "You are ruining the game. You suck. Just make it better! You owe me an explanation as a paying customer. Blah Blah Blah!" then you are not trying to work to a reasonable resolution. You are inviting conflict and making demands over something your only control over is what you already gave up (paying the subscription). So, stop making it more difficult for those of us that are continuing to support the game and trying to invite conversation and compromise with the powers that be. If you want to be part of the solution, speak constructively and in a civil manner that could invite conversation towards a mutual resolution. Otherwise, you are just part of the problem.

And who is to say the devs did a poor job at doing their job? Do you work for DB? No, so then you don't set the objectives. The dev could have done *exactly* as requested and it works *exactly* as requested. You don't know. So saying that the dev did a poor job is just idiocy. What they implemented is clearly *not a mistake* and is what was intended - the mechanism, not the end result. That is why they didn't back it out and are making tweaks to the mechanism - to change the end result which may or may not have been what was intended. As a developer (and I am a developer), is it how I would have handled it? No, I would have backed it out and fixed it with the previous version in place...if that were possible. But, I don't know what other items these changed address. None of us do. So, I am willing to accept my lumps with the hopes that they hear and understand our concerns and make the modifications necessary to allow for my game play to go on as I like it. And because they are listening and making changes and you have ZERO clue over what the change was supposed to do, then YES, you *do* owe them the respect for doing their job. They earned it by putting in the time, effort and restraint from having to read the ridiculous comments and demands that many have put here without commenting negatively in response.

As for asking me to class it up...let me tell you something funny. I am saying the same thing as you. I think it was over-tuned. I think they should have backed it out and worked on the dev (not TEST until it was tested internally) server rather than leave it in game for 4 weeks. I am here to protest the exact same thing you are. But rather than make threats and snide comments, I am trying to invite them to have a more open and non-hostile conversation about it. I am asking the community as a whole that shares the same interest in the game to make this environment one that the devs feeling comfortable sharing (and I don't care whether they have the same point of view as me - Whulfgar, for example, doesn't want them changed...he wants them left how they currently are, but his constructive comments are a great addition to the conversation). You are doing the opposite. Stop being part of the problem and be part of the solution.

Middle ground for me would be only have them scale to the level of the expansion they were meant to be part of. That is, if a 110 character went into a CotF mission (originally designed for 100), it would scale to a 110 of CotF power (if such a creature exists). Adding the subsequent powers of the subsequent expansions is inappropriate, imo. That is the advantage that a player gets (and should get) if he waits until he has out-leveled the content. I don't mind the mob that was yellow before being yellow at 110 (or 105 in my case)...but I want it to only have the skills, abilities, HP ratio, etc. of a CotF mob. That would be my middle ground.