In my 24 years of MMORPG experience, containing all the big names such as EverQuest, WoW, Rift, Black Desert, Lost Ark etc. I learned only thing: Posts starting with "In my x years of MMORPG experience" and then talking about what games they played, rarely contribute much to a discussion, but are just a type of fallacy that tries to put more weight onto that person's opinion. Let's not do that please and let the content of each post speak for itself.
Let me start with a logical problem from Adric:
[...] Maybe the devil's in the details too much, hopefully we can release the numbers on QA and up any caps that is currently impacting players because we aren't looking to impact any current itemization, only plan for future expansion of itemization options.
This states: You up any caps that is CURRENTLY impacting players.
And when I complain about it:
Which essentially means: We're locking in current itemization, with NO items at lvl50 and only one healer item >40... this means: my current heal output will stay at this level, no matter what items drop for me and I cannot improve my char anymore. [...]
You answer by saying:
[...] Which essentially means you are putting words in my mouth. As stated the initial system would not be impacted this includes any lvl 46, 48, 50 items as they are included in the initial itemization system. [...]
Yeah... what is it now? Adjust caps that are -currently- impacting players, where NOONE has any equipment that is top level or set a limit for future drops where not even a single player can comment on, since noone has ever seen any drops of that level range?
I'm not putting words into your mouth... either you can balance it around items that are currently attainable by players, then it's a future nerf already or you balance it around items that might be in the database, but aren't available yet. Then asking us to give feedback about it is pointless, since we have no idea about what the stats will be, can't test any of it and it will be (remember Q4 for lvl50 content?) half a year in the future for us to know if what you implemented is good or not.
And half a year in the future:
You all seem to be concerned with a system that hasn't even been detailed yet. [...] It's fine and dandy to theory craft but for this particular instance I ask that we wait for it to be implemented, try it out, and then provide feedback on our implementation.
If that system has been in for half a year and THEN we provide feedback, do you think you are going to scrap the entire thing if the playerbase doesn't like it? No... so far, if something is happening that is completely disliked, the only way to stop it from happening is to immediately protest and this is not only this game only, but everywhere. If a system is in place already, it is FAR more difficult to get rid of it again, than to prevent it in the first place. Usually it ends up as "yeah, personx/members/citizens/etc. don't like it, we'll throw them a bone by changing a few details, but essentially it will stay this way now"
The alternative is of course, if you add in items with highly improved stats directly after implementing the new system, it will be a nerf for all current high level players, since the new caps will be a lot easier to reach, even without lvl50 items. And then this system is never going to be changed again ("Sorry, we can't remove the stat caps anymore. All the new items added would in conjunction be far to powerful...")
Or you are not adding that much more powerful new items, but if the stat cap isn't reachable... why implement it now in the first place and not instead focus the very limited development time on something that is actually going to make a difference now?
[...] I have yet to be convinced by the feedback provided that stat caps would have such an impact on the game as is feared. I've explained the goals in the current system why this helps itemization. Concerns have been raised and addressed around nerfs.
The concern around players no longer having any differences between them I don't fully understand. In the context of comparing it to the current system, I don't see the example of this happening at least in making it worse than the current system. [...]
I'll give you an example about how this removes differences:
You are planning to add items with higher single stat bonuses as you stated here (if you aren't the system is pointless anyway, isn't it?):
Maybe it's not clear, the stat caps are intended to be set at the currently itemized stat caps. ie you have 10 slots with +healing each slot has at most 10 +healing (again this example is not using in-game numbers), so from your gear you have a max of 100 healing. The stat cap is set to 100 and nothing changes with your current gear.
Uncapped system means I cannot give gear with 11 healing, capped system means I can.
Which will as an extreme example, just like you, pulling out random numbers, mean: You add 3 items with +50 healing each into the game, while the cap is set to 150 healing.
a) Anyone having the old items will have to reitemize with the new ones, since they are obviously better. (Even if the difference is very tiny, everyone will have to do that)
b) Having to reitemize the main stats on fewer items means also that you have to swap out ALL other items with that stat too, since going overcap is pointless and even with the other stats making minor differences, a lousy +1 resilience is better than a +10 overcapped healing. Which completely wrecks everything people have geared for so far... it essentially wastes months of playtime.
c) Everyone will be at that stat cap and there will be very, very minor differences between players only based in "junk" stats.
d) Players that spent hundreds of days of ingame time farming the perfect max +healing items and balancing all their gear around it will be at the same +healing bonus AND HAVE THE SAME HEALING OUTPUT as people that go "I equipped those 3 new nice items and focus the rest on combat movement, so I don't have to put my weapon away when repositioning! *HERP-DERP*"
I think what many are forgetting as well is the game is not released because it's ready, it was released because it had to be. Getting upset because stats change or mechanics are changed really serves no purpose. This is a "released" early access game, and that's not a knock against the devs at all, they did what they had to do and this game still needs to be developed. I won't even complain about a sub for early access because games like ARK literally charged for expansions while in "beta". It either comes down to accepting this, or moving on to something else you enjoy. [...]
Then marketing sucked... in fact it really did. I for example learned about the game like 5 days before the release date by accidently stumbling over an obscure comment somewhere. This game was marketed as finished and having content up to lvl50. NOWHERE did it say how it truly was at release:"Hey guys, we have content to lvl30 and about 2 camps for each level range (except the 20+... there is only one each)". This is what people complain about. There still isn't any content at 50. The highest mobs are lvl46/47 in ONE single, small Ember Vein. The highest zone below that is Exile Freehold which is an outdoor dungeon with the highest mobs being 2 spawns that can reach lvl43, rest of the zone is <=42. There is no base zone of lvl40 even yet. Most tradeskills are impossible to level to 50, since the mats needed haven't been implemented yet or are so terrible to farm you would need months. The highest items ingame are 6 lvl46 drops from the EV, ALL other items are lvl<=40. This includes Flux btw, so noone even knows what the lvl50 flux is going to be called.
Yes, it would have been a good idea to market this as a beta, even focusing on it. "Now going into beta release! You can help shape the world by providing feedback while playing before everyone else! And it is under ten bucks a month with the promise of NEVER having ANY form of microtransaction, just like a classic MMOPRG should be."... It works for f-ing Pantheon where people pay a hundred bucks monthly to be able to play ONE DAY a month in a damn pre-alpha to be the company's guinea pigs...
I don't consider a few folks speculating on how things will work before any details are shared to be anywhere in the realm of "so much backlash". The whole point of QA is to implement ideas and gather feedback on the implementation of said ideas - hence why we are discussing these things and implementing them in QA. At the end of the day we are the developers of the game and will continue to do what we believe moves the game in a positive direction.
You have to think about scaling here. With 100 active players on the server at peak times (with like only 10% even using the forum...), 5 people worried/angrily posting 3 posts each, when put to old WoW dimensions with 100k players online and 5k people complaining... well I think even someone as stubborn as Blizzard would care about a thread that had 15000 posts... even gaming sites would report about "the controversy".
And as I have pointed it our above: We can't provide feedback on stuff that we don't know about... what's the point of putting in a system NOW that will effect us in the far future (if current itemization is "not going to be affected"). The alternative is you planning to implement those over-stat items very soon, which will affect gameplay already, before the lvl50 content is even released to be tested/compared against.
[...]There has been mention of some stats being too weak such as stamina regeneration. Stat caps allow us to start offering higher amounts of these stats at lower levels without it being game-breaking at high levels and offering tradeoffs with other more valuable stats. This is some of what I am trying to communicate, but failing to convey. Perhaps the request would be more to make the stat stronger instead, but because we are currently working with % values the scope of this request would be not to increase the potency but to replace the stat entirely.
Right and I said it's fine feedback, but has nothing to do with the patch notes for QA and off-topic for our discussion.
My personal gripe is feedback that equates to making a different game. We work with the community to shape the game and steer things in a better direction, but there is occasionally feedback that completely opposes the goals and core tenants of the game itself. So how do we address this and take into consideration the feedback that the game should be changed into something else entirely? We state our goals with the game and hope to direct feedback towards making improvements in that direction.[...]
Yes, the request is to make the other stats useful. Some stats like +healing, +flanking, +dmg, phys resist etc. are SO MUCH more powerful than others like combat movement, resilience, all the debuff resists etc. that, as a player, you would be an idiot not to focus on the good ones. If the system was balanced there would be no need for artificial stat caps. Like for example "I really want that +healing, but then I won't have enough of the +sta regen and will run oom during combat... and don't these mobs do that nasty haste debuff? Damn, I have to keep that resist up or my casts won't be fast enough to heal the whole group. I think I can't afford to equip that... I have to test it. This sucks... what do to?" Even with the player thinking the situation which he's currently in (having to decide) "sucks", it is a lot more enjoyable than "+14 healing, -4 flanking? I'm going to camp that for a hundred hours, because that lvl20 item is a lot better than everything else *HURR-DURR*!" (yes, that's me, I admit it.)
And the feedback about the low numbers and non-exponentional scaling... you introduced that into the discussion yourself here:
[...]
Yes we purposely keep the numbers low and don't go into exponential scaling. Content remains dangerous especially group content. This does shrink our dynamic range, but this is what we are aiming for in terms of relative power across the level ranges. Damage isn't exponentially increasing, but people definitely feel those bumps and players hitting for 100-200+ at higher levels and that feels good.
After that the feedback of rounding problems and some stats not having much influence because of the low scaling (how much +healing -one of the most important stats!- does it need to make a noticeable difference in the warlords healing song?) is to be expected, since it is directly linked to stats being capped. Also the opinion that, after testing it for months now, "yeah, it was a nice idea at first, but that system simply sucks, feels unrewarding, brings more problems with it, than it solves and should be changed completely" is a valid one. Even if it goes against the "vision of the game", you should ask yourself:"Have I ever heard -anyone- say they are happy with how the stat scaling is implemented or has it always only been mentioned in a negative way, with noone defending the way it is?"
As for me personally... I don't think these caps can be prevented (this thread evolving has proven it to me more and more) and it -will- affect me, with my focus on one single stat (+healing), immensely in the future. It will completely break my build, will force me to reitemize nearly every slot and I most likely will have to adjust to a different playstyle too in the future (wasn't the 10% nerf on patch enough already? I don't want to have to use First Aid). So
I have unsubbed yesterday and scrap the plan of playing another char to bridge the time until lvl50 content is implemented (Q4). I simply can't enjoy playing an alt while waiting to know if my main is going to receive the mother of all nerfs. Guess it's time for a few months of time-wasting with non-MMORPGs (D4?) and then "try out the implementation"