PDA

View Full Version : Why the hate for mindless lot runs?



Big_Russ
10-22-2007, 06:57 PM
Seriously, what does it matter to any other player if I enjoy zerging through Vol? Obviously if you don't like zerging, then by all means don't zerg it. Why are you so happy that some of my enjoyment in the game has now been nerfed?

I really think this was a poor decision to nerf Vol.

Edit: DOH!! Loot. Not lot.

Partymaker
10-22-2007, 07:08 PM
I've been leveling rerolls since almost 2 weeks now so I haven't heard/noticed anyting about any change that might have been put in place in DToV or anywhere else...

What is the change in the Temple exactly? Something with the keys? We can no longer pull all the mods in the center for firewalls? What? :eek:

Big_Russ
10-22-2007, 07:10 PM
Just look around the forums. It won't take you long to find the thread.

To slow groups down, shadows are now immune to fire, spawn in the switch room, and respawn everywhere.

Have fun whacking at disappearing creatures with your ghost touch, boys.

Partymaker
10-22-2007, 07:39 PM
Immune to firewalls?! Undeads are NATURALLY VULNERABLE to fire, getting double damage from it and they're now immune....LMAO

Wow.... another good reason to stop losing my time with this crappy Orchard stuff.

Endless grinding, crappy chest loots (most of the time stuff min lvl 6-8 from a quest lvl 13 on elite....lol), crappy XP and from what we're reading now, crappy raid. Orchard FTW! :p:p

And most of the builds barely have 1-2 good items for them in the raid... wow! I just can't justify to grind for like 10 hours to get the sigils, around 100-200 hours for tomes and shields, then grind for 2 months (20th run) to "maybe" get something decent from the Abbott raid.

What's even more funny is that I'm not even a casual gamer, playing around 25-30 hours per week and I find it dumb to lose that much time on this stuff. Just guess what casual gamers are thinking about it :rolleyes:

Now I'm REALLY glad I never counted on any raid stuff. Overall, I could say the game hasn't changed much for me atm but most raid fans should wonder now why they're still playing...:(

Spectralist
10-22-2007, 07:41 PM
To slow groups down, shadows are now immune to fire, spawn in the switch room, and respawn everywhere.

Wow, i didn't like that quest before... but damn that's bad. No incorporeal should ever be immune to fire, that's the only way to kill them that isn't ridiculously tedious and frustrating. And respawns... They have no place whatsoever in an entirely instanced game.

Samadhi
10-22-2007, 07:45 PM
Agreed. I am FAR from a casual player - but this kind of open hostility towards using tactics (AoE damage spells) on creatures that are beyond annoying to try to melee... Kiss of death...

Invalid_86
10-22-2007, 09:32 PM
I 've never done the quest, and the thought of incorporeal undead being mystically immune to something that they should be taking double damage from makes me not want to do it. Sorry, had enough of that tedious fighting vanishing undead nonsense in those four Necropolis quests.

MysticTheurge
10-22-2007, 09:37 PM
Undeads are NATURALLY VULNERABLE to fire, getting double damage from it and they're now immune....

This is not true.

Undead are not naturally vulnerable to fire. They are naturally vulnerable to Wall of Fire (which specifically deals double damage to undead) but not fire in general.

Borror0
10-22-2007, 10:17 PM
This is not true.

Undead are not naturally vulnerable to fire. They are naturally vulnerable to Wall of Fire (which specifically deals double damage to undead) but not fire in general.

Yeah, wording different, but meaning the same in the end.

That's what he meant, they are supposed to be vulnerable to it... not immune!!??!!?:eek::rolleyes:

MysticTheurge
10-22-2007, 10:20 PM
That's what he meant, they are supposed to be vulnerable to it... not immune!!??!!?:eek::rolleyes:

But just because Wall of Fire deals double damage to undead doesn't mean there should never be undead immune to fire.

I mean heck, there's one in the SRD:


Young Adult Red Dragon Skeleton

Special Qualities: Damage reduction 5/bludgeoning, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to cold and fire, undead traits

Boulderun
10-22-2007, 10:23 PM
There have been undead immune to fire in this game all along - see blackbone skeletons.

That said, this change is just to increase the aggravation factor. It makes the quest take longer and provide less fun.

It's much like the ridiculous boost to flesh golems saves right before mod 5 release. Yes, they did smite too easy, but at least it was fun. That change didn't make anything significantly harder, just less fun.

MysticTheurge
10-22-2007, 10:24 PM
That said, this change is just to increase the aggravation factor. It makes the quest take longer and provide less fun.

Oh, I agree with that. But I think we're kind of debating a side point. This (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=125165) is my take on the issue.

Borror0
10-22-2007, 10:25 PM
But just because Wall of Fire deals double damage to undead doesn't mean there should never be undead immune to fire.

I wasn't saying it was a good reason to not make them immune to fire, only meant it's one reason less.


I mean heck, there's one in the SRD:

Find me a logical explanation of why Shadows would be immune to fire and I'll accept the change.

MysticTheurge
10-22-2007, 10:55 PM
Find me a logical explanation of why Shadows would be immune to fire and I'll accept the change.

Elsie was just your normal every day housewife. If the house was in Stormreach and the husband were a pirate. She loathed her husband, Bluebeard, but any time she tried to tell him she was leaving he would beat her. One day she finally worked up the nerve to hire an adventurer to lie in wait and kill her husband when he next returned from sea.

When Bluebeard came home that night, she lured him into the bedroom. Once he had removed most of his armor, the dashing young rouge leaped from behind the door, bringing a wickedly curved dagger down towards the pirate. But Bluebeard caught sight of him in the mirror and, spinning quickly, slammed the young man into the floor. He then disarmed the man and slit his throat with his own knife.

Turning to his wife with fire in his eyes, Bluebeard slammed a meaty fist into her face. Terrified, she dropped to the floor, but the pirate wasn't done. Blind with rage, he crippled the woman, leaving her helpless in the house. Then he left.

Elsie could hear him rummaging around downstairs, but she couldn't move, and her feeble cries for help barely seemed to penetrate the heavy wooden walls. Slowly the air seemed to grow warmer and thicker, and a flickering glow came through the door. As Elsie died, helpless amid the flames, she swore to have her revenge. If her weakness had killed her in this life, perhaps it would become a tool for her in the next.

-------

People who die feeling particularly weak or helpless often become shadows. Because of the circumstances of her death, Elsie becomes a Shadow with the Fire subtype. Any spawn she creates afterward also become Shadows with the Fire subtype. Soon there's a veritable army of fire-immune shadows haunting the grave of a certain pirate in the Necropolis. At least until the charismatic Priest of Vol comes along and binds them to his own purposes.

Memnir
10-22-2007, 11:56 PM
If they added some dialog to explain/justify the change... I'd be all for it. It'd be creative and interesting. A new twist to the monster that I'd actually enjoy. It's, oh whaddaya call it... story-telling! Thats it! And that's what these quests are at heart, right - a story. If the quest-giver was given a few lines of dialog that so many zip over to get to the Accept Quest option that explained the immunity - it'd be awesome.

But, this was just lazy. I should not have to fill in the gaps for Turbine to make myself happy with it. Hell, the Notes today could have included something like "You may want to pay more attention to [quest giver]... they have some new information you will need." Viola! Problem solved. Yes, they may be immune - but it's in a story context that makes said story more interesting.

As it is, it's a dirty and cheap move by the Devs that feels to many like a punishment.

Shade
10-23-2007, 02:28 AM
I thought this quest sucked anyways. A 10 minuit mindless zerg thru undead that provided zero challenge and a bit of standard random loot wasn't my idea of fun anyways so I could care less either way..

Too bad there attempt at fixing the zerging ruined some ppls fun tho.

Snike
10-23-2007, 03:00 AM
Put a 5-10 second reuse timer on thier damn Phasing, now that firewall is useless, at least make melee useful against them.

Borror0
10-23-2007, 04:18 AM
People who die feeling particularly weak or helpless often become shadows. Because of the circumstances of her death, Elsie becomes a Shadow with the Fire subtype. Any spawn she creates afterward also become Shadows with the Fire subtype. Soon there's a veritable army of fire-immune shadows haunting the grave of a certain pirate in the Necropolis. At least until the charismatic Priest of Vol comes along and binds them to his own purposes.

OK, you win that again MT. Like it? ;)

But honetly, I think you got my point too, they are just taking pleasure making the quest harder just for the fun of it.

Do they realise how that impacts Sorcerers at all? Immune to fire means that they lost their major to AoE spells, because that's how Sorcerers are most of the time, they have to focus of a few good nukes, a few good CC, a few good buffs. Of course, you could only take nukes... but that wouldn't be very part freindly. You could only take only CC... but they made red named immune to it so yoiu'd stand around looking stupid when facing those. Anyway, Halt Undead is borken.

That change is nothing to a Wizard. Ok, no fire? I'll try Acid Fog or any other spell. The Sorcerer doesn't have that freedom, not with level 6 spells.

They don't seem to think about the metagame, about the impact their changes will have on their players. all they keep on doing is pressing the easy button. Immunity, over and over again. Like someone said, it's written on the box "Unlimited: Advance your character through brawn, cunning, or wits." Funny how it might be rewritten: "Unlimited: Advance your character through hack and slashing as anything else is an exploit." We find someething, they change it. I'm fine with it, mosty of the time. But sometimes like this... it's much harder.

I was alll for the CK nerfing, god I hated that spell. But this time, what was wrong? Sure, mobs shouldn't stand in WoFs... but c'mon. immunity is not the way. Immmunity removes the fun. Gving them resist? I can see that. %0% damage reduction to fire? I can see that. Totally nerfing a spell because it's "too efficient"? No sorry, I cannot see that. CK could be used to snipe mobs. Here, you have to stand to-to-toe with them, uness you got an intimitank. You'll grab aggro for sure in a split second.

How about make them scarier? Give arcanes less reasons to grab their aggro. If WoFing the quest would rquire more than just sitting there, think everyone would attempt it? Maybe not. But no, you guys went for that freaking easy button... again.

I don't mind most of your changes, but immunities are making me really mad.

Blanket immunities are annoying. I can see why a red/purple name is immune to insta-death. Pretty obvious, would make the game way too easy. How ever, trip not working? Why do all the red named have this imminity? A few, I'd understand. It'd be a rare powerful spell, but a few could have that immunity, no problem. Also, some could have a great save against it and would get up in no time. But sadly no, everything is immune.

All they want us to do is hack ans slash. If they want us to think, they'll come up with a puzzle. We cannot even use the georaphie to our use most of the time... they nerf it. I'm not talking about safe spots like the Reaver, I'm all against those. I'm just thinking about the idea we get but that doesn't work... or get nerfed at the next update.

Beholder in the preraid is a good one. I've thought about casting a MEAN Blade Barier on top and hiding under an iceberg with UWA item and waiting. When the Barier will have finished, I come out, use intimidate.... run around while the cleric cast another one. You may say it's abusing the AI, I say to each their own weapon.

They got:

Blanket immunity
Crazy HP
Illogical saves
Skyrocketting to-hit
AC, which most of us eas forced to throw at the garbage because of it's new uselessness.
Superiority in number
AI


We got:

Our brain
Better spells damage
More attacks per round


Guess what they nerf? Spells. They cannot nerf around combo chains because that'd be un-D&D like, they cannot nerf our brain... so they nerf spells. Tuth is, monsters and us are playing under different rules. Example: Enervation is a good arcane spell. If you'd like to PK, you might throw one to a mob and then PK him. Now, Doomsphere spam-cast it. I'd say he exploit us. He's got immunity to it (een if he's an undead, I'm talking about red named), so we cannot hit him with it... but he can and feels no shame at all in using it, knowing we cannot save or do anything about it but say "Borror's got 7 negative levels" hoping that the cleric will cast Greater Restoration on you before you die.. which the chances are slim to none.

My point is, I can only dream of reaching the to-hit and saves moibs are reaching... and dealing the same number of damage per hit they do. Well, maybe an intimitank fully buffed with bard love and arcane (and divine) buffs..... but that'd be rare... or should it be?:rolleyes:

My point, the mobs and us don't play by the same rules. Try to narrow that gap a bit... and honestly, if there still is risk in a method, don't nerf it. If it's totally chessy and there is no risk, I can see why. If you may die anyway, why nerf it? It's the most efficient way. You're going to blame us for this? For using the game of the best we can? That's just plain stupid. We're going to use the best spell at the right moment, whatever we think it'll be. If you keep on using the nerf hammer, over and over again, you'll only make us angry. This time, sorcerers got the shaft. What will it be next time? Strategist? Nah, already nerfed red named. Rangers? I don't think ranged comabt could be any worse. More spells? Not much left...:rolleyes:


Next time you think about a nerf, I've got tto tip in mind for you guys, just in case you're reading:

Think about the impact it'll have on the game, on the players, on their build.
Explain! Be very clear on the why of this change, what you felt it was doing. Why it was wrong. CK, obvious. Minos Legend bug? Good thing. Removing total safe spot in raid? Brilliant. Nerfing a nuke because you cannot program AI to make it work... your problem. Don't put it in here if it's not working the way you want it.


Wow, talk about a long post!!:eek:

Big_Russ
10-23-2007, 06:00 AM
This isn't exactly where I wanted this thread to go.

Borror0
10-23-2007, 06:03 AM
This isn't exactly where I wanted this thread to go.

So?:rolleyes:

MysticTheurge
10-23-2007, 07:40 AM
...they are just taking pleasure making the quest harder just for the fun of it.

I can agree with pretty much everything except this.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think the devs are "out to get us." Or that they enjoy seeing us suffer. Or anything like that.

I think they have some serious concerns about the ease with which you can complete certain high level quests.

I mean what would you do? Someone walks into your office and goes "We were dumb. We didn't realize they could use <insert incredibly effective tactic> to essentially walk through the quest with little-to-no-risk. What are we going to do?"

Any major change and you've got to spend some time QAing it (and suffer the wrath of the "OMG Why'd you spend time redoing a quest when you could be making new stuff" people). In the mean time people are shoveling loot into their backpacks.

So I guess, to me, it seems perfectly understandable to make a quick change that cuts off a particular tactic. Everything else that anyone's suggested doesn't seem to a) work or b) be any better. Doors? What exactly would that do? You'd open a door, drag things back, and run on to the next door. Leashes? Then you could just run past the shadows in the first place. Resistance? People would just use the same tactic, max/empower their Walls and it would just take twice as long (which would inevitably lead to people complaining about that).

I don't think what they came up with is the most elegant solution. But I do think it's the solution that probably works the best that involved the least amount of Dev time.

I hope they can watch what happens in Vol, just like they're watching the Abbot raid, and make some adjustments in the future. But honestly, I can't even think what they should do differently. (Aside from maybe naming them something different and/or giving a reason for them to be immune to fire.)

Borror0
10-23-2007, 11:08 AM
I don't think they are out to get us, but sometimes, I don't see the necessity of the fix.

Vol was easy? So what.

I liked Vol for a 15-20 mins run when I don't have much to do.
They could have removed a chest I couldn't care less. But I liked Vol.

IMO, there should always be one really easy quest per module and one really really hard one.

Lorien_the_First_One
10-23-2007, 11:18 AM
But just because Wall of Fire deals double damage to undead doesn't mean there should never be undead immune to fire.

I mean heck, there's one in the SRD:

Sorry but that's because in life it was a red dragon. That immunity makes sense.

MysticTheurge
10-23-2007, 02:09 PM
Sorry but that's because in life it was a red dragon. That immunity makes sense.

And there are plenty of other ways that it would make sense for a shadow to be immune to fire.

Borror0
10-23-2007, 03:13 PM
And there are plenty of other ways that it would make sense for a shadow to be immune to fire.

...but they aren't any in DToV...

MysticTheurge
10-23-2007, 03:27 PM
...but they aren't any in DToV...

...that we know of.

Memnir
10-23-2007, 03:31 PM
Yes we do.
The Devs were tired of that tactic being used and put the kibosh on it - end of story.

If they added something story wise to make it fit, I'd be fine with it. They did not, nor will they ever I wager. Why - because it would take time for them to do it, and I don't think they care that much.

The Shadows are now immune to fire 'cause the DM got mad.

MysticTheurge
10-23-2007, 03:35 PM
If they added something story wise to make it fit, I'd be fine with it. They did not, nor will they ever I wager. Why - because it would take time for them to do it, and I don't think they care that much.

The Shadows are now immune to fire 'cause the DM got mad.

Yeah, but adding something to the story would just be a justification. The shadows would still be immune to fire for the same reason they are right now (you say "the DM got mad," I say "players were breaking the quest" let's call the whole thing off).

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a story reason added, or a name change (I like cindershades), but it's not really going to change anything about the reasoning, so why would it matter?

Vorn
10-23-2007, 03:35 PM
And there are plenty of other ways that it would make sense for a shadow to be immune to fire.

Special environmental effects, special nature of the beastie due to the place it's in, all sorts of lovely DM tricks are possible. I would ask only for DM-text/vocal clues as to the nature of the tricks....a wee bit of narrative makes the encounter that much richer...it doesn't take a Kalashtar....
:)

Memnir
10-23-2007, 03:45 PM
so why would it matter?To me - it would make all the differance in the world. We can come up with all the justifications we want for why the Shadows are immune, but that's just us BSing about it. If the Devs took the time to put it in the game - it would then be a matter of it being a story-driven reason they are immune. It's the differnances between the DM saying "Cause I said so!" and "Here is why it is so,". One is the DM just being ****ed off and being a bully - the other is the DM being creative and finding a way to adjust to player tactics.

I've been a DM for most of the time I've played D&D - which is roughtly 3/4ths of my life by now. Personally, I have not used the bully methood since I was 12 because I found out how much it angered the people playing the game I was running. But, if I put in a crafted reason for something happening - even if it goes against stadard lore - then the players were a lot more accepting of it, even if they were not exactly happy with it.

I'd still not be happy with the change - but I'd accept it because the NPC gave me a reason to. As it is, this is just the DM shoving a rule change down my neck mid-game w/o any in-game reasoning behind it. For me, one is being a good DM and the other is an example of a bad DM. Right now, Turbine is being a rather lousy DM.

MysticTheurge
10-23-2007, 03:49 PM
Well I certainly hope they add in some reasoning behind the Shadows immunities. It would be nicer. But again, I'm not sure how "They're immune to fire because I say so" is bullying while "They're immune to fire because the were created from people who'd died to arson (but secretly just because I say so)" is not.

To me, they just don't seem different enough to warrant Righteous Indignation. In both cases, they're immune to fire because "I say so" one just has a bit of flavor text justification.

I'd love to see that justification added, but I don't feel like without it I'm being bullied and only adding it would solve all the problems.

Bogenbroom
10-23-2007, 03:54 PM
Back to the Op. The reason their is an anti-loot-run bent to the game is that the game isn't supposed to be about loot runs. You may ask what harm do they cause, and I'd answer by pointing to you LFM panel.

Every quest in the game should have a roughly equivalent RoI. "I" being time and risk. Risk in the game is negligible, so mostly time.

The return does not *HAVE* to be loot, it could be XP or or flagging, or something else. But the end idea is to have all of the quests be of value. That way they variety on the LFM is improved.

As is now we have 4 types of LFMs

1) Lowbie XP quests
2) High level loot runs
3) Raids
4) Favor runs.

And try, oh try, to get anything else going if you are not a cleric.

The deal was that the return on Vol was WAAAAAAAY out of whack with the investment. We all knew it was out of whack... and yeah the method of redress was maybe inappropriate. But that is the way these things go. It needed to be tweaked, they tweaked it and likely will again based off of the new experience.

On the upside it brought up a VERY valuable discussion on phasing. (thanks MT.) I mean, really, if they had made the bats immune to fire, who would have blinked?

Big_Russ
10-23-2007, 05:31 PM
Back to the Op. The reason their is an anti-loot-run bent to the game is that the game isn't supposed to be about loot runs. You may ask what harm do they cause, and I'd answer by pointing to you LFM panel.

Every quest in the game should have a roughly equivalent RoI. "I" being time and risk. Risk in the game is negligible, so mostly time.

The return does not *HAVE* to be loot, it could be XP or or flagging, or something else. But the end idea is to have all of the quests be of value. That way they variety on the LFM is improved.

As is now we have 4 types of LFMs

1) Lowbie XP quests
2) High level loot runs
3) Raids
4) Favor runs.

And try, oh try, to get anything else going if you are not a cleric.

The deal was that the return on Vol was WAAAAAAAY out of whack with the investment. We all knew it was out of whack... and yeah the method of redress was maybe inappropriate. But that is the way these things go. It needed to be tweaked, they tweaked it and likely will again based off of the new experience.

On the upside it brought up a VERY valuable discussion on phasing. (thanks MT.) I mean, really, if they had made the bats immune to fire, who would have blinked?

So, basically the devs should shut down any percieved fun being had by players in favor of making them "earn" their loot.

How does this effect anybody but me? What does it matter to anybody if I have a stash of 27 vorpals, 10 disruptors, enough paralyzers to equip an army, and a hen that lays golden eggs? Does that effect YOUR gameplay and fun?

If it doesn't effect your gameplay and fun, why should Turbine spend dev hours on it instead of dev hours on new content?

Gorstag
10-23-2007, 06:09 PM
This is why in truth all these changes are really upsetting me. Mod five was on risia for several months and was postponed what....two months!!! There is noway that this module should have went live without it being set as they desired. Honestly now, mod five is undoubtably the worst mod turbine has done to date.

Borror0
10-23-2007, 06:15 PM
...that we know of.

If they didn't bother comming up with one.. it's the same to me.

Shaunassey
10-23-2007, 07:03 PM
Turbine is a mean little kid with a piece of cheese on a string leading us through a rat maze, if we take a wrong turn and not follow the cheese we don't get rewards!

What I'm say is that Turbine Devs get really mad if you don't do what they have scripted you to do in their quests. If your smart enough to out smart them they seem to take it personally, and manipulate the quest until you do it the way they intended it to be done. Now I don't know about you but most DM's I played with never change the adventure because you got through it differently then they had foreseen, they just made a better mouse trap on their next one. Not the case with Turbine.

This change was not really a game breaker, but it should have been better scrutinized by the devs and the Phasing on the shadows is entirely too frequent. If they needed to due this, that also should have been changed tic for tac so to speak. Besides the loot in that quest was not all that good, and you pull lvl 7-9 items in a level 15 quest on Elite, wow we were really getting over weren't we...lol

I believe this change could've been held off until Mod 7 was released due to the fact that Sunburst is getting added to the Arcane spell list and it will be devastating against creatures of Shadow, unless they some how find a way to make them Immune to that as well, geez I hope not =/

moorewr
10-23-2007, 08:11 PM
Turbine is a mean little kid with a piece of zombie meat on a string leading us through an undead rat maze, if we take a wrong turn and not follow the zombie meat we get cut to shreds by blade traps!

Fixed it for you. :)

Big_Russ
10-23-2007, 09:58 PM
Turbine is a mean little kid with a piece of cheese on a string leading us through a rat maze, if we take a wrong turn and not follow the cheese we don't get rewards!

What I'm say is that Turbine Devs get really mad if you don't do what they have scripted you to do in their quests. If your smart enough to out smart them they seem to take it personally, and manipulate the quest until you do it the way they intended it to be done.

This is my biggest disappointment. When this game was first marketed and released, one big draw was that it was UP TO THE PARTY how they wanted to do the quest. It was advertised as having this really diverse system that would give the players flexibility. In the last six months especially, it has done a 180 on this. Now you do it the prescribed way or get slapped down for it.

Poor, poor design for a D&D MMO.

Kaish
10-23-2007, 10:09 PM
Respawning is always the worst thing in DDO. Many quest (in Necropolis, for example) are awful to start with, and the respawning make it even worst. There is NOTHING worst then that. Plus making undead invulnerable to fire is ridiculous.

The thing is, undead are not fun to fight.. and those disappearing monsters are the worst. They take way to long to kill and you have to wait there for then to reappear.. and stuff.. That is awful.

Plus, so what if we use firewalls to kill them? If we can drag them all in a single room, its because the dungeon was badly done in the first place.

Please, stop nerfing casters and do a better dungeon or mob IA. Nerfing is nothing but a cheap way for 'fixing' something badly done. And the result in simply making players angry. And everybody knows that angry customers are bad for business...

Kaish
10-23-2007, 10:16 PM
This is my biggest disappointment. When this game was first marketed and released, one big draw was that it was UP TO THE PARTY how they wanted to do the quest. It was advertised as having this really diverse system that would give the players flexibility. In the last six months especially, it has done a 180 on this. Now you do it the prescribed way or get slapped down for it.

Poor, poor design for a D&D MMO.

The thing about nerfing Firewalls is that casters need to use other spells now. But direct attack spells are often ineffective (exemple : Fireball are dodged by almost every monsters, and many monsters have improve evasion, so even lightning bolts, that use to do great damage, now does.. 0.. yeah.. none cause of the save). So caster need to use finger of death, pk or other powerful spells, but monsters have saves so high now, that you need 32 int or charisma to have a chance to use them. Sio where is the freedom in the character creation when you have to put all your points in 1 stat? All casters are pretty much the same. If you dont, well, you just aint that effective.

making monsters invulnerable to this or that, making monsters with 50 ac or more, forcing you to have 50 ac yourself, is very bad. There is no more freedom in the way our characters are made. We have to follow the nerfs rules or be gimped.

So, DDO is on a bad track atm. I hope that will change soon, so our not so perfect character, can have fun again and not be a burden for the group.

Bogenbroom
10-24-2007, 11:00 AM
So, basically the devs should shut down any percieved fun being had by players in favor of making them "earn" their loot.

How does this effect anybody but me? What does it matter to anybody if I have a stash of 27 vorpals, 10 disruptors, enough paralyzers to equip an army, and a hen that lays golden eggs? Does that effect YOUR gameplay and fun?

If it doesn't effect your gameplay and fun, why should Turbine spend dev hours on it instead of dev hours on new content?

Shut down? No. Bring in line with everything else in game. Not strictly in terms of loot, but in terms of the overall cost v reward. that doesn't preclude runs that are higher on the loot reward and lower on the XP reward, but there needs to be balance.

And yes, it effects everyone that you play with if you have have access to a warehouse of loot. It changes the expectations placed on every other player in the game. It effects the overall game economy if those items make it to the AH.

Look, if one person has uber loot, yeah, no big deal. If a population does it throws off the balance in the game.

And frankly, if everyone in game has all of the uber loot coming out of their noses the enemy has to be balanced to deal with that. that is what we call Monty Haul and I thin tkeh vast majority of folks have played MMos that have ended in the land of Monty Haul... it ain't fun.

Yaga_Nub
10-24-2007, 02:55 PM
..you say "the DM got mad," I say "players were breaking the quest" let's call the whole thing off.

No let's not call the whole thing off. Who gives a flip that you say "the players were breaking the quest"?

We weren't breaking the quest. We were running the quest and using the tools that have been given to us.

Once again I'll point out that:

1. This was playtested on Mournlands and feedback was given.
2. This was playtested on Risia and feedback was given.
3. They STILL released it even when it was pointed out ad nausem
that the quest was going to be the new loot run.

So no, we didn't break the quest, they released it as intended and I don't give a **** if you are MT, you're wrong here.

MysticTheurge
10-24-2007, 03:02 PM
So no, we didn't break the quest, they released it as intended and I don't give a **** if you are MT, you're wrong here.

You don't have to care what I say. All you have to care about is what the devs do. And it seems that it was their opinion that the method that so many people were using was breaking the quest (and by breaking I mean it was making the quest too simple/easy for the rewards it was giving). They did something about it.

You can claim they did it because "They got mad." But really "who gives a flip that you say" that?

Yaga_Nub
10-24-2007, 03:05 PM
You don't have to care what I say. All you have to care about is what the devs do. And it seems that it was their opinion that the method that so many people were using was breaking the quest (and by breaking I mean it was making the quest too simple/easy for the rewards it was giving). They did something about it.

You can claim they did it because "They got mad." But really "who gives a flip that you say" that?

I didn't claim they did it for any reason. I said that it was playtested for several months and they were told over and over this was going to be a problem and they ignored it until it went live. Re-read the post.

MysticTheurge
10-24-2007, 03:05 PM
I didn't claim they did it for any reason.

My original comment was in response to a poster who was claiming they did it for a specific reason. Maybe you should reread that post?

Yaga_Nub
10-24-2007, 03:10 PM
My original comment was in response to a poster who was claiming they did it for a specific reason. Maybe you should reread that post?

Well when you use a quote from a person and then use the word "you" without naming a different person then it would appear to a normal person that you are referring to the person you quoted. To be clear I'm speaking about post #43.

MysticTheurge
10-24-2007, 03:13 PM
Well when you use a quote from a person and then use the word "you" without naming a different person then it would appear to a normal person that you are referring to the person you quoted.

And generally, if you're going to quote someone you respond to their actual points. My point by saying "players break the quest" was to counter the "Devs got mad" rationale. If you don't want to take it in that context, then that's your call, but it's quite disingenuous.

moorewr
10-24-2007, 03:14 PM
My original comment was in response to a poster who was claiming they did it for a specific reason. Maybe you should reread that post?

Back to mindlessness:

I don't think devs thought for a moment we were exploiting by pulling and frying the vampires. They just thought we'd shown the quest was too easy.

I would like us collectively , the loud, cranky end of the player spectrum, to focus on getting the devs to do more creative, enjoyable nerfing. Every time I ran Vol we joked that we should "get our fun in before they nerf it." So we can't claim we didn't see something coming.

What I object to is the artlessness. Give us a back-story for the change, or pick another method, like leashing the vamps or copying the cool Dolurrh effect over from Tomb of the Unhallowed. Or better yet deduct a level rating or two and favor from the quest, make the random sigil drops a little less common there, and let us go to town.

MysticTheurge
10-24-2007, 03:17 PM
What I object to is the artlessness.

And that I can agree with.

It's ascribing certain motives to the devs, or trying to suggest that if they'd done it before X that it wouldn't have mattered. Those kinds of things are just silly.

Yaga_Nub
10-24-2007, 03:27 PM
And generally, if you're going to quote someone you respond to their actual points. My point by saying "players break the quest" was to counter the "Devs got mad" rationale. If you don't want to take it in that context, then that's your call, but it's quite disingenuous.

Fine, you want to think that is disingenuous I'll go with that. I'll also accept your apology in advance for telling me that I said something that I didn't.

But you still aren't even acknowledging my very valid points.

How did the players break the quest? Tell me. We didn't design it, we just play it. There are people that told them from the beginning on Mournlands that the quest was broken AS THEY DESIGNED IT and they still put it in as is.

So how did the players break the quest? By using the spells and tactics that we've had in the game for quite a while now? No, that's not breaking the quest. That's running the quest.

And I know that you think that using our brains "borders" on an exploit but I don't feel like getting wasted before every DDO session to dumb myself down.

If the quest designer would have taken the feedback in the first place, he/she could have staved off most if not all of this discussion. They chose not to and somehow you equate that to "the players broke the quest." HOW?

MysticTheurge
10-24-2007, 03:29 PM
Yaga Nub, every answer I could give you is already in one of the posts I've made above.

Yaga_Nub
10-24-2007, 03:33 PM
Yaga Nub, every answer I could give you is already in one of the posts I've made above.

I've read them all and yet they still dont' seem to satisfy this nagging in my head of why you think the devs share no blame in the issue. Yes you've come out about the nature of the fix but nothing about why it was there in the first place. I guess that's all I'm trying to beat out of you is an acknowledgement that the players aren't at fault here. The devs are and you are letting them skate on part of that fault by completely glossing over it.

What's that old saying? Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part? Well maybe it could be changed for DDO to read - " Poor quest design on your part does not call for nerfing on my part?"

MysticTheurge
10-24-2007, 03:41 PM
I've read them all and yet they still dont' seem to satisfy this nagging in my head of why you think the devs share no blame in the issue.

Ah, perhaps this is the problem. I don't feel as though the devs share no blame for this problem. In fact, I'd say most of the blame for the problem arising lies at the feet of the devs. Players will be players and they will do their best to get as much beneficial stuff as possible with the least amount of effort. This should always be taken into consideration.

However, it's also the Devs' responsibility to fix these things when they arise. I don't see how the fact that they did it monday instead of last week, or three months ago really matters, regardless of the kind of feedback they were getting. They should do it when they can do it. I think the responsibility for overreacting to this change lies largely at the feet of the players. This was perhaps not the best way to go about making this quest harder, but it's what they did. I personally hope they continue to review the quest and this change and work to improve the changes over time. But I don't see how all the cries of "You suck!" and "Why don't you do your freaking jobs and make new content instead of going back and messing with old stuff" or "You only did this cause you're mad we beat your quest" or "I'm going to quit and take all my friends with me" (and so on, and so on) help in any way. There are far better ways to ask for adjustments that are far more likely to produce real, useful results.


Yes you've come out about the nature of the fix but nothing about why it was there in the first place. I guess that's all I'm trying to beat out of you is an acknowledgement that the players aren't at fault here. The devs are and you are letting them skate on part of that fault by completely glossing over it.

I largely avoid discussing that, because I fail to see how it's relevant. Of course it's the devs fault it was there in the first place; they're the ones who code the game, so anything being there is obviously their fault. It doesn't mean that the vast majority of people who were running this quest in this fashion didn't say "We better do it while we can" knowing full well that it was probably easier that it was intended to be and that it was going to change.

But I guess now that you've beaten that out of me we can move on to more constructive debate? ;)

Edit --


What's that old saying? Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part? Well maybe it could be changed for DDO to read - " Poor quest design on your part does not call for nerfing on my part?"

See, and here we disagree, yet again. If there was poor design in the first place it's absolutely the devs responsibility to fix it. Sure, they probably should have realized earlier and fixed it before now, but that's all pretty much moot at this point, just like when we fell into this scenario with Whisperdoom. There's no sense crying over spilt milk, and all that. What's already happened is not something anyone can do anything about. But that doesn't mean the devs shouldn't fix problems with the game.

And it's the so-prevalent attitude by so many players that it's personal which bothers me the most. Why should you take it personally that they're changing a quest. Your aphorism displays this. How is your character nerfed by this change? There have been, are and always will be some enemies in the game that are immune to fire. Adding some to a specific quest doesn't nerf you in any way. All it does is adjust the difficulty of a quest. So why do you (and everyone else) take it so personally?

Yaga_Nub
10-24-2007, 03:43 PM
But I guess now that you've beaten that out of me we can move on to more constructive debate? ;)

Absolutely. :)

LogannX
10-24-2007, 04:38 PM
Ifeel bad for any game developer these days but especially for DDO devs. They have put in a huge effort to make unique quests and dungeons of different types instead of generic overland grind fests. The thanks they get is players trying to go as fast and easy as possible, to skip as much as they can to get it done. To make it worse the players who invent the strategies and exploit things to make it faster and no risk are the ones that cry for harder quests but then immediately look for the easy button again. Then the complain when it is changed to be harder.

If I was a dev in this game Id just be shaking my head. What do you want? You have many dungeons of vareid styles and tons of loot...too much good loot if you ask me. Many dungeons arent run because they take longer than 10 mins and cant be vorpal'd. It's sad. There could be 10 times the dungeons and people would still gravitate to the easiest and most exploitable. It says a lot about the general gamer population and that this style of game isnt what people will play.

It would be intersting if you could alter time and have ddo come before wow and eq. Would people put up with crazy grindfests and purposeless random mob killing? Or would we be complaining how few dungeons tehre were compared to ddo? I dont know.

Don't hate the game, hate the player

Sarkk

Big_Russ
10-24-2007, 09:12 PM
And yes, it effects everyone that you play with if you have have access to a warehouse of loot. It changes the expectations placed on every other player in the game. It effects the overall game economy if those items make it to the AH.

Look, if one person has uber loot, yeah, no big deal. If a population does it throws off the balance in the game.

And frankly, if everyone in game has all of the uber loot coming out of their noses the enemy has to be balanced to deal with that. that is what we call Monty Haul and I thin tkeh vast majority of folks have played MMos that have ended in the land of Monty Haul... it ain't fun.

A few things.

1. The economy has NO impact on how you play a dungeon.

2. The economy has been broken for six months and there are NO signs that Turbine is serious about fixing it. The fact is that nothing that is more usefull than a Vorpal has been introduced in over a year WITH THE EXCEPTION of items that bind. Paralyzers drop every time you turn around in just about every lvl 12 quest. Heck, I tried to sell a +1 paralyzing battle axe for 12 consecutive days on the auction 4 weeks ago. My last asking price was 15K plat starting and 25k plat buyout. It didn't sell. I actually GAVE it away. I just sold a +4 wounding battle axe for a whopping 7k plat. If Turbine wants to worry about the economy, cutting back loot now is TOO LATE. The only way now is to introduce rarer, better items.

3. EVERYBODY can only run the same quest 10 times in 1 week. Therefore, on a weekly basis, you have the same shot at loot as everybody else.

Big_Russ
10-24-2007, 09:16 PM
Furthermore, I don't believe that an economy is very relevant in a game that does not have crafting.

Bogenbroom
10-25-2007, 09:26 AM
A few things.
1. The economy has NO impact on how you play a dungeon.

2. The economy has been broken for six months and there are NO signs that Turbine is serious about fixing it. The fact is that nothing that is more usefull than a Vorpal has been introduced in over a year WITH THE EXCEPTION of items that bind. Paralyzers drop every time you turn around in just about every lvl 12 quest. Heck, I tried to sell a +1 paralyzing battle axe for 12 consecutive days on the auction 4 weeks ago. My last asking price was 15K plat starting and 25k plat buyout. It didn't sell. I actually GAVE it away. I just sold a +4 wounding battle axe for a whopping 7k plat. If Turbine wants to worry about the economy, cutting back loot now is TOO LATE. The only way now is to introduce rarer, better items.

3. EVERYBODY can only run the same quest 10 times in 1 week. Therefore, on a weekly basis, you have the same shot at loot as everybody else.

Okay, trying this again, had a major ramble going delete-restart.

1) Wish I'd seen the axe, would a bought it.
2) Your point 1, I'd have to argue with. Speed at which dungeons are completed (and the easy at which they are completed) greatly effects how quickly wares reach the economy. The quicker they appear the further down the prices go.
3) Just because the economy is out of whack is no reason to not to try to stay to to an balanced economic approach.
4) Your point 3. The point is certainly true, but I don't think is really important in the overall discussion about how easy loot should be to get.

I guess what I am reading from you is is that you believe loot should be as easy to acquire as a player wants it to be. I can only assume that most of the population, and certainly the game designers, would disagree. RPS are about 2 things, 1) Character development (XP) and 2) item acquisition (loot.) The bread and butter of continued interest in a game is to make goal acquiring attainable, but challenging... but completion of all goals either very difficult or very time consuming. I read your suggestion as saying item 2 should be "at will" if the players wants it to be.

All of that doesn't even speak to the indirect effects it has on other players in terms of expectations and the softening of the game structure due to overpowering characters make both goals too easy.

lostinjapan
10-25-2007, 09:58 AM
Developer decides he doesn't like how 'easy' his quest Temple of Vol is and decides to make a change it harder (be it ego, concern for the game, or whatever...I'm not talking reasons, I can't read minds...I only read actions/lack of).

Bad change: Blanket immunity against fire by the majority of the mobs in the dungeon which oh, by the way, also affects those same mobs everywhere else in the game. :(

Better change: Add blackbones to the dungeon (which ARE immune to fire already) AND add DM text to the quest giver to account for it.

All it takes is a little creativity and a little less OMGMUSTNERFITNOW!

Yaga_Nub
10-25-2007, 12:29 PM
But I guess now that you've beaten that out of me we can move on to more constructive debate? ;)


See, and here we disagree, yet again. If there was poor design in the first place it's absolutely the devs responsibility to fix it. Sure, they probably should have realized earlier and fixed it before now, but that's all pretty much moot at this point, just like when we fell into this scenario with Whisperdoom. There's no sense crying over spilt milk, and all that. What's already happened is not something anyone can do anything about. But that doesn't mean the devs shouldn't fix problems with the game.

And it's the so-prevalent attitude by so many players that it's personal which bothers me the most. Why should you take it personally that they're changing a quest. Your aphorism displays this. How is your character nerfed by this change? There have been, are and always will be some enemies in the game that are immune to fire. Adding some to a specific quest doesn't nerf you in any way. All it does is adjust the difficulty of a quest. So why do you (and everyone else) take it so personally?

Dang it MT I thought we agreed to move on. What I, me and only me that I can tell, was taking personally was the statement that "the players broke the quest." I take that very personally because I can't design the quest myself, and the devs won't take feedback, so I will use every weapon, spell and tactic at my disposal. That is not "the players breaking the quest," that is just good gamesmanship. Nor is it an exploit that I am human and can devise tactics that prey upon the tendencies of the AI.

I could care less, personally, about the change because I can complete the quest just as easy as before, IMHO. But I will always take it personally when a fellow player tells everyone that it's our fault that the quest is easy and has to be changed.

MysticTheurge
10-25-2007, 12:39 PM
Dang it MT I thought we agreed to move on. What I, me and only me that I can tell, was taking personally was the statement that "the players broke the quest." I take that very personally because I can't design the quest myself, and the devs won't take feedback, so I will use every weapon, spell and tactic at my disposal. That is not "the players breaking the quest," that is just good gamesmanship. Nor is it an exploit that I am human and can devise tactics that prey upon the tendencies of the AI.

Perhaps it would be best to consider my "Players broke the quest" statement as hyperbole in the opposite direction from "The Devs got mad" meant mainly to display the absurdity of both statements.