Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Ok EG has come and gone. We shouldn't be waiting on this. Would we like to get our feedback in before Enchanting anf 520 changes roll in or is after better when we know more about our current abilities?
GBB
>Ok EG has come and gone. We shouldn't be waiting on this. Would we like to get our feedback in before Enchanting anf 520 changes roll in or is after better when we know more about our current abilities?
I was thinking about this last week - did we construct a letter and send it off or were we still up in the air about everything?
That thought aside, I don't think we have to wait for 925 and 520 changes to roll out. We've already been given a rough outline of what to expect with enchanting updates a few weeks back and a lot of flak came in about it. Clearly what information was given to us, wasn't well received by most that posted.
We still don't know exactly if 520 changes will work like they were initially laid out before us, we can only assume it will be until told otherwise. There are a couple of things I personally don't agree with on the 520 changes (at least I think there was a few issues for me personally....I didn't write them down and it was a while ago when the info on 520 changes were given).
I think in the end we all kind of grew tired of saying the same things over and over again. We also grew tired of the same folks (which I'd consider myself part of this group) complaining about the same things over and over again or constantly shooting down any ideas because it doesn't provide them with specifically how they want to play the game.....
From what it looks like, we all just kind of gave up. And maybe that was Estild's plan - hoping we couldn't work together and we'd just give up the fight???
I'm not really sure where we're at right now.
-Drumpel
I was thinking about this last week - did we construct a letter and send it off or were we still up in the air about everything?
That thought aside, I don't think we have to wait for 925 and 520 changes to roll out. We've already been given a rough outline of what to expect with enchanting updates a few weeks back and a lot of flak came in about it. Clearly what information was given to us, wasn't well received by most that posted.
We still don't know exactly if 520 changes will work like they were initially laid out before us, we can only assume it will be until told otherwise. There are a couple of things I personally don't agree with on the 520 changes (at least I think there was a few issues for me personally....I didn't write them down and it was a while ago when the info on 520 changes were given).
I think in the end we all kind of grew tired of saying the same things over and over again. We also grew tired of the same folks (which I'd consider myself part of this group) complaining about the same things over and over again or constantly shooting down any ideas because it doesn't provide them with specifically how they want to play the game.....
From what it looks like, we all just kind of gave up. And maybe that was Estild's plan - hoping we couldn't work together and we'd just give up the fight???
I'm not really sure where we're at right now.
-Drumpel
Neither - and it isn't EG that is holding me up (can't speak about others involved).
It is coming - and you'll know because you'll see a notice here, there (and probably in a couple other places) to review and comment. ;)
As to getting it in before enchant changes / stoneskin changes, I suppose it's possible - but would have to ask what benefit we think that timing would bring? I ask because my perspective is:
1) The design (and likely coding) for enchant / stoneskin are done or near done, so the likelihood of influencing that facet with this work product isn't high;
2) There's nothing this work product is going to provide that will prevent the usual 'robust' (carefully chosen word there, Aulis!) feedback we will experience here after those spells (and 917!!) are released; and,
3) While both bring QoL or incremental benefits (as I understand them), neither will appreciably move the needle in the discussion about power gaps at 15M+ experience, bolting as a system, SMR feedback, lores splits / adds / thresholds / debasement, or ordering / sequence of spells to benefit the profession.
I am, though, curious if there's something I don't see that would suggest landing the work product sooner would benefit enchant / stoneskin.
Doug
It is coming - and you'll know because you'll see a notice here, there (and probably in a couple other places) to review and comment. ;)
As to getting it in before enchant changes / stoneskin changes, I suppose it's possible - but would have to ask what benefit we think that timing would bring? I ask because my perspective is:
1) The design (and likely coding) for enchant / stoneskin are done or near done, so the likelihood of influencing that facet with this work product isn't high;
2) There's nothing this work product is going to provide that will prevent the usual 'robust' (carefully chosen word there, Aulis!) feedback we will experience here after those spells (and 917!!) are released; and,
3) While both bring QoL or incremental benefits (as I understand them), neither will appreciably move the needle in the discussion about power gaps at 15M+ experience, bolting as a system, SMR feedback, lores splits / adds / thresholds / debasement, or ordering / sequence of spells to benefit the profession.
I am, though, curious if there's something I don't see that would suggest landing the work product sooner would benefit enchant / stoneskin.
Doug
"I am, though, curious if there's something I don't see that would suggest landing the work product sooner would benefit enchant / stoneskin.
Doug"
I think an answer to questions that we have concerning 925, 917 (though those questions I had on 917 were answered), and 520 is always good in that we know where Development is going and to tailor responses accordingly. I would like 520 and 925 to begin taking into account Lore splits and builds for the future where so much of what a wizard does is taken away because of the single elemental nature of each spell and move to a Cone of Elements model for more and more spells.
As long as I see a plan that is cohesive and I could work with I will be ok with what the future will bring.
GBB
Doug"
I think an answer to questions that we have concerning 925, 917 (though those questions I had on 917 were answered), and 520 is always good in that we know where Development is going and to tailor responses accordingly. I would like 520 and 925 to begin taking into account Lore splits and builds for the future where so much of what a wizard does is taken away because of the single elemental nature of each spell and move to a Cone of Elements model for more and more spells.
As long as I see a plan that is cohesive and I could work with I will be ok with what the future will bring.
GBB
I'd be in favor of implementing the changes in phases. I might be wrong, but it seems like most people who've posted agree the changes as they've been described to 917, 925, and 520 are better than the current spells. If it's possible, maybe those changes can be implemented first and a second phase can address the other concerns.
>>I think an answer to questions that we have concerning 925, 917 (though those questions I had on 917 were answered), and 520 is always good
Agreed! I think a large number were answered, and some other good ones were asked that have yet to be addressed.
I'm still not sure that's a 'timing justification', though. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think the reason a couple of these haven't been responded to yet is because Estild and team took them in, and are researching / evaluating / gaining consensus / getting approvals, etc. As such, it simply isn't 'right' to answer them.
But then, I'm always a glass-is-full-and-even-making-a-bit-of-room-to-share-with-air kinda guy.
Doug
Agreed! I think a large number were answered, and some other good ones were asked that have yet to be addressed.
I'm still not sure that's a 'timing justification', though. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think the reason a couple of these haven't been responded to yet is because Estild and team took them in, and are researching / evaluating / gaining consensus / getting approvals, etc. As such, it simply isn't 'right' to answer them.
But then, I'm always a glass-is-full-and-even-making-a-bit-of-room-to-share-with-air kinda guy.
Doug
