Why Class Representatives won't work.

[ArchangelLBC]

I always thought it was *more* than a bit hypocritical of them to say that they read the class forums and pass on concerns to the developers whenever, if you actually *asked* them about discussions that had taken part over the last month, never dropping off the front page and accumulating over 10k views, they would have no clue what the hell you were talking about (I asked both Amber Green and Musco about the Shadow tank spikiness issue back during the May M&G when the debate had been going on for longer than a month with several threads specifically addressing it; neither of them had the *slightest* clue about it, nor did Jesse Sky, who *should* have had an idea but was apparently oblivious since they only test content with Guardian tanks). The community team doesn't read the class forums, and the devs don't even know all of the ACs or even specs. They prove that by having no clue what we're actually talking about there and only ever using metrics without *any* kind of practical knowledge about the specs they're talking about.

 

The class rep system is, at the very least, the community team's admission (whether a self-admission or forced upon them by their bosses) that they have paid no real attention to the class forums and lack the capacity to actually pass concerns beyond the most basic bug reports to the people that can do something about it. Hopefully, it'll also be an admission by the combat team that they've got no clue about some ACs and specs. Basically, it's an admission by the entire dev team that the player base knows more about their own game than they do, which is just a sad state of things.

 

 

While admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery they need to do something about it. I agree that right now the class rep system constitutes an admission of a problem (with some spin on the admission) , rather than doing something about it. Time will tell whether I'm being overly cynical and this system will usher in a brand new day. I'd by lying if I said that part of the reason for this thread wasn't to deliberately goad the community team into making sure the combat team starts up an actual dialog. The other purpose is to point out to the community team that in one recent example where they should have been able to get an answer to us, they have yet to do so.

 

Now will they truly learn from their past mistakes, or do they just expect this to be a sop to quiet the vocal minority?

Edited August 5, 2013 by ArchangelLBC

[Kitru]

I'd by lying if I said that part of the reason for this thread was to deliberately goad the community team into making sure the combat team starts up an actual dialog. The other purpose is to point out to the community team that in one recent example where they should have been able to get an answer to us, they have yet to do so.

 

I'm guessing you meant to say that you'd be lying if you said that part of the reason *wasn't* to goad the devs into actually responding and starting up a real dialogue. Elsewise, this thread would only really serve the purpose of telling the community team that you just don't like the system.

 

I'm really curious about the inner working of the dev team and who's fault the current state of affairs really is. Is it the combat/dev team's fault for simply being ignorant and oblivious to the state of the game and the concerns that the community team has brought to them? Is it the community team's for simply *not* bringing those concerns to the combat/dev team? Is it some combination of both?

 

The community team *says* that they bring these concerns to the combat/dev team, but, if you actually talk to them, they have no clue what they're talking about. The combat/dev team *says* that they actually change things and are always looking at the state of balance, but they've done absolutely nothing since RotHC released and, apparently, use outdated and fundamentally flawed models to balance classes that they pretty obviously don't play themselves.

 

The class rep system has the *potential* to solve both of those problems. Allowing the community to bring issues directly to the combat team circumvents the community team's apparent inability to actually act as a go-between for the class forums and the dev team by removing them completely. It also has the potential to light a fire under the dev team's *** by specifically pointing out the things they're doing wrong and the specific concerns that the player base *has* concerning those issues.

 

Of course, it could just as easily be the community team trying to appease the class forums and set up a stopgap measure from the class forums entering full on rebellion. It'll be interesting to see how it susses out, especially once they get to the classes that actually *have* problems.

[Ottoattack]

That really is the only difference, but a promise made without an ability to deliver is worse than no promise at all, and at this point, I don't think the dev team is constitutionally capable of delivering on Eric's promises. Never mind getting actual changes, I think most people aren't expecting that much, but I doubt at this point we can get satisfactory answers even.

 

Easy enough to say wait and see. And honestly, I'd love for them to prove me wrong. I dare t hem to prove me wrong. If the answers come back as "we looked into that and our metrics say it isn't a problem", that's more or less proving my point as a non-answer is only marginally better than utter silence.

 

For those who say I'm comparing two different things, please tell me exactly what two things I'm comparing. To my mind the issue is the dev team taking a serious concern from the community about some facet of class balance focusing on a specific class, and meaningfully addressing it. They have promised to do this at a rate of 6 issues divided between 2 ACs every 14 days.

 

The example here used shows them unable to deliver an answer, not so much as a "we've looked into this and are working on ways to fix it", not even a "working as intended", on an issue supposedly brought to the dev team for a serious in-depth discussion (Eric's words, not mine), after 31 days.

 

They have promised something which all history, including the most recent possible history, has demonstrated they are incapable of doing.

 

If they can't deliver on their part of the dialogue, then the class representative system is not going to work.

 

Prove me wrong devs.

 

I do agree with you that the class representative is not going to get the classes issues fixed and this is not what I am expecting the class representatives to do (and I think most of the community as well). I don't think it is remotely debatable the sin tanks are broken or PT dps is garbage (etc..). I am not looking for a fix. The idea here is to put the devs on the spot with specific questions backed by evidence.

 

Example "most PvP ranked teams do not bring pyro tech to RWZs, because of ........" The response will be "working as intended, so I know that the devs are out to launch and there is no reason to waste anymore time trying to explain on the forums why the class is behind. The other response will be "our metrics, measures, blah, blah, blah indicate that tree X in class Y is not working exactly as intended. We will look into and make adjustments in version 2.4."

 

A cliff hanger response will not be accepted, again, the devs are responding right? They can't tell us they need to communicate with the devs team. I actually would like to get a response indicating its "working as intended," so I know that I do not have to waste my time with class A or B or even the game, instead of having stuff sitting on a vague cliff hanger.

 

I am already on the bandwagon to unsub if version 2.4 class balance are not on par with whats required. The class balance is completely out of whack, if the class representatives and 2.4 balance changes don't deliver I will unsub.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Ottoattack

[ArchangelLBC]

I'm guessing you meant to say that you'd be lying if you said that part of the reason *wasn't* to goad the devs into actually responding and starting up a real dialogue. Elsewise, this thread would only really serve the purpose of telling the community team that you just don't like the system.

 

You guess correctly. The post has been fixed =)

 

I'm really curious about the inner working of the dev team and who's fault the current state of affairs really is. Is it the combat/dev team's fault for simply being ignorant and oblivious to the state of the game and the concerns that the community team has brought to them? Is it the community team's for simply *not* bringing those concerns to the combat/dev team? Is it some combination of both?

 

The community team *says* that they bring these concerns to the combat/dev team, but, if you actually talk to them, they have no clue what they're talking about. The combat/dev team *says* that they actually change things and are always looking at the state of balance, but they've done absolutely nothing since RotHC released and, apparently, use outdated and fundamentally flawed models to balance classes that they pretty obviously don't play themselves.

 

The class rep system has the *potential* to solve both of those problems. Allowing the community to bring issues directly to the combat team circumvents the community team's apparent inability to actually act as a go-between for the class forums and the dev team by removing them completely. It also has the potential to light a fire under the dev team's *** by specifically pointing out the things they're doing wrong and the specific concerns that the player base *has* concerning those issues.

 

Of course, it could just as easily be the community team trying to appease the class forums and set up a stopgap measure from the class forums entering full on rebellion. It'll be interesting to see how it susses out, especially once they get to the classes that actually *have* problems.

 

 

My own gut says it's more the appeasement/stop gap option. I feel this is true for several reasons, any of which could be explained away in isolation, but together only feed my cynicism:

 

1) As you have mentioned, they deliberately put the classes that already have the fewest problems first, while putting classes with the largest amount of issues last. Most notably shadow. This could, on it's own, be explained as deliberately giving the devs time to better learn about the classes they have the least experience with in anticipation of trying to intelligently enter into a dialogue with the people who play those classes every day.

 

2) The restriction to the One PVE, One PVP, One wildcard question format. 3 questions already felt pretty limiting, especially for the two classes I personally care the most about: Commando and Shadow. Both of those classes have not so minor issues for all three of their specs that vary wildly, shadow much more so than commando, and Kitru is already facing the reality of having to triage problems since all three specs face serious issues in both PVP and PVE, and none of those issues easily fit under one umbrella question. The limitation of 3 questions could be considered a way to ensure the devs aren't immediately swamped by the first round of questions, but one thing that is noticeably absent in the formal laying out of the system is proper followup procedures. We ask questions, supposedly Eric will try and get answers back after the first week. Then what? Are we allowed to ask followup questions? In the case of a class like shadow are we allowed ti answer different questions immediately if our first questions are answered to satisfaction?

 

Regardless while a class like sentinel can arguably distill only one major PVE issue (Focus single target DPS is subar) one major PVP issue (Watchman is horrible in PVP due to ramp up time), and one wildcard issue (centering building locked out by other sentinel group/raid wide centering consuming buffs), other classes would have benefited very much from being able to bring up major issues with each spec rather than trying to distill all PVE issues down to one question. 3 questions was bad enough but enforcing the current format chafes a bit much if I'm honest.

 

3) 2 week interaction with 2 months of downtime. Even accounting for class mirrors, Each AC has to wait 8 weeks before they get a shot at interacting with the devs. Even if that actually gives two full weeks of proper interaction, which again we have not been guaranteed. All we get for certain is the ability to bring one PVP, one PVE, and one Wildcard question to the attention of the combat team. Then two entire months before the mirror gets a similar crack, which again for classes which have such a huge laundry list of issues is simply too long.

 

4) Past history. We can't look into the future, and certainly they can't change the past, but the dev team has been consistently unwilling to meaningfully engage the part of the community which most seriously considers class balance again and again, and the recent example here is particularly damning. Did their in-depth discussion go from "how do we fix shadow tank spikiness" to "man we really have dropped the ball on this issue, letting it sit for three months before we were even aware of it, maybe we need class reps"? Or did it go from "how do we placate the shadows" to "how can we placate those rowdy class forum posters"? If the former all well and good except the tank spikiness issue still needs to be addressed and this shows a huge lack of ability to focus. If the latter then I have to say that trying to merely placate us isn't likely to silence the more vocal members of the different class communities outside of getting them to simply unsub. This is possibly a chance to meaningfully change how they address class balance, and go about repaying for some of that awful past history, but until that possibility becomes fact, they'll be fighting that history every step of the way.

 

Because of their past history I really feel that this system is very much make or break as far as interacting with the community to achieve proper class balance. If this system fails, I see no reason to give them another shot. Obviously, I doubt even this will work, but the combat team has GOT to start actually interacting with us, or things like the shadow class will become even more depressing as time goes on.

Edited August 5, 2013 by ArchangelLBC

[Kitru]

2) The restriction to the One PVE, One PVP, One wildcard question format.

 

Originally, it was simply 3 questions. It was changed to 1 PvE, 1 PvP, and 1 Wildcard after a lot of people complained that the class reps would focus on *only* PvP or *only* PvE, since most players, especially the active and focused players who would make quality class reps, tend to focus upon one or the other. Even then, the fact that there are *only* 3 questions for every AC is pretty fundamentally problematic. There are some ACs that can only put together 3 problems, and then there are other ACs that can't think of *only* 3 questions. Basically, it's set up as if all of the ACs are equally problematic rather than there being a *massive* distance between the current state of affairs for the best off ACs and the worst off ACs.

 

It's, essentially, playing favorites to the well off ACs since they'll get all of their tiny little concerns addressed whereas the classes that *have* more than 3 problems, all of which are major concerns, only get 3 of their concerns actually addressed. It's "fair" in the same way that a flat tax is "fair", which is to say, not really.

[ArchangelLBC]

Originally, it was simply 3 questions. It was changed to 1 PvE, 1 PvP, and 1 Wildcard after a lot of people complained that the class reps would focus on *only* PvP or *only* PvE, since most players, especially the active and focused players who would make quality class reps, tend to focus upon one or the other. Even then, the fact that there are *only* 3 questions for every AC is pretty fundamentally problematic. There are some ACs that can only put together 3 problems, and then there are other ACs that can't think of *only* 3 questions. Basically, it's set up as if all of the ACs are equally problematic rather than there being a *massive* distance between the current state of affairs for the best off ACs and the worst off ACs.

 

It's, essentially, playing favorites to the well off ACs since they'll get all of their tiny little concerns addressed whereas the classes that *have* more than 3 problems, all of which are major concerns, only get 3 of their concerns actually addressed. It's "fair" in the same way that a flat tax is "fair", which is to say, not really.

 

True but in "fairness" how could we expect them to know which classes need the most attention? I mean they'd have to play them all and have an intimate enough knowledge to recognize which classes are perfectly fine and which need some work.

 

I understood the concern of some people, but I know that even with the commando/merc reps, the two elected individuals seem committed to talking to each other and listening to those whose experienc is beyond their own, much how you and Xinika are acting.

 

You're right though, even without a restricted format, the limit to three questions is too few for several ACs.

[Kitru]

True but in "fairness" how could we expect them to know which classes need the most attention? I mean they'd have to play them all and have an intimate enough knowledge to recognize which classes are perfectly fine and which need some work.

 

Since the ACs that they *are* intimately familiar with are working well (or, at the very least, the devs are *aware* of the problems with said ACs since they are, as previously mentioned, intimately familiar with them), one would posit that the ACs that have the most need for the class rep system are those that the devs *are not* intimately familiar with. The ones that they actually know are the ones that don't need reps since the reps are, essentially, the developers themselves. So the devs should allow for more questions from those that the devs *don't* know.

 

Basically, it would require the devs actually take inventory of their own knowledge of the various ACs and apply that. The ones that they *do* know would only get a few questions. The ones that they're completely ignorant about (*cough* Shadows *cough*) would get *more* questions. Of course, this is predicated upon the devs actually admitting that they don't know what they're doing concerning certain classes and that they have historically favored certain classes over others, not on purpose but because of their own preferences concerning what they play.

 

I seriously have to wonder how they can *possibly* think that using theoretical metrics without practical experience is the right thing to do, which is pretty apparent concerning their design of certain ACs/specs. Hell, even if it *were* the right thing to do, I have to *seriously* wonder how trustworthy those metrics are given that they pretty much *always* conflict with everything that the community can put together (including parses and our own theorycrafting).

[ArchangelLBC]

Since the ACs that they *are* intimately familiar with are working well (or, at the very least, the devs are *aware* of the problems with said ACs since they are, as previously mentioned, intimately familiar with them), one would posit that the ACs that have the most need for the class rep system are those that the devs *are not* intimately familiar with. The ones that they actually know are the ones that don't need reps since the reps are, essentially, the developers themselves. So the devs should allow for more questions from those that the devs *don't* know.

 

Basically, it would require the devs actually take inventory of their own knowledge of the various ACs and apply that. The ones that they *do* know would only get a few questions. The ones that they're completely ignorant about (*cough* Shadows *cough*) would get *more* questions. Of course, this is predicated upon the devs actually admitting that they don't know what they're doing concerning certain classes and that they have historically favored certain classes over others, not on purpose but because of their own preferences concerning what they play.

 

I seriously have to wonder how they can *possibly* think that using theoretical metrics without practical experience is the right thing to do, which is pretty apparent concerning their design of certain ACs/specs. Hell, even if it *were* the right thing to do, I have to *seriously* wonder how trustworthy those metrics are given that they pretty much *always* conflict with everything that the community can put together (including parses and our own theorycrafting).

 

Yeah it'd be asking them to fess up to just a bit too much ignorance. And yeah I've often felt that some classes like commando and shadow seem to have been built for a completely different game. One has only to look at the various abilities compared to other ACs and notice that.

 

And I don't wonder how trustworthy the metrics are so much as I wonder how the devs can possibly think they're trust worthy given the huge disparity you pointed out between theory and reality. But then they'd have to be aware of that reality.

 

I think I start to see the problem....

[Bilirubin]

I think speculating into the motives of the devs/community groups is unproductive, as much as it might be reassuring (or fun or whatever) to do.

 

But the fact remains that it takes precious little effort to communicate to the community and avoid the build up of this ill will. This is what I really don't understand: why do things get to this point?

Edited August 7, 2013 by Bilirubin

[Bilirubin]

That was directed at the dev team, not meant to spark off more speculation on our part

[branmakmuffin]

I think speculating into the motives of the devs/community groups is unproductive, as much as it might be reassuring (or fun or whatever) to state.

 

But the fact remains that it takes precious little effort to communicate to the community and avoid the build up of this ill will. This is what I really don't understand: why do things get to this point?

Any amount of built up "ill will" exists only in the minds of those inclined to see it.

 

That was directed at the dev team, not meant to spark off more speculation on our part

The "dev team" does not read the forums. The community relations folks read the forums.

Edited August 7, 2013 by branmakmuffin

[chuixupu]

Some of the devs do read the forums at least occasionally, but you won't see many of them post. Edited August 7, 2013 by chuixupu

[Kitru]

The community relations folks read the forums.

 

They read *some* of the forums. Anyone that has actually spoken to the community team at any of the M&Gs knows that they don't read the class forums at all. The closest they get to it is responding to the occasional bug thread without actually knowing or reading anything concerning balance or class/AC concerns.

[Bilirubin]

Any amount of built up "ill will" exists only in the minds of those inclined to see it.

The increasingly heated rhetoric expressed on the forums suggests that ill will is building as a result of a lack of communication.

The "dev team" does not read the forums. The community relations folks read the forums.

 

Fair. I was rolling the community relations team into my "dev team" comment to make a distinction with the community itself, and since the devs proper and community relations folks are all working at the same place presumably as a team.

 

In another life I did this community relations job for a gaming platform. Even a "still working on it, no ETA" can help. Ideally however a little more information after this amount of time would be better.

[Kitru]

In another life I did this community relations job for a gaming platform. Even a "still working on it, no ETA" can help. Ideally however a little more information after this amount of time would be better.

 

When the response is "we've just started talking about it; investigating it; no timeline" when it's a topic that's been discussed into oblivion with all of the investigation that they could ever need spread across multiple mega-threads over the course of 3 months, saying that little is a slap in the face. The only way they could *possibly* have missed the discussion is if they were simply ignoring it.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Kitru

[branmakmuffin]

The increasingly heated rhetoric expressed on the forums suggests that ill will is building as a result of a lack of communication.

The forums are in no way indicative of the player base as a whole. Posters are an incredibly tiny, vocal minority. And of course that includes me.

 

When the response is "we've just started talking about it; investigating it; no timeline" when it's a topic that's been discussed into oblivion with all of the investigation that they could ever need spread across multiple mega-threads over the course of 3 months, saying that little is a slap in the face. The only way they could *possibly* have missed the discussion is if they were simply ignoring it.

Gosh, we haven't seen a "slap in the face" comment in a while. And still carries as much sting as it ever did.

Edited August 7, 2013 by branmakmuffin

[Bilirubin]

When the response is "we've just started talking about it; investigating it; no timeline" when it's a topic that's been discussed into oblivion with all of the investigation that they could ever need spread across multiple mega-threads over the course of 3 months, saying that little is a slap in the face. The only way they could *possibly* have missed the discussion is if they were simply ignoring it.

 

Or simply missed it because they don't provide comprehensive monitoring of the site (which is its own issue of course). Or whatever reason. Its this sort of speculation that I personally don't find helpful.

 

Regarding the Shadow tank spike issue, they stated a month ago they were getting into their discussions. Having acknowledged the issue at that point, I believe there is now a responsibility to provide ongoing updates to us so we can be assured this hasn't fallen through cracks. What they don't owe is is a diary or diagnostic list of what they have done so far, although some more detailed information would no doubt go a very long way to restoring good will, just as their community rep announcement did several weeks ago.

[Kitru]

Or simply missed it because they don't provide comprehensive monitoring of the site (which is its own issue of course). Or whatever reason. Its this sort of speculation that I personally don't find helpful.

 

I told them about it, in person, back in May, and it took them 2 more months to actually tell anything to the actual devs, and, even then, only because someone spam posted the issue to every forum. Amber Green specifically told me that the community team barely spends any time on the class forums since they don't have to be heavily policed (and, on top of that, none of the community team are even remotely interested in the numbers/design so they wouldn't even head there for their own interest).

 

It's not just an issue of "they weren't paying attention". It's a question of them not paying attention even after having it brought to their attention numerous times. I told Amber (and Eric and Jesse Sky) in person and sent her the PMs she explicitly asked me to send her providing links and synopsis of the discussion/math. Everything that *could* have been done to bring it to the community team's, and thereby the dev team's, attention was done and yet it completely escaped them.

[ArchangelLBC]

 

Regarding the Shadow tank spike issue, they stated a month ago they were getting into their discussions. Having acknowledged the issue at that point, I believe there is now a responsibility to provide ongoing updates to us so we can be assured this hasn't fallen through cracks. What they don't owe is is a diary or diagnostic list of what they have done so far, although some more detailed information would no doubt go a very long way to restoring good will, just as their community rep announcement did several weeks ago.

 

Obviously I also agree that they have a responsibility to provide ongoing updates. After 35 days, without so much as a "still working on it". As Kitru pointed out in his first post, the only difference between this situation and class reps, besides the number of questions, is that their responsibility to get answers to class rep questions is an explicit one that they have volunteered for as opposed to an implicit one, but functionally I personally don't see the difference which is why their failure to meet their responsibilities on this one matter makes it hard for me to believe they'll otherwise meet their responsibilities when it comes to class reps.

 

More consistent and constant updates WOULD go a very long way to restoring good will, but this constant silence on class matters that they've acknowledged (nevermind class matters which they should be aware of and aren't), just reeks of "business as usual". It seems like the class forums are deliberately punished for being well behaved, and I don't think that's the message they want to send at all.

 

I told them about it, in person, back in May, and it took them 2 more months to actually tell anything to the actual devs, and, even then, only because someone spam posted the issue to every forum. Amber Green specifically told me that the community team barely spends any time on the class forums since they don't have to be heavily policed (and, on top of that, none of the community team are even remotely interested in the numbers/design so they wouldn't even head there for their own interest).

 

It's not just an issue of "they weren't paying attention". It's a question of them not paying attention even after having it brought to their attention numerous times. I told Amber (and Eric and Jesse Sky) in person and sent her the PMs she explicitly asked me to send her providing links and synopsis of the discussion/math. Everything that *could* have been done to bring it to the community team's, and thereby the dev team's, attention was done and yet it completely escaped them.

 

Things like this don't help my cynicism much at all either if I'm honest.

[Bilirubin]

The forums are in no way indicative of the player base as a whole. Posters are an incredibly tiny, vocal minority. And of course that includes me.

 

Or we are a self selected representative sample

 

Ultimately the shadow spike issue is one that really manifests among cutting edge progression raiders, and occasionally in HM ops. I expect that there is a reasonably high representative sample of progression raiders on the forums when compared with the general playing population.

[ELRunninW]

You have missed the point of Class Representatives. The reason for creating the liaison was to create an illusion of good will and an attempt to shut critics up that are complaining about nothing being done. What do you mean nothing is being done? We have class representatives now, long live BW.

 

If you it is not obvious, you are all being had.

[Andryah]

Ultimately the shadow spike issue is one that really manifests among cutting edge progression raiders, and occasionally in HM ops. I expect that there is a reasonably high representative sample of progression raiders on the forums when compared with the general playing population.

 

In other words... it is corner cases up in the edges of the large window that is the total player base. And the corners believe they are the center of the window.

 

Besides.... real cutting edge progression raid groups bring the right tools to do the job. If a class is not the right tool.... it's not in the tool box until such time as it is actually the right tool. There are always sub-par classes in MMOs that are the redheaded stepchildren of the min/max crowd.

 

It will get fixed I'm sure. But It's the tail wagging the dog though.. so it will not get the attention the tail wants.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Andryah

[Icebergy]

Of course, this is predicated upon the devs actually admitting that they don't know what they're doing concerning certain classes and that they have historically favored certain classes over others, not on purpose but because of their own preferences concerning what they play.

 

I get that you are upset that Shadows are weak right now and I sympathize, but it is really hard to take statements like the above seriously when Shadows were RIDICULOUSLY OP in just about every area of gameplay for most of pre 2.0.

 

You've been the weakest tanks for three months. You were leaps and bounds above the other tanks for over a year.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Icebergy

[Bilirubin]

In other words... it is corner cases up in the edges of the large window that is the total player base. And the corners believe they are the center of the window.

 

Besides.... real cutting edge progression raid groups bring the right tools to do the job. If a class is not the right tool.... it's not in the tool box until such time as it is actually the right tool. There are always sub-par classes in MMOs that are the redheaded stepchildren of the min/max crowd.

 

It will get fixed I'm sure. But It's the tail wagging the dog though.. so it will not get the attention the tail wants.

 

Weeeeell, yes and no. I would argue that when the game is played at its highest level players are limited by design flaws, you'd better fix the problems. The game shouldn't impose these sorts of limitations.

 

ETA: That high end progression teams get around these flaws by leaving out players that probably helped get them there because their toons are limited by design flaws it doesn't speak to those ACs being red haired step children. It speaks to wanting to down the content so they will do what is necessary to get there.

 

ETA2: Yes I play a Shadow tank. No I do not raid NiM. I do not argue this from self interest, other than wanting my community to get a little information about this issue.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Bilirubin

[ArchangelLBC]

You have missed the point of Class Representatives. The reason for creating the liaison was to create an illusion of good will and an attempt to shut critics up that are complaining about nothing being done. What do you mean nothing is being done? We have class representatives now, long live BW.

 

If you it is not obvious, you are all being had.

 

Sadly, I suspect that this is either the true intent, or will be the ultimate practical outcome of class reps as far as the devs are concerned. A man can still wish to be proven wrong.

 

In other words... it is corner cases up in the edges of the large window that is the total player base. And the corners believe they are the center of the window.

 

Besides.... real cutting edge progression raid groups bring the right tools to do the job. If a class is not the right tool.... it's not in the tool box until such time as it is actually the right tool. There are always sub-par classes in MMOs that are the redheaded stepchildren of the min/max crowd.

 

It will get fixed I'm sure. But It's the tail wagging the dog though.. so it will not get the attention the tail wants.

 

Ultimately it doesn't matter how big a part of the population any one particular issue affects. The point is that for several months this has been one of the biggest concerns of a large portion of the shadow community, especially those that PVE. You can argue all you want that the people who post on forums represent nothing but a very vocal minority, but the fact is that the class representatives are being chosen from that minority. You can also argue that those who participate in endgame raiding represent an even tinier, and even more vocal, minority, yet often it is the players who play the game at a high level who end up being leaders within the tiny forum community, and I have never seen a class forum for an MMO that didn't have a majority of threads focus on endgame content.

 

Any other discussion about the specific issue of Tank Spikiness is a pointless tangent since that discussion is already taking place in other parts of these forums, in much more sophistication than is appropriate within this thread. Its only purpose in this thread is to illustrate the devs failing to provide a response to an issue after over a month since that issue was acknowledged as a concern by the community team.

 

Finally, while I am very sure there are some guilds that work as you subscribe, some no doubt very successful ones depending on your example, the fact remains that a class isn't simply a tool. That class has a person playing behind it, and even when people bring tanking alts because the class they'd prefer to play is suboptimal, that's no excuse for that suboptimality. Nor is the fact that one class is always weakest a reason not to want those massive balance issues corrected, especially because not all "red-headed stepchildren" care created equally. The fact that perfect balance is unattainable is not a reason to stop striving for it, and to sit back and idly accept it is only a guarantee that nothing will change. Yes it's a standard in MMOs for the the cycle of nerfs and buffs to run through pretty much everyone over time, but I guarantee you the second an entire community stopped clamoring for such things that circle would stop. Devs only make changes when that vocal minority complains so much they fix it just to shut people up.

Edited August 8, 2013 by ArchangelLBC