They would really have to work a mass rebalance on the roles , or "stances" as I called them in CB. When I played all the way through OB you could sufficiently stay in balanced mode the entire time in PvE. In fact, it was better that way.. although few powers actually required the correct "role". If cryptic wanted to really balance it right using that type of system.. when you choose a powerset they should close you off to a role and only allow access to the powers that role can use. Currently the system could probably be confusing for new comers who might now know about roles, certain powers, and things of that nature, and instead just cherry pick and stay in balanced all the time.
Really don't get the impression they'd have to rebalance it that much. Although part of the problem seems to be your lack of understanding that Guardian is clearly designed to be the "solo" Role, with the other Roles only used when teaming. Furthermore if you're calling them "stances" it's no surprise why you felt the system worked that well, since they clearly seem to be something you're not supposed to change except when you switch between grouping/soloing.
Presumably the game does a "WOW Switch" at some point to instanced group content? If it does and you're still using Guardian all the time, then yeah things need to get rebalanced.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They would really have to work a mass rebalance on the roles , or "stances" as I called them in CB. When I played all the way through OB you could sufficiently stay in balanced mode the entire time in PvE. In fact, it was better that way.. although few powers actually required the correct "role". If cryptic wanted to really balance it right using that type of system.. when you choose a powerset they should close you off to a role and only allow access to the powers that role can use. Currently the system could probably be confusing for new comers who might now know about roles, certain powers, and things of that nature, and instead just cherry pick and stay in balanced all the time.
Really don't get the impression they'd have to rebalance it that much. Although part of the problem seems to be your lack of understanding that Guardian is clearly designed to be the "solo" Role, with the other Roles only used when teaming. Furthermore if you're calling them "stances" it's no surprise why you felt the system worked that well, since they clearly seem to be something you're not supposed to change except when you switch between grouping/soloing.
Presumably the game does a "WOW Switch" at some point to instanced group content? If it does and you're still using Guardian all the time, then yeah things need to get rebalanced.
I apologize if my terminology is off, but in closed beta, they didn't give the "roles" fancy names. They were Balanced, Offensive, Defensive and Support. I understand the "roles" quite well actually, or at least what they were when I played the game all the way up to the end of Open beta when they changed the names. As for instanced group content, there happens to be a number of instanced group content in the later levels and for some end game content. As said previously with the way the CO system is setup you could create countless builds using a plethora of different matches at level 40 and test them all in the powerhouse if you wanted to... but that would be for the majority of players that "get" it...
:Edit: If you take a look at my profile you can see an umber of pictures.. my swordsman (the silver guy with the scarf) was always always... ALWAYS... used in an offensive role. At that time the offensive role was actually useful, you could see a stark difference between being in balanced and offensive.. you would literally kill much faster, and my attacks that gained END on momentum generated much more END..... That worked pretty well for me. When I played in OB in offensive role with a fire based character.. I saw very little differences, but mainly I just died a large number of times. That didn't seem to me to be the correct way to balance the "roles" but then again, it looks like they're still in the middle of trying to get everything balanced. :end edit:
Now I don't know how much things have changed since Closed Beta and then Open Beta.... both of which I was able to level to max level through, but from what I saw they were trying to push people more towards making the "right" decisions with a few sets already. Trying to dice the sets up by "role" is a fancy way to try and keep the game balanced, but to be honest, its really done half ass. You can say things will get better when the balance the "roles" but that only takes you so far.
You've conveniently ignored the point that the changes were massive and released on launch day without playtesting and that they affected much more than the passive defenses. They also introduced bugs (field surge, etc.) that would have been found in playtesting. You asked what they could have done differently. It was pointed out that they could have extended beta (and delayed launch), since they knew huge changes were coming. Failing that, they could have put the changes on a test server. They could have introduced them incrementally. I honestly don't see why you're bent on making any of this personal. It's a discussion about what happened and why people think it happened. If some people argue that they don't understand why others are canceling, then of course other people are going to point out why they think people feel the need to cancel. It has nothing to do with my subscription or yours, or whether either of us even has a subscription. There's nothing personal about it. It's just a discussion (that fits the forum). There's not really anything to "get over".
I'm not trying to make it personal, I'm merely trying to get you to actually explain why people are making such a fuss. Thus far it just seems people are being overly sensitive about decisions which not only failed to ruin the game for retail customers like myself, they clearly made it better-balanced.
That might be why there's so much discussion on the topic: nothing is actually wrong, yet a subset of players is crying bloody murder over the whole affair (prompting the normal players to keep discussing the issue to try to track down what's actually wrong.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You've conveniently ignored the point that the changes were massive and released on launch day without playtesting and that they affected much more than the passive defenses. They also introduced bugs (field surge, etc.) that would have been found in playtesting. You asked what they could have done differently. It was pointed out that they could have extended beta (and delayed launch), since they knew huge changes were coming. Failing that, they could have put the changes on a test server. They could have introduced them incrementally. I honestly don't see why you're bent on making any of this personal. It's a discussion about what happened and why people think it happened. If some people argue that they don't understand why others are canceling, then of course other people are going to point out why they think people feel the need to cancel. It has nothing to do with my subscription or yours, or whether either of us even has a subscription. There's nothing personal about it. It's just a discussion (that fits the forum). There's not really anything to "get over".
I'm not trying to make it personal, I'm merely trying to get you to actually explain why people are making such a fuss. Thus far it just seems people are being overly sensitive about decisions which not only failed to ruin the game for retail customers like myself, they clearly made it better-balanced.
That might be why there's so much discussion on the topic: nothing is actually wrong, yet a subset of players is crying bloody murder over the whole affair (prompting the normal players to keep discussing the issue to try to track down what's actually wrong.)
It depends on what you mean by "nothing being wrong." Its obvious Cryptic acknowledged something was wrong. The "balance" and "launch bugs" everyone happens to be complaining about were not nearly as prevalent in OB and headstart. It was after the fact -- on launch day, that the build became severely unstable and they changed up the way the game plays without ever testing the patch. Rationalizing it any other way then saying cryptic was careless is exactly that -- rationalizing. Some people purchased the game, I know how it feels to purchase an MMO and have it not live up to your standards... I was in beta and launch for games like MxO and Vanguard as being some of the worst.
All the way through Closed Beta, I never had a single qualm with Cryptic, and I envisioned a fairly flawless launch.... I was very surprised with the outcome. Patches in the name of balancing -- thats okay -- untested patches in the name of balancing and changing for the sake of change.... thats NGE stuff... leave that out on launch day.
I sent in a ticket yesterday stating I would not be purchasing the game, and to refund me my 6-month subscription as I am now no longer interested in play testing STO. CO was great for the first 3 days, but once I got into PvP and saw the imbalance, and came to the realization that everyone sucks at making characters, I lost interest. Here's hoping I get refunded. Here's hoping they lose the Star Trek license(unlikely, I know).
I was in the beta and despite the number of fanboi's trying to do damage control here it doesn't change the fact that a lot of other testers like myself tried to warn CS the client wasn't ready for launch but obviously their publisher rushed them to launch at the chance of losing their funding. Time will tell if CO sinks or swims, but I believe STO will take the spotlight for CS, and CO will keep dwindling in subscribers until CS is forced to pull the plug within a few months.
Agree 100%. We told them the game was not ready yet they ignored us and the Cryptic fanboys just tried to drown us out. Now, their paying for it. It gives me a chuckle when i see Daeke on twitter freaking out or see people going apeshiz on the champions boards. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble had they slowed down, fixed things, listened to experienced testers, and put out a quality game.
The only thing that truly bugged the ever-loving crap out of me was the nerfs on launch day. They really tore us a new asshole with that one. Many of my friends had to reroll well-established characters because of this. Not that it's hard to level (even with the xp nerf you can max out in a week of solid play) but it's a pain in the ass having to go through ALL that shit again. The tutorial itself gets boring after doing it a few times and really becomes a chore when you're into the whole alt thing, and you WILL get alt-itis in CO I can assure you...
Although I agree an untested launch day patch is a stupid move, to me this is just another case of launch day drama. If you quit a lifetime sub based on what happens on day 1, what exactly did you interpret 'lifetime' to mean? Cryptic is doing the right thing by offering refunds to those who want them, but I just wonder what people will do a month from now (or longer) if they don't like a patch. Are they going to ask for a refund on their lifetime sub then?
Undocumented changes = bad customer service. Subscription refunds for said changes = good customer service. Aren't some people still wanting subscription refunds from poorly communicated game changes made by SOE in 2005 lol? Making mistakes is human, trying to do something to make them right is good business imo.
I gotta be honest. An update to an MMO to make it more challenging and the leveling slower has never made me quit a game.
On the other hand, a horde of 'casual gamers' crying in the forums demanding that everything be made easier for them actually DID make me quit Age of Conan.
I heard about people hitting level cap in CO (which I am currently playing) in a week. Cryptic making the game harder, and refunding money to those for whom this was a catastrophe was exactly the right move, with the only possible better move being not having realeased the game so weaksauce in the first place. The linked thread has somebody complaining because they can't solo the entire game unless they build a spec for soloing. They actually think it's a bad thing that every single combination of powers can't be used to defeat all of the game's content by a player who, by necessity, doesn't have much experience with the game.
Games to listen to that kind of foolishness are setting themselves up for defeat- WoW players who don't know how to play aren't going to stay with your clone, they're going to go back to WoW.
Also, I gotta say. There's no such thing as a launch day nerf. Characters in Beta don't count. Beta isn't for you to make an 'established character' that the devs have to respect the integrity of or else incur your wrath. You're testing the game for them. If they want to change a bunch of stuff after launch, they can and they should if it's a good change.
Didn't read the thread but... refunds are required by consumer protection laws. Its not a choice, its the law. Any store tells you about some policy that is different is blowing smoke up your arse hoping you don't know the laws created to protect the consumer.
Quite frankly if you read the forum post you would know that they quit because of a patch that made soloing a bit harder. As someone pointed out , when you buy a mmorpg lifetime sub do you really expect no changes over the years good or bad? Name me one mmorpg that has remained unchanged since launch
Most EULAs allow the game company to change the game over time. This becomes a legal issue usually only in the case of intentional misrepresentation causing financial damage. Can they change the game? Yes. Can they tell you one thing (knowing it's not true), do something else, and then keep your cash? No. Game companies are legally required to communicate honestly with customers about the service they are paying for in advance.
Refunds have been given out in MMOs when accurate communication did not take place. In other words, people did not get what they were told they were paying for. There's really no way around this in North America and the EU, thankfully.
Cryptic are splitting there department 3 ways,CO, STO and there new game that is yet to be named, When a company takes on 3 masssive game genres at one time, its understandable that there may be bumps on the road, but once they get everything right and the 3 games are fully done there game portfolio and then money to invest in there games from the game buyers will jump and these games will just get better and better all the time.
Dont forget EVE had problems like this and also EVE before the Trinity engine which was the 22nd graphics update in all had sqaurish and unimpressive ships, But now due to mor time and more investment and updated technology the ships look awesome, in fact the ships are motion capture models rendered into the game and are now pretty superd. Its only the learning system that lets it down, just now its taking me 3 months to learn a skill and 3 months is no fun i can tell you.
I think people are judging Cryptic to early on, dont get me wrong i know that some people are hacked off with the bumps in the road, Cryptic angered the STO forumers by putting the CO offer up as Star trek online beta oppertunity, buy our other game and get into our new one. But with hundreds of unhappy posts they quickly saw the reaction and changed the offer title and the offers description. But i think in time definatly with STO, it can only get better and bigger and more in depth and that has to be an amazing thing in any game.
I am hotly looking forward to Star Trek Online and i am an EVE Veteran, A guild master of 500 in WOW, a leader in LOTRO and a player of a few others, so it shows a lot, my corp and guilds may come with me, all i would suggest is dont be too quick to judge, some firms make mistakes but they learn from them, if there any good.
Comments
Really don't get the impression they'd have to rebalance it that much. Although part of the problem seems to be your lack of understanding that Guardian is clearly designed to be the "solo" Role, with the other Roles only used when teaming. Furthermore if you're calling them "stances" it's no surprise why you felt the system worked that well, since they clearly seem to be something you're not supposed to change except when you switch between grouping/soloing.
Presumably the game does a "WOW Switch" at some point to instanced group content? If it does and you're still using Guardian all the time, then yeah things need to get rebalanced.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Really don't get the impression they'd have to rebalance it that much. Although part of the problem seems to be your lack of understanding that Guardian is clearly designed to be the "solo" Role, with the other Roles only used when teaming. Furthermore if you're calling them "stances" it's no surprise why you felt the system worked that well, since they clearly seem to be something you're not supposed to change except when you switch between grouping/soloing.
Presumably the game does a "WOW Switch" at some point to instanced group content? If it does and you're still using Guardian all the time, then yeah things need to get rebalanced.
I apologize if my terminology is off, but in closed beta, they didn't give the "roles" fancy names. They were Balanced, Offensive, Defensive and Support. I understand the "roles" quite well actually, or at least what they were when I played the game all the way up to the end of Open beta when they changed the names. As for instanced group content, there happens to be a number of instanced group content in the later levels and for some end game content. As said previously with the way the CO system is setup you could create countless builds using a plethora of different matches at level 40 and test them all in the powerhouse if you wanted to... but that would be for the majority of players that "get" it...
:Edit: If you take a look at my profile you can see an umber of pictures.. my swordsman (the silver guy with the scarf) was always always... ALWAYS... used in an offensive role. At that time the offensive role was actually useful, you could see a stark difference between being in balanced and offensive.. you would literally kill much faster, and my attacks that gained END on momentum generated much more END..... That worked pretty well for me. When I played in OB in offensive role with a fire based character.. I saw very little differences, but mainly I just died a large number of times. That didn't seem to me to be the correct way to balance the "roles" but then again, it looks like they're still in the middle of trying to get everything balanced. :end edit:
Now I don't know how much things have changed since Closed Beta and then Open Beta.... both of which I was able to level to max level through, but from what I saw they were trying to push people more towards making the "right" decisions with a few sets already. Trying to dice the sets up by "role" is a fancy way to try and keep the game balanced, but to be honest, its really done half ass. You can say things will get better when the balance the "roles" but that only takes you so far.
I'm not trying to make it personal, I'm merely trying to get you to actually explain why people are making such a fuss. Thus far it just seems people are being overly sensitive about decisions which not only failed to ruin the game for retail customers like myself, they clearly made it better-balanced.
That might be why there's so much discussion on the topic: nothing is actually wrong, yet a subset of players is crying bloody murder over the whole affair (prompting the normal players to keep discussing the issue to try to track down what's actually wrong.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm not trying to make it personal, I'm merely trying to get you to actually explain why people are making such a fuss. Thus far it just seems people are being overly sensitive about decisions which not only failed to ruin the game for retail customers like myself, they clearly made it better-balanced.
That might be why there's so much discussion on the topic: nothing is actually wrong, yet a subset of players is crying bloody murder over the whole affair (prompting the normal players to keep discussing the issue to try to track down what's actually wrong.)
It depends on what you mean by "nothing being wrong." Its obvious Cryptic acknowledged something was wrong. The "balance" and "launch bugs" everyone happens to be complaining about were not nearly as prevalent in OB and headstart. It was after the fact -- on launch day, that the build became severely unstable and they changed up the way the game plays without ever testing the patch. Rationalizing it any other way then saying cryptic was careless is exactly that -- rationalizing. Some people purchased the game, I know how it feels to purchase an MMO and have it not live up to your standards... I was in beta and launch for games like MxO and Vanguard as being some of the worst.
All the way through Closed Beta, I never had a single qualm with Cryptic, and I envisioned a fairly flawless launch.... I was very surprised with the outcome. Patches in the name of balancing -- thats okay -- untested patches in the name of balancing and changing for the sake of change.... thats NGE stuff... leave that out on launch day.
Out of curiosity, did these guys even have or have now a "test realm"?
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
They did not implement a test server until after the launch fiasco.
I sent in a ticket yesterday stating I would not be purchasing the game, and to refund me my 6-month subscription as I am now no longer interested in play testing STO. CO was great for the first 3 days, but once I got into PvP and saw the imbalance, and came to the realization that everyone sucks at making characters, I lost interest. Here's hoping I get refunded. Here's hoping they lose the Star Trek license(unlikely, I know).
Agree 100%. We told them the game was not ready yet they ignored us and the Cryptic fanboys just tried to drown us out. Now, their paying for it. It gives me a chuckle when i see Daeke on twitter freaking out or see people going apeshiz on the champions boards. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble had they slowed down, fixed things, listened to experienced testers, and put out a quality game.
Someone was too busy thinking of a deadline.
The only thing that truly bugged the ever-loving crap out of me was the nerfs on launch day. They really tore us a new asshole with that one. Many of my friends had to reroll well-established characters because of this. Not that it's hard to level (even with the xp nerf you can max out in a week of solid play) but it's a pain in the ass having to go through ALL that shit again. The tutorial itself gets boring after doing it a few times and really becomes a chore when you're into the whole alt thing, and you WILL get alt-itis in CO I can assure you...
I still get a massive giggle that people actually bought another ATARI backed MMO...
Ever heard of DDO:Stormreach? Wonder if the fanbois that flamed on those threads about how godly "their game" was are still playing it...
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
Undocumented changes = bad customer service. Subscription refunds for said changes = good customer service. Aren't some people still wanting subscription refunds from poorly communicated game changes made by SOE in 2005 lol? Making mistakes is human, trying to do something to make them right is good business imo.
I gotta be honest. An update to an MMO to make it more challenging and the leveling slower has never made me quit a game.
On the other hand, a horde of 'casual gamers' crying in the forums demanding that everything be made easier for them actually DID make me quit Age of Conan.
I heard about people hitting level cap in CO (which I am currently playing) in a week. Cryptic making the game harder, and refunding money to those for whom this was a catastrophe was exactly the right move, with the only possible better move being not having realeased the game so weaksauce in the first place. The linked thread has somebody complaining because they can't solo the entire game unless they build a spec for soloing. They actually think it's a bad thing that every single combination of powers can't be used to defeat all of the game's content by a player who, by necessity, doesn't have much experience with the game.
Games to listen to that kind of foolishness are setting themselves up for defeat- WoW players who don't know how to play aren't going to stay with your clone, they're going to go back to WoW.
Also, I gotta say. There's no such thing as a launch day nerf. Characters in Beta don't count. Beta isn't for you to make an 'established character' that the devs have to respect the integrity of or else incur your wrath. You're testing the game for them. If they want to change a bunch of stuff after launch, they can and they should if it's a good change.
Didn't read the thread but... refunds are required by consumer protection laws. Its not a choice, its the law. Any store tells you about some policy that is different is blowing smoke up your arse hoping you don't know the laws created to protect the consumer.
Quite frankly if you read the forum post you would know that they quit because of a patch that made soloing a bit harder.
As someone pointed out , when you buy a mmorpg lifetime sub do you really expect no changes over the years good or bad?
Name me one mmorpg that has remained unchanged since launch
Most EULAs allow the game company to change the game over time. This becomes a legal issue usually only in the case of intentional misrepresentation causing financial damage. Can they change the game? Yes. Can they tell you one thing (knowing it's not true), do something else, and then keep your cash? No. Game companies are legally required to communicate honestly with customers about the service they are paying for in advance.
Refunds have been given out in MMOs when accurate communication did not take place. In other words, people did not get what they were told they were paying for. There's really no way around this in North America and the EU, thankfully.
Cryptic are splitting there department 3 ways,CO, STO and there new game that is yet to be named, When a company takes on 3 masssive game genres at one time, its understandable that there may be bumps on the road, but once they get everything right and the 3 games are fully done there game portfolio and then money to invest in there games from the game buyers will jump and these games will just get better and better all the time.
Dont forget EVE had problems like this and also EVE before the Trinity engine which was the 22nd graphics update in all had sqaurish and unimpressive ships, But now due to mor time and more investment and updated technology the ships look awesome, in fact the ships are motion capture models rendered into the game and are now pretty superd. Its only the learning system that lets it down, just now its taking me 3 months to learn a skill and 3 months is no fun i can tell you.
I think people are judging Cryptic to early on, dont get me wrong i know that some people are hacked off with the bumps in the road, Cryptic angered the STO forumers by putting the CO offer up as Star trek online beta oppertunity, buy our other game and get into our new one. But with hundreds of unhappy posts they quickly saw the reaction and changed the offer title and the offers description. But i think in time definatly with STO, it can only get better and bigger and more in depth and that has to be an amazing thing in any game.
I am hotly looking forward to Star Trek Online and i am an EVE Veteran, A guild master of 500 in WOW, a leader in LOTRO and a player of a few others, so it shows a lot, my corp and guilds may come with me, all i would suggest is dont be too quick to judge, some firms make mistakes but they learn from them, if there any good.
Darren Wright