Quote:
Originally Posted by kanras
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It should be pretty obvious why some of the devs (especially myself) focus their own research time on reducing player effectiveness where they're overpowered, and increasing NPC effectiveness where they're underpowered. In case it's not: There's an entire player base that have the desire to increase their own effectiveness. If there's somewhere where the players perceive they are being slighted, they're usually going to loudly voice it in the bug forums. However, there are maybe a handful of players that are willing to spend time researching how to make things harder.
Thanks for the link. I actually used a late 2000 log to determine the max damage, but I'm glad it ended up being right.
To avoid frustration, be sure your bug posts contain time-relevant links (like the one you provided in this post), and bump them occasionally (once a week or so is reasonable) to make sure they're noticed.
|
Thank you for the reply Kanras, I do appoligise if I was a bit sharp tounged. It just feels like a downer all the time when there is a patch. I think we all understand your time is better spent researching and fixing larger issues, or " overpowering" issues. While it is true that most posts in the bug forum are about things that lessen a paticular classes ability or damage, please understand that these are the things that stick out to people. For example...
I never thought to research more into EoT. I simply assumed the 69 damage was correct. It is a rare spell, and this is Kunark after all. Considering the 49 pet max hit was 55, 14 more points of damage didnt sound so wrong. I knew the pet should Duel weild without weapons, but it has been said multiple times already. Seeing the damage change was frustrating as this same exact spell had another issue that was not fixed. Which promted me to verify your change, and research the other points of this spell and post.
Its not about us crying foul to nerfs,or trying to stay powerful etc, most of us just assumed it was correct in the first place =(
Thanks for listening