Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaggles
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Why not a helicopter mount?
They were trying to balance 2h damage and make it relevant not improve a single class. It's easier to tweak numbers for a skill (like damage bonus tables) than give people nifty perks. Plus I can't think of a single guild who would want a knight to do LESS damage for a perk on a 72min cooldown than be on the same 2h damage table as a warrior.
My AA HT did 16k damage and it was still a parlor trick on raids.
|
Sorry, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the past 10 years, not the perspective of someone 10 years ago. I believe that Sony failed to produce varied content for all of the different classes and setups. To compensate, they slowly but surely homogenized the classes. They also simplified their systems and used more spreadsheet items. It had the effect of reducing development costs by decreasing complexity. Just my opinion.
Basically, the initial "vision" was too complicated and costly to continue. They set out to decrease the amount of unique conditions to develop and bug test for. This "streamlined" the game, increasingly.
This is why I saw the strong move towards linear things, consistently: To reduce costs. Linear things produce less conditions. This means less things to test and develop for. They were very cautious.
I would buy all these arguments given by them, if these incidents were isolated. But they're not.
And one more thing... They may not have known consciously what they were doing. They gave all these arguments year after year. But underneath it all, they couldn't cut the mustard. Maybe declining interest and shifting funding (to other games) inevitably led to a kind of cognitive dissonance or denial.
If they had come out and said, "We can't meet the demands of our initial hopes and dreams," I would have understood and even forgiven them. It was the denial that was unforgivable.