Like others, I've been swept up in the discourse following the posting of the Job Changes update today. It's extremely bizarre to me how this happens every time, and you'd think that after 10+ years of communicating with this player base, the dev team would learn a very simple fact: Specifics matter in these posts, a lot.
A lot of people have grown attached to Viper very quickly, myself included, and the vagueness of the post today regarding the changes planned for the job has left many in a tailspin about the future of the Job. How far are they going to go? How will it change?
When you say something as vague and non-commital as "... we’ve received feedback pertaining to the busyness of their skill rotation. To that end, we’re planning several improvements, including the easing of directional requirements, and changes to the effects of several actions. We’re aiming to implement these changes..." you leave a lot of room for people to immediately assume the worst; and like it or not, without the guard rails the specificity provides, people will ALWAYS assume the worst.
As a result, the discourse surrounding the Job and these proposed changes has become insanely toxic and reductive, to the point where people are essentially just assuming that it's going to be completely gutted. We could avoid all of this by posting at least the ideation or philosophy that you hope to approach with the planned changes.
By just aiming to address "busyness" you're failing to indicate what part of the actual gameplay loop needs addressing. Are you removing positional requirements? Are you removing oGCDs? Are you removing the double-weaves on Dreadwinder?
We simply don't know, because you didn't tell us.
I understand that some of the changes are probably still being tested, so they can't give out exact specifics, but in that case, they should really just give a boiler-plate statement that simply acknowledges that they've received feedback on aspects of the job and are looking and where they can make changes. By specifying an overarching conceptual identity of a job (Busyness/fast melee) and saying "We want to change that" you're literally throwing a bomb into a dark room with your eyes closed as far as the community is concerned.
Communication needs to be clear, concise, and specific. If it can't be any of those things, it should be delayed until it can, and a simple "We heard you, we're looking at it" should be given.
Continue reading...
A lot of people have grown attached to Viper very quickly, myself included, and the vagueness of the post today regarding the changes planned for the job has left many in a tailspin about the future of the Job. How far are they going to go? How will it change?
When you say something as vague and non-commital as "... we’ve received feedback pertaining to the busyness of their skill rotation. To that end, we’re planning several improvements, including the easing of directional requirements, and changes to the effects of several actions. We’re aiming to implement these changes..." you leave a lot of room for people to immediately assume the worst; and like it or not, without the guard rails the specificity provides, people will ALWAYS assume the worst.
As a result, the discourse surrounding the Job and these proposed changes has become insanely toxic and reductive, to the point where people are essentially just assuming that it's going to be completely gutted. We could avoid all of this by posting at least the ideation or philosophy that you hope to approach with the planned changes.
By just aiming to address "busyness" you're failing to indicate what part of the actual gameplay loop needs addressing. Are you removing positional requirements? Are you removing oGCDs? Are you removing the double-weaves on Dreadwinder?
We simply don't know, because you didn't tell us.
I understand that some of the changes are probably still being tested, so they can't give out exact specifics, but in that case, they should really just give a boiler-plate statement that simply acknowledges that they've received feedback on aspects of the job and are looking and where they can make changes. By specifying an overarching conceptual identity of a job (Busyness/fast melee) and saying "We want to change that" you're literally throwing a bomb into a dark room with your eyes closed as far as the community is concerned.
Communication needs to be clear, concise, and specific. If it can't be any of those things, it should be delayed until it can, and a simple "We heard you, we're looking at it" should be given.
Continue reading...