"Ephemeral" does not mean what I think it means.
1) Not a problem - No change planned.
2) Minor problem - Change scheduled for the release of Helms Deep
3) Problem - we are not going to fix it.
4) Fixed and released quietly without telling us. 99.9% of the bugs are fixed this way. Some of these fixes do not work. I generally write a new bug report after each major content update.
5) Add more possibilities
I do not know of any software development organization that has fully transparent system for bugs.
My company offers a tracking system for customer reports of any kind of problem. A customer reports a problem that turns out to a software bug then Customer Service Report (CSR) gets an official bug report number. The customer can never access the bug report with all its details that software developers like me work with. Somebody in Customer Service has to sanitize and create updates to the CSR based on the progress with the bug report. This entire customer process is a Premium service. Customers have to pay to submit CSRs, talk to a Customer Service Engineer (CSE) or access a CSR remotely. A person can only see their CSRs or if the customer is a company - the person has to be authorized to access their company's CSRs.
I can not speak about Turbine's bug process. For us, customer bug reports and interfacing with customers is large expense. Without the dollars from the customers we could not afford to provide any details. The other big problem is that bug reports include a liberal dose of corporate confidential information about how the product works. What problems has. How much it costs to fix problem 137,364. None of which we our competitors to get access to.
Unless stated otherwise, all content in this post is My Personal Opinion.
1. Disable deleting a creep character. Want a new name? Pay for it. Deletion and rerolling of creep classes is really only useful for questionable things like rank/commendation farming.
2. Make a TOS addendum to policy for multi-boxers. Simply disallow it in the ettenmoors. You can create very simple and understandable guidelines for your GM staff to sort this out. There's a very clear line of action (are they in the ettenmoors? If yes; this is actionable. If no; ignore), that would be no more difficult to enforce than the current TOS.
I don't think you'll ever be able to catch every person farming rank. Especially since most will be doing it slowly with a single alternate account (and frankly it's impossible to sort out the ones using a friend's actual account for this sort of thing). You CAN however discourage the "high gainers" who are farming 4-5 accounts at a time and constantly rerolling the reavers to reset their rating.
Even my Signature is trolling!
Saying behavior "x" is clearly rank farming so it should be banned is a horribly ad hoc way to do things not in the least because it entirely reactionary and so you will always see folks nibbling at the edges to.see if they can get away with something because it isn't "technically" behavior "x".
As an aside, that's pretty neat how you completely ignore the questions that demonstrate the substance-free nature of your earlier assertion that some "it" has rendered my "point" somehow "weak". . . and you then merely move on to asking for documentation of things nobody (else) actually doubts took place.
The announcement of a major LI revamp broken up into two phases did indeed take place in a Letter to the Community:
Next Steps with Legendary Items – We’re planning on doing two upgrades to Legendary Items next year – one in the Q1 release, and one later in the year. The goal is to respond to a bunch of your feedback and to incorporate some more versatility, flexibility and less randomness into the system. We’ll certainly be releasing a dev diary on the Q1 changes as we get into next year.
The announcement that phase 2 had been canceled was not quite so happily publicized but can be read about here among other places.
Again, I'm not sure why you required those links considering that nobody doubts that any of this happened. They were going to substantially revamp LIs, and then. . . *poof*. . . for some reason they decided against it.
Here's the truly sad thing though. . . we agree that LIs need a revamp. Yet your ideological blinders won't even allow you to acknowledge the most likely reason why that revamp was called off in the first place. And why we're unlikely to ever see anything close to the revamp that the players clamoured for all those years ago.
We may get some F2P-era, heavily monetized system. . . but we will never get the system we had all hoped we'd get when the revamp was originally announced.
Anyways, this thread is not about Legendary Items or your ongoing beef with me. You asked about an LI revamp and I provided you some background of which you seemed unaware. It's unfortunate that you saw the need to take such information and turn it into another invective-filled argument as you have in other threads. I won't assist you in derailing this thread further.
"Ephemeral" does not mean what I think it means.
First, your links you posted give insight to a revamp, the one you claim "cancelled phase 2" is not even a single developer mention it was postponed or cancelled, in other words the possibility is there and more than likely devs are working on it.
Second, F2P is not the monetized-monster you put it to be, its more like a trend to play more games and decide how much you spend on it, call it loyalty and future tiumes trend, you might not like it but you definetly can't demonized it like you have.
The LI Question was asked and answered in the March 21, 2013 Twitter Dev Chat.
Q19: Avengingbananaslug - Are there any plans to rework the legendary item system?
A19: Evan "Verizal" Graziano
At this time, no, there are no plans to rework LI.
First, going from "planned" to "not planned" is synonymous with canceled.First, your links you posted give insight to a revamp, the one you claim "cancelled phase 2" is not even a single developer mention it was postponed or cancelled, in other words the possibility is there and more than likely devs are working on it.
Second, though you consider it "more than likely" that devs are working on it, Sapience just told you that they are not.
I merely point out the unintended and often poorly understood and documented undesireable side-effects that such a business model has on the games that adopt it. And there are many. That you find it necessary to characterize this as "demonizing" and assert/demand that I "can't" do so is somewhat telling.Second, F2P is not the monetized-monster you put it to be, its more like a trend to play more games and decide how much you spend on it, call it loyalty and future tiumes trend, you might not like it but you definetly can't demonized it like you have.
Anyways, you asked your question, I provided you with historical background, and now Sapience has given you a direct answer. The prior revamp was canceled. And they are not currently working on a new one however "more than likely" you might consider the possibility that they are.
"Ephemeral" does not mean what I think it means.
Thanks for the reply Sapience.
To hurin, I posted around the same time Sapience did, I didn't see the post until now.
Seems you were right on this.
A very informative thread, thanks for sharing!
As a budding software developer myself, I'm curious if you would be willing to share some of the best practice patterns your team employs when architecting a massive game such as this? For example, do you use architectural patterns similar to MVVM of MVC, TDD, etc.. in order to build application layers that are decoupled and code that is more easily maintained and scalable?
Just curious on how the pros do it. Thanks! Keep up the great work!
My suggestion is to start with something. Decide what that root is and start with fixing it instead of waiting to determine everything that falls into that category.
I broke it down so you understand my point....... So yeah, not much you said really applies to my comment.....
Last edited by zagreb000; Jun 25 2013 at 11:42 PM.
We know that the LI system is not about to change, as stated in the mentioned dev chat.
The more I try to use it to a decent level on more than 1 or 2 chars, the more I'd like to see it not revamped, but removed. As in 'it never existed'. There's nothing 'legendary' about it anyway, except the grind for relics, not to mention shards. There is no real/unique customization for a given role of a given class, and for a purely dps class there is no customization at all. And this customization doesn't include a cosmetic component, but that's the least of a problem.
Not only its removal will free countless vault slots now taken by its components, but (more importantly) it will untie the devs' hands for faster changing of classes' skills and mechanics, w/o care for this extra burden.
No, you don't have to start with the 'it's about the money' and 'how do you propose to compensate monetary value?'. I always find such questions out of the point. I play a game product here. I'm not an accountant, I'm not a game dev. I can only say what I like and dislike, it is beyond me how problems are dealt with, regardless of how interesting the process may be.
I like the idea of mounted combat and appreciate the maximum to which it is extended, given the technicality issues involved. What I don't understand is why those technical problems were not predicted and, if not removable, why the entire MC had to be introduced at all. So much effort was clearly input to it, yet it is not usable for serious group content and the rubber-banding is such a hassle. The whole thing is like a pretty but unusable object hanging above the fireplace. It is like the most expensive cosmetic cloak in the galaxy.
To say the least, you could try to not place raid-size WBs in thick forests with dense extra mobs possessing skills for CC and reducing the control over an already clumsy horse. That, if not the rest, was completely avoidable and related to zone design, not to MC design.
I like CD, Uru, old-school Fornost and the GA-cluster, GB is cool too. If a new IC is not on the way, perhaps some of these could be revamped.
I'd really like to see locks introduction for scaled content and not purely-RNG-based loot system.
I hope in the next portion of HD-information we'll get some insights about those. Old or not, the game is nice and still has a lot to offer, as it offered a lot in the past.
One thing I've been curious about is the design process for armor. I know the devs have mentioned things about it in the past, such as the fact they have a certain number of base meshes they can rig textures to, generating different effects from a single skeleton. Or that they had a certain number in SoA, and nearly doubled that number in Moria. But what about the process of modeling that armor? Any new tricks or creative innovations to boast of?
For instance, a lot of armor seems like it was built on a male human frame, and then adapted to the other six body types, sometimes to comical effect. In a few recent cases, such as Cel-crus, there's actually gender-specific variations. Is that something we'll be seeing more of in the future?
[i]"Life is 10% what you make it, and 90% how you take it." - Irving Berlin[/i]
[size=0][url=http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?t=304223]Mirkwood[/url] • [url=http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?415841]Isengard[/url] • [url=http://lotro-wiki.com/index.php]LOTRO-Wiki[/url][/size][/center]
If another popular game comes out with a different system and it isnt hard to implement into Lotro, we might be seeing that. Just a hunch for most part, really.
EDIT: just another, probably bad idea. But maybe add a new loot tier? Something similar to WoW legendaries. They could have fun with Aragorns old sword since it is unknown what happened to it (i hope im not mistaken). It wouldnt really be lore breaking. Even if you made it with bad stats and just put in the description: "Aragorn wielded this sword as a ranger, or did he?"
Last edited by zagreb000; Jun 26 2013 at 05:07 PM.
This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.Reload