Dedicate a whole issue to balancing

We have no way of telling whether his "full slate of changes' would have improved PvP or broken pvp beyond recognition. They could have just as easily NOT implemented the new changes and saved face.

I've read the post. It ultimately amounts to "although i'm not completely satisfied I think these changes are for the better.' He has also stated that he felt travel supression should have been implemented from the beginning..this is something MOST pvpers would disagree with. He has also stated that the changes made were to "balance" pvp and that he feels Pvp is much more balanced than it was before.

But honestly, lets not tread in those waters.




agreed rationally they have a time-table they have to meet. However, wouldn't the rational thing to do, be to remove rewards from AE or significantly reduce the rewards if you knew that they may be abused and only increase rewards if you feel it isn't being abused?

like-wise isn't it much more rational to give a set bonus a LOweR bonus than to give it a much higher bonus if you have been warned that the possibility of abuse was high? So that you can adjust the bonuses up instead of down?


Doing what you can and doing what's rational are two different things. And the time to visit problems the players point out in closed beta are During closed and open beta....

I'm starting to see why you've been chosen as a beta tester every time...

You're welcome. I hope you are doing the community a favor and contributing your criticisms during closed-betas to additions that deserve criticism. Instead of praising the devs for everything they do in order to get into the next closed-beta.

Yes, but when **** happens repeatedly you tend to find yourself chin deep in it...

prefer to raise my voice before i'm eating it...

This is a prime example of choice 2 in my last post.

I've both defended changes and criticized many changes. but I am mostly critical. *shrugs*

You're right though, I think I'm over my ranting and ready for the awesome news that is slated for PAX.

I'm confident to cover for this recent muck-up they'll be revealing some really juicy tidbits.

This is my outlook as well.

Now that's unnecessary.

I should have just qft your post and left it at that.

Sorry, Your post makes you seem like a fan-boi that takes the devs words as gospel and will simply agree with any decision the devs make regardless if it's a bad one in order to continue beta testing.

Add me to that list also. Keep it going like the flow.

Like this

I've seldom been accused of that, my very first post was laced with arsenic directed at States. But you make your point, emphatically sometimes, during test and otherwise and then it's out of your hands.

The truth is as Billz and others pointed out it's not personally constructive to be consumed by game issues, valid or not, so point out a problem and even make a big deal about it, and ultimately it's in the devs court.

Some of us pushed improvements to the War Mace set for over a year, politely offering ideas/suggestions in a single thread, and when the set got a huge buff Castle said in pm that the effort was directly responsible for the change, so I know first hand the devs listen, they have limited time though and that's just how it is.

*adds this to the long list of things Tokyo is completely wrong about.

I think they'd be more sensible to spread out the fixes over several Issues, to leave room for content and other more marketable things.

Dig that video.

Reminded me of this for some reason.

That's not the way they pick closed beta players - some will be chosen on purpose, but the rest will just be random, or based on something like the loyalty program idea

I know that. But I call a monkey bois like I sees a monkey bois. :P