Regarding the questions about the Class Changes Twitter Chat

In closing the Official Discussion thread in which to pose questions about Class Changes, Sapience said:

Quote:

---

Closing this down so the team has time to answer the questions we were able to pull from these. I appreciate all the feedback and opinions and editorials, I jut wish we had had more actual questions. Going forward we'll try to make it more clear that these aren't discussion threads, they're places to post very specific questions. Much like how we made the Tell the Community Team threads very narrow focused.

---

As was pointed out in that very thread, it is difficult to ask questions about something about which people have scant little information. Could you please explain how, going forward, the Community is supposed to ask actual questions about something we know nothing about? If you had asked for questions about Big Battles before revealing them to us, do you think the Community would have come up with good, relevant questions?

It is clear that the main concerns people have about Class Changes fall into a couple general categories: First, people want to know which skills are being removed and how this will change their playstyle. Second, people want to know what will happen with Traits: Virtues, Race, Class, and Legendary Traits. Will they all be gone? Just some of them?

Thanks for opening up an Official Discussion for the Class Changes, but I think your expectations are a bit high if you think we can ask good questions without first having good information. Once again, just try to imagine if you had asked for questions BEFORE releasing information on Big Battles. How relevant would those questions have been?

You could try asking questions in which the answers would *give* you information? It's really not that hard.

I hope and i think that Sapience was referred to the less useful post from there, not questions, only usual stuff about negating the ideea about changing this *perfect working as intented system* in my opinion.
In the same time, i am agree with you sir, because this topic hit us like an truck, ppl did not realised that Turbine WILL change this system either we like it or not and we barely knew how to react, not mentioning that we did not know which is the best thing to ask about the new system. So when i saw ..."they're places to post very specific questions.", i wonder what is an good specific question about an unknow change ...

Thank you GrimbleGrumble for your post. That's exactly how I feel. In fact, I did NOT ask a question on the thread, because I had no idea what to ask. I know nothing about the new system, so I could not formulate a good question. I wish they would've released a Developer Diary and THEN done the dev chat with questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frieja

Thank you GrimbleGrumble for your post. That's exactly how I feel. In fact, I did NOT ask a question on the thread, because I had no idea what to ask. I know nothing about the new system, so I could not formulate a good question. I wish they would've released a Developer Diary and THEN done the dev chat with questions.

---

Yes, I would have liked to have a Dev Diary and THEN have a chance to ask questions. Instead, it appears it will be the other way around. Ask (necessarily ignorant) questions, find out your hunches were all wrong (or not), THEN get a Dev Diary that explains things. I'm trying to not be pessimistic about this, but it seems like they want to appear to be interacting with the Community. I just feel like our job in this interaction was made very difficult by lack of information. So hopefully they don't just cherry-pick questions with simple and easy answers but instead use this as an opportunity to give us some real info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nyrion

You could try asking questions in which the answers would *give* you information? It's really not that hard.

---

This exactly. As with the 20Questions about big battles where no one knew a single thing, but were still asking questions hoping we'd tell them. So we took those questions and answered them.

Usually the best way to find out information about something you don't know about is to ask. So we're giving you a lot of opportunities to ask.

I know there is tomato soup exists. I don't know how it's made. I can ask someone.
I know class changes are coming. I don't know what it means for me. So I can ask someone.

I suppose one could make a similar argument that any comment about the changes being good or bad isn't valid or relevant because you haven't seen them or been told about them. So how could you have any kind of opinion? Actually you could apply that to just about anything.

As for my comment, those who remember the Tell the Community Team threads know we had a pretty hard set of rules in those threads. Basically if you weren't answering a question asked in the OP or asking a question you were told to ask in the OP your thread was removed. Those threads held some FANTASTIC feedback as a result. There were no arguments, no lengthy editorials on the state of the game unrelated to the question, no bickering over whose opinion was 'right', just the information we asked for. Even when we asked about things we hadn't discussed yet. Going forward when we do question threads, we may reinstate that level of 'on topic only' requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapience

Usually the best way to find out information about something you don't know about is to ask. So we're giving you a lot of opportunities to ask.

I know there is tomato soup exists. I don't know how it's made. I can ask someone.
I know class changes are coming. I don't know what it means for me. So I can ask someone.

---

Are the developers prepared to answer "What do the class changes mean for me?" or "How will it work?" in 140 characters or less?

I think for this particular topic, it would have been helpful to have published a developer diary first. That way, players could ask specific questions about specific features or changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapience

I know there is tomato soup exists. I don't know how it's made. I can ask someone.

---

Okay, let's take this analogy and develop it the way I see this Q&A:

Does the tomato soup have carrots in it? No.
Does the tomato soup have garlic in it? No.
Does the tomato soup have peppers in it? No.
Does the tomato soup have tomatoes in it? YES!
Do you cook it on med-high heat? No.
Do you cook it on high heat? No.
Do you cook it in a microwave? No.
Do you cook it on a stove top? YES!
etc....

Now, if for example, we were told that we'd be having tomato soup from a can that would be reheated on low-heat on the stove-top, we could then focus our questions on more relevant things like:
What other foods would go well with our tomato soup?
Can we add any other special ingredients to our soup?
Is the soup spicy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapience

This exactly. As with the 20Questions about big battles where no one knew a single thing, but were still asking questions hoping we'd tell them. So we took those questions and answered them.

Usually the best way to find out information about something you don't know about is to ask. So we're giving you a lot of opportunities to ask.

I know there is tomato soup exists. I don't know how it's made. I can ask someone.
I know class changes are coming. I don't know what it means for me. So I can ask someone.

I suppose one could make a similar argument that any comment about the changes being good or bad isn't valid or relevant because you haven't seen them or been told about them. So how could you have any kind of opinion? Actually you could apply that to just about anything.

As for my comment, those who remember the Tell the Community Team threads know we had a pretty hard set of rules in those threads. Basically if you weren't answering a question asked in the OP or asking a question you were told to ask in the OP your thread was removed. Those threads held some FANTASTIC feedback as a result. There were no arguments, no lengthy editorials on the state of the game unrelated to the question, no bickering over whose opinion was 'right', just the information we asked for. Even when we asked about things we hadn't discussed yet. Going forward when we do question threads, we may reinstate that level of 'on topic only' requirement.

---

Thanks for your reply Rick. Your analogy seems a bit off to me. We weren't told we were getting tomato soup, just that we were getting soup and could ask questions about it. Without knowing what kind of 'soup' we were getting, it seemed a bit pointless to ask questions about it, beyond the basics that were asked many many times in that thread. I could go on and on about ingredients: Is X in the soup? Assuming Y is in the soup, how much did you add and why not use Z instead? If it turns out there is no X, Y, or Z in the soup, well then I've wasted your time and my own. In my opinion, the 'type' of soup in your example would be akin to giving us some kind of a 'menu' (like a Dev Diary) that gave us an idea of what we were getting, then we could go from there. Are the tomatoes organic? Etc etc. I just feel that more informed Community would have asked more appropriate questions.

Thanks again. Ok now I'm hungry for grilled cheese and tomato soup.

Read the DDO forums *cough cough*. DDOs changes have sounded a lot like what LotRO devs have been talking about. We have seen tree lines before. Even in the game with War Steeds. They allow flexibility in builds and allows you to customize your class. I am behind the changes being made 100% even though it will be very difficult at first. My major questions is how many points per level and how does this effect the current class roles. Other than that when we get the Beta we can start testing builds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fredelas

Are the developers prepared to answer "What do the class changes mean for me?" or "How will it work?" in 140 characters or less?

---

Based on the questions we pulled from the other thread and the answers in them? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frieja

Okay, let's take this analogy and develop it the way I see this Q&A:

Does the tomato soup have carrots in it? No.
Does the tomato soup have garlic in it? No.
Does the tomato soup have peppers in it? No.
Does the tomato soup have tomatoes in it? YES!
Do you cook it on med-high heat? No.
Do you cook it on high heat? No.
Do you cook it in a microwave? No.
Do you cook it on a stove top? YES!
etc....

Now, if for example, we were told that we'd be having tomato soup from a can that would be reheated on low-heat on the stove-top, we could then focus our questions on more relevant things like:
What other foods would go well with our tomato soup?
Can we add any other special ingredients to our soup?
Is the soup spicy?

---

Why can't you ask those questions regardless of whether or not the soup is from a can? I would. You're getting tomato soup. Ask anything you'd like. You already know you're getting the soup and that that soup is coming with crackers (trait trees). Think ever so slightly broader and wider than the unrealistically narrow focus of your straw-man questions above and the world opens up.

Yea, I also thought that Sapience's response when closing out the Twitter question thread was a bit over the top:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Sapience

Closing this down so the team has time to answer the questions we were able to pull from these. I appreciate all the feedback and opinions and editorials, I jut wish we had had more actual questions. Going forward we'll try to make it more clear that these aren't discussion threads, they're places to post very specific questions. Much like how we made the Tell the Community Team threads very narrow focused.

---

There were 125 player posts in that thread (not including the first post and the last post, but including multiple posts from same individuals)

By my quick count, 79 of those 125 posts (63%) contained honest-to-goodness questions related to the skill changes. This doesn't take into account the fact that many of those posts contained multiple questions, so the number of actual questions was quite a bit higher than 79. (although, admittedly this also doesn't take into account the likely fact that many of those questions were probably similar to others asked elsewhere in the thread).

Maybe you didn't like the ratio of question-posts to editorial-posts, but is this not enough for you to draw upon to get a sense of what players' concerns/questions are, going into the class skill revamp? Obviously, you can certainly make these kinds of threads 'question-focused only' (which can be useful, I agree) but it seems disingenuous to say that you wish that you had more actual questions, in this case at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapience

This exactly. As with the 20Questions about big battles where no one knew a single thing, but were still asking questions hoping we'd tell them. So we took those questions and answered them.

---

There are some key differences:

1. I'm guessing the discussion from which the information on Big Battles was distilled didn't take place in the span of only about an hour.
2. The questions and answers weren't limited to 140 characters or less. Seriously, look at how long some of the answers were compared to the questions.

This is why I think having a developer diary a week or so in advance would have helped. That would give time for players to digest the information and ask relevant, meaningful questions, and give the developers the time to formulate concise answers.

I don't think Twitter is a good medium to discuss this particular topic.

I am with the OP. As to Sapience's comment. D'oh. Tomato-soup? Like, seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peresbert

[...] We have seen tree lines before. [...] They allow flexibility in builds and allows you to customize your class.

---

Uh-huh.

Are you aware that the CURRENT system allows flexibility in builds? That it allows you to customize your class? Rendering this supposed argument null and void?

Are you ALSO aware that the devs _specifically_ mentioned "difficult decisions" that would await us with the new system? That this sounds precisely like NOT allowing flexibility and customization but more like limitation and cookie-cutter?

Waiting for the questions and answers to that chat to appear, but I see no reason to hold my breath.

SNy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapience

This exactly. As with the 20Questions about big battles where no one knew a single thing, but were still asking questions hoping we'd tell them. So we took those questions and answered them.

Usually the best way to find out information about something you don't know about is to ask. So we're giving you a lot of opportunities to ask.

I know there is tomato soup exists. I don't know how it's made. I can ask someone.
I know class changes are coming. I don't know what it means for me. So I can ask someone.

I suppose one could make a similar argument that any comment about the changes being good or bad isn't valid or relevant because you haven't seen them or been told about them. So how could you have any kind of opinion? Actually you could apply that to just about anything.

As for my comment, those who remember the Tell the Community Team threads know we had a pretty hard set of rules in those threads. Basically if you weren't answering a question asked in the OP or asking a question you were told to ask in the OP your thread was removed. Those threads held some FANTASTIC feedback as a result. There were no arguments, no lengthy editorials on the state of the game unrelated to the question, no bickering over whose opinion was 'right', just the information we asked for. Even when we asked about things we hadn't discussed yet. Going forward when we do question threads, we may reinstate that level of 'on topic only' requirement.

---

I must have missed the part where players submitted the questions for the Big Battles 20 questions, they seemed almost entirely made up of questions made up by people privy to information not available to the general lotro public.

Making users fire off blind questions hoping things stick is generally a waste of time for everyone involved. You have to sort through mounds of questions of no relevance since people have no way of knowing whether their questions have anything to do with being changed. Add in the fact that this is a twitter chat with character limits, where multipart questions or answers that might actually allow for narrowing down topics based on reply's are not possible, and we're going to get a dev chat that leaves a lot of people dissatisfied with what they're able to take from it.

This is precisely the type of interaction that you, Sapience, look back on as an example of you doing part of your job in getting the Devs interacting with the players, and critics like me look back on as lip service at best, and a wasted opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapience

Think ever so slightly broader and wider than the unrealistically narrow focus of your straw-man questions above and the world opens up.

---

I'm sorry if you think my questions are unrealistically focused. I wasn't trying to make "straw-man" questions. This is the dilemma I faced when asked to post a question. I felt like I would be throwing out random stuff in hopes that I'd at least graze the target of information.

I'll say it again: I didn't know what to ask.

However, I am very much looking forward to the dev chat. Perhaps those with broader and wider thinking than I came up with good questions :)

Guys, have you not played 20 questions before?

First question should be:
Do the class changes belong to the plant, animal, or mineral kingdom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spelunker

[...]
This is precisely the type of interaction that you, Sapience, look back on as an example of you doing part of your job in getting the Devs interacting with the players, and critics like me look back on as lip service at best, and a wasted opportunity.

---

Thank you for so eloquently putting it! I fully agree.

SNy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasdun

Guys, have you not played 20 questions before?

First question should be:
Do the class changes belong to the plant, animal, or mineral kingdom?

---

20 questions where you have to ask all the questions before getting a single answer would be challenging indeed. I'm intrigued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spelunker

20 questions where you have to ask all the questions before getting a single answer would be challenging indeed. I'm intrigued.

---

All of our previous 20 questions came from players with no more information than you have.

Who asked the questions for the Big Battles? I hadn't even heard of Big Battles before that 20 Questions thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fredelas

Are the developers prepared to answer "What do the class changes mean for me?" or "How will it work?" in 140 characters or less?

I think for this particular topic, it would have been helpful to have published a developer diary first. That way, players could ask specific questions about specific features or changes.

---

This would have been a good idea. 140 character limit is going to be hard to go into the details that I know many of us will want to hear about. Hopefully there will be a follow up dev diary or at least an overview where some of the issues raised in tonight's Q&A can be addressed in more detail.

Anyhow, looking forward to seeing the feed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spelunker

20 questions where you have to ask all the questions before getting a single answer would be challenging indeed. I'm intrigued.

---

I think this and other replies echo the concern of my OP: our ignorance is vast, and thus our questions will be vague and likely irrelevant. Let's hope we'll have a second round of questions about this topic AFTER we have enough information to form good questions. I couldn't imagine going to one of my college classes, for example, Philosophy of Space and Time, and being told to just 'start asking questions.' Maybe that's a bad example, because that course had a syllabus.

I really appreciate the efforts of the Dev Team to provide opportunities for Q&A with the Community, I just feel like, beyond the 5 or so most common questions, there's no way to ask penetrating questions about these Class Changes until we know something about them. I remain hopeful that when these 20 Questions are posted on the Forum here, the Devs and Sapience will hang around, like they did for the Big Battles 20 Questions, to answer what I expect to be loads of follow-up questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frieja

Who asked the questions for the Big Battles? I hadn't even heard of Big Battles before that 20 Questions thread.

---

The original questions were asked by members of the Player council.

Will hunter be built to self-buff every few seconds at irregular intervals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroscian

Will hunter be built to self-buff every few seconds at irregular intervals?

---

This is just the kind of question that made a mess of Official Discussion thread. Thanks for the example.

Like many in the thread, I think the most productive and pleasing sequence would have been (1) Dev Diary, followed by (2) Call for Questions, followed by (3) 20 Questions (really, 20 Answers to Tons of Questions). Having said that, I think any sharing of information on upcoming changes, whatever the format or sequencing, is heartily welcome. Thanks for doing this, Turbine Team!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frieja

Who asked the questions for the Big Battles? I hadn't even heard of Big Battles before that 20 Questions thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crell_1

The original questions were asked by members of the Player council.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapience

All of our previous 20 questions came from players with no more information than you have.

---

interesting.



Moving past the validity of this statement...

I found that the dev responses to our questions about the original 20 questions was more enlightening and usefull than anything contained in those original questions, beyond grasping the basic concept of Big Battles.

Will the Devs be on hand to answer all the focused, appropriate, constructive questions that we may have after the twitter chat hopefully clears up the basics of the trait trees/class changes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spelunker

interesting.



Moving past the validity of this statement...

I found that the dev responses to our questions about the original 20 questions was more enlightening and usefull than anything contained in those original questions, beyond grasping the basic concept of Big Battles.

Will the Devs be on hand to answer all the focused, appropriate, constructive questions that we may have after the twitter chat hopefully clears up the basics of the trait trees/class changes?

---

This was the same impression that I got regarding that last 20 questions as well. In addition, many of the questions posed there are very ill suited for a twitter chat discussion, based on the broadness of the topic.

For example: Q9: What are the differences between Big Battles & Traditional Raids?
I really don't see how anyone would be able to give a satisfactory response to this in <140 characters

Whereas while asking something very specific such as will I still be able to trait skill x while mainly traiting for role B are answerable (assuming the builds are close enough to completion) they are so situational and would only benefit a small percentage of the playerbase.

There are only a handful of questions I've been able to come up with that might be beneficial in this chat and would give satisfying answers in this format. and most of those have been posed in varying wordings many times, such as how our virtues are going to be affected by this revamp, and what we can do to obtain additional points to spend on the trait trees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapience

This exactly. As with the 20Questions about big battles where no one knew a single thing, but were still asking questions hoping we'd tell them. So we took those questions and answered them.

---

Even if that is the case, the answers there were not restricted to 140 characters. Could they be shortened to that limit? Sure, but not without omitting a number of important details leaving people scratching their heads.
The twitter format isn't very good for "how will" or "what is" type of questions that need some level of detail. It's good for questions about specifics that only need a simple answer, confirmations and similar stuff. Such questions are difficult to ask without any reference.
Questions that might have been asked when not being concerned about the twitter restrictions:
- What is the motivation for the class changes?
- What are the design goals for the class changes? (this is a different question than the first)
- What changes to expect for class X?
- How will the current state of characters be mapped to the new system?
- How will this change affect other game mechanics (like deeds)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrimbleGrumble

This is just the kind of question that made a mess of Official Discussion thread. Thanks for the example.

---

I disagree vehemently. If I know that hunter will need to buff self all the way as the current trend, then I know what sort of build to ask questions for.

What in the NINE HELLS would you like me to ask, dear fellow gamer? 'Will hunter be good to play?'

Seriously, you need to explain your inflammatory statement. In my world, it's comment like yours that may derail any regular topic here.

"For hunter, what is to be expected? In detail, please."
This is the type of question that could not be asked or answered. Detail. Advance detail to be able to pose relevant questions.

There's currently a muddled Nothing and droves of rumours and fears in chat across the four servers I visit occasionally. I think that is a bad state of business.

The question that isn't being asked nor answered on Twitter (so far), is WHY the change to traits? Who thought the existing system was broken or inadqeuate, or was this simply a way to keep the class developers busy (besides cross training them to a different part of the system)? I'd rather you come out and say "we found a way to monetize this aspect, that's why we're doing it," rather than thinking that someone in a position of influence thought that the existing free-trait system had a flaw.

It's not the stated reason that they wanted to grant traits earlier, that can be done without a wholesale shift to trees, just change the requirements for some traits.

I'm not yet convinced that this change was needed, maybe I need hands on first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Namesse

The question that isn't being asked nor answered on Twitter (so far), is WHY the change to traits? Who thought the existing system was broken or inadqeuate, or was this simply a way to keep the class developers busy (besides cross training them to a different part of the system)? I'd rather you come out and say "we found a way to monetize this aspect, that's why we're doing it," rather than thinking that someone in a position of influence thought that the existing free-trait system had a flaw.

I'm not yet convinced that this change was needed, maybe I need hands on first.

---

This. As unasked for as removing fog of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Namesse

The question that isn't being asked nor answered on Twitter (so far), is WHY the change to traits?

---

Read Q11 and the responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crell_1

Read Q11 and the responses.

---

Editted my post to reflect as you were entering yours. It still doesn't explain why the shift to trees when they can just grant traits earlier via reduced requirements to gain the trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Namesse

The question that isn't being asked nor answered on Twitter (so far), is WHY the change to traits? Who thought the existing system was broken or inadqeuate, or was this simply a way to keep the class developers busy (besides cross training them to a different part of the system)? I'd rather you come out and say "we found a way to monetize this aspect, that's why we're doing it," rather than thinking that someone in a position of influence thought that the existing free-trait system had a flaw.

I'm not yet convinced that this change was needed, maybe I need hands on first.

---

Q11: Raven-EU: What was the primary driver(s) for this change?

A11: Jinjaah: I think there were two main things that drove these changes: #LOTRO
A11a: 1. We wanted to design the trait trees in such a way that as soon as you leave the intro, #LOTRO
A11b: your trait line starts to play as it was envisioned instead of later on down the road when you began to collect traits. #LOTRO
Expand
A11c: 2. We really wanted each trait line to sort of stand out from the rest and reduce some of the class homogenization #LOTRO
A11d: that had slowly occurred over the years. #LOTRO

Yeah, this really doesn't cut it for me as an answer to that. My interpretation is that someone felt that we weren't being taught to specialize at an early enough level because it takes a while for us to earn class traits in the current format. To me, I feel that is a good thing, that introductory period allows you to adjust to the game and learn a bit about your class before you start earning traits and figuring out what kind of specialization might benefit you the most either as a playstyle preference, or knowing situationally how to adapt your character. The reduction of homogenization answer feels like a cop out to me and could have been handled within the current system as well as building up a whole new system itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Namesse

Editted my post to reflect as you were entering yours. It still doesn't explain why the shift to trees when they can just grant traits earlier via reduced requirements to gain the trait.

---

Because doing that would just mean our character progression stops at an even lower level than what it currently does(60). The current system, while allowing for choice of builds, also has an inherent flaw in that it can't grow any more than it already has. Adding more traits would create bloat, and adding more slots reduces the whole idea of building towards a certain role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nyrion

The current system, while allowing for choice of builds, also has an inherent flaw in that it can't grow any more than it already has.

---

Wouldn't trait trees fail at this as well? If we keep earning points as we level past 85, eventually we will fill up all the trees, and there will be no specialization again. Wouldn't they have to revise the trees every expansion again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frieja

Wouldn't trait trees fail at this as well? If we keep earning points as we level past 85, eventually we will fill up all the trees, and there will be no specialization again. Wouldn't they have to revise the trees every expansion again?

---

I suppose the depends on the implementation. If the tree just tells you which traits you have access to and can then slot what every you want from that list, fine. If you just have access to whatever you've gotten from the tree (and you don't slot things at all),....well, that will be very restrictive to customization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroscian

I disagree vehemently. If I know that hunter will need to buff self all the way as the current trend, then I know what sort of build to ask questions for.

What in the NINE HELLS would you like me to ask, dear fellow gamer? 'Will hunter be good to play?'

Seriously, you need to explain your inflammatory statement. In my world, it's comment like yours that may derail any regular topic here.

"For hunter, what is to be expected? In detail, please."
This is the type of question that could not be asked or answered. Detail. Advance detail to be able to pose relevant questions.

There's currently a muddled Nothing and droves of rumours and fears in chat across the four servers I visit occasionally. I think that is a bad state of business.

---

My thinking was that they Dev's wouldn't spend time on class-specific questions, but rather on the general features of the Class Changes. Seeing as how there have now been about 5 questions specific to Hunters (and none about Guardians, Lore-Masters, Rune Keepers, etc), it is clear that I was mistaken. My apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by douglasburns

I suppose the depends on the implementation. If the tree just tells you which traits you have access to and can then slot what every you want from that list, fine. If you just have access to whatever you've gotten from the tree (and you don't slot things at all),....well, that will be very restrictive to customization.

---

Seems like it will be the latter. Sounds like it will be quite similar to Mounted Combat trees, meaning you will have to spend points to access certain skills or passive benefits.

I don't think there is any question about reducing customization. A stated goal is reduce hybridization and strengthen class roles as a trade off.

As I understand it, you won't be slotting anything. You go up a tree or not and that determines the skills and traits you get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BangoTwinkletoes

This would have been a good idea. 140 character limit is going to be hard to go into the details that I know many of us will want to hear about. Hopefully there will be a follow up dev diary or at least an overview where some of the issues raised in tonight's Q&A can be addressed in more detail.

Anyhow, looking forward to seeing the feed.

---

I'll have to disagree on this point and some points made by others.

As the famous quote says... "Brevity is the soul of wit."

IF the questions asked cannot be answered in a short, simple way that everyone can understand... then there is either something wrong with the question or the one answering the question.

Let us use the example of the Tomato Soup. You can easily ask several questions about the soup that can be answered with "short and to the point" answers. I don't think you would expect long drawn-out answers.

Likewise, this developer chat is happening at a time when we are really just starting to learn more about the class changes they are bringing. So, this is the perfect time to get all of the simple, easy-to-answer questions answered. And, most of them are questions people have been asking.

And, from what I read of the twitter chat (mostly just followed the conversation while I was doing other things), there were no questions asked that couldn't be answered within the 140 character limit. When necessary, they used additional answers to clarify previous postings.

Again, if someone asks you a question and you are not able to answer it simply - and in a way they can understand - without a long, drawn-out response... well, then, I suppose that qualifies you to be in government where they just love to give people the run-around instead of straight answers :p .

A transcript is up for anyone who missed the chat. I think the questions (over 40) and answers (some multiple tweets long) answer everything posed here. So, closed