Regarding the questions about the Class Changes Twitter Chat

[GrimbleGrumble]

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.

[Angadan]

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!

[spelunker]

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.

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?

[Lenilie]

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.

[Grimdi]

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)?

[Macroscian]

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.

[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.

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.

[Macroscian]

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.

[Crell_1]

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

Read Q11 and the responses.

[Namesse]

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.

[Lenilie]

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.

[Nyrion]

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.

[Frieja]

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?

[douglasburns]

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.

[GrimbleGrumble]

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.

[GrimbleGrumble]

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.

[PypeRings]

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.

[TheCrossbow]

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 .

[Sapience]

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