Are private servers no longer in existence? This is a new development!

Private servers that no one else has access to? Yeah right. You're full of it. Or did you just admit to being a BW employee?

Tanks are indeed not necessary at all in Vet FPs and most MM FPs, which sucks. They're also pretty useless in PvP.

These are interesting points you make. I don't main tanks, never have.

All the more ridiculous they plan to nerf tank damage if what you say here is true. They plan to gimp their damage, making them essentially even more useless.

I really think it's simple, if they can't bother making tanks have a more defined and useful role with tank stats, they ought to leave their damage numbers alone.

Destroying tank damage output but not touching anything else only causes more problems imo.

First.. take your thread back Lhancelot.. it's been hijacked by class/discipline wars.. which already have their own discussion threads.

Yeah you dirty bastards! Stay focused, do not derail the thread! We had Keith jumping in, chatting it up with us before we went completely bonkers ruining the thread with petty arguments!

Private servers that no one else has access to? Yeah right. You're full of it. Or did you just admit to being a BW employee?

Being a BW employee, believe it or not, does require some intelligence. Common sense is encouraged, but optional. In this case it's failure for the former and opted out on the latter.

You seem to think they're literally just taking all the combat logs from everybody in Shield Specialist spec, taking the average, and balancing by that value.

First, I am highly amused that you tell me I'm wrong concerning my field and chosen profession. You must hold a P.h.D. in Operations Management to make that statement.

Second, you are correct, I do not assume they are, I expect they do. If they are to do their data analysis correctly, that is exactly how they MUST do it. Taking a small sampling on something of this importance is like taking a poll of 100 individuals concerning gun control and loading the questions to illicit negative responses. That's called skewing the results. No corporation/business who uses statistical analysis for verifying their short, medium, long term objectives will use small data samples, period. BWA has at the fingers all the data from all tanks from the beginning of this game until now as it is recorded in their metrics. To not use it is simply lazy short-sighted decision-making taking a shortcut.

Right now, we have no evidence either way. I like to think they're smart enough to do in-house testing, you apparently give them less credit. Without input from BioWare, we may never know which technique they used. But it is entirely possible that BRKMSN and I are correct, and they really did balance Tanks looking at tank gear stat values.

Exactly, I do not give much credit for their 'own testing.' What have we received since the shutdown the test server 3-plus years ago? We've received some bad updates with erroneous mechanics and failed methods. They have the greatest resource, their players, to help them test their updates and the refuse to use them. Damn straight I do not give them credit. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who trusts any developer(s) to get it right without the aid of players on a test server are not concerned about getting anything right the first time.

There is one thing missing here that BWA truly needs (as well as most MMO companies), a Total Quality Management program. If you or anyone else is not aware of TQM, research W. Edward Deming 14 points TQM. Deming is the father of this program that took Japan from being a 4 rate radio producer to the industrial manufacturing powerhouse it is today.

I promise you this, had BWA had the forethought of implementing TQM in their company the product they produce would be superior to anything the competitors have on the street today. Wargamming produces WoT, WoWs, and WoPs. They use TQM, they use their player base to help play test their updates. On top of that they are continuously refining their process and the game. That is the tenents of TQM. BWA does not, in any way, form, or fashion exhibit this. This is why their product to date is mediocre regarding quality and questionable at best.

They've not provided us a quality product when it is filled with bugs, issues, and changes that make the game worse after each update until the find the reason why and fix it. What would stop that from happening? TQM and using players to play test the game to find these issue and resolve them before they go live. However, going on the past play testing, BWA was very reluctant to listen to the feed back of those who play tested, including myself.

Give them credit to get it right with their own testing? No I will not until they do what the other MMOs do involving players and using TQM to insure a sound and quality product that this program provides through innovative thinking and process improvement for quality.

First, I am highly amused that you tell me I'm wrong concerning my field and chosen profession. You must hold a P.h.D. in Operations Management to make that statement.

 

Second, you are correct, I do not assume they are, I expect they do. If they are to do their data analysis correctly, that is exactly how they MUST do it. Taking a small sampling on something of this importance is like taking a poll of 100 individuals concerning gun control and loading the questions to illicit negative responses. That's called skewing the results. No corporation/business who uses statistical analysis for verifying their short, medium, long term objectives will use small data samples, period. BWA has at the fingers all the data from all tanks from the beginning of this game until now as it is recorded in their metrics. To not use it is simply lazy short-sighted decision-making taking a shortcut.

 

 

 

Exactly, I do not give much credit for their 'own testing.' What have we received since the shutdown the test server 3-plus years ago? We've received some bad updates with erroneous mechanics and failed methods. They have the greatest resource, their players, to help them test their updates and the refuse to use them. Damn straight I do not give them credit. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who trusts any developer(s) to get it right without the aid of players on a test server are not concerned about getting anything right the first time.

 

There is one thing missing here that BWA truly needs (as well as most MMO companies), a Total Quality Management program. If you or anyone else is not aware of TQM, research W. Edward Deming 14 points TQM. Deming is the father of this program that took Japan from being a 4 rate radio producer to the industrial manufacturing powerhouse it is today.

 

I promise you this, had BWA had the forethought of implementing TQM in their company the product they produce would be superior to anything the competitors have on the street today. Wargamming produces WoT, WoWs, and WoPs. They use TQM, they use their player base to help play test their updates. On top of that they are continuously refining their process and the game. That is the tenents of TQM. BWA does not, in any way, form, or fashion exhibit this. This is why their product to date is mediocre regarding quality and questionable at best.

 

They've not provided us a quality product when it is filled with bugs, issues, and changes that make the game worse after each update until the find the reason why and fix it. What would stop that from happening? TQM and using players to play test the game to find these issue and resolve them before they go live. However, going on the past play testing, BWA was very reluctant to listen to the feed back of those who play tested, including myself.

 

Give them credit to get it right with their own testing? No I will not until they do what the other MMOs do involving players and using TQM to insure a sound and quality product that this program provides through innovative thinking and process improvement for quality.

How do you know the values listed on the character sheet are correct? How do you know you are even doing the specified dps you think you are? After all, you dont think they know what they are doing, and their calculations and interpretation of data is inaccurate, right? It can dig even further if you wish it to go that far.

How do you know the values listed on the character sheet are correct? How do you know you are even doing the specified dps you think you are? After all, you dont think they know what they are doing, and their calculations and interpretation of data is inaccurate, right? It can dig even further if you wish it to go that far.

Now we cant assume stats listed on character sheets are correct? What?

Knowing dps- i assume the same way i do, starparse.

The rest of the paragraph is full of logical fallacies to the point of meaninglessness.

Again, could you please explain the point of all this? Im still waiting to drive up to an atm and have it spew money at me.

First, I am highly amused that you tell me I'm wrong concerning my field and chosen profession. You must hold a P.h.D. in Operations Management to make that statement.

This is getting a little ridiculous. You may be what you claim to be (many people claim many things on the internet) and you may be very good at your profession. But I'd bet the farm that you aren't omniscient.

The pragmatist in me is wondering why after interpreting Eric's statement as you have and after numerous posts telling them they collected their data wrong (based on the said vague statement) ... and even after sending PMs to Keith telling him he was wrong in case he missed it in all your replies in all the threads they are supposedly following, you still haven't received a response from one of them. I would consider betting the farm that instead of ranting on and on to them based on assumptions you made about their vague statement, you would ask for clarification on the statement, that they actually would have replied. That's something we see them do often if their wording on an announcement brings confusion to readers.

Hey ... what do I know? I'm not a self-proclaimed expert. I'm just a (SWTOR) player that has as much at stake as any other player. I read the same statement you did and I conclude that based on its wording, that "they" feel all tanks do more damage than "they" want them to do. That statement was the second thought in a two thought paragraph, which is why the sentence began with, "Second..."

There are two things that informed the changes you will find below. First, “skank tanks” are greatly overperforming in PvP. This is a player who is using a Tank Discipline but equipping DPS gear. Second, when comparing all tanks (regardless of gear) against the DPS targets we outlined last year, tanks are doing more damage than intended.

Question my reading comprehension all you like, but nowhere is it implied, based on that wording that they have gathered data on all tanks with all gear types and melded the results to define "tank" and compare the new definition of "tank" to the benchmark to conclude they are over-performing (in damage). Instead, as I explained earlier, they feel that even the base tank (in each class) in tank gear is over-performing. Obviously skanks will be over-performing (in damage) even more.

I'm not saying that their upcoming "fix" is the right fix or that it's even necessary. I'm only trying to point out to you, that you misunderstood Eric. That is all.

Now we cant assume stats listed on character sheets are correct? What?

 

Knowing dps- i assume the same way i do, starparse.

 

The rest of the paragraph is full of logical fallacies to the point of meaninglessness.

 

Again, could you please explain the point of all this? Im still waiting to drive up to an atm and have it spew money at me.

It may not necessarily be directed at you, per se, but the main question and complaint im seeing is in regards to the results and methodology. People are stating they dont trust the methodology of professionals. If trust in one aspect of mathematical interpretation has reason for doubt of accuracy, then how do we know all the other aspects of the game are accurate. Starparse parses logs, but where does that data come from? Is it reliable? Is the log an accurate portrayal of actual damage, or just a visual representation of random information? Are you still there?

It may not necessarily be directed at you, per se, but the main question and complaint im seeing is in regards to the results and methodology. People are stating they dont trust the methodology of professionals. If trust in one aspect of mathematical interpretation has reason for doubt of accuracy, then how do we know all the other aspects of the game are accurate. Starparse parses logs, but where does that data come from? Is it reliable? Is the log an accurate portrayal of actual damage, or just a visual representation of random information? Are you still there?

we trust the data we can see - it's cold hard fact if we can see it.

we cannot see their decision making. they throw statements at us "such and such is doing too much damage based on our target"

what is the target

how did you find said target

One does not need a Ph.D. in Operations Management, much less embrace the dogma of TQM taught (selectively, I might add) at some B-Schools to understand the point Masterceil / BRKSM were making. We simply do not know the methodology utilized. Relying on Eric's vague statement tells us virtually nothing.

^^ not only correct, more correct than most people think.

During my career, I saw many instances of PhD holders who were absolute idiots in terms of any practical work within a corporation. Also some really bright and capable ones as well.. so I'm not blanketing with that statement. I have also seen many instances of people without formal degrees who were extremely sharp, could do the job better than people holding advanced degrees, and also moved up the ladder of success faster even absent a piece of paper on their education background.

A degree is only as good as the person it is tied to. Beyond that.. it is largely useless other than to give the holder of the paper a better chance of getting in the door for an interview and successful hire to a position. Some of the largest and most trend setting corporations in our modern era were founded and proliferated by non-degreed people (Gates, Jobs, Zukerberg are just a few examples of this).

It is also weak sauce in my experience for someone holding an advanced degree to pontificate and try to brow beat others with the title rather than coherent and thoughtful analysis. Said approach really does not work in much of the real world.. because you can have a gold plated framed PhD and people will see past the glitter and into your capabilities and if your capabilities are lacking.... you are not respected professionally. That PhD will get you long yardage in a campus environment, and in some research environments (sorry to the PhD holder of Operations Management.. but that is not research centric and as such means nothing special in my view).

Masterceil / BRKSM have made and presented very coherent analysis.. and yet we have a paper waver dismissing them for ... what honestly comes across as an arrogant personal agenda.

Your broader point about relying on feedback from PTS is a good one, but that speaks nothing to how they incorporate that data or other sources of measurement. Moreover, relying on multiple data sources is hardly unique to TQM.

I agree.

No offense, you sound an awful lot like a grad student studying for his / her comps trying to win an argument by throwing around degrees and trendy (or not so trendy in the case of TQM) Biz School Jargon. Not sure that's the route you want to go. You make some solid points, but frankly, they're not terribly complicated.

This was actually my read on his claims as well.. though I chose not to opine about it earlier... but since you have put it on the table.. I feel it appropriate to ratify your view on this point here.

TQM has actually become largely a lip-service term unfortunately within western nations... so the term is meaningless in and of itself ... only actually running a formalized and persistent practice is meaningful (regardless what you label it) .. and honestly most companies do so for the purposes of ISO certifications and overall containment of cost of operations in a production or service environment. It is a constant struggle between the people who design and implement (who often feel they don't need such rigor) and those who have to actually produce a product or service and maintain it.

Now, in closing... the standards of quality for consumer services like games simply is not on par with say companies like Apple, Samsung, et al ....so.. this entire PhD driven attempt here is largely misplaced in the context of a game studio making and maintaining games. Hell.. there are little to no signs gaming studios even use any Project Management best practices. I would fall out of my chair in abject surprise if I observed a gaming studio applying PMC level project management in their studios. As a retired project management professional, it saddens me that this is the case, but it is what it is... and as players we have to temper our expectations accordingly... if we want to remain attached to reality rather than fantasy.

The game must be doing much better than it appears to the players.

After all there appears to be very little interest in addressing concerns, offering more content or better quality content or even promoting what they have coming. While no effort appears to be made in having a decent story or meaningful companion returns and at least from what we have seen on the front page the izax competition appears to be the big thing along with the cartel market.

So with a game in such a good state and clearly not in need of anything, is it any wonder they don't need to find a stand in for the community manager when he leaves for a month or take into consideration what subscribers are saying on the forums. Cause if the game was in a decline and worked on by a tiny crew, it would make the decision to focus on operations which by their own account is only played by a small percentage of the player base really, and ignore players concerns seem like a really bad idea.

It may not necessarily be directed at you, per se, but the main question and complaint im seeing is in regards to the results and methodology. People are stating they dont trust the methodology of professionals. If trust in one aspect of mathematical interpretation has reason for doubt of accuracy, then how do we know all the other aspects of the game are accurate. Starparse parses logs, but where does that data come from? Is it reliable? Is the log an accurate portrayal of actual damage, or just a visual representation of random information? Are you still there?

Normally I ignore click bait, but...

What ever their methods, they seem to have different targets or goals that create lots of problems. Then when the players point out the problems, they often ignore or misunderstand what the problem is. ie, From a pvp perspective, they don’t listen to feed back from the players on what’s causing the problems in pvp. All Bioware does is look at their “own” targets and if they are fine, then everything must be hunky dory and they ignore the problem until people are screaming at them on the forums for months. Then when they do decide to address the problem(s), they do something that ignores the key issue and actually create worse problems or don’t fix the one that needed fixing.

One prime example of this was Mercs. No one was complaining about their damage in pvp, the problem was their survivability against all other classes. But Bioware completely ignored that and nerfed their dps which did nothing to fix the problem. Not only did this not fix the problem in pvp, but it affected pve players dps output. If Bioware had just fixed the survivability of Mercs, the problem would have been solved,

This is what players mean by their methodology being flawed. They approach every problem the same and expect it to work, even when it didn’t the last 100 times. At what point do they say, “hey, this approach isn’t working, we need to try another”. Doing the same thing over and over that doesn’t work and expecting a different result is flawed.

The player base as a whole, has a lot more experience playing their game than most of them do. “We” are a valuable resource they should be using to get proper feed back and ideas from to fix problems. But they either ignore “us” or they only listen to the few people who agree with them that everything is fine. Normally those players that are agreeing with them are only trolling other people or white knighting and aren’t actually providing any real feed back on how to fix the problems.

It’s just like what’s happening in this thread and the others to do with conquest feed back or changes. The overwhelming majority are giving real feed back and explaining logically what the problems are and how best to approach fixing them. But we have 1-2 people who are continuing to argue against everyone else by saying everything is fine, even though it obviously isn’t. (Even Bioware have acknowledged their are problems). In this thread the same person is making multiple posts on every page and it is drowning out the real feed back to Bioware. This same person is attacking others opinions and feed back, over and over. It’s no wonder Bioware ignore threads because this sort of obvious trolling is what’s made this thread and others, 10 times larger than it needs be and it becomes impossible for Bioware to sort through all the crap. It’s obvious to me that the poster(s) who are doing this dont care about the game at all. It’s also obvious from the poster’s history that they do this in every thread they participate in. Why people engage in arguing with them is beyond me.

We’ve had some really excellent people or had some in the game who’ve provided the maths and ways to implant fixes over the years. Bioware have completely ignored them. Even when these people can “prove” without a doubt (using mathematics) that what Bioware have done or plan to do is flawed, they still ignore it use their same flawed methods.

Most of the things people have suggested to fix things in the game are really easy. But Bioware always makes it harder on themselves and usually makes it worse. ie, last year’s class balancing act and their continued tweaking of it by following their “internal targets” which they never share, so we can’t even check if they got them correct. For all we know, they have these targets, but they always have them wrong. Maybe their method was right, but they stuffed it. Because why else do they keep coming out with these comment about “we found this class was over performing above our targets” or “we will monitor and see if things need changing more”. Seriously, if they were over performing, then who ever did the calculations got it wrong to start with, so right there you have a problem with the methodology because someone should have been double or triple checking it. Either that or their targets are wrong to start with. Which exposes another flaw, how do they come to these targets in the first place?

I could go on and on with how their same methods, that they still use, have been flawed over the years and how they’ve broken things more often than fixed them by using these methods, I could probably write a book with just pvp examples.

Their methods are flawed. They may not be completely flawed, but there is some step or steps in it that are causing their methods to fail more often than win. My personal opinion is it’s a cultural flaw built into the swtor team or Bioware as a whole, where they just say “we’ve always done it this way” or “this is the way it has to be done”. It’s possible Keith even tried to change this and ran into a wall that couldn’t be moved because a company culture on how things are done can be nearly impossible to change unless it’s from the very top down and even then it’s hard. So now he’s caught in the system too.

I'm not too shy to reply.

Lording the moral high ground over others is ... ironic.

TQM is not a program, but a "life style, an ideology, and belief system"

Got no constructive feedback to offer whatsoever, as I generally don't believe when someone makes a statement like that will they even be open to receiving any. But by Christ does this seem conceited. Pointed at Ghost obviously not Dasty.

For the record, an ideology makes it just that, an ideology (or in this case a form of methodology). It does not make for the impossibility of different interpretations. If it is not in fact dogmatic you would agree to this.

Got no constructive feedback to offer whatsoever, as I generally don't believe when someone makes a statement like that will they even be open to receiving any. But by Christ does this seem conceited. Pointed at Ghost obviously not Dasty.

 

For the record, an ideology makes it just that, an ideology (or in this case a form of methodology). It does not make for the impossibility of different interpretations. If it is not in fact dogmatic you would agree to this.

Indeed, and when someone shows they have that mindset, that's when I generally decide to stop engaging with them (as I have). BRKMSN and I tried to offer sensible explanations for our grammatical interpretations of Musco's statement (to wit, that they're not dumping all Tank DPS numbers in a blender and seeing what comes out, but that there's actually a chance they looked at Tank DPS numbers with Tank gear in isolation to come to their conclusions), and otherwise make reasonable statements as regards to possible - perhaps even likely - methodologies used by BioWare to gather and interpret data on Tank DPS numbers.

Then one of our illustrious opponents had to unzip and whip out his Pretty hard D...egree... and wave it around the thread, going off on a tangent about corporate project management and a test-driven development philosophy that the studio in question obviously does not follow anyway. I'm grateful to Dasty and Andryah for their own well-reasoned responses to the Degree-waving, because it means I didn't have to waste my time on it.

we trust the data we can see - it's cold hard fact if we can see it.

we cannot see their decision making. they throw statements at us "such and such is doing too much damage based on our target"

what is the target

how did you find said target

If you trust parses, you will quickly find out what the target is when parses start coming. I mean thats what people are basing their data on right now.

Normally I ignore click bait, but...

 

What ever their methods, they seem to have different targets or goals that create lots of problems. Then when the players point out the problems, they often ignore or misunderstand what the problem is. ie, From a pvp perspective, they don’t listen to feed back from the players on what’s causing the problems in pvp. All Bioware does is look at their “own” targets and if they are fine, then everything must be hunky dory and they ignore the problem until people are screaming at them on the forums for months. Then when they do decide to address the problem(s), they do something that ignores the key issue and actually create worse problems or don’t fix the one that needed fixing.

As i have said before. I think many people overestimate the validity and role of feedback. Its very likely, from a business perspective, that numbers and data drive their decisions, and feedback merely leads them to what areas of the game need to be reassessed. You dont see Apple bring a random iphone user in to run data analysis on what is popular and what isnt. The random guy can spout off a whole bunch of technical terms if he wishes about their front facing camera, but when it comes down to what Apple will take from the feedback is - lets look at improving the front facing camera, likely disregarding all that extra stuff because that guy has no business directing them on the inner workings of the camera.

Feedback is direction, thats all. And just because feedback is given, doesnt mean the data aligns with that feedback, so you are assuming it hasnt been addressed, but perhaps, in truth, it didnt need to be addressed.

As for class bakance, they have indicated they arent completely done balancing yet. But even if they are, your visual perception of mercs survivability may not represent survivability across the board, or may very well be where they intend it to be. Have you considered merc survivability when focused using the correct attacks to render some of their defensives less effective? In my experiences, many players just dont have a good understanding of their defensives. This can create false outcomes. And i would also disagree on their dps output not needing an adjustment.

The game must be doing much better than it appears to the players.

 

After all there appears to be very little interest in addressing concerns, offering more content or better quality content or even promoting what they have coming. While no effort appears to be made in having a decent story or meaningful companion returns and at least from what we have seen on the front page the izax competition appears to be the big thing along with the cartel market.

 

So with a game in such a good state and clearly not in need of anything, is it any wonder they don't need to find a stand in for the community manager when he leaves for a month or take into consideration what subscribers are saying on the forums. Cause if the game was in a decline and worked on by a tiny crew, it would make the decision to focus on operations which by their own account is only played by a small percentage of the player base really, and ignore players concerns seem like a really bad idea.

Most of the players are on the dozens of servers we cant see. The private ones. Millions of players log in every day and we remain in the dark. Musco isnt actually a real person, the guy at the cantinas was an actor hired to play him. They were gonna use Dwayne Johnson "the rock" to play him but he was busy.

If you trust parses, you will quickly find out what the target is when parses start coming. I mean thats what people are basing their data on right now.

You asked what people were basing their information on, and you answer trying to explain to me where the information is coming from? What was the point of even replying to me?

As i have said before. I think many people overestimate the validity and role of feedback. Its very likely, from a business perspective, that numbers and data drive their decisions, and feedback merely leads them to what areas of the game need to be reassessed.

As I said in the other thread, depending on how they measure participation, it is possible the numbers are up. That doesn't change the fact that many (most if these forums and in gamr running of group content are in any way representative) people find it less fun. And "fun" is fundamentally subjective. How do you quantify fun? I am a numbers person by trade but I work in things that can be measured. This is a service industry - i pay to have fun. I fully admit my specialty is not business. I also will stop psrticipating in conquest (beyond inadvertently) once our imp side guild ship is complete unless there are massive changes.

Feedback is direction, thats all. And just because feedback is given, doesnt mean the data aligns with that feedback, so you are assuming it hasnt been addressed, but perhaps, in truth, it didnt need to be addressed.

To my eyes the issues occur when the feedback and the data fo not seem to align. Based on Kannings frustrated post, that seems to be the case here. As I hypothesized in the other thread, there are people this has benefitted. And certainly, despite my vocal disgruntlement, I have not stopped participating, thus maybe the numbers are up.

If this is the case, they need to consider using the feedback. I want my ship so I will continue that grind for howver long it takes, but once thats done, I will be pushing the guild a different direction unless the issues I have with the system are fixed.

In the meantime, we're frustrated, they're frustrated, and no one wins.

As for class bakance, they have indicated they arent completely done balancing yet. But even if they are, your visual perception of mercs survivability may not represent survivability across the board, or may very well be where they intend it to be. Have you considered merc survivability when focused using the correct attacks to render some of their defensives less effective? In my experiences, many players just dont have a good understanding of their defensives. This can create false outcomes. And i would also disagree on their dps output not needing an adjustment.

Is there anyone who doesn't think mercs have too much survivability? I'd even give them more dps for less survivability as a trade off. But given that they just spent a year forcing classes into poorly defined pigeonholes and apparently still can't meet their own target balance categories if their post on that subject is to be believed, i do not think we're going to see much dps balancing.

I also admit, i want to see what difference the "utility" changes make before continuing to squirm.

To my eyes the issues occur when the feedback and the data fo not seem to align. Based on Kannings frustrated post, that seems to be the case here. As I hypothesized in the other thread, there are people this has benefitted. And certainly, despite my vocal disgruntlement, I have not stopped participating, thus maybe the numbers are up.

Just for clarification, i dont think keiths frustration is due to the conquest feedback, but more to do with people requesting more frequent communication and updates. In fact, his initial response speaks of us receiving communication "just 2 days ago" prior to muscos absence, on a thread requesting new information/updates.

He then seperates to a new paragraph to discuss the feedback. This leads me to believe his frustration was limited to just the idea that they arent communicating enough.

Just for clarification, i dont think keiths frustration is due to the conquest feedback, but more to do with people requesting more frequent communication and updates. In fact, his initial response speaks of us receiving communication "just 2 days ago" prior to muscos absence, on a thread requesting new information/updates.

 

He then seperates to a new paragraph to discuss the feedback. This leads me to believe his frustration was limited to just the idea that they arent communicating enough.

To me the tone of his entire message was frustration. He was frustrated we didnt feel they told us anything and i got the impression that we think the 5.9 changes arent going to be nearly enough frustrated him too.

Just for clarification, i dont think

Proof.

Proof.

Aw. You beat me to it.

To me the tone of his entire message was frustration. He was frustrated we didnt feel they told us anything and i got the impression that we think the 5.9 changes arent going to be nearly enough frustrated him too.

Yeah, he may as well have said: "Bloody hell, we made the changes WE want and if you don't like it, that is your fault" because that is exactly how it came across.

It was the same as Ben's "we think RNG is exciting, if you don't tough!" comment on the Command Crate livestream.

Hopefully, for the game, Keith's comments will have the same effect.

All The Best