Maybe a higher level parry that just acted like a dodge would have been better, or just reduce the cost for parries...we are by far the weakest class because NPCs were dying to soon… but rogues have doom. Magic already destroyed us I mean if you were gonna nerf us like that could have gave us spell parry or something. Dodge is great…I just dont get it. I know for a fact multiple people voiced concern over this as well it’s like what we said didn’t even matter.
Upcoming Removal of Eviscerating Blow and Spirit Temper Options for Affected Players
- Thread starter Vryan
- Start date
Droth
Novice
The bottom line is the skill removal was a bad call there was much better solutions
And not allowing a respec afterward.
Interesting how there hasn’t been a single positive experience with this change at least player side.
Xanian
Apprentice
There are positives on the player side. You are hearing a vocal minority.
Talon
Novice
Frankly its not that bad... at higher levels characters tend to pick up some cross over skills eventually anyway. It was more of a re-balancing
Droth
Novice
I’m pretty much a spell sword scout hybrid anyway. I just hate to see it go. Nothing like being a fighter and landing it on something. Was a good time of course I still miss the old rules as well. “Prepare to die”
Removing Evis has been a positive experience for me. I now have the xp to buy more Slays which will land more ir use more npc defenses.
Droth
Novice
I personally don’t like it gone and I’d say about 80 to 90 percent of the other fighters I’ve talked to do t like that it’s gone I just feel like it was a poor decision and fighters are weaker because of it.
Saephis
Virtuous
In six to twelve months, once everyone has had time to adjust sheets and play their characters, it will be safe to say how many have what opinions.
Please don't diminish the concerns of players by dismissing them with these types of comments.
My suggestion is to engage directly with your owners. They are your voice when it comes time to change rules like this. When I say engage I don't mean just tell them "this was a terrible change". Be constructive, explain why, explain what you feel makes fighters weak, what they are missing or need.
If you really have a large group of fighters feeling the same way, it would be very helpful to an owner if you all came together united with suggestions that they could help promote up. Maybe even better yet drafting something collectively and submitting it in the suggestion box for all owners to review.
In the end, there really wasn't a good replacement for Eviscerating Blow that would satisfy the concerns players have about losing it. Everyone understood that going into the removal, it was a very high damage and duplicative skill, and replacing it with a skill of equal power would not have resolved the underlying concerns. It is a reduction in power, and it's understandable that people feel strongly about that.
I would like to encourage everyone to keep in mind that this game is played across many regions in the US, each with slightly different playstyles. What may not appear to be a local problem doesn’t mean it isn’t causing issues somewhere else, as evidenced by some posts above. The key is working toward a balanced middle ground. I’d be interested in seeing class breakdowns across regions as well, information like that might offer helpful insight into perception differences like this.
If the People In Charge actually cared about and wanted an accurate regional survey of the Players' opinions, it was always possible to take the time to ask for it.
The fact that Auric would "be interested to see class breakdowns across regions", to me, seems to indicate no such intent or communication exists in those high places.
From my limited personal viewpoint, the way this change has been handled shows very clearly that this was never going to be an open conversation.
The way that vocal dissent and disagreement has been responded to repeatedly with the same singular belittlement and statistical dismissal, is just further icing on that cake.
....Message received.
I will NEVER think positively about this change. This "debate" has already very negatively colored my understanding of how Larp fundamentally works, and it will likely be the first thing I remember --hopefully many years from now-- when I am forced to decide whether I will continue to play this game.
For now, the Spirit Temper might be enough to salvage my card. Many others need more than that, and they ought to be freely offered it.
The way I ultimately play my character was never going to change because of Eviscerate existing or not. I will always be putting myself in between vulnerable players & dangerous things in-game, regardless of how much I can do to survive it.
Thanks so much for the slap in the face tho. I learned plenty.
The fact that Auric would "be interested to see class breakdowns across regions", to me, seems to indicate no such intent or communication exists in those high places.
From my limited personal viewpoint, the way this change has been handled shows very clearly that this was never going to be an open conversation.
The way that vocal dissent and disagreement has been responded to repeatedly with the same singular belittlement and statistical dismissal, is just further icing on that cake.
....Message received.
I will NEVER think positively about this change. This "debate" has already very negatively colored my understanding of how Larp fundamentally works, and it will likely be the first thing I remember --hopefully many years from now-- when I am forced to decide whether I will continue to play this game.
For now, the Spirit Temper might be enough to salvage my card. Many others need more than that, and they ought to be freely offered it.
The way I ultimately play my character was never going to change because of Eviscerate existing or not. I will always be putting myself in between vulnerable players & dangerous things in-game, regardless of how much I can do to survive it.
Thanks so much for the slap in the face tho. I learned plenty.
Talon
Novice
Yeah that is the bottom line... To be clear, I was not really dooming with my first comment. For me, I just shrugged and re-balanced things and I'll be fine. But that is the luxury of high level. I don't know how I would feel if I was a fifth or sixth level fighter that had just gotten my first 'big gun' skill though.
From my experience they are great at lower levels. But when you start to get to mid level they don’t hold up. I had over 260 body and would go down routinely to dooms being thrown around like cars at an Oprah show. Fighters have no way to mitigate that inherently. Also EB was my big gun that at lower levels was great, but against any higher tier NPC they’d just say no effect or dodge out, just not fun.
So I understand the need for a change, it wasn’t good from my experience anyway. But to play a tank that can have burst damage I am wanting to reroll a rogue. Take a few hardy to get over 100 body, have dodges to mitigate dooms, some evades, and doom blow for the burst damage that even exceeds EB. Straight up head to head fight the rogue I rolled up in the free play CMA would easily take down my old fighter build. Not that it makes any sense to me why that is the way things are, but they just are that way.
Play fighter for your first 2 sessions then respec immediately.
as a Fighter, I value armor more than body. Body is there to fuel mettles, but armor stops carriers. That said, a single class shouldn’t have an answer to everything but in the case with fighters, if you get Parry/Spell Parry you’re pretty set minus anything Elemental thrown.
Ive played a Fighter since lvl 6 to now 40 for the last 7 years. Really focusing on a tank build. Ive sold back all Riposte and Evis because they never took. Is that also a statting thing? Sure, but its either bbgs with more defenses or 10k hp to combat all the Evis.
That said, I feel absolutely invincible as my fighter. I rarely fall over, I swing 10s(lots of crit attacks) and have defenses for days.
I also realize Fighter excels with a subclass of Rogue. There’s nothing wrong with going into another class to get other skills.
I play in games with 50-70 PCs and a lot of them are higher level(lvl30-50)
I also regularly have dialogs with 2 chapter owners, which has been really healthy for conversations about change. If that is an option for anyone please have those—if not an option then thats rough.
As a Player and Plot staff Ive seen both sides and heard conversations with folks in the region I play and I truly do think this is healthy for the game.
Ive played a Fighter since lvl 6 to now 40 for the last 7 years. Really focusing on a tank build. Ive sold back all Riposte and Evis because they never took. Is that also a statting thing? Sure, but its either bbgs with more defenses or 10k hp to combat all the Evis.
That said, I feel absolutely invincible as my fighter. I rarely fall over, I swing 10s(lots of crit attacks) and have defenses for days.
I also realize Fighter excels with a subclass of Rogue. There’s nothing wrong with going into another class to get other skills.
I play in games with 50-70 PCs and a lot of them are higher level(lvl30-50)
I also regularly have dialogs with 2 chapter owners, which has been really healthy for conversations about change. If that is an option for anyone please have those—if not an option then thats rough.
As a Player and Plot staff Ive seen both sides and heard conversations with folks in the region I play and I truly do think this is healthy for the game.
I will be very honest with you I have heard from a substantial amount of players (25+) about this change and a substantial majority (~90%) of them are in support of it and excited to see it tried out.
There are a few players who are very against it and they are the ones who are speaking loud about it but for the most part I’m seeing pretty positive support including from fighter players they just don’t see the need to shout their support.
Additionally I feel like yeah, you aren’t gonna see the positive player experiences yet because it hasn’t seen play yet but I think once people see it in action there will be more cool examples and stories about the skill so we got to at least give it that chance before making broad strokes that there is not positive experience.
Also national teams are ready to support players with appropriate respecs and if a single spirt temper will not mitigate that need for you they have the ability to provide additional tempers in cases where one will not substantially cover the need. But there is some risk in the game of hyper optimization that comes with full forges and I know we experienced that with previous changes and want to protect the balance of our game while also providing reasonable opportunities for players to have a card they find fulfilling.
At the end of the day there was a determination that the version of offensive skill that EB was, was an issue. So replacing it with an equal Offensive skill would not be addressing that issue in anyway. Taunt strived to create a new unique style ability to give fighters a new type of skill (crowd control and battlefield directive) that other skills don’t really provide along with access to greater command which is the only offensive access to this effect group in the entire game, at a level that we think will actually lead to the skill successfully resolving on the field. In time this should lead to better adjustments in stating across plot teams which will make fighters additionally feel better in other places and allow other aspects of their card to shine vs just fighters falling into a highly prevalent one dimensionality of EB Riposting blow EB.
Last edited:
Saephis
Virtuous
I feel like there are three separate issues being discussed and being confused with each other too easily here.
Positive input is as important as negative input, and vice versa, so long as each is presented in a constructive manner.
"Hey I had a great time" feels good in the moment, doesn't really help what to do more of.
"This was the worst event ever" definitely doesn't feel great, but equally doesn't say why.
"This event was great, because the NPCs felt like they had agency to fill in their backstory as townies during downtime during meals, it filled out the setting and made the site feel more alive" -- Gives a great example as to why an event went well.
"Nothing landed because everything had eighty dodges and it ruined my event" -- Pretty straight forward, right?
Think of it as event feedback, but applied to how forum discussions are treated.
This isn't to chastise, call out, or demean, just try to keep everyone focused, on topic, and most importantly, civil. There's a number of concerning tones that I'm hoping I'm just reading poorly, but I'd rather folks confirm intent than risk it.
- Taunt's introduction - I don't, personally, believe there's any concern with adding balanced skills. I'm waiting for the final writing of Taunt, and have reservations on how it interacts given its placement as a Greater Command, but am holding those until published as they can in theory be resolved.
- Eviscerating Blow's removal - I don't think this is necessarily the right place to discuss this, given the Announcement's phrasing, but for clarity, removing a Damage ability and replacing it with something that isn't feels like a drastic change to a class.
- The frequency of Eviscerating Blow's successful resolution - While this can be / was a problem (and likely is/was one with other burst or takeout effects like Doom, Prison, Slay, Assassinate, etc.), this is one best addressed more locally at a chapter or mod level, as "number" isn't a problem with a skill, but a problem with scaling and NPC card stating.
Positive input is as important as negative input, and vice versa, so long as each is presented in a constructive manner.
"Hey I had a great time" feels good in the moment, doesn't really help what to do more of.
"This was the worst event ever" definitely doesn't feel great, but equally doesn't say why.
"This event was great, because the NPCs felt like they had agency to fill in their backstory as townies during downtime during meals, it filled out the setting and made the site feel more alive" -- Gives a great example as to why an event went well.
"Nothing landed because everything had eighty dodges and it ruined my event" -- Pretty straight forward, right?
Think of it as event feedback, but applied to how forum discussions are treated.
This isn't to chastise, call out, or demean, just try to keep everyone focused, on topic, and most importantly, civil. There's a number of concerning tones that I'm hoping I'm just reading poorly, but I'd rather folks confirm intent than risk it.
Hey all!
My name is Stephen, and Im the head of National Customer service.
I understand there are strong feelings here, but I want to address some themes here that have come up in the above conversation (and elsewhere).
1. "The people in charge don't care about the opinions of players at large (paraphrased)" - I can say, with certainty, that this is not true. This topic was debated AT LENGTH by the owners, the Design Team, and the Alliance Rules Committee. In fact, *I* was consulted as part of the PR and Customer service team. This was not a decision made lightly, but was done as part of a greater effort to balance the game as a whole.
2. "We should have asked players for their opinions (paraphrased)." - This is a complex topic, and it is one where I was consulted as well. I have found in my decades of helping manage PR for this game (and others) that player surveys regarding class balance and class changes give mixed results. The reality is that, especially in long term campaign style LARPs, people become attached to their character and their skillset. This makes gathering objective information from users difficult. This is FURTHER complicated when you consider the widely different metagames that exist across our network. As a result, we rely on our owners to take the pulse of their player base and take that into consideration when they vote on these changes.
3. "Removing a big damage ability and replacing it with a non damaging ability is a very drastic change. (paraphrased) - If we only look at that one change? Yes. I agree. However, I think it is worth considering that there is more at play here. Fighters may have lost a large burst damage ability, but their sustained, unconditional damage is still unmatched. This design decision leaves BURST damage in the hands of rogues and celestial scholars. This was a direction that was explicitely given to our national teams by the owners.
4. "Spirit Temper wasn't a good enough fix (paraphrased)." - The intention behind the Spirit Temper was to make use of the new ritual to help smooth over the transition and to avoid yet another full spirit forge. We crunched numbers based on what we saw in the CMA and against characters we created in the freeplay database and determined that a Spirit Temper should cover it. No one is perfect though. If you are given a spirit temper and it doesnt work for what you need, then reach out again and let us know what youre trying to accomplish.
I want to reinforce what was said just a bit before I posted here. I don't think we should dismiss peoples concern, as long as people remain civil. We are all allowed to disagree. I've disagreed with my fair share of changes in the past and am quite vocal about it (as the head of ARC and Design will attest to).
Thanks everyone,
Stephen D
National CS/PR
My name is Stephen, and Im the head of National Customer service.
I understand there are strong feelings here, but I want to address some themes here that have come up in the above conversation (and elsewhere).
1. "The people in charge don't care about the opinions of players at large (paraphrased)" - I can say, with certainty, that this is not true. This topic was debated AT LENGTH by the owners, the Design Team, and the Alliance Rules Committee. In fact, *I* was consulted as part of the PR and Customer service team. This was not a decision made lightly, but was done as part of a greater effort to balance the game as a whole.
2. "We should have asked players for their opinions (paraphrased)." - This is a complex topic, and it is one where I was consulted as well. I have found in my decades of helping manage PR for this game (and others) that player surveys regarding class balance and class changes give mixed results. The reality is that, especially in long term campaign style LARPs, people become attached to their character and their skillset. This makes gathering objective information from users difficult. This is FURTHER complicated when you consider the widely different metagames that exist across our network. As a result, we rely on our owners to take the pulse of their player base and take that into consideration when they vote on these changes.
3. "Removing a big damage ability and replacing it with a non damaging ability is a very drastic change. (paraphrased) - If we only look at that one change? Yes. I agree. However, I think it is worth considering that there is more at play here. Fighters may have lost a large burst damage ability, but their sustained, unconditional damage is still unmatched. This design decision leaves BURST damage in the hands of rogues and celestial scholars. This was a direction that was explicitely given to our national teams by the owners.
4. "Spirit Temper wasn't a good enough fix (paraphrased)." - The intention behind the Spirit Temper was to make use of the new ritual to help smooth over the transition and to avoid yet another full spirit forge. We crunched numbers based on what we saw in the CMA and against characters we created in the freeplay database and determined that a Spirit Temper should cover it. No one is perfect though. If you are given a spirit temper and it doesnt work for what you need, then reach out again and let us know what youre trying to accomplish.
I want to reinforce what was said just a bit before I posted here. I don't think we should dismiss peoples concern, as long as people remain civil. We are all allowed to disagree. I've disagreed with my fair share of changes in the past and am quite vocal about it (as the head of ARC and Design will attest to).
Thanks everyone,
Stephen D
National CS/PR
Xanian
Apprentice
I do think tone via text is a problem, and I apologize if my tone was seen as dismissive. I was attempting to counterpoint something said previously (that there was no positive feelings from the player base) that was false.
The nature of forums means that we are always hearing only from the minority. We have tons of players here and are really only hearing from a dozen or two (known colloquially as the vocal minority). If you don't feel strongly about a subject, you say nothing, it's the nature of public discourse.
I do hope those who have already made up their minds that there is no positive from this can take a step back and give the bigger picture a look, but understand that not everyone can or will.
I do strongly believe that the number on a single skill can and does effect game balance as a whole, especially when compared to other burst damage sources. A level ~7 fighter can have access to 1000 points of burst damage with 2 EBs (1 + riposte, and they still have use of the other 60 build worth of skills), which is more than 4 full columns of damage spells from a celestial/damage caster. This does effect game balance and starting.
The nature of forums means that we are always hearing only from the minority. We have tons of players here and are really only hearing from a dozen or two (known colloquially as the vocal minority). If you don't feel strongly about a subject, you say nothing, it's the nature of public discourse.
I do hope those who have already made up their minds that there is no positive from this can take a step back and give the bigger picture a look, but understand that not everyone can or will.
I do strongly believe that the number on a single skill can and does effect game balance as a whole, especially when compared to other burst damage sources. A level ~7 fighter can have access to 1000 points of burst damage with 2 EBs (1 + riposte, and they still have use of the other 60 build worth of skills), which is more than 4 full columns of damage spells from a celestial/damage caster. This does effect game balance and starting.