More mid tier 6 and 12 man content

[Rorne]

Logically you can balance encounters that are designed for one set of classes by designing another encounter that eliminates their usefulness partially.

Take hp disparity for example. How do you really tackle that? Reducing the damage output to make a fight more forgiving on a caster dps who has lower hp only makes it that much easier for a melee dps who had an hp advantage to begin with. The EQ/SoD class system is not flexible enough to address this kind of thing in any meaningful way without reworking a ton of shit. You can approach that kind of fight with, oh maybe we will put in a disadvantage for melee dps so then people have to bring lower hp casters, so then either melee dps are now excluded or people just brute force it with melee dps because hey they have less of a chance of dying so while it's lower dps it's still sustained. I mean I think you can come up with these scenarios yourself, there is literally no good way to design the content as friendly to all classes without making it trivial to that magic 6-man combo. It couldn't hurt to ask if being trivial to a certain set-up is a reasonable cost for making these fights more accessible though, we already have varying degrees of that anyways.

 

[Rari]

Make the game easier at tier 6sh isn't much of an argument. I can understand "we don't (most of the time) have enough people to do 18 man content" as a possibly viable reason to request 12-man content. But asking for on-tier rewards with less effort doesn't make much sense to me. This "hatfields vrs mccoys" argument being insinuated into this is just unfounded - the content that exists is already not that difficult once you figure out the strats (and goodness knows you can get strats for old content easily enough if you ask the right people.) At some point you have to actually start playing the game, learning the basics of organized raid-play in order to progress, because it will only be that much more important later. Or will you just ask for more content to be produced at the next tiers as well, for "casual" gamers, so you don't have to learn to play strategically? A lower tiered dungeon in Ikisith actually makes sense to me, since there are open-air encounters aimed at these tiers. But like I said, this argument "someone" is trying to make just agitates me. The game is only hard if you make it that way.

 

[Budizzle]

Take hp disparity for example. How do you really tackle that? Reducing the damage output to make a fight more forgiving on a caster dps who has lower hp only makes it that much easier for a melee dps who had an hp advantage to begin with. The EQ/SoD class system is not flexible enough to address this kind of thing in any meaningful way without reworking a ton of shit. You can approach that kind of fight with, oh maybe we will put in a disadvantage for melee dps so then people have to bring lower hp casters, so then either melee dps are now excluded or people just brute force it with melee dps because hey they have less of a chance of dying so while it's lower dps it's still sustained. I mean I think you can come up with these scenarios yourself, there is literally no good way to design the content as friendly to all classes without making it trivial to that magic 6-man combo. It couldn't hurt to ask if being trivial to a certain set-up is a reasonable cost for making these fights more accessible though, we already have varying degrees of that anyways.

A couple ways around this using both itemization and encounter design:

1.) Make the encounters that are trivial for melee classes only drop loot that is exceptional for caster classes. Stepping further, you can even make some of these pieces class specific without being "too good" or "irreplaceable" by harder 18man content.

The point is trying to make content more accessible for less people, even if the rewards aren't as good as you'd get from 18man content.

2.) Just as a rough example, design the encounter so that it is immune to melee. Stepping further, design an encounter so that it becomes immune to various avenues of damage (read: melee or non melee, specific class skills or spell trees, piercing, slashing, blunt, hand, cold, magic, or a combination of whatever etc etc) at random percentages of hp until it sustains enough damage to "switch". Maybe that wouldn't be the only strategy, but you understand the concept.

3.) Design an encounter so that any specific combination of classes can just not engage it; the last person to engage wouldn't be able.

I have no idea if the latter two are possible clientside but it is a valid example I suppose.

Make the game easier at tier 6sh isn't much of an argument. I can understand "we don't (most of the time) have enough people to do 18 man content" as a possibly viable reason to request 12-man content. But asking for on-tier rewards with less effort doesn't make much sense to me. This "casual vrs hardcore" argument being insinuated into this is just unfounded - the content that exists is already not that difficult once you figure out the strats (and goodness knows you can get strats for old content easily enough if you ask the right people.) At some point you have to actually start playing the game, learning the basics of organized raid-play in order to progress, because it will only be that much more important later. Or will you just ask for more content to be produced at the next tiers as well, for "casual" gamers, so you don't have to learn to play strategically? A lower tiered dungeon in Ikisith actually makes sense to me, since there are open-air encounters aimed at these tiers. But like I said, this argument "someone" is trying to make just agitates me. The game is only hard if you make it that way.

Uh.

I never said make the game "easier" by introducing 6 man content. There's really no reason why 6 man content would produce the same quality or amount of rewards as 18 man content, even if it is sometimes technically as difficult.

There's no reason at all you can't create two distinct tier trees for both play styles. People constantly disregard the fact that most casual players really do not care about the quality of loot they receive, as long as they gain some sense of reward and forward progress.

Not everyone has the time or support to "learn basic organized raid-play"...

 

[Rari]

Oh! I misunderstood you. You didn't mean easier. You're proposing that instead of having one line of progression, creating an entire series of lower-reward, less-demanding (but certainly not easier) tiers. That certainly won't fragment the current lower tiers and exacerbate the problem as presented in the OP.

 

[Budizzle]

Oh! I misunderstood you. You didn't mean easier. You're proposing that instead of having one line of progression, creating an entire series of lower-reward, less-demanding (but certainly not easier) tiers. That certainly won't fragment the current lower tiers and exacerbate the problem as presented in the OP.

Hmm.

That's silly. There's no reason that two mostly separate sets of tiers cannot coexist outside of things like -- disregarding possible client limitations -- time, resources, motivation, and general will. All of which probably are not present and never will be convenient for the unpaid staff of a free game, but that doesn't mean it's not a possibility.

In essence.

I'm sure they could be incorporated as well. Prime example: three tier 6-7 "casual" groups uniting to kill tier 3-4 content. It would be a solid base for larger groups/raids/guilds to form without the necessity of larger groups to progress. Think of it as assimilation into "basic, organized 18 man raid-play". It's pretty much the same concept as adepts, only applied to progress after 65.

Understanding the nature of "casual play," it doesn't take a huge leap to conclude that it would take just as long or longer to progress on a casual scheme alone.

 

[Rari]

Umm... if this these hypothetical tier 6 people are banding together, why wouldn't they just do on-tier content, unless they need to backgear (though back-gearing three tiers behind where they are at doesn't make much sense to me.) I mean really, why would they do that? I thought the original issue here was that there weren't enough people on tier to do the existing tier 6 content for 18-man raids. Or am I missing something here? I'm pretty good at missing things. If I'm not, and this is just an entirely new issue that you're tormented by, maybe you should start your own thread where you can actually explain what your problem is.

Before you do that, maybe you could explain this to me.

That's silly. There's no reason that two mostly separate sets of tiers cannot coexist outside of things like -- disregarding possible client limitations -- time, resources, motivation, and general will. All of which probably are not present and never will be convenient for the unpaid staff of a free game, but that doesn't mean it's not a possibility.

Now, Zaela just thought you were speaking nonsense. I told her I thought you meant ...

You guys can't do this because you don't put in the effort because you aren't paid staff and therefore lack time, resources, motivation, and general will to make my ideas a reality.

... but I tend to assume everyone is an asshole, so maybe that's not what you meant at all.

 

[Budizzle]

Umm... if this these hypothetical tier 6 people are banding together, why wouldn't they just do on-tier content, unless they need to backgear (though back-gearing three tiers behind where they are at doesn't make much sense to me.) I mean really, why would they do that? I thought the original issue here was that there weren't enough people on tier to do the existing tier 6 content for 18-man raids. Or am I missing something here? I'm pretty good at missing things. If I'm not, and this is just an entirely new issue that you're tormented by, maybe you should start your own thread where you can actually explain what your problem is.

It's an example of what could happen if there were enough people. As it is, players are pretty much unfairly stymied by the lack of other players in their tier, and this can be mitigated by creating content that fewer players can complete. You can argue that grinding exp zones and treasure maps are a good avenue for progression, but the truth is everyone wants the satisfaction of completing a gauntlet of trash, killing a boss with an actual strategy, receiving loot, and possibly becoming keyed for progression. Furthermore, VD treasure maps are only valid until ~tier 3ish, at which point you're pretty much limited to 18 man content until tier 6-7ish (which opens up ED maps and Cmal 4.1). Although I have no personal experience with it, I assume that Cmal in general is a good supplement for lower tiers now, but is it really enough?

The point is that Shards should not operate behind the obstinate philosophy "18man raids is and will always be the only way to consistently progress as a collective ever." Considering it isn't exactly easy to collect even 9 players (at the very least) who are able to box efficiently to kill a mob in the lower tiers, it seems logical to conform for the sake of the game and new players. The 18man standard is doubly discouraging for people who only play briefly for a couple days a week.

Like I said, 6-12 man content is a good way to assimilate people into a raiding atmosphere (a la adepts) without denying them the possibility of continual progress, even if it is at a limited pace. This would inevitably lead to larger raids, but a wider variety of "smaller" content would lend itself to progress when there aren't enough numbers for larger raids. Both of which are beneficial to the server...

Now, Zaela just thought you were speaking nonsense. I told her I thought you meant ...

... but I tend to assume everyone is an asshole, so maybe that's not what you meant at all.

You're misconstruing my posts:

That's silly. Considering that the staff is unpaid and limited by time and numbers among other resources, I understand why it would be hard to implement an overhauled tier system balanced with the currently active one. However, it seems possible from a very basic perspective.

I do believe that 6-12 man tier system can be created independently of the 18 raid system without really affecting it at all. But I understand that would take a great deal of time and effort to complete. I can guarantee that it would be enormously beneficial to the entire server if you catered a bit to casual players throughout the tiers; if nothing else, it gives people a platform to transform into more "hardcore" players or guilds.

 

[Rari]

If these mid-tier hatfields that you are the voice of want ...

the satisfaction of completing a gauntlet of trash, killing a boss with an actual strategy, receiving loot, and possibly becoming keyed for progression.

in addition to the newly revamped cmal, then why would we need to create a whole set of tiers? They can stay in lower tiers if they don't want to learn new content or take on greater challenges and still experience those things. That would just mean there are more people in the low tiers doing content, which would be beneficial for those people entering those tiers and actually trying to progress, wouldn't it? Your solution would only split the tier, meaning even fewer people for both tiers. Wouldn't this put the hatfields in the same position they are in now, with even less likelihood of them filling warm-body spots in progression raids with loot that would actually improve their characters? Creating a zone of on-tier content / rewards for 12 player groupings as Zaela offered to do seems like a better solution to the too-few-people problem, at least to me.

 

[Budizzle]

If these mid-tier hatfields that you are the voice of want ...

in addition to the newly revamped cmal, then why would we need to create a whole set of tiers? They can stay in lower tiers if they don't want to learn new content or take on greater challenges and still experience those things. That would just mean there are more people in the low tiers doing content, which would be beneficial for those people entering those tiers and actually trying to progress, wouldn't it? Your solution would only split the tier, meaning even fewer people for both tiers. Wouldn't this put the hatfields in the same position they are in now, with even less likelihood of them filling warm-body spots in progression raids with loot that would actually improve their characters? Creating a zone of on-tier content / rewards for 12 player groupings as Zaela offered to do seems like a better solution to the too-few-people problem, at least to me.

We're back to the point of not having enough people to occupy these tiers. Do you really not understand the huge portion of people who quit SoD before they even breach tier 2? You're operating behind the impression that the lower tiers are going to fill up until there's enough people and desire to form raids and progress. You are either blind or in denial if you believe that.

No. That's just not the way it works. What you're going to witness is the core group of raiders move farther and farther through the tiers, and a constant influx of new players who play the game to 65 (at best) and then just move on with their lives.

Every once in a while there will be a new, emerging guild that skips through the tiers on the back of a ringer army, who eventually and inevitably replenish the roster of <Twilight Friends> or <Exodus Rising> or whatever after a good portion of their members become bored with the lack of new content or frustrated with it being broken/incomplete/unfulfilling/whatever, which inevitably become ringers themselves. And the army just keeps growing.

It is a cycle that is constantly extending the gap between the low tier and high tier, and it has been in effect since the beginning of this game. What happens when that gap becomes so large that Zaela's sarcastic prediction becomes a self fulfilling prophecy? You're wrong if you believe that the server is growing at a fast enough rate to justify any more content on the top end outside of that core group of dedicated raiders.

To combat this cycle, you need to implement a fresh model that will intrigue new players and keep them here. Obviously I believe a more accessible end game is most efficient way to do this.

 

[Rari]

"You're misconstruing my posts."

There is progression content that is up, but the argument presented was there aren't enough active people on tier to do it. Zaela offtered to make more content that will be viable for less-than-18-man raids. Why is that bad?

I don't understand how your idea of breaking the tiers into hatsfields and mccoys is a solution - how does segregating create more people to do existing content?

 

[Budizzle]

You're misconstruing my posts.

There is progression content that is up, but the argument presented was there aren't enough active people on tier to do it. Zaela offtered to make more content that will be viable for less-than-18-man raids. Why is that bad?

It's not bad. I'm glad she's willing to at least attempt this experiment. I never said it was bad.

I don't understand how your idea of breaking the tiers into hatsfields and mccoys is a solution - how does segregating create more people to do existing content?

You're implying that there is a community to segregate. There's not. The point I'm trying to make is that you need to build that community. If anything, they're already segregated: high and low tier. The vastness in between is mostly void of anything.

If that community is built, there's no reason why both styles can't interact and unify to different ends, while at the same time still having content that is available and accessible to everyone regardless of things like numbers and time.

The concept of "smaller" content is simply to make the transition from leveling to raiding easier, as well as allowing the possibility of guild progression when they cannot muster a full raid force.

 

[Budizzle]

I still wasn't being sarcastic. But I don't know how we are going to take on such a mighty task seeing as we apparently don't have time, resources, motivation, and general will and our content is broken/incomplete/unfulfilling or non-existent and all.

Don't get defensive.

I don't know whether or not you have the time or motivation among anything else to make this happen, and I was not questioning your contribution of time and effort to the server thus far; I do understand how these could possibly be limiting factors, however, especially if I was using me as a model.

I'm not going to argue about broken content or whatever. Suffice to say that a large portion of new content is tweaked shortly after it is implemented, and that guilds like <Twilight Underground> and <Fair Weather Friends> are basically beta testers for new content, by their own admission.

Either way, you cannot deny that it has resulted in at least a few disgruntled players, some of which have quit as a result.

 

[Budizzle]

No, I think I can pretty much deny that.

Well you can, but you'd be wrong.

The cycle is still very real anyway.

 

[Budizzle]

Well, surely you can explain this to me then. Do people quit because they would prefer content that is excessively hard or excessively easy not to be tweaked? Or because we don't have 18 Devs to test play content and/or don't have content balance reduced to an infallible formula? Or is it because the first guild that does content sees it before it gets tweaked and that is somehow so unfair that it ruins the entire game?

I actually didn't put a negative connotation on the notion of "broken content", nor did I say it was avoidable mostly. It's not my fault you interpreted it that way. It never affected me really anyway, so obviously it didn't stay broken for very long.

However, I did state, factually, that some people have quit because of their frustration with broken content, "fixed" content, or the lack of content (which really isn't an issue right now, I suppose). And some people will always react negatively and brashly; you cannot change them, sadly.

I'm not one of these people, but I'm not denying them either.

(Also, even new casual-friendly content would be tweaked, not thoroughly play-tested, and someone will do it first, so I guess people are going to quit all the time no matter what.)

Yeah, you might as well just quit. All your content is fucked, you never fix anything, and you always break everything.

 

[Thade]

I actually didn't put a negative connotation on the notion of "broken content", nor did I say it was avoidable mostly. It's not my fault you interpreted it that way. It never affected me really anyway, so obviously it didn't stay broken for very long.

However, I did state, factually, that some people have quit because of their frustration with broken content, "fixed" content, or the lack of content (which really isn't an issue right now, I suppose). And some people will always react negatively and brashly; you cannot change them, sadly.

I'm not one of these people, but I'm not denying them either.



Yeah, you might as well just quit. All your content is fucked, you never fix anything, and you always break everything.

If you ever complain about broken content you probably shouldn't be playing a free re-make of a 10 year old mmo. If you're going to complain about "Fixed" content you should try being the people who have to wipe to things for hours, finally kill it, then get things revoked because it wasn't "hard enough" just to wipe to another broken encounter for hours. You really seem to have no actual grasp of what is going on at the high tiers at all. Your entire argument is "this game doesn't do what every other mmo does so you should do it".

And zaela is the LAST dev to complain about. Her and marza are the two devs who pay a lot of attention to their content, and fix it.

 

[Animand]

A basic primer on argumentation by Cless.

I don't know whether or not you have the time or motivation among anything else to make this happen, and I was not questioning your contribution of time and effort to the server thus far; I do understand how these could possibly be limiting factors, however, especially if I was using me as a model.

I'm not going to argue about broken content or whatever. Suffice to say that a large portion of new content is tweaked shortly after it is implemented, and that guilds like <Twilight Underground> and <Fair Weather Friends> are basically beta testers for new content, by their own admission.

Either way, you cannot deny that it has resulted in at least a few disgruntled players, some of which have quit as a result.

So, the rationale of your last several posts has merely been to state three things.

(1) With an infinite army of competent volunteers doing nothing but working on stuff, there would be plentiful amounts of content, all perfectly balanced.

(2) Any imperfections in content is due to the lack of numbers, will, drive, motivation, skill or time of the devs.

(3) These imperfections inevitably cause(d) people to leave SoD.

Alright, I grant these as facts. What does this have to do with your previous statements?

There's no reason that two mostly separate sets of tiers cannot coexist outside of things like -- disregarding possible client limitations -- time, resources, motivation, and general will. All of which probably are not present and never will be convenient for the unpaid staff of a free game, but that doesn't mean it's not a possibility.

It seems you are implying that there is some finite, even if prohibitively large, amount of effort that could create this tier dichotomy to general satisfaction. However, you merely state this fact as a given with no supporting evidence. In contrast, I can guarantee that virtually all of the mccoys and staff disagree with this assumption based on mountains of evidence and years of experience. I feel no need to provide this evidence, as any responses generated by this discussion should do so for me. Also, feel free to ask them and find out for yourself.

Given that "virtually all of the mccoys and staff disagree with" the statement "[t]here's no reason that two mostly separate sets of tiers cannot coexist", no devs have created of a 6-12 man mid-tier progression path. Furthermore, our own research would suggest that the creation of such a path would only worsen the problems your suggestion was intended to remedy. Since you provided no evidence or argumentation that actually supported your claims and suggestion, your suggestion was rejected. Any further gainful discourse would require the aforementioned.

As a bonus for reading this far, here are a couple tips for improving your posting experience (and by extension, mine).

(1) Assumptions should be backed by reasoning, evidence, or general acceptance. Anything not backed by these is a "premise", and therefore treated as any other hypothetical. Any argument based on any premise is not valid for actual situations, so do not attempt to use them for such purposes.

(2) All the staff here are unpaid, dedicated volunteers that give up their free time to work on making SoD that could otherwise be used in actually playing the game. Also, all staff members were picked from the playerbase due to their talents, dedication, work ethic, playtime, reputation, and character. Even after one becomes staff, one is subject to further, even deeper scrutiny. So any staff member you see is absolutely beyond reproach in their worthiness for their role, and should be treated with great respect. To say something intentionally hurtful, especially like "Yeah, you might as well just quit. All your content is fucked, you never fix anything, and you always break everything." is reprehensible and unacceptable.

 

[Budizzle]

If you ever complain about broken content you probably shouldn't be playing a free re-make of a 10 year old mmo. If you're going to complain about "Fixed" content you should try being the people who have to wipe to things for hours, finally kill it, then get things revoked because it wasn't "hard enough" just to wipe to another broken encounter for hours. You really seem to have no actual grasp of what is going on at the high tiers at all. Your entire argument is "this game doesn't do what every other mmo does so you should do it".

And zaela is the LAST dev to complain about. Her and marza are the two devs who pay a lot of attention to their content, and fix it.

I have never complained about broken content. Not once. I used it as an example of why some people leave the server, even if it's just a small portion of general butthurt that they need to cry in a corner about. Either way, logically these people need to be compensated for; if no one ever joined the server, eventually it would die yes?

Unless your post is directed at people who whine about anything in general, I'd say it is irrelevant.

So, the rationale of your last several posts has merely been to state three things.

(1) With an infinite army of competent volunteers doing nothing but working on stuff, there would be plentiful amounts of content, all perfectly balanced.

No, but I think everyone would agree that it would be easier to manufacture content all day and night if there was an infinite army of developers. I'm not suggesting it, however.

(2) Any imperfections in content is due to the lack of numbers, will, drive, motivation, skill or time of the devs.

This and that. Most lingering imperfections are the result of players either (a)not doing the content or (b)being content with or unaware of it working improperly or (c)discovering a way to strategically trivialize content cougheyatecough. None of which can be considered the developer's fault.

(3) These imperfections inevitably cause(d) people to leave SoD.

Alright, I grant these as facts. What does this have to do with your previous statements?

Yes, and the answer to that lies in my response to Thade.

It seems you are implying that there is some finite, even if prohibitively large, amount of effort that could create this tier dichotomy to general satisfaction. However, you merely state this fact as a given with no supporting evidence. In contrast, I can guarantee that virtually all of the mccoys and staff disagree with this assumption based on mountains of evidence and years of experience. I feel no need to provide this evidence, as any responses generated by this discussion should do so for me. Also, feel free to ask them and find out for yourself.

Evidence of what, exactly? Evidence that a game catering to casual players can be successful and mostly fulfilling for most players on any end of the spectrum? Evidence that a "secondary" progression system would cater to casual players? Evidence that it wouldn't break the game? Be specific.

This position is based on the assumption that I do not have "years of experience" with most of the content and community in Dalaya. I do, in fact.

Given that "virtually all of the mccoys and staff disagree with" the statement "[t]here's no reason that two mostly separate sets of tiers cannot coexist", no devs have created of a 6-12 man mid-tier progression path. Furthermore, our own research would suggest that the creation of such a path would only worsen the problems your suggestion was intended to remedy. Since you provided no evidence or argumentation that actually supported your claims and suggestion, your suggestion was rejected. Any further gainful discourse would require the aforementioned.

Research? You're grasping at straws, Cless. You and I both know the effect of what I'm suggesting cannot be wholly estimated without subjecting it to at least some "real world" testing.

Furthermore, I am simply suggesting that new, accessible content is an efficient way of making "raiding" more accessible in general to smaller groups of people. That is bordering on fact. The subsequent theory revolves around how a combination of "casual" and "hardcore" content can lead to individuals having a lasting relationship with Shards past level 65. How it affects the rest of the game at this point is irrelevant in my opinion; the gap between players is looking more and more like Live, which I know for a fact is something that the staff wants to avoid, or at least did originally. Whether or not it's worth the cost is not my decision to make, nor am I asking it to be.

Also, there is no research. There's a bunch of what most would consider failed attempts at 6 man content because a very specific set of classes pretty much dominates all of it, to the point of trivializing it. That's not "research" by any standards. However, there are also a bunch of successful 12 man encounters that have been a very vital element of the game -- adepts.

As a bonus for reading this far, here are a couple tips for improving your posting experience (and by extension, mine).

(1) Assumptions should be backed by reasoning, evidence, or general acceptance. Anything not backed by these is a "premise", and therefore treated as any other hypothetical. Any argument based on any premise is not valid for actual situations, so do not attempt to use them for such purposes.

There is plenty of logical reasoning behind my theory.

To say something intentionally hurtful, especially like "Yeah, you might as well just quit. All your content is fucked, you never fix anything, and you always break everything." is reprehensible and unacceptable.

It was a joke, if that wasn't obvious. And we all know that Zaela wasn't "hurt" by it.

 

[Thade]

Also, there is no research. There's a bunch of what most would consider failed attempts at 6 man content because a very specific set of classes pretty much dominates all of it, to the point of trivializing it. That's not "research" by any standards. However, there are also a bunch of successful 12 man encounters that have been a very vital element of the game -- adepts.

How can you qualify what is "failed" for a 6 man and what isn't if you haven't done them?

Also considering 80% of adepts are flat out skipped I'm not sure how you can call them successful. Unless you consider a bunch of twinks camping 55/57 adepts so they can feel like they matter?

 

[Budizzle]

How can you qualify what is "failed" for a 6 man and what isn't if you haven't done them?

I have done a good portion of the 6man content in Dalaya. Even if I didn't, you know that a very specific set of classes is optimal for most of the 6man content. In fact, some classes are pretty much required for on tier 6man encounters, and sometimes even if it's below your tier.

Also considering 80% of adepts are flat out skipped I'm not sure how you can call them successful. Unless you consider a bunch of twinks camping 55/57 adepts so they can feel like they matter?

That is a very bold statement, especially considering the recent adept loot overhaul. Also, the implication you've embedded on the last question does not do credit to the gap between high and low tier gear and mentality that I cited earlier.

 

[Thade]

I have done a good portion of the 6man content in Dalaya. Even if I didn't, you know that a very specific set of classes is optimal for most of the 6man content. In fact, some classes are pretty much required for on tier 6man encounters, and sometimes even if it's below your tier.

That is a very bold statement, especially considering the recent adept loot overhaul. Also, the implication you've embedded on the last question does not do credit to the gap between high and low tier gear and mentality that I cited earlier.

I have killed all but one 6 man boss in the game. Literally every class but an enchanter has been taken mistborn and he has been killed and he's the "hardest fight" of all the 6 mans. Yes some setups are far from "optimal" but they are not "impossible". The issue is people simply are -bad-. They aren't willing to put in the time to learn things, or go off hearsay (even I am guilty of the latter sometimes).

And yes while plenty of the adept loot is no longer 100% ass terrible, plenty of it still isn't worth the time. How often do you see people killing brancu earth crumbler? Sludgebreath? Icefeather? Not often. Simply because most of their loot will be replaced before 65. The adepts that get killed are either a low level and killable with a group or less (see: everything up to grikk)have important clickies (see: snowskin), or are twink fodder (see: Nalia/Pounders/Traek).

Dev's can't be responsible for player mentality. It's not their responsibility.