... I mean its silly to think this game will remain like it is from here on out and bitching about "duty cycles" in a pre alpha game.
Yeah, I know that attitude is prevalent. No-one wants to be critical when the criticism will potentially make a difference, for whatever reason.
When I am complaining about these things, it's with the desperate hope that one of the few uncensored communication mechanisms (these forums) might actually have an impact. The official forums are certainly no place for feedback, with half the new threads being locked daily. Your puny Gods won't help you if you try to be honest, there.
I expect elegance, precision, and surgical accuracy from seasoned professionals. Not this. Yes, I'm being harsh. Yes, their public mistakes thus far warrant it.
As a broad strokes examples, consider the problem with Rogues.
In a classic DnD scenario, they add value because of Backstab for damage. They can hide in shadows, sneak, move silently, and ideally, pass perception/see hidden checks. Use of poison, disarming traps, picking locks, use-magic-items, different physical damage types. Of course, in EQ1, up until Kunark, there was I think 2 ignore-able traps and zero locks in the entire land of Norrath.
When you objectively compare out of combat utility for non-magic using classes with magic using classes, it's embarrassing. Just Bind & Gate alone almost makes it a no-brainer, yet.. you look at all the skills revealed thus far for Rogues in Pantheon: No poisons. No traps. No lockpicking. No traps in the world. No locks that can be picked in the world. No poisons. One damage type (physical only) And zone content rolling out the door as fast as the overworked and underpaid designers can produce it, with no consideration (as it should be) for a single class that derives all its value from out-of-combat utility. :| Why would you produce the content and consider balance, all for one class? You wouldn't. So, you're left with a pity class that has no carrot, when objectively compared to others. Again.
Now here comes Pantheon, and originally, Rogues were attractive because they had a powerful endurance based Mez. A clever player could mez two creatures, possibly three, but they were out of the fight while doing it. When it was down to 1, they could fight and mez one. Well hey now, Rogues are looking pretty fly, I might consider... nope. Bzzzt! That ability was changed so much the next time it was shown to the public, that it is now relegated to gimmick status. Ok, so now Rogues are back to shit sandwiches, and another opportunity for the genre is lost. </golfclap>
The options? Show how blunt, pierce, or slash affects different creatures, significantly. Not shown. No indication it's a design goal. Multiple damage types for all classes. Not shown. No indication it's a design goal.
I get the defense of pre-alpha. I really do. This is the time they're making changes, trying shit out, awesome. Great. But these developers are supposed to be pros.
OLD PROS. Why, then, are we seeing such amateur hour attempts at repeating historical failures? Drives me nuts. I learned my lesson with the EQ1 Rogue. Never again. But for real? Why do it wrong
again? Why not, given the opportunity, do it right? These games live or die on class balance changes, and despite having years to get it right, they're just reading from the same ol' Big Book Of Fail, and it's frustrating beyond words.
