Shadow conjuration - Needless nerf

[metaquad4]

Yeah, I'm really not sure how this idea got through. All the staff who are affirming that balance is not the concern in this decision: That is more than evident. And also the problem.

[Fury_US]

Exactly why is there even a QC for the server if it’s blatantly apparent that their opinions are not considered?

Why, too, ask about player satisfaction when it’s clearly not important?

[mrm3ntalist]

To be honest qc’s opinion is not required to introduce new content however most devs ask for it - and even then they don’t have to accept it. Obviously this is not the case for this change.

[ValerieJean]

personally i think that anything with a % chance to be avoided/disbelieved is most likely going to be pretty crap anyway, Look how often an item with a proc chance of 5% will trigger. The dice are rigged. also basically anything with a high will save is going to completely ignore these spells.

Id like to point out that even though the server has had its own direction based on the people who create the content it is unwise to not listen to the majority of the player base or at least give them a heads up when it comes to changes that will affect a large portion of them.

While we may not always get what we want it is still better to discuss these things beforehand with some kind of reasoning as to why the changes are going to happen rather than just "This is changed deal with it" It shows little to no respect for the other people who also call BG their home away from home. Yes we appreciate the hard work and dedication the team has put in to the server and yes we don't always agree with it however without the players you may as well be creating your own little module and play by yourself if a large portion of the player base suddenly decides "screw it im done" because they feel like you don't give a damn about them or their opinions.

Communication is a very important part of small communities like ours. A little bit of effort goes a long way.

Exactly why is there even a QC for the server if it’s blatantly apparent that their opinions are not considered?

Why, too, ask about player satisfaction when it’s clearly not important?

+1

[KOPOJIbPAKOB]

personally i think that anything with a % chance to be avoided/disbelieved is most likely going to be pretty crap anyway, Look how often an item with a proc chance of 5% will trigger. The dice are rigged. also basically anything with a high will save is going to completely ignore these spells.

Id like to point out that even though the server has had its own direction based on the people who create the content it is unwise to not listen to the majority of the player base or at least give them a heads up when it comes to changes that will affect a large portion of them.

While we may not always get what we want it is still better to discuss these things beforehand with some kind of reasoning as to why the changes are going to happen rather than just "This is changed deal with it" It shows little to no respect for the other people who also call BG their home away from home. Yes we appreciate the hard work and dedication the team has put in to the server and yes we don't always agree with it however without the players you may as well be creating your own little module and play by yourself if a large portion of the player base suddenly decides "screw it im done" because they feel like you don't give a damn about them or their opinions.

Communication is a very important part of small communities like ours. A little bit of effort goes a long way.

Exactly why is there even a QC for the server if it’s blatantly apparent that their opinions are not considered?

Why, too, ask about player satisfaction when it’s clearly not important?

+1

+1

[Valefort]

New features being buggy is nothing but commonplace. This new system has holes, no one is disputing that and since it went live in one go this is more apparent than usual. So bear with it and instead of getting riled up post factual bugs and problems caused by these changes; there's a whole forum for that.

From a developer's point of view this thread amounts to drenching one's enthusiasm considerably for what is a small inconvenience ... no mage armor or invisibility for a short time for bards.

[ValerieJean]

New features being buggy is nothing but commonplace. This new system has holes, no one is disputing that and since it went live in one go this is more apparent than usual. So bear with it and instead of getting riled up post factual bugs and problems caused by these changes; there's a whole forum for that.

From a developer's point of view this thread amounts to drenching one's enthusiasm considerably for what is a small inconvenience ... no mage armor or invisibility for a short time for bards.

Is there not a testing server or something that the Devs can put up on occasion to test these implementations before putting them into the final product? Instead of bandaging as it's found out?

[Fury_US]

New features being buggy shouldn’t be accepted as commonplace, and wouldn’t be if the changes were, I don’t know, offered over to QC and tested prior to implementation?

[Valefort]

No there's no test server and things aren't accepted as bugged, the bugs are found after. Each dev develops and tests his own doings, there are also ways of adding things to the live server that can only be used by QC but that was not very practical here.

[ValerieJean]

No there's no test server and things aren't accepted as bugged, the bugs are found after. Each dev develops and tests his own doings, there are also ways of adding things to the live server that can only be used by QC but that was not very practical here.

Why not have a test server? Like why not have it on the already hosted server or make up a local server so you don't have to pay for anything extra?

[Valefort]

Every scripter hosts a local version of the server for testing purposes already, otherwise things wouldn't just be buggy, they'd never work.

Having a common test server so that other people, such as QC, would come and test would be great but simply put no one has had the time/will to set up one (doable), much less making it easy to use (a sizeable load of work). We use a versioning system but only in the most basic way, not every volunteer is able or willing to go through git branches to get things done, this is a compromise that comes with limits.

[Valefort]

Convenient to think that ! However here it was practicality. To explain, something can be gated to QC with a feat, if you have it you can use something, otherwise not. This is all well and good for new content but here it wasn't new content but modification of existing content and gating all the spells that were impacted wasn't an option here.

[mrm3ntalist]

Convenient to think that ! However here it was practicality. To explain, something can be gated to QC with a feat, if you have it you can use something, otherwise not. This is all well and good for new content but here it wasn't new content but modification of existing content and gating all the spells that were impacted wasn't an option here.

This was never a problem in the past. For example when the new EW was implemented a new feat was created for testing which when ready, replaced the old one. The same could have been done with a new spell. You remember how many implementations were discarded because it did not work correctly, but in the end, it was gotten to work without exploits and in a way that satisfied almost everyone.

[ValerieJean]

Convenient to think that ! However here it was practicality. To explain, something can be gated to QC with a feat, if you have it you can use something, otherwise not. This is all well and good for new content but here it wasn't new content but modification of existing content and gating all the spells that were impacted wasn't an option here.

This was never a problem in the past. For example when the new EW was implemented a new feat was created for testing which when ready, replaced the old one. The same could have been done with a new spell. You remember how many implementations were discarded because it did not work correctly, but in the end, it was gotten to work without exploits and in a way that satisfied almost everyone.

+1

[Endelyon]

I think this thread has run its course, it's been stated that the old functionality of the spell will return in the form of a different spell so at this point we're arguing semantics about how everyone individually thinks the server should be run. I was told it might be easier dev-wise to just add the other options straight back into Shadow Conjuration and give it the full functionality of everything (all the new stuff and the old stuff alike) so that might even be what we do, but one way or another the functionality will come back.

Since that official answer was on the first page and I'm sensing some pretty hostile intentions (and reading some straight up toxic vitriol) in peoples' posts I'm going to go ahead and lock this.

As mentioned previously, we don't run the server by a show of hands, nor will you meet any admin or game developer for any server who does. I know there's been some low-key talk in the thread like we don't care about what players want and we're just running the server like a dictatorship, but in reality we do listen pretty pretty carefully to the opinions of the playerbase and often halt changes or revise them heavily based on it, hence why the offer was made in the first place to put the spell's old functionality back in one form or another.

And, if you think it's bad here, I'd advise you to try some other servers out for a while and see how they feel about the notion that the playerbase would decide how or when a change goes in and to what degree. I assure you things are better here in this regard than they are literally anywhere else.