Ok- I deleted a topic draft yesterday, because I wanted to make sure I understood what was being said. It was Colin on ‘Systems’ Q&A point #1 (51:40):
…ton of feedback from the PTR, and we took a look at Paragon. That was one of the bigger changes that we made, where we capped the boards …we feel like that gives us a lot more space to increase the power of each of these boards, and make the choice more about “what is the board you’re looking for”.
So what we’ve done here is, we’ve added a bunch of Normal nodes… to upgrade that Legendary glyph radius. It’s kinda sad: there weren’t actually a lot of nodes to flesh it out and, sort of, build up that Paragon - that extra glyph range that you’re gonna get from upgrading it to Legendary… we’ve added around 8 to every board… starting board… 12.
(emphasis added)
I stopped listening right there because I was a bit dumbfounded. Live stream still paused.
(Coincidentally, the recent changes to Paragon touch on 2-3 elements I’ve been vocal about…)
But
- they’re still emphasizing glyph power despite capping boards ostensibly to “increase the power of these boards” (Colin’s words)…
- they’re taking baby steps away from “adding fake levels to a glyph” (my words) by at least filling that XP bar 100% per click (just no longer calling it XP, now it’s a binary yay or nay)…
- and the 3rd point hasn’t budged: they still have us micromanage base attributes but as an afterthought, in the ‘dusty cellar’ that is Paragon/glyph design.
That last one touches on the whole philosophy, as reinforced by Colin’s answer to systems Q&A point #1: systems are being shaped by a lackadaisical approach that tries to “manage” individual balance problems rather than being guided by a strong overall vision.
HOW, if ‘dusty cellar’ Paragon is where base attribute-tinkering is stuck, and HOW, if multiplicative dmg on glyphs remains top dog (despite supposed shift to “board power”) did the PTR build end up having ‘not enough’ Normal nodes to reflect the increased Legendary radius that’s supposed to showcase this fundamental redesign (since Colin agrees with this feedback apparently)?
How does a fundamental revamp to a system have such a fundamental ‘oversight’?
Two overlapping answers seem reasonable to me:
-
- ‘PTR’ is principal testing of raw ideas, rather than 2nd review of internally well-tested, relatively mature idea implementation (and all the discussions that should go into it before PTR build).
-
- Systems devs are winging it the whole way, and their guidance from management is 50% “new is new… new brings engagement… live service live service.”
Also compatible with ‘staffing issues’ ofc, but that’s the charitable angle.
Note: the clues are in multiple system designs… this impression is an overall impression. It’s bigger than Paragon.