Feb 29th 2008 5:21AM At #8, showing a plan would make people expect the plan to be followed, and if it had the items you said it would make people even angrier if they move onto the next phase when the first phase (ie lifetap nerf) is still wrong (as in, stat breaking).
But having a progress on each item would be handy, having a designer give a bit more detail on the reasoning and aim would also be handy.
The problem is, we can assume that they have internal testing, we can assume that they think hard on these changes. So when a nerf appears that goes against the class design, or nerf an area that the class is already weak in, you can't help but wonder what the hell they are doing, since they obviously thought about it before putting it in, and did some internal testing first, shouldn't they already know it's a bad idea?
Not to mention that it gives the feeling that the PTR is the "final acceptance criteria", so if you don't complain loudly enough it *will* go live in that form.
These assumptions might be wrong, but then they should be honest and tell us that they are currently putting in new ideas on short notice and do their internal testing on the PTR so we know. Marking changes as "Nearly complete" would also help, then we know if they are still just playing or if they think it's good as is.