Monster Density Changes in Patch 2.0.1

The intent is that smaller packs are less likely to chain together. They still exist, but are less frequent. It's an improvement to pacing, and you should run into "empty" areas less frequently now.

I'll see if I can tweak that a bit to make the sentiment clearer. =)

1.0.8's density change was an interesting beast that ended up solving some problems, and then creating a few more in its wake.

The benefit of increasing density in 1.0.8 was that the world felt less empty and, based on feedback we received, combat became super action-packed. There was plenty to kill, and it kept you moving. There were *assumes Buzz Lightyear pose* monsters, monsters everywhere. In terms of raw gameplay and personal fun factor, we loved the result and definitely enjoyed the increased density when playing ourselves.

The downside to increasing 1.0.8 density, however, was two-fold. First, it landed an unfortunate blow to build diversity, encouraging a very specific style of play (AoE or bust). Based on all the data we pulled, build variety narrowed quite quickly – even now, you can see the effects with Archon, WW, Zero Dogs, and other similar builds trumping almost everything. Overall, increased density led to much less interesting game play (for the game as a whole), even if it may have been super fun on the surface. Second, by adding a boatload of more monsters, server performance took a hit, which some of you may or may not have experienced.

This is why we originally lowered density in the first stages of Beta and PTR testing. We realize we may have turned the density dial down too low, though, and that's what these recent changes in the latest Beta/PTR patch are about – and really what PTR is all about too. We want pacing in the game to feel good, but without the additional technical or build diversity issues. We want to open up a greater variety of ways to play the game, and this is one of many steps we’ve taken to achieve that. Density is one of these things we can continue to evaluate and tweak, and we have every intention of doing that. We won’t, however, be returning 1.0.8 levels, but there’s likely a sweet spot somewhere in between.

*Edited for clarification*

Holy misinterpretation, Batman! I think I might need to clarify a sentence in my original post, because it's been misquoted quite a lot. Apologies for potentially giving some of you the wrong impression. Hopefully I can make amends. :)

First up, monster density was not lowered or nerfed in the latest Beta/PTR patch. In fact, it was more or less buffed compared to where it was at when Closed Beta launched. With this last Beta/PTR patch, pacing has been improved and, although there are fewer mobs spawning now compared to 1.0.8, individual monster rewards have been adjusted and monster kill experience has been greatly increased. We definitely heard player feedback from the PTR and Beta about density levels and have made changes which should help address some of the concerns we were seeing. Our goal is to still have monster slaughter be rewarding and engaging (contrary to popular belief, we actually do want you to have fun!) while also avoiding many of the technical and mechanical issues introduced in 1.0.8. There are many parts of the whole experience to consider aside from a simple monster count and our goal is find a good balance.

As always, if you have feedback regarding these changes, I encourage you to try out the current PTR build and leave us feedback in the applicable forum.

That might be part of it. ;P

Clans and Communities in the current build had some experimental caps while we evaluated what would work best in a live environment. Bear in mind that there are some technical limitations we considered when it came to choosing these caps, and we've tried to make allowances where possible without sacrificing performance.

Clans are intended for smaller, more intimate groups of players. When 2.0.1 launches, the cap should be 120 for Clans.

Communities, on the other hand, are meant for larger player groups, and you can designate your Community by category (including but not limited to Classes, Regional, and Game Type). They will have no membership cap; however, if the roster exceeds 100 players, only Officers will be visible in the Members Roster.

Yep! Currently our intent is to convert certain achievements to Feats of Strength. When an achievement is no longer obtainable it becomes a prime candidate to be converted, so your guess about difficulty based achievements being swapped over is a pretty good one.

The blog in question is a First Look blog, as DeadRu has mentioned. This means it was intended to provide an inside look at the current development state and functionality of the Mystic, at the time it was written.

We've always said that details can and likely will change over the course of development. This happens to be one of those times.

Originally, we did want to give players this opportunity. We didn't want to invalidate or take away player options. However, it became increasingly evident through testing that artifacts of the old itemization system could become overpowered through enchanting, especially so with certain items. This is why testing is so important, and it was a decision that took some time to make.

I'd also like to throw out there that some players seem to think this means you can't enchant level 1-60 items at all, when that isn't true. Items gained prior to the 2.0.1 patch hitting the live servers will be unable to be enchanted. Anything you gain after the patch launches and before the expansion, however, are eligible to be enchanted.

As Nevalistis noted, the goal of each of the "first look" blogs we've published (there's been a few: the Mystic, Westmarch, Adventure Mode, and the Crusader) has been to provide players a first look at the development of certain features in Reaper of Souls. They're not wholesale previews; rather, they're a snapshot of what's being worked on. It's a way for us to include our community in the development process and feel involved -- or, at the very least, informed. Same can be said for all the posts we've made about the expansion, too.

For the Mystic "first look" blog specifically, it never actually says that Legacy items can be enchanted, even though Legacy items could be enchanted at the time the blog was made (since that was the intended design at the time). As a result, we got a lot of questions for clarification, and in the posts where we did state that Legacy items could be enchanted, we very likely prefaced the information with the caveat that the functionality is as of current design and/or was subject to change based on testing and additional development. We actually say this about most everything in Reaper of Souls -- to the point where some have lovingly mocked us for it -- as until something is shipped, it's subject to change. And even then, it's possible that we'll make adjustments to a feature that's gone live, if we feel it'll make the in-game experience better.

Getting back to your main point, though, the alternative would be not to communicate any information until development is 100% complete and those changes are already out the door. That's not a scenario we're super keen on, so it's highly unlikely that we'll shift our approach and not talk about future content. We want to share information with players during development cycles, and we want you to know what's coming. Not only does this give players the opportunity to provide feedback and be a part of the development process directly, but it also enables you to make informed decisions about the product itself. That last part is also very important to us.

I definitely understand where you're coming from, and why you're suggesting that we just never talk about upcoming content until is 100% certain. There are upside and downsides to everything, though. In this case, the downside of our approach is that when something is still in development, that thing is likely to go through multiple changes -- changes that may not always be favorable to you personally. The upside of our approach is you know we'll communicate those multiple changes to you, too. Our current approach allows for much more transparency, and (ideally) empowers you guys more than if we just didn't talk about anything at all.

PS - I think it's important to call out that, when it comes to content that's in development and not yet final, we don't always know that a change is needed until it's needed. Or that we're going to change something until we know that we're going to change something. By this I mean, when we share information with our players about something that's still in development (like how a feature works, for example), the information we share is always true when we communicate it. It's not like we're sharing stuff we already know is going to change before it ships. We just always provide that "subject to change" caveat, because we realize, with testing and feedback, changes may be required that we can't always anticipate.

*Edited some items for clarity! Also, typos. =/

The blog in question is a First Look blog, as DeadRu has mentioned. This means it was intended to provide an inside look at the current development state and functionality of the Mystic, at the time it was written.

We've always said that details can and likely will change over the course of development. This happens to be one of those times.

Originally, we did want to give players this opportunity. We didn't want to invalidate or take away player options. However, it became increasingly evident through testing that artifacts of the old itemization system could become overpowered through enchanting, especially so with certain items. This is why testing is so important, and it was a decision that took some time to make.

I'd also like to throw out there that some players seem to think this means you can't enchant level 1-60 items at all, when that isn't true. Items gained prior to the 2.0.1 patch hitting the live servers will be unable to be enchanted. Anything you gain after the patch launches and before the expansion, however, are eligible to be enchanted.

As Nevalistis noted, the goal of each of the "first look" blogs we've published (there's been a few: the Mystic, Westmarch, Adventure Mode, and the Crusader) has been to provide players a first look at the development of certain features in Reaper of Souls. They're not wholesale previews; rather, they're a snapshot of what's being worked on. It's a way for us to include our community in the development process and feel involved -- or, at the very least, informed. Same can be said for all the posts we've made about the expansion, too.

For the Mystic "first look" blog specifically, it never actually says that Legacy items can be enchanted, even though Legacy items could be enchanted at the time the blog was made (since that was the intended design at the time). As a result, we got a lot of questions for clarification, and in the posts where we did state that Legacy items could be enchanted, we very likely prefaced the information with the caveat that the functionality is as of current design and/or was subject to change based on testing and additional development. We actually say this about most everything in Reaper of Souls -- to the point where some have lovingly mocked us for it -- as until something is shipped, it's subject to change. And even then, it's possible that we'll make adjustments to a feature that's gone live, if we feel it'll make the in-game experience better.

Getting back to your main point, though, the alternative would be not to communicate any information until development is 100% complete and those changes are already out the door. That's not a scenario we're super keen on, so it's highly unlikely that we'll shift our approach and not talk about future content. We want to share information with players during development cycles, and we want you to know what's coming. Not only does this give players the opportunity to provide feedback and be a part of the development process directly, but it also enables you to make informed decisions about the product itself. That last part is also very important to us.

I definitely understand where you're coming from, and why you're suggesting that we just never talk about upcoming content until is 100% certain. There are upside and downsides to everything, though. In this case, the downside of our approach is that when something is still in development, that thing is likely to go through multiple changes -- changes that may not always be favorable to you personally. The upside of our approach is you know we'll communicate those multiple changes to you, too. Our current approach allows for much more transparency, and (ideally) empowers you guys more than if we just didn't talk about anything at all.

PS - I think it's important to call out that, when it comes to content that's in development and not yet final, we don't always know that a change is needed until it's needed. Or that we're going to change something until we know that we're going to change something. By this I mean, when we share information with our players about something that's still in development (like how a feature works, for example), the information we share is always true when we communicate it. It's not like we're sharing stuff we already know is going to change before it ships. We just always provide that "subject to change" caveat, because we realize, with testing and feedback, changes may be required that we can't always anticipate.

*Edited some items for clarity! Also, typos. =/