Another round of "tweaks" and no changes to the source of game-breaking damage (in fact, layering EC on the practice dummy seems to suggest that the devs are either somehow still unaware that extreme dps depends on layering group damage buffs, not light attacks, OR are playing a joke by throwing it in our faces) but the whole combat system is left in kind of a disorganized heap. Medium weaving, really? You're removing the most accessible element of weaving (hitting a light attack at almost the same time as a skill) in the name of accessibility and replacing it with a far more inaccessible system? Damage is back to being stupid high again - but only in well coordinated group play. Which is the... uh... only place it was really a problem before. Everybody else's damage goes down.

I'm just... what were you trying to do and what is the point of what you're doing now? You've done the opposite as far as accessibility is concerned - it's harder now for novice, average, and fairly good players to output damage. Highly skilled and organized groups will make some small adjustments and continue on as before. You've lowered the overall amount of damage output sure - but only on the backs of the people who can least afford it.

I appreciate the willingness to not be so stubborn with your original vision, which was much more severe, but given that these changes don't line up really at all with advancing the goals of your original stated intent - what's the big picture here? What am I, your customer, missing here? I don't mind changes, even big sweeping changes (in fact, I appreciate the "nothing is sacred" approach to balance and design), but I do think at the least I deserve a competent high level design explanation that will make the changes understandable instead of even more confusing. As far as I know, you guys still think or believe or hope that these changes will accomplish your original stated goals - even though you asked your players to test them and they came back and told you how and why they don't. Can you tell me why or how you still think, believe, and/or hope that this is the right design direction despite the mountain of detailed testing feedback that says otherwise?

I mean, I've tested the PTS - if you tell me you're trying to make the sky blue when I can obviously see that it's orange, I'm gonna have questions. I mean, it should tell you something that every change you've made in the PTS waters down the impact of the design choices you went with. That's kind of as clear a sign that you can get that you're moving in the wrong direction, no?

Aside from the universal negative reaction from the people who actually consume your product, that is.