Hey folks,

 

First off, I apologize for the delay in grabbing your questions from this thread, that is my fault.

 

In looking over your questions, I want to request a couple of changes before sending them off to the devs for review. My main goal here is that I want to make sure that your questions are answered in a clear and concise way and as part of that, I think there needs be a bit of simplification to your questions.

 

I appreciate how thorough Snave has been in creating some of the supporting information around each question. Part of the issue though in having all of that information is that each question then becomes multiple questions rolled into one. Keep in mind the goal is to have three questions, although I certainly understand the desire to get as much out of them as you can . Please try to simplify the questions so that they are a bit more simplified and singular.

 

Also, I know there is quite a bit of frustration in the Operative/Scoundrel community right now. You worry about the viability of your DPS specs in both PvE and PvP. I hope that you can get answers to some of your concerns out of this top three. The one thing I would ask when reworking the questions is to try to keep them constructive and maybe a little nicer . I know you guys are frustrated but please try not to be attacking in your questions.

 

As an Operative player myself I think I have a fairly good grasp on the questions you are trying to ask. Snave, feel free to PM me if you have any questions or would like assistance. I apologize again for the delay in getting this information over to you.

 

-eric

I've written this paragraph out about 10 times so far and then deleted it each time due to frustrations boiling over.

The questions are simple and singular, the text preceding them are to provide context - not to ask more questions. I can maybe see your point with the last question but not at all with the first two. Regardless of my opinion on this I've taken the questions, removed all the context and research from them to make them as simple as possible for you.

This is far from being the most constructive approach but I'll see this process out until the end.

If you actually want to fix the class rather than simply pay us some loose lip service I'd suggest you read the full questions, we've been very patient with you and we'd appreciate it if you could show some patience to us.

1: PVE

Based on the proposed 2.8 PTS changes it looks like you're taking a step in the right direction to fixing Concealment's poor survivability. Could you please let us know the reason behind the changes you've made and what other tweaks you have planned to help bring DPS based operatives in line with regards to raid utility as we are currently lacking in that department?

Lethality received no changes, could you please also explain your reasoning behind that too?

2: PVP

DPS operatives have been excluded from ranked PvP since its creation due to poor class balancing, it's great you've noticed this and put forward changes for Concealment on the PTS. Can you please let us know why you feel the upcoming changes are sufficient and what you will do if Concealment continues to be "non viable" for ranked play.

I feel obliged to point out again that Lethality has received no changes and will remain on the sidelines.

3: Wildcard

Quality of life:

There have been several changes to Operatives recently that have seriously diminished the quality of life of the class in addition to quite a lot of pre-existing problems. Here is a reduced list containing some of the more pressing points:

• The removal of crouch preventing leaps / pulls effecting DPS specs more harshly than Medicine (its intended target)
   
  
• Leaving combat seems to be on an almost random timer making restealthing very difficult
   
  
• This was also asked previously but seemingly ignored. Our set bonuses are virtually useless. You stated that set bonuses were only meant to provide a small damage increase but our set bonuses do not even provide this and pale when compared to any other class..
   
  
• The "roll bug" that freezes us in place when knocked back during a roll is still in the game.
   
  
• Revitalizers is currently bugged and only ticks 4 times for a total 16% heal (tooltip says 20%)
  

Can you please let us know what you will be doing over the next few patches in order to increase our poor quality of life with in the game?

We'd also love it if you could give us the Hidden Strike knock down animation on weak PvE mobs.

Eric, please let me know if you need these to be further simplified and I'll try again using crayons

I've just been browsing through the questions from page 1 of this thread.

And I must agree to Eric somewhat that they look ... incredibly complex.

To me - and I do know that I will be hated because of this - it looks as if the Operative has become the Diva of all SWTOR classes : They got a lot of good additions in the past, up to the point that "Op is OP" has almost become an SWTOR meme of its own.

I only wish that other class Reps were allowed to ask similar longish questions as well. But instead, some class Reps must actually fear to get similar replies like "perception problem", "heal to full" and similar answers for relatively simple questions. It has happened in the past, most believe that it is very likely that it might happen again (getting answers like that, I mean). Operative Class Reps never had to fear similar things.

To me - and I do know that I will be hated because of this - it looks as if the Operative has become the Diva of all SWTOR classes : They got a lot of good additions in the past, up to the point that "Op is OP" has almost become an SWTOR meme of its own.

Say wut? No. Facts, or adios senor. List the "good additions"

I only wish that other class Reps were allowed to ask similar longish questions as well.

The weakness of others has no bearing on the volume with which the Operative community speaks.

These look great Snave. Thank you for making these adjustments, I do appreciate it. I will get these passed on.

 

-eric

Eric I'm sorry but no adjustments were made, those questions were there form the start. I give you guys the bennifits of the doubt all the time but it kind of seems like you just dropped the ball on that one. I can forgive a few things but this isn't one of them, you blatantly claimed that snave wrote no questions when he clearly did and with the way our community has been treated to this point it seems to confirm our suspicions that you don't listen to I'd that well. Could you please address this?

Eric I'm sorry but no adjustments were made, those questions were there form the start. I give you guys the bennifits of the doubt all the time but it kind of seems like you just dropped the ball on that one. I can forgive a few things but this isn't one of them, you blatantly claimed that snave wrote no questions when he clearly did and with the way our community has been treated to this point it seems to confirm our suspicions that you don't listen to I'd that well

I believe Eric just sends the direct quote of the post to the devs with no modifications so that there's no possible interpretation of censoring. The entire wildcard post was pretty extreme.

This is correct. I quite literally copy and paste the questions to the dev team to avoid anything being lost. I know that you all work very hard in conjunction with your class rep to get things perfect and I don't want to take that away by changing your words!

 

-eric

But what we are saying is we gave information then at the end we had questions at the end in larger font and bolded for clarity. If you copy paste it the devs should be able to read the what is given and then see the question stated at the end no matter how crazy it looks at the end. Eric if you send a message with no leading information then you are showing direct bias against our class because for no other class rep questions did you have any problems with lead in information or class opinions in their posts and there fit feminist from our response which we are entitled to and worked hard to get.

Eric I'm sorry but no adjustments were made, those questions were there form the start. I give you guys the bennifits of the doubt all the time but it kind of seems like you just dropped the ball on that one. I can forgive a few things but this isn't one of them, you blatantly claimed that snave wrote no questions when he clearly did and with the way our community has been treated to this point it seems to confirm our suspicions that you don't listen to I'd that well. Could you please address this?

If you're going to accuse someone of not listening to you then perhaps you should at least read what they have to say first. "you blatantly claimed that snave wrote no questions when he clearly did", that's not true at all. He said they were too long and ended up being multiple questions in one.

...I think there needs be a bit of simplification to your questions...

 

...Part of the issue though in having all of that information is that each question then becomes multiple questions rolled into one. Keep in mind the goal is to have three questions... Please try to simplify the questions so that they are a bit more simplified and singular.

Yup, totally saying that no questions were asked...

@eric - would also add that had the devs paid slighlt more attention to us on the PTS, instead of you know, the "set it and forget" attitude we've been subject to over the last 3 weeks/ month may have led to more concise questions.

While i am content with the questions asked, i cant help but feel as if we were goaded into asking questions that surely will illicit "wait till 2.8 drops, and we will re-assess in 6mo" responses.

The sin/mara forums were some of the best back and forward discussions in history, it is a shame that level of transparency/ conviction isnt dispersed evenly.

If you're going to accuse someone of not listening to you then perhaps you should at least read what they have to say first. "you blatantly claimed that snave wrote no questions when he clearly did", that's not true at all. He said they were too long and ended up being multiple questions in one.

 

 

 

Yup, totally saying that no questions were asked...

The main question was asked at the end being clearly stated, the stuff before if is just backround information that gives context into our questions giving them more merit and showing the devs where we are coming from and possible ideas that the community has thought of then the question at the end. Wether or not the devs give a responce to the Info before the question, in larger text and bold, is not important but saying that no questions were stated is a lie and means you didn't read anything and said oh wall of text tldr version pls

The main question was asked at the end being clearly stated, the stuff before if is just backround information that gives context into our questions giving them more merit and showing the devs where we are coming from and possible ideas that the community has thought of then the question at the end. Wether or not the devs give a responce to the Info before the question, in larger text and bold, is not important

Whether or not there was a TL;DR bolded question at the end, the rest of the wall of text was attempting to throw in multiple questions into a single question.

but saying that no questions were stated is a lie

Good thing he didn't say that then, I guess.

and means you didn't read anything and said oh wall of text tldr version pls

Since you seem to be unable to actually read his post, still, even after I've quoted you the important parts, leads me to believe that you are just projecting with this part.

Whether or not there was a TL;DR bolded question at the end, the rest of the wall of text was attempting to throw in multiple questions into a single question.

 

 

Good thing he didn't say that then, I guess.

 

 

Since you seem to be unable to actually read his post, still, even after I've quoted you the important parts, leads me to believe that you are just projecting with this part.

1. Then don't read the wall of text and just talk about the bolded question but you shouldn't discredit all the information said before, you can read and think about it for the next xpac or major patch, but make no formal response to that but to the clear bolded question at the end.

2. Let me slightly rephrase my self slightly because I did not say it correctly the first time so allow me to clarify. To say that no clearly stated question was made is incorrect because it is there it only requires reading through everything.

3. I did read it and I was going with the assumption that all present on the dev team was able to read in English at a middle school level, because of this I thought they would be able to differentiate the pre-info from an actual question. Was I wrong to assume this? Am I wrong to think that someone should be able to see the main question being asked which was made in a distinguishable font and size? Or was my first mistake to think that separating the question from background information in such a way was sufficient and we should have made a heading in large font saying "Question" after each part of the post?

Whether or not there was a TL;DR bolded question at the end, the rest of the wall of text was attempting to throw in multiple questions into a single question.

 

 

Good thing he didn't say that then, I guess.

 

 

Since you seem to be unable to actually read his post, still, even after I've quoted you the important parts, leads me to believe that you are just projecting with this part.

Let me try to explain his point for you seeing as simplifying already simple things seems to be my job today.

The point he's making is quite straight forward if you attempt to see it from his perspective rather than insist on yours. Musco said that THE QUESTIONS needed to be simplified. I don't not simplify the question at all, all I did was remove the community generated cause / effect that led to the questions themselves being selected. If you read the questions he took versus the original questions there is little to no difference in the two sets.

When I set out to write these questions my personal objective was very clear. I would write a question that was open yet based around a critical points, I would show the factors that led me to selecting this points and I would also come with potential solutions to them. The preface to the question did not contain other questions (you can argue the third one did but they were rhetorical in nature rather than probing) it simply served to educate the reader on the objective reality of playing an operative at the moment.

From Musco's response it's perfectly clear that what they really want the class rep to do is say "oh thanks bioware, your game is great I especially love all the new things coming soon! Could you guys please tell me why you think you're doing a good job and don't worry, no one here is going to criticise you because you're doing so great!". I firmly believe that if you want change you have to do something about it, that's why I wanted to do these questions, that's why I spent the time speaking with guilds and ranked teams from all over the world and that's why I tried to get input from as many sources as I possibly could. I did this to try and create a positive change to this class via the official medium bioware has given us.

Turns out I was right to begin with and this is simply another way for them to pat each other on the back and pretend that everything is fine. This is lip service and nothing more. I fully expect the answers to be as follows:

1 PvE: We listened to all you guys and we've decided to buff your survivibility! We feel these changes will be enough to get you in to a raid spot so we wont be looking to add anything else in the foreseeable future but don't worry! We pay close attention to all over our metrics and we'll do everything we can to balance the classes.

2 PvP: We believe that operatives are viable in ranked arena, in fact they make up a large number of the top players in the world. With these new changes other specs will become more prevalent and you can look forward to more exciting pvp content in 2019. We don't want to commit to any promises because we want to see how these changes play out first of all but don't worry! We pay close attention to all over our metrics and we'll do everything we can to balance the classes.

3 Wildcard: We're constantly working on bug fixes and we'll be sure to look in to these particular ones you mentioned. Set bonuses are only there to give flavour to a class rather than provide a substantial benefit but don't worry! We pay close attention to all over our metrics and we'll do everything we can to balance the classes.

From Musco's response it's perfectly clear that what they really want the class rep to do is say "oh thanks bioware, your game is great I especially love all the new things coming soon! Could you guys please tell me why you think you're doing a good job and don't worry, no one here is going to criticise you because you're doing so great!". I firmly believe that if you want change you have to do something about it, that's why I wanted to do these questions, that's why I spent the time speaking with guilds and ranked teams from all over the world and that's why I tried to get input from as many sources as I possibly could. I did this to try and create a positive change to this class via the official medium bioware has given us.

I wouldn't get too discouraged. As someone who was a class rep of two different specs in the first round of questions, I didn't feel like our responses were in any way indicative of the dev team just wanting a "pat on the back". We got real changes to address legitimately serious problems in both classes, and while the changes were not necessarily completely to our liking, the devs did listen.

The questions as they stand do cover some important issues. I'm really worried about the wildcard question though, given how much…stuff…is in there. But what's done is done, and it's clear that you put in a ton of work and effort into this (for which we're all grateful).

Let me try to explain his point for you seeing as simplifying already simple things seems to be my job today.

 

The point he's making is quite straight forward if you attempt to see it from his perspective rather than insist on yours. Musco said that THE QUESTIONS needed to be simplified. I don't not simplify the question at all, all I did was remove the community generated cause / effect that led to the questions themselves being selected. If you read the questions he took versus the original questions there is little to no difference in the two sets.

 

When I set out to write these questions my personal objective was very clear. I would write a question that was open yet based around a critical points, I would show the factors that led me to selecting this points and I would also come with potential solutions to them. The preface to the question did not contain other questions (you can argue the third one did but they were rhetorical in nature rather than probing) it simply served to educate the reader on the objective reality of playing an operative at the moment.

 

From Musco's response it's perfectly clear that what they really want the class rep to do is say "oh thanks bioware, your game is great I especially love all the new things coming soon! Could you guys please tell me why you think you're doing a good job and don't worry, no one here is going to criticise you because you're doing so great!". I firmly believe that if you want change you have to do something about it, that's why I wanted to do these questions, that's why I spent the time speaking with guilds and ranked teams from all over the world and that's why I tried to get input from as many sources as I possibly could. I did this to try and create a positive change to this class via the official medium bioware has given us.

 

Turns out I was right to begin with and this is simply another way for them to pat each other on the back and pretend that everything is fine. This is lip service and nothing more. I fully expect the answers to be as follows:

 

1 PvE: We listened to all you guys and we've decided to buff your survivibility! We feel these changes will be enough to get you in to a raid spot so we wont be looking to add anything else in the foreseeable future but don't worry! We pay close attention to all over our metrics and we'll do everything we can to balance the classes.

 

2 PvP: We believe that operatives are viable in ranked arena, in fact they make up a large number of the top players in the world. With these new changes other specs will become more prevalent and you can look forward to more exciting pvp content in 2019. We don't want to commit to any promises because we want to see how these changes play out first of all but don't worry! We pay close attention to all over our metrics and we'll do everything we can to balance the classes.

 

3 Wildcard: We're constantly working on bug fixes and we'll be sure to look in to these particular ones you mentioned. Set bonuses are only there to give flavour to a class rather than provide a substantial benefit but don't worry! We pay close attention to all over our metrics and we'll do everything we can to balance the classes.

This, and thank you snave, not only for explaining my self in a more objective and less frusterated view and for everything youve done for our community.

The thing that i was pissed at was how eric didnt seem to read the whole post because he said that we had too many questions, when there werent really any questions said in the context, just that context. when snave reposted what he said at the very end of each segment Eric said that those were what he wanted, even though they were already there so it seemed like he didnt read anything. Lastly the fact that we are not the only class to give contextual information and player opinions, but we are the only ones being called out on it, granted that we had a very large amount of context and player opinion do to how our community feels BW has treated us.

I wouldn't get too discouraged. As someone who was a class rep of two different specs in the first round of questions, I didn't feel like our responses were in any way indicative of the dev team just wanting a "pat on the back". We got real changes to address legitimately serious problems in both classes, and while the changes were not necessarily completely to our liking, the devs did listen.

 

The questions as they stand do cover some important issues. I'm really worried about the wildcard question though, given how much…stuff…is in there. But what's done is done, and it's clear that you put in a ton of work and effort into this (for which we're all grateful).

KBN whats wrong with showing them the issues that we see as improvements to our QoL? Its impossible to make everyone in our community happy(how ever small it may be) we saw it fit to let them know all those things that we see as frusterating and little nuisances so that everyone's thoughts could be heard and that way BW would know atleast the things that we see as frusterating so in a serires of patches they may impliment the changes more organically instead of all in one patch or get one thing fixed per round of class questions or PT servers. I speak only for my self when i say i would rather let someone know all my problems out right so they can go to work to try and fix them, not tell them one problem at a time and hope that they fix them, because especially in a video game we arent the only ones on their plate and if we ask for the "wrong" QoL change they may not give it to use where as if we show them multiple ones that we could use they can pick and chose slowly how to fix it. As a bonus too if they were planing to do something to our class in the next patch that they didnt tell us about and we brought it up here it would seem like theyre listening to us more than they actually are and make their image look better.

KBN whats wrong with showing them the issues that we see as improvements to our QoL? Its impossible to make everyone in our community happy(how ever small it may be) we saw it fit to let them know all those things that we see as frusterating and little nuisances so that everyone's thoughts could be heard and that way BW would know atleast the things that we see as frusterating so in a serires of patches they may impliment the changes more organically instead of all in one patch or get one thing fixed per round of class questions or PT servers. I speak only for my self when i say i would rather let someone know all my problems out right so they can go to work to try and fix them, not tell them one problem at a time and hope that they fix them, because especially in a video game we arent the only ones on their plate and if we ask for the "wrong" QoL change they may not give it to use where as if we show them multiple ones that we could use they can pick and chose slowly how to fix it. As a bonus too if they were planing to do something to our class in the next patch that they didnt tell us about and we brought it up here it would seem like theyre listening to us more than they actually are and make their image look better.

They asked for three questions. They did this because they want to avoid allocating an enormous amount of time to sifting through and responding to every last thing. Three. That is a far cry from "all".

Nothing is accomplished by annoying those who we want to answer our questions. Having to sift through a giant wall of text to ferret out the ultimate point is very time consuming and can lead to severe miscommunication issues. The Vanguard class rep questions were awful. Really, really awful. The answers were pretty bad too, but honestly I can't blame the devs. I don't think I would have been able to come up with better answers myself, simply because I'm not sure I could have done a better job of understanding the questions!

Simple, concise, to the point. Trim off all the fat. The developers aren't idiots. While they do miss some very obvious things sometimes (such as the incredibly long-standing "body invisible and/or relocated to anyone freshly zoning into an instance" bug), they are generally aware of what's going down in the class balance area. The purpose of the class rep program is to take the developer's list of "all 80 things that are suboptimal or wrong with operatives" and move three of those things to the top of the pile. The secondary purpose is to allow the community to get some explanations on the reasoning behind certain design tradeoffs.

None of the above is accomplished by throwing an enormous "ask all the things" question. It doesn't prioritize. It isn't clear, and therefore does not facilitate pointed explanation. It's just…venting.

Not that I'm criticizing snave in any way. I have an enormous amount of respect for anyone who is willing to take on the burden of being a class rep, especially given that at least half the community will hate you by the time it's done. What I'm trying to illustrate is the purpose of the class rep program and why it is that Eric asked for the questions to be trimmed.

They asked for three questions. They did this because they want to avoid allocating an enormous amount of time to sifting through and responding to every last thing. Three. That is a far cry from "all".

 

Nothing is accomplished by annoying those who we want to answer our questions. Having to sift through a giant wall of text to ferret out the ultimate point is very time consuming and can lead to severe miscommunication issues. The Vanguard class rep questions were awful. Really, really awful. The answers were pretty bad too, but honestly I can't blame the devs. I don't think I would have been able to come up with better answers myself, simply because I'm not sure I could have done a better job of understanding the questions!

 

Simple, concise, to the point. Trim off all the fat. The developers aren't idiots. While they do miss some very obvious things sometimes (such as the incredibly long-standing "body invisible and/or relocated to anyone freshly zoning into an instance" bug), they are generally aware of what's going down in the class balance area. The purpose of the class rep program is to take the developer's list of "all 80 things that are suboptimal or wrong with operatives" and move three of those things to the top of the pile. The secondary purpose is to allow the community to get some explanations on the reasoning behind certain design tradeoffs.

 

None of the above is accomplished by throwing an enormous "ask all the things" question. It doesn't prioritize. It isn't clear, and therefore does not facilitate pointed explanation. It's just…venting.

 

Not that I'm criticizing snave in any way. I have an enormous amount of respect for anyone who is willing to take on the burden of being a class rep, especially given that at least half the community will hate you by the time it's done. What I'm trying to illustrate is the purpose of the class rep program and why it is that Eric asked for the questions to be trimmed.

the thing is is that the giant wall of text for the first 2 segments were all fact justification and explanation of our situation while some could be trimmed off alot was needed to accurately portray our classes situation, and in no way are you dissing snave youre just stating an opinion

Let me try to explain his point for you seeing as simplifying already simple things seems to be my job today.

 

The point he's making is quite straight forward if you attempt to see it from his perspective rather than insist on yours. Musco said that THE QUESTIONS needed to be simplified. I don't not simplify the question at all, all I did was remove the community generated cause / effect that led to the questions themselves being selected. If you read the questions he took versus the original questions there is little to no difference in the two sets.

 

When I set out to write these questions my personal objective was very clear. I would write a question that was open yet based around a critical points, I would show the factors that led me to selecting this points and I would also come with potential solutions to them. The preface to the question did not contain other questions (you can argue the third one did but they were rhetorical in nature rather than probing) it simply served to educate the reader on the objective reality of playing an operative at the moment.

I won't go over the first two, but I have to say that the original form of the 3rd question was pretty much 10 questions with a wrapper around it saying "answer the above". I get that you have a lot of stuff you want fixed, but putting a list of questions inside your question doesn't really make it not a list of questions.

Also, it was your choice to remove everything except for the end. It's very possible that you could have simplified your questions in a way that retained much of the context while still sufficiently simplifying it to their/his satisfaction.

From Musco's response it's perfectly clear that what they really want the class rep to do is say "oh thanks bioware, your game is great I especially love all the new things coming soon! Could you guys please tell me why you think you're doing a good job and don't worry, no one here is going to criticise you because you're doing so great!". I firmly believe that if you want change you have to do something about it, that's why I wanted to do these questions, that's why I spent the time speaking with guilds and ranked teams from all over the world and that's why I tried to get input from as many sources as I possibly could. I did this to try and create a positive change to this class via the official medium bioware has given us.

 

Turns out I was right to begin with and this is simply another way for them to pat each other on the back and pretend that everything is fine. This is lip service and nothing more.

The point he's making is quite straight forward if you attempt to see it from his perspective rather than insist on yours. He said: "Part of the issue though in having all of that information is that each question then becomes multiple questions rolled into one." and "Please try to simplify the questions so that they are a bit more simplified and singular." Each question had a lot of information with a final summarized question at the bottom, and to properly address them they would end up basically having to answer a lot of the separate sections brought up in the rest of the question. While not bad in itself, it just adds to what they need to respond to. So, he asked you to simplify it.

How that equates to "we're only looking for a pat on the back" completely eludes me.

 

Not that I'm criticizing snave in any way. I have an enormous amount of respect for anyone who is willing to take on the burden of being a class rep, especially given that at least half the community will hate you by the time it's done. What I'm trying to illustrate is the purpose of the class rep program and why it is that Eric asked for the questions to be trimmed.

Don't worry I'm not taking offense to any posts that may be unhappy about the questions asked , this thread was open for a long time and if people wanted to address the questions they had ample chance to raise their concern .

One thing I want to address quickly again Is the trimming of the questions . Read the questions, they weren't trimmed . The context was trimmed, the potential fixes we're trimmed and the objective feedback from guilds / ranked teams we're trimmed. Questions remain the same .

A large part of my professional job Is problem solving and I can assure you when collecting data and gathering opinion It's almost pointless to do so without context to provide an objective foundation to build upon. Under the original format all opinions, problems, solutions and evidence was laid out, if I was trying to understand a situation and someone gave me all of that I'd more than likely have a full solution for the issues mapped out by the end of the day assuming the sources were trustworthy.

Just to reiterate before someone else says it, the questions were not trimmed, They are the same.

the thing is is that the giant wall of text for the first 2 segments were all fact justification and explanation of our situation while some could be trimmed off alot was needed to accurately portray our classes situation, and in no way are you dissing snave youre just stating an opinion

If you start with the assumption that the developers already know the situation, do you still need the justification?

Don't worry I'm not taking offense to any posts that may be unhappy about the questions asked , this thread was open for a long time and if people wanted to address the questions they had ample chance to raise their concern .

 

One thing I want to address quickly again Is the trimming of the questions . Read the questions, they weren't trimmed . The context was trimmed, the potential fixes we're trimmed and the objective feedback from guilds / ranked teams we're trimmed. Questions remain the same .

 

A large part of my professional job Is problem solving and I can assure you when collecting data and gathering opinion It's almost pointless to do so without context to provide an objective foundation to build upon. Under the original format all opinions, problems, solutions and evidence was laid out, if I was trying to understand a situation and someone gave me all of that I'd more than likely have a full solution for the issues mapped out by the end of the day assuming the sources were trustworthy.

 

Just to reiterate before someone else says it, the questions were not trimmed, They are the same.

You think they only gather information on the state of the class from your post? They have plenty of context, some of it from the very thread(s) you've used to gather the information you yourself posted.

If you want to assert that the only part that was the question was the end, then the rest did not matter to begin with, and was rightfully removed. Truthfully though, all of what you originally wrote for each question was a part of the question, the end was just the summary.