EvilGeko

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My wife has problems with the Ranged shot issue. It happens when targeting drone is on. Causes the draw animation to happen 2x, there by slowing the attack and wasting some of her Aim.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be fixed on the Training Room server currently. Give it a shot and let me know if it's still a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle! Somebody throw a caltrops!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, your Grandfather was right; if you are not willing to do it right then you should not even try. But then who is to say what is right or not in CoX.

[/ QUOTE ]

The devs point at the target, and the devs voluntarily fire. They do not get to say, afterwards, that the target was not in the right place to intercept the shot.

You can argue that they should not be held to my standards, but they should at least be held to theirs. They reduced the damage of thunder kick by 16% because it didn't fit a formula that is provably irrelevant to balance in the first place, just because its the formula they happened to use to design the powers originally. In other words, their excuse for nerfing a power isn't that it was unbalanced, or made MA too good, or because it was typographically wrong. It was changed because it didn't fit a formula, period. By sixteen percent.

If they can tell me that is reasonable, their "mathematical precision" cover is blown: they have no right with me to suggest that other numbers cannot be balanced based on other, much more legitimate, balancing equations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahem....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if you care at all, you should care enough to get it right. If the devs don't care about balance, they shouldn't shove balance in my face when they talk about changes. If they do care about balance, then the things they care about should actually balance.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're really going to have to open yourself up to the possibility that devs (not just our devs, devs in general) are full of poo sometimes!

[/ QUOTE ]

And with that, screw you guys...I'm going home.

(If anyone thinks I insulted them, watch more South Park).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
..You make this stuff too hard sometimes Arcana. I know you enjoy it and the intellectual exercise it presents, but The_Gamemaster could trivially fix this problem. Maybe it won't be perfect, but cripes we don't need perfect...

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed that for you...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good thing I'm insufferably arrogant. I wouldn't survive around here for long otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
My Grandpa always said that. And he was a retired Green Beret major.

"If you're going to do something at all, then do it right."

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on what the definition of 'right' is.

Not to mention what you mean by 'it'.

[ QUOTE ]
But if you care at all, you should care enough to get it right. If the devs don't care about balance, they shouldn't shove balance in my face when they talk about changes. If they do care about balance, then the things they care about should actually balance.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're really going to have to open yourself up to the possibility that devs (not just our devs, devs in general) are full of poo sometimes!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You make this stuff too hard sometimes Arcana. I know you enjoy it and the intellectual exercise it presents, but any good former Dungeon or Game Master could fix this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I didn't care what anyone else, including the devs or you, thought, I could fix the MoG problem in six seconds. I could fix the tohit problem in six minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

On my way to my 2 pm meeting I was thinking of something I wanted to share with you.

A couple of years ago, I was playing Everquest Online Adventures and like here, I was an arrogant loudmouth on the boards. I used to rail against the mistreatment of my beloved druid class to no end. Long math filled posts, nothing as involved as what you did, but they were right.

Bordael (Lighthouse) just shut me down on one post with this little quip:

"Does everything have to be so mathematically precise after all?"

I was like WTH. Yes, danmit. Whole darn game was based on numbers after all. Well, I mulled over that for awhile and realized that at base he was kinda right. And I kinda calmed down. That's stayed with me in my two current MMOs.

Ironically, about a year after I left the game they wound up doing every single thing I proposed. Bastids. Which is why I still root for you Arcana!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Extra credit if you can give us some idea about MoG.

[/ QUOTE ]
"It's a tier 9, and will still root for 1.5 seconds. Performing as expected."

Seriously, the power's designed to be situational, and actually mean it unlike the other seven powers in the set. It works well in those situations, particularly since most of us don't particularly enjoy wasting half a tray of lucks every six minutes, nevermind how many blues you'd have to pop to make up for that aspect of the power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, it was just an inside joke with Castle as stated to be such. Jeez.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MoG is broken. There simply shouldn't be powers like MoG in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the same statement is essentially true for all defense powers in the presence of tohit buffs, which is why I advocate fixing that situation and them in the process, and not simply adding alternative protection mechanisms into sets that experience the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you click a defense power or toggle it on. You're not worse off defensively just because that guy over there has FA. Now it might not be fair that the guy has FA and perhaps we need to give you something for that.

[ QUOTE ]
For me, saying "defense is a lost cause: SR should just get other stuff and call it a day" is no different than saying "MoG is a lost cause, be thankful you get instant healing ten levels earlier than everyone else gets such a powerful power and call it even."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think defense is a lost cause, I think it's far harder to fix it than to just give SR something else. Fixing to-hit buffs would tick a whole lot of people off. And it would take more work than just giving SR Dull Pain.

You make this stuff too hard sometimes Arcana. I know you enjoy it and the intellectual exercise it presents, but any good former Dungeon or Game Master could fix this problem. Maybe it won't be perfect, but cripes we don't need perfect.

I don't want MoG to be changed in a way that makes Regen much better. I would prefer that it be changed as part of a reexamination of the set. I know many don't agree with that. That's cool. But I can still dream.

Cool.

Hey Castle, how about a typical Castle non-committal but still more information than we had before answer to the following question:

When do you expect I9 to be on test?

To avoid the answer 'soon(tm)' I'll make it multiple choice with the following disclaimer: You answer is assumed to be only an estimate and assumes that everything goes perfectly, a meteor doesn't fall on Positron and no one at Cryptic or NCSoft gets food poisoning from eating old pizza and mountain dew.

A - Within the next month
B - 1-2 months
C - 2-4 months
D - Soon(tm) as the term is used by Cryptic.

Extra credit if you can give us some idea about MoG.

EDIT: While I would love an answer to either question, I'm really just busting your chops for pure amusement value and hope you don't get annoyed as it was not my intention.

[ QUOTE ]
wait wait wat so your telling me THE best scrapper secondary, and the only one to get an auto power better than stamina, and the only one to get a god like mode at 28 should also get the same priveledge as all the other lackluster sets that get a true god mode?????

how about dark??

jeebus you regens are so pissed about your previous nerfs your blind that this will never change because it IS balanced. instant healing works fine as a semi god mode, and with all of regens other redeeming qualities IMO it doesnt even deserve MoG it should have the rez as the tier 9 and some other auto similar to resilience but +def instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read the first post to the end.

By the way, a +def auto would be great. I don't even disagree that a rez makes sense for Regen as it's ultimate power. I don't disagree that IH is our godmode. All this stuff has been vetted before.

But I will take one issue. "Deserve" is meaningless in this discussion. Regen is as popular as it is because of QR. Take QR out and you would see a whole lot less Regen although Regen's protective qualities wouldn't be any weaker.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand, EG, I really do.

But you understand what I'm saying, too, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. But you have to understand, that I just want MoG not to be broken. It could still suck. An extra build up with a heal attached would make me happy as a clam.

[ QUOTE ]
EG,

I've honestly never understood your drive to get MOG fixed. You know these devs and their ways as well and more so than most of us.

You know that if they fix MOG, then IH, FH and QR will probably be "adjusted" accordingly.

Look at SR and Inv as examples, and I've stated this before, a good tier9 means crappy performance without the tier9.

I do wish you luck in this crusade, but don't be shocked if you get what you want coupled with getting a whole lot of what you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

MoG is broken. There simply shouldn't be powers like MoG in the game. Revive is not worth the slot IMO, but it's not broken. It does exactly what it says it does. Resilience isn't necessarily worth it's slot. But it's not broken.

That's why I care about MoG. MoG needs to be scrapped in its current form and brought back into the set in a fashion that's reasonable.

Hell, if they just turned it into a self-Fortitude without the defense I'd be cool with that, but then I'd have to hear more complaining about to-hit buffs.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I can't possibly know that out of the blue, nerd! :P



[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you have permission, you are expected to accept the word of EvilGeko as revealed truth on matters of Regen.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*bump forever*

If this doesn't stay right under the stickies, then your job becomes clear.

Bump it until a Dev responds. Ridiculous that they have yet to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

They've responded to both me and Stupid Fanboy and probably others.

Short version: No approval to change MoG. No further updates. Keep the faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I did a double check by "Threading" the thread, and noticed no red names.

[/ QUOTE ]

About every three months or so, the extreme idiocy that is MoG wears on me and I rant to Castle in PM and get the same answer. I will not share exactly what he told me, because it's a PM. But the short version I posted has all the salient points.

[ QUOTE ]
*bump forever*

If this doesn't stay right under the stickies, then your job becomes clear.

Bump it until a Dev responds. Ridiculous that they have yet to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

They've responded to both me and Stupid Fanboy and probably others.

Short version: No approval to change MoG. No further updates. Keep the faith.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But isn't that three more brain cells than is needed to turn on your defense toggles and click Elude when you want to own?

[/ QUOTE ]

The blue bar under the green bar. Most of us have to watch that one, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have to watch it. That long blue line is very relaxing and zen.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't know that, because I don't disagree. In fact, you'll see statements precisely to that fact for both Regen and DA in my scrapper secondary comparisons, with specific warnings about making a difference between knowing what the performance actually is (which the analysis shows), and what the desired performance actually should be, which is a separate issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm about to start playing soon, but the last time I made that argument, you got all mean and told me Regen was super easy to play. I'm dealing with the emotional fallout of that with my counselor still.

[ QUOTE ]
The question, though, is how much better. For the cost of having to have three brain cells wired together in the right way to click a button, regen gets about twice the performance under ordinary conditions. For most players, those three brain cells are probably not a very high cost relative to the return, provided the average player doesn't play extremely intoxicated.


[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't that three more brain cells than is needed to turn on your defense toggles and click Elude when you want to own? Perhaps three brain cells is worth three times the performance? If that's the case, then in fact, as I've said before, Regen is underperforming.

BUFF REGEN!

[ QUOTE ]

And that is why datamining for performance is, in my opinion, a bad idea. Data mining behaviors to find out behaviors makes sense. Data mining performance intertwines two separate components of performance - power strength and player tactics - that should never be balanced together, almost always addressed separately.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think your idea ignores the possibility that the maximum potential of one powerset might be harder to obtain than the maximum potential of another powerset.

Now I know you disagree, but I think it's perfectly appropriate that Regen has more potential protective ability than SR since you have to decide when to use it. Your models just predict the ultimate potential of both sets, without determining if on the whole regen players are actually achieving that potential.

It seems to me that you need to look at the datamining to determine if, in practice, Regen and DA are outperforming SR 'on the street'. Because it they are not, then SR doesn't need a buff even if its theorhetical performance is weaker.

I shall now run since I have committed a foul sin and Arcana will now try to smite me.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no way to look at a bunch of numbers and equations and predict, lets say, superjump jousting in PvP. But it *is* eminantly predictable that regeneration scrappers and stalkers would try hard to create a jousting strategy, because the mechanics of regeneration so highly favor it. That might have been useful information to a game designer, if there was someone around willing and able to tell them that, and they were willing to listen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can buy that.

[ QUOTE ]
There are limits to what the mathematical models can do. But I don't think most people are informed about what those limits are. They presume there is a limit, and assume its somewhere near what they themselves believe they are capable of. Its actually probably several orders of magnitude higher than you are estimating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually believe that mathematical models are capable of mostly balancing a game like this (except for the 'fairness' situations I describe above), but I've played enough of these games to know that there are some strategies that people come up with that are so specific and that depend on so many interdependent factors that I simply don't believe you can ever just use the math. I think there's a level of creativity and ingenuity inherent in this stuff that cannot be captured except by the most complex of systems.

[ QUOTE ]
To the extent that mathematical models might fail to take certain things into account, in this particular game those things aren't balanced anyway. I cannot think of one thing *actually* balanced in this game, that could not have been with reasonable mathematical design.


[/ QUOTE ]

My comments specifically related to EQ which in many ways was more complex than CoX.

[ QUOTE ]
The whole point to balancing around potential instead of actual performance is that I really don't care if the design happens to create an unforseen and unpredictable circumstance like that described, because if the unforseen circumstance is tolerable, the sets don't need to change, and if its intolerable, the circumstance gets eliminated. But in no case is it "balanced" around: that's the whole point.


[/ QUOTE ]

So how do you 'eliminate the circumstance'? I don't see how that's materially different that 'balancing'.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'm not an EQ player, but what I can say is that its not true that "math there didn't tell the entire story." Whatever you can do with weird kiting strategies is no more than the maximum you are calculated as being able to do. *Most* people do *less*, but no amount of kiting can allow you to do more. Which, if you balance around the philosophy of balancing around potential, and not actual performance, is not a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where math fails you Arcana. Kiting as druids did(do) it in EQ is not something that simply looking at the druid class you could determine by plugging it into a formula. It's not. Kiting relied on the interaction of various powers and how certain mobs were designed and how certain zones were designed. It's probably possible to design such a model, but I really don't think it's as easy as you state it is.

It also relied on the behavior and skill of players. Players would quad kite instead of playing the game as designed. They would find the best place to do so and then do that to level. Kiting as it was done simply wasn't possible everywhere you did it.

So you tell me, how do you account for that? How do you account for a situation where a number of variables, none of which are problematic in isolation, combine to create a problematic situation?

[ QUOTE ]
Among other reasons, that is why we tend to look at things on a macro level, and even then deciding how, when, and how much to adjust things is difficult. It allows us to see whether or not how players are using the characters makes them 'balanced' or not. Obviously, there are problems with that practice, and I am constantly working at improving how we look at powers and powersets. A large part of that process is talking to you folks to see how you are looking at things.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that this practice doesn't allow you to capture things that are 'unfair' but not necessarily 'imbalanced'.

For example, Consume from the Fire Aura set versus Energy Absorbtion, Energy Drain and Power Sink. All those powers are significantly stronger than Consume despite being in melee armor sets. None of them besides Energy Absorbtion should have a really significant impact on survivability. Those are utility abilities. But then it's simply unfair to leave Fire Aura with an inadequate drain for no reason other than Fire Aura users seem to do OK without it.

I got the same beef with how Regen is designed and how it was changed. Regen used to be a set that was principally toggle based in its protection and then it was changed to be primarily click based. No one doubts that it's still an extremely powerful defensive set, but it appear that Regen got a big 'Screw You' you're still uber from the devs. Players who enjoyed how their set played are told to shut up since you're still good with no redress except alts.

As for Blasters and Defiance, again, Blasters might be 'fine' on a macro level, but that still doesn't mean that Defiance is a fun mechanic. I certainly believe Arcana's conclusions, but that still doesn't mean that it's fair or fun for Blaster to have an inherent that unusable if you know how to play.

I originally created my Ice/Energy because I believed that the controls and single target focus would provide a strong amount of soft protection. I was right. I rarely see much effect from Defiance.

I think Arcanaville depends on her math too much, and I think you guys depend on your math too much. But at least her math is fair. That's what I think it missing all too often from the balancing changes.

Before you start on Vigilance, if you really wanted to start something, do an analysis of which of the Defender primaries offer the most protection to a team.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm extremely disappointed that an image of Statesman would be used in such a way. I know that we designed City of Heroes to appeal to "children of all ages." My proudest accomplishment with the game is that many parents (including my brother) play with their children...sharing, I hope, the same joy for the comic book world that I've had ever since I was 8. I cannot express the shock that I felt seeing that a character created by Cryptic would be used in the same sentence as Columbine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, dude. When Statesman does stuff like this:

You and Positron beating down a fool [me]!

What do you expect?!



J/K. Ignore nonsense, States. As guys like us [30-somethings who grew up on games] move into positions of power and influence, video games will be seen as just another form of entertainment.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MoG kicks [censored] if you -KNOW- how to use it. I have a 40 MA/regen scrapper, and MoG has -never- failed me. Noticing that it has failed a -50- tells me that the -50- doesnt know how to use it.

End of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've only had it for two levels. Noticing how small your relative samples size is shows me that you really don't have enough experience with the power to tell anybody else how to use it.

End of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you, SF and Darkblade are being unfair. I mean, this poster has had MoG for two levels where he fought the Council, Freaks, Nemesis, and CoT. That's a lot of meaningful experience. I've only had MoG for two YEARS and tested it against nearly every villain group...what the [naughty word for coitus] do I know?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i need to start writing on more controversial topics. the most I've ever gotten in reply to a topic or guide I've made is when Castle replied and people flooded into ask him stuff.



[/ QUOTE ]

Never be afraid to be vilified my friend.

The EVILGEKO is loved, hated and feared...and that's just by me and Arcanaville. I don't know what the rest of you lot think!

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I'm afraid that I love to hate him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get all uppity!