Pilcrow

Very thoughtful post. Some comments

[ QUOTE ]
1. Allow the team leader to exclude team members from XP calculations, setting them to "non-combatant" or something. The team member should obviously be informed in some easily noticeable way. To be clear on this before people point out exploits, I just mean in terms of dividing it up based on range. This should not work for characters who are outside acceptable level ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can already do this by kicking them from the team and then reinviting them. If you enable this capability within a team, peopel could bridge AND the PLers could give the bridge no XP to boot. That would make PLing better!

I get why you want this, but this is worse than the status quo. I would like to see team leaders get a "kick with prejudice" and "kick without prejudice" so that when you kick without prejudice the kicked one can type /rejoin and rejoin the team without needing a second invite. That would help a lot with the administration end of this new set of rules.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Allow teams to split up in some officially recognized way. Maybe let the leader assign players to a secondary group, and then apply these rules to each group seperately as if they were still the same group. If the two groups end up fighting within range of each other, I suppose it would be good to apply the rule across the whole team in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they can do this within mission. I think for the effort of making this happen they could instead impement a timer on contributing to the team, which would solve more problems than just this one. Nevertheless, there's someinteresting thoughts here, maybe they could apply the new SG coalition stuff to teams.

[ QUOTE ]
Well wow has 5 times the amouunt or more people playing it over COH so some may disagree well about 500k to coh's peak of around 100k subs hum Time sink or not WOW is king of the hill. I had no desire to to it myself and I am not saying COH is all bad either it is a good solid game that is my view it is all subjective anways

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair this game peaked at 180K, fell to about 100K, and is back up to around 130K.

And for people who like the SuperHero Genre, or simply do not like fantasy.sci-fi, there is no comparable game on the market. Period.

We don't justify bad implementations by citing worse ones. As this is a change to the current system of XP, I intend to compare it to the current XP system - not an XP system some other brain-dead MMO created.

The good news is that the devs are listening and revising the idea. The bad news is that even in its best implementation this hurts "legit" players as much or more than PLers. The improvement is that they've decided to let PLers PL in missions so that legit players aren't hurt by this implementation when in missions. That makes it a less bad solution, not a good one. But it also demonstrates that the Dev team is good enough to care more about gameplay than lost development time.

I hope that their next attempt at curbing PLing will have fewer side-effects than this one. I applaud them for deciding that support "legit" play is more important than quashing a form of PLing. I look forward to testing this to see if the effect on my gameplay is minimal.

I'm not about to count myself lucky because the Devs don't emulate stupidity found in other MMOs. They get my money every month because they aren't other MMOs.

I do count myself lucky that the dev team listens, cares and thinks.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are close enough to hold the mob, you're within 300 feet and will get your XP share, why the need for 0.01 dmg?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you might not STILL be in the 300' range when the MOB dies. Is 1/100th of a damage pip such a big concession to give to support ATs in light of this change? How could that possibly have any effect in a battle OTHER than making sure the support AT gets credit for MOBs he truly helped the team kill?

[/ QUOTE ]
How? Because any damage you do to a sleeping target will wake them up. 'Sleep the target, apply debuffs, everyone line up Alpha strikes, and *zorch*' can be a viable tactic against some targets... but if you make holds and debuffs do damage, you've just shafted that tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I didn't answer that concern 100 posts ago.

[ QUOTE ]
Except you and I disagree in one thing. The side effects. I believe them to actually be POSITIVE, thus even more of a net gain for the Light Side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you seem to be in the minority on that one. But enjoy your viagra/aspirin.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say a stranger dangles a $1000 dollar bill in your face.

Now he does it to twenty other people.

Most of you are going to beat him up and run off with the cash.

Removing blatant temptations allows for a better game. Want proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I agree with the notion that removing temptations is good, if you make sure the way you remove them is less eggegious than leaving them out there.

For example, you could increase the enforcement of the mugging laws. That one only hurts the people who actually give into temptation. A pure positive.

Or you could make it illegal to display $1,000 bills in public. Which hurts the displayer a little, but decreases the temptation. A net positive.

Or you could make paper money illegal and force people to pay for everything with coins, checks and credit cards. A solution with more negative than positive.

The problem with this solution is not that it removes a temptation, but the way it does so, and the side-effects it produces.

[ QUOTE ]
I never gave a definition, like you. There's no simple way to sum up powerleveling that takes into account every last instance of it. You assume too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a quote directly from your post: "it's powerleveling because you're taking advantage (read:exploiting) of the game mechanics to get an overall increase in your experience."

If you want to try a different definition that you think works, I'd be glad to hear it. Until then, I can only judge based on what you've already posted. You concede it's not Statesman's definiition of PLing. If it's a fair definition, I'm sure people will rally around it and tell me my definition is wrong. But without a definition it's just PLing because you or I or personX says it is.

If you want to label stuff outside States' definition as PLing, it's only fair to define what you mean by PLing for the rest of us.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm impressed. The changes haven't even made it to Test and it's the WORSE THING TO HAVE EVER HAPPENED.

I'm not saying people don't have a right to complain about changes they haven't played with yet. I'm just saying more people will listen to you when you start a complaint with -"So I was playing on Test with the new exp changes and such-and-such happened."

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the previous thread. Many did.

Also, I don't need to actually drive to know that the removal of streetlamps and a law making it illegal to use headlights might have some negative consequences, especially for those who drive at night. If I can see those before I even try it, I don't feel bad sharing those thoughts before I try it.

[ QUOTE ]
JuppaCo, I know why Statesman issued these changes. I know what form of powerleveling it was meant to kill. However, this is still yet another form of powerleveling now stopped by the same change, possibly as attrition. Are you getting more experience doing it this way than not? Yes? Then it's powerleveling because you're taking advantage (read:exploiting) of the game mechanics to get an overall increase in your experience. Sure, they may get decreased XP for their kills, but adding up their kills PLUS the other half of the team's kills nets you more experience than just having half a team. People confirm this. They state that they do this with the very intent to get MORE experience by doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

#1) You admit that your definition is more intense than States' definition. Therefore, you cannot consider it an upside for the solution to effect this kind of play. At best, it is an acceptable side-effect.

An analogy: If your analgesic also makes people horny, that's still a side effect. For those who like to be horny it's a pleasant side-effect. But doctors will still prescribe an analgesic without that side-effect before prescribing yours. Why? Because thier drug does what is intended and ONLY what is intended.

#2) I reject your definition of PLing and exploiting. I would further posit that most people would reject your definition. "Taking advantage of the game mechanics to get an overall increase in your XP" is a VERY broad definition, and would include things like choosing to combat villians whose damage type is one you have resistance to. A more fair definition would be: "Taking advantage of the game mechanics to get an overall increase in your XP IN A WAY THE DEVS DID NOT INTEND OR DO NOT CONDONE".

Exploits like TF farming and "tagging" MOBs (doing slight damage and running so you can get XP when someone else finishes them) would still be considered "exploits" under my definition as well as yours, but choosing to get fire/ice protection and then taking on frostfire would also exploit under your definition, not under mine.

Liberty:

You've missed something. Statesman has now affirmed that THIS:

[ QUOTE ]
2) Also, the 'lost to the void' exp has been stated as a bug in review (in that exp which would normally have gone to teammates in the split now goes nowhere) so we can know that it is not meant for xp to be lost to those outside 200'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is NOT a bug, but is working as intended (initially he did not call it a bug, he just said he'd look into it).

With XP lost in the void, the rest of his brilliant analysis is not applicable. It doesn't HELP PLers, in fact, it does hurt them as intended.

[ QUOTE ]
JuppaCo...

[ QUOTE ]
You just said that powerleveling is getting experience at no risk to yourself. How are you at risk from the mobs that the OTHER half of the team is killing? If you were in two separate teams getting two separate bonuses, you are at risk from every single villain you attack and get xp from. If you are in ONE team SPLITTING the effort, you are only at risk from HALF the villains. You are STILL getting a free ride from the other half of the team.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

LordA:

[ QUOTE ]
Correction. The activity he descibes is NOT PLing. All the teammates are taking risk and getting rewards. They are giving up a share of the XP they would have earned directly to participate in a share of the XP their teammates earn. Since in zones spawn size is NOT effected by team size the ONLY upside they get is the team bonus, which is relatively negligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The PLing is the no-risk for reward activity that occurs when one or more of this team sits at the tram and racks up XP while at no risk whatsoever. Just as Statesman said in the first thread on this topic:

[ QUOTE ]
The reasoning behind this change was that the typical “power-leveling” tactic was to park the low-level heroes in the Safe Areas of zones, while the rest of the group hunts in the most dangerous places brings a lot of XP to the safe low-level guy. Forcing the low-level guy to actually move WITH the group (staying within 200’) prevents the most common power-levelling tactic in the game....You need to be ALIVE for this credit to be given however (or very recently dead). This is to circumvent Recall Friend’ing a dead low-level player around (completely safe) and getting him XP credit when not participating in the battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong, powerlevelling is gaining exp at no risk to yourself. Having someone else do all the work while your character benefits, thats powerlevelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. And Statesman's definition agrees with this analysis.

[ QUOTE ]
The Scooby Doo tactic is simply maximizing your teams exp gain / time. Its hardly a huge increase in levelling time, it simply gives everyone a good fight instead of 8 people going after one group and everyone maybe getting a shot in while the defenders and controllers who perfer debuffing and buffing or healing have nothing to do b/c no one is getting hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree

[ QUOTE ]
Well you'll never get rid of the lag, either their going to find a place to stand on top of a building or they're going to stand near the team they're hunting with. Its not like they'll ever disappear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. This does help lag. If they're spread through the zone, it is going to greatly improve the issues that come from too many people in a concentrated spot, which can be unnoticed by people with high speed connections and good graphics cards while completely borking others.

If we're going to give the devs legitimate feedback, we have to acknowledge the few holes this solution actually plugs. Less lag is very much one of those.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why would you even bother with this? If you are going to be in two sperate groups on two seperate sides of PP then you ARE in effect two seperate teams. Seriously why not just hunt in the same group or near each other.

This is an extremely minor hit to gameplay well worth teh price of admission.

[/ QUOTE ]Because spliting up or 'scooby doo'ing as some of us call it is faster xp. We do it all the time mainly in brickstown. It makes no sence for a team of 8 to be beating down the small street mob size. However 2 teams of 4 or 2 teams of 3, hunting on diffrent spots in brickstown can effectively double the amount of xp you get. I have done this sort of thing since week one of game with several teams, PP and in Brickstown are big for this at least with some of the people I team with. heck in PI I was on a team of 4, 2 tanks, me a scrapper and a PB we split up and each hunted in a diffrent part of the map, it makes for fast xp that adds up over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you're doing is powerleveling. You're saying right out that you split up to gain experience faster by taking advantage of the team bonus while killing lots of mobs. If you want to street hunt, bring only a team of four, not eight. But what you're saying is that you powerlevel a bit each and every day. This is the kind of thing that the devs are trying to stop. It's nice to gain lots of experience fast, but that IS powerleveling. Guess what? These changes were directed AT powerleveling.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness, there is almost nowhere in the game, including hazard zones, where a well built team of 8 will find a serious challenge. If we want to say to people "don't split your team to street hunt" we should also have places in the game where a team of 8 can street hunt and find a challenge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If all they were worried about was people standing at the tram causing lag then the simply could have made it "No Exp" zone.. where you get no exp if you are standing within so many feet of the tram.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great idea, but it would only serve to shift the lag further away from the tram.

To Statesman: How about putting a hard XP cap, instead of calculating a percentage, on anyone SK'ed to a higher level hero who's +4 levels above their true level. You'd be able to nix powerleveling altogether without impacting the rest of the playerbase.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you want to put some kind of reward "cap" to stop PLers without punishing the regular player base, you should have earning above the "cap" reward you by the exemplaring scheme. It will keep people from getting from level 1-30 in a heartbeat while still rewarding people who want to team many levels above them for fun.

Thanks for the input newscrapper. Comments below.

[ QUOTE ]
Pilcrow,

I like your suggestions, but I have some concerns.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Please consider adding a trivial amount of damage to all debuffs and controls.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this cause a problem with aggro? Even if a player were to throw a smoke grenade and do 1 damage to each villain, he/she has still basically just aggroed the whole mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of those powers already produce aggro. For those that don't produce aggro currently, you have a good point. But for debuffs/controls that produce aggro, I see this as a no-brainer.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) A better solution than the 1 minute death timer would be apprciated. I reiterate my suggestion that after a death you receive debt-relief XP only and that the XP be capped at 1/2 the "cost" of the death.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, I agree with the "death exemp" proposal, though I don't really see a need for an XP cap. However, this is probably a major change to the code, so extending the death-timer to 5-minutes may be a good short-term solution, though it doesn't solve everything (see below). Maybe with Issue 5 we can see the "death exemp" option put into the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the XP cap you need no timer at all. It's there to keep people from using death to rack in risk free XP (even if it is only debt relief, people could PL out of a whole level's worth of debt without some limit). The XP cap is nicer than a timer because almost no single battle is every going to erase half a death of XP (unless you are herding or under level 10), but plenty of battles last more than 1 or 5 minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) Pure buffers are still a bit shafted here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only because of the death timer, correct? The "death exemp" solution would ultimately solve this problem, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

No there's also some shafting for support toons street sweeping. They can get the shaft for focusing on buffs instead of damage and getting too far from the spot where the MOBs are falling. Gonna make them say "stay close to the team or die" to people who get lost. Not that I've ever gotten lost in Perez.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4) Strongly consider making all Rez's/awakens full (or half) rez's to help battle the death timer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure how I feel about this. I think the disorientation effect would also have to be removed for this proposal to be implemented effectively. At that point you're pretty much drastically changing the function of the awaken insps -- might be necessary, but I would resist the urge to change awakens in favor of implementing the "death exemp" solution in Issue 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree on the disorient. Maybe a delay on END recovery would make more sense (so you could run to a safe spot but still not attack).

If you have a timer on death and a range leash on XP then you've made the ability to rez in combat MUCH more valuable than it was previously. That means non-full rez powers got hurt bad in this change. If you wanted to use this as an opportunity to buff defenders, you might choose to leave the awakens and the shared pool rez alone, and only make defender Rez's full (all of them). If you want to stay as close to the status quo as possible, you need to fix all rezzes though.

Just my opinion here. But no single effect in this game is more devalued by this change than a non-full rez.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider also making more rez powers PBAE (like dark's) so healers don't have to choose which teammate gets XP as often.

[/ QUOTE ]
You bring up a good point in that teammate rez selection becomes more difficult for rezzers with the addition of the death timer. Again, the "death exemp" solution would be an answer to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you here. If you have a timer long enough to allow 2-3 rez's, then there will be little "noise" on this score. Still think it's a good idea though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like the suggestion that holds do 1 pt of damage. Or 0.01 pt. I don't care. As a scrapper and tank enthusiast, I like my targets still. The hold that stopped them is as valuable as my hit.

Make debuffs do 0.01 pt of damage per tick of time. See above.

[/ QUOTE ]
And every single sleep power in the game gets instantly nerfed. Right now, a Rad/Psi Defender can hit a target with Will Domination, put them to sleep, drop Radiation Infection and Enervating Field on them, and then they can take the time to fire off Psionic Lance. Make debuffs do damage, and the moment you set one on a sleeping target, they wake up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, you could set sleep powers to ignore attacks that have less than 1 HP of damage in them.

Or, you could make damage like knockback in that you have to slot 1 damage enhancer for the attack to produce any damage, otherwise it produces no damage, leaving the choice up to the player.

Or, you could change the metric to gaining aggro from the MOB instead of damaging him, since all debuffs and controls produce aggro.

Or, you could change the metric to "affecting" the MOB instead of damaging him.

[ QUOTE ]
States,
This is a significant improvement over the original proposal. Thank you for listening to concerns expressed here on the boards and making improvements.

But why does it feel like we're always in negotiations with you? You propose this horrible change, then everyone goes nutty on the boards because the change is patently (obvious on its face) flawed. We point out the 16 reasons why it will never work, and... didn't these things ever occur to you?

I strongly suspect you have surrounded yourself with yesmen. The problems is the original 200 foot idea were obvious, and I'm sure at least some of your staff thought so, too. So were they afraid to tell you how and why your idea sucked? (Good thing we're not!)

I know of at least two other times when this has happened: the preposterous mutually exclusive IH/integegration proposal for I3 that was thankfully caught on time, and the (please for the love of god don't do it) currently offered regen changes. Just horrible changes that everyone affected looks at and immediately says, "these are horrible ideas for reasons X, Y, & Z."

Now please turn your reasonable compromise / listening skills over to the legitimate concerns expressed in the extremely long regen thread. There's a lot of good proposals over there for alternate changes mixed in with the trolling and mud slinging.

signed,
someone who's not afraid of being fired by Statesman for telling him when he's wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the defense of the Devs. Erring on the side of overcorrection is the PROPER datamining tactic, regardless of its "political" consequences (positive or negative).

Let's say that States decided "to curb this kind of PLing I am willing to take a 1% hit in average legit XP/H, in order to decrease PLing XP by at least 50%." So his hypothesis is that his implementaiton will take a big hurt out of the PLing XP without a big hurt on the non-PLing XP.

If he overcorrects and gets a 5% loss, then he knows he overcorrected. But the important part is that if he sees that at 5% loss in legit XP he gets only a 5% loss in PLing XP then he knows to trash the whole idea: he'll never even get close to his planned goal. he has disproved his hypothesis in a single test.

On the other hand, if he undercorrects and gets a .5% XP loss and a 5% PLing loss, he doesn't know that the idea is completely untenable. Perhaps the legit loss grows linearly and the PL loss grows exponentially.

By overcorrecting the first time he finds out the very first datamine if the problem he's trying to curb actually can be curbed using his technique. Then he can adjust it to see if the collateral damage can become low enough to make it worthwhile.

So it's not only for "negotiation" reasons that you begin such a plan erring on the side of overcorrection. Especially in a test environment.

And now onto my personal opinions

1) Please consider adding a trivial amount of damage to all debuffs and controls. It's a simple change that will effect gameplay in only 1 way, making sure defenders/controllers get shafted less often.

2) A better solution than the 1 minute death timer would be apprciated. I reiterate my suggestion that after a death you receive debt-relief XP only and that the XP be capped at 1/2 the "cost" of the death. No-one will profit from death XP and legit players will be much less likely to be harmed than with the death timer. (I don't know if that would be hard to code, though.)

3) Pure buffers are still a bit shafted here. I still don't have a better recommendation than the complex solution of being able to credit them for kills done by people they've buffed. Hopefully a good and simple solution for this will come up in discussion

4) Strongly consider making all Rez's/awakens full (or half) rez's to help battle the death timer. Consider also making more rez powes PBAE (like dark's) so healers don't have to choose which teammate gets XP as often.

In the great tradition of DWIMBLE.

WHAT KINDS OF PLING DOES THIS EFFECT?

This change only corrects train platform and other safe-spot lurkers who gain XP from streethunting teams (unless the teams try to herd within 300' of the lurker).

WHAT IS THE UPSIDE THEN?

A minimal effect on PLers, since most will farm missions where the leash does not apply. However lag near Ghost Falcon and other safe-spots will go down and PLing will be less "in your face"

WHO PAYS THE PRICE

People who wish to street hunt, primarily those who split a team of 6-8 into two subteams. Especially Defenders/Controllers on said teams. And people who die and cannot be revived in less than 1 minute.

There's your downside/upside. You can make your own judgements on whether it is "worth it".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, those who like to divide up and street sweep got caught in the crossfire. They aren't engaging in the type of behavior that the devs are trying to hinder

[/ QUOTE ]

But I say they are, just not to the extreme of those standing under the tram. The people that like to spread out in a team across a zone are getting all the benefits of teaming while not actually working as a team. As I keep saying, this is powerlevelling as well, though a lesser form. There's no reason you should get xp for someone's kill who is across the zone from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, well STATESMAN says PLing is this:

[ QUOTE ]
The reasoning behind this change was that the typical “power-leveling” tactic was to park the low-level heroes in the Safe Areas of zones, while the rest of the group hunts in the most dangerous places brings a lot of XP to the safe low-level guy. Forcing the low-level guy to actually move WITH the group (staying within 200’) prevents the most common power-levelling tactic in the game....You need to be ALIVE for this credit to be given however (or very recently dead). This is to circumvent Recall Friend’ing a dead low-level player around (completely safe) and getting him XP credit when not participating in the battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than using your personal definition of PLing, can we perhaps use STATESMAN'S definition as our benchmark?

PS - I admit that he leaves open the possibility of OTHER kinds of PLing. But this fix is NOT meant to address them. So those OTHER kinds of PLing are irrelevant to this discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ya know, I often get together with SG mates in PI or the RCS & we just split up & hunt the zone for xp. This tactic completely eliminates that opportunity

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. That "opportunity" is your team powerlevelling each other. You're not hunting together when you do this, you're soloing. The difference is a private channel and the xp you get for someone across the zone's kill. The point of teaming is to work together, not to just share xp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction. The activity he descibes is NOT PLing. All the teammates are taking risk and getting rewards. They are giving up a share of the XP they would have earned directly to participate in a share of the XP their teammates earn. Since in zones spawn size is NOT effected by team size the ONLY upsid they get is the team bonus, which is relatively negligible.

The PLing is the no-risk for reard activity that occurs when one or more of this team sits at the tram and racks up XP while at no risk whatsoever.

With global chat available, I see it as fair to say to people who like such acitvites that they should use Global Chat to stay in touch while "soloing" together like this. They've no inherent right to that teaming bonus in this situation and they can still chat as they see fit.

BUT calling this activity PLing is simply ridiculous. Look at the definition of PLing States posted when he first announced this idea. The activity described here DOES NOT fit that definition.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Currently - stay within 300 ft.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will be fixed before this goes live, right?

Or at the very least give every hold a single 1 point of damage.

Most Controllers and Defenders already get forced into teaming to get xp, don't shaft them more.

Sailor eX
"Not in the face!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no reason that you should be 300' away from a fight you are involved in. Your buffs aren't earning XP, you are. That requires you to be closer to the fight.

That really isn't that tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the damage dealer can get XP for using his primary and then being 300' away when the MOB dies, and there is a simple way to make this true for most Defender/Controllers as well, why would there be any objection to implementing that simple change?

I get how hard it would be to track buffs, but adding a trivial amount of damage to debuffs/controls is NOT hard to code. They ALREADY draw aggro. There is absolutely no downside to this change and it eases the pain of this change for support ATs. Other than the joy of saying "tough luck pal", what possible reason could you have for opposing this change?

[ QUOTE ]
So does the entire system not apply in missions? Or only the 300' range aspect?

If I die in a mission and am dead for longer than a minute, does that interfere with my xp?

I'm hoping the answer is no, and being inside a door mission is exempt from this system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read it as the death timer being active in missions.

[ QUOTE ]
The one minute death timer thing also hurts any team that doesn't have an empathy or radiation defender on their team.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dark has a full REZ as well

Still, I think they will have to consider making all rez's at least 1/2 str rez's post this change.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh one odd thing when using a contact on an even surface to judge distance 66 yds was way further then when you have the tram targeted. same thing occured with mission doors.Kinda odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might have to do with elevation.