Standoff

[ QUOTE ]
Hazarding a rough guess... Hero 2 is aware of an exploit that can be used to earn respec recipes. I could be very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not so much an exploit as [trying to word this carefully, to avoid the pitfall that caught Hero2] an indirect alternative way of purchasing a Respec. And a naughty alternative at that - one that used to be spammed a lot, until recent changes...

Did a bit of digging, and found what looks like the original mention of this on the US forums. FWIW they're only ever talking about the behemoths' DEF, and how hard they are to hit, rather than them majorly cutting through players' defences.

Looks like I was chasing a red herring on this one.

Ah, ta - looks like I misremembered; I had a hazy recollection of it debuffing local melee toons DEF (which would explain why SRs might go down like a ton of bricks, if true), but if it's a self +DEF that'd make nothing happen quickly.

Didn't CoT Behemoths have a way large DEF debuff on them until recently? IIRC it was causing lots of complaints, so the devs nerfed it to a saner level.

There were a few recent exchanges (and further links) here.

No.

Search moar

In before the midnight!

Happy birthday TS!

That seems likely - the additional debuff won't pick up the "doesn't aggro" property of the base power.

If you want to be sure it's that, copy the toon to test, delete the proc then see if the aggroing's gone away.

This should help.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote from FAQ
"How do I add an image to my message?
In order to add an image to your message or your signature, you must have the image already available on a web server. This can be an image on your own personal web page, for example. To place an image within a message, simply use the following Markup Tag:

[image]http://www.url_to_image.com/image_name.gif[/image] "

I don't mean to be contrary, but that is definatly more than an implication

And if it is simply wrong, then I accept defeat( for now ) and ask that the FAQ be updated, so that future users will know

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, my bad - I did a text search on the page for "sig" and found the quote I mentioned, completely overlooking the immediately preceding one that did clearly say you could add images to sigs. Sorry about that.

Although sadly the FAQ's still wrong - no embedded images for bluenames like us.

The FAQ implies images can be used in sigs, as it answers the question "Is there a limit to signature image size?".

Actually, the FAQ lies - you can't embed images in sigs, or posts themselves - just links to them via the [ url= ] system.

Unless you're a redname and have access to haxx, of course...

* Ability to see Global Friends' status at character/server selection stage

* Ability to set map's thumbtack to specified x, y, z location

* Ability to select which costume slot you'd like displayed on the character selection page


Hey, GR, why don't you let us know what suggestions we needn't bother making. Because, y'know, the devs are already working on them for I13...

[ QUOTE ]
Surely unless your missing 1/3 of the time and you could achieve 3/3 hits with an accuracy enhancement which would mean you would be only improving your dmg output by 1/3 then a dmg enhancement that inreases your dmg by about a third is a better option isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not always, as a damage enhancement (let's say we're talking about white SOs here ) only increases things by 33% of base damage. So while the first enhancement does give you 33% more damage than you were doing before, the second only adds 25% extra, and a third 20% extra.

As you're missing 25% of the time against same-level mobs once the low level bonus wears off, that Acc enhancement's definitely worth it. Even more so if you're fighting higher level mobs (as you tend to be), and ToHit debuffs are being thrown around.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're dropping the original claim that "none of the other travel powers are non stackable"?

Yes as I said I forgot Fly/Hover

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, you did - sorry, I missed that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TBH not sure if Fly gives you KB protection or not; it definitely doesn't give you the small +DEF boost that Hover does. As I understood it the rationale is that with Hover you're paying more attention to your surroundings; that makes it easier to dodge things (the +DEF), but means you have to move a lot more slowly.

Think that's just a bit a blag myself if I'm static with fly why does it's extra speed not increase my chance of dodging that stream of hot lead not decrease it???

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
You could make a case for it being like driving a car - if you want to do careful manoeuvring, you slow down. Similarly, if you want fine control so you can dodge things, you need the slow Hover rather than the fast-but-not-good-at-cornering Fly.

Similarly if you want to dodge attacks and immobs you need the controlled CJ rather than high-power SJ.

And in both cases you're either concentrating on fine control, or going flat out for speed - you have to use one or the other, and can't manage both at once.

[ QUOTE ]
So why should hover/fly be exlusive you lose Kb protection when flying rather than hovering, oh yes I can fly better and faster but I have no resistance to Kb anymore which I had when I couldn't fly as well ???????

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're dropping the original claim that "none of the other travel powers are non stackable"?

TBH not sure if Fly gives you KB protection or not; it definitely doesn't give you the small +DEF boost that Hover does. As I understood it the rationale is that with Hover you're paying more attention to your surroundings; that makes it easier to dodge things (the +DEF), but means you have to move a lot more slowly.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically remove the mutually exclusive nature of SJ, CJ as none of the other travel powers are non stackable

[/ QUOTE ]
Of the 6 powers you mention:

Swift: This is a passive power, so stackability's hardly an issue

Sprint: An inherent power, rather than a travel pool one. FWIW using it does detoggle various other powers, most significantly Granite Armour's mezz protections.

Hurdle: Another passive

SS: There isn't another travel related power in the same pool that could be exclusive

CJ (other than with SJ): Why add this to a list of non-stackable powers when your whole argument is based all about it not being stackable? This power also detoggles the Granite mezz protection, BTW.


You also left out Hover (KB and +DEF) and Fly, two mutually exclusive powers from the same set.

So, of the two travel pools that actually have more than one toggle power, both have unstackable level 6 and level 14 powers.

/unsigned based on the current argument - CJ/SJ seem fairly balanced compared to all the other travel options.

Ooops - a day late, but happy ex-birthday Shocker!

Hope you had a good one!

Well, as far as most of the new options suggestions go, check the stickied "Frequent Suggestions - PLEASE READ!" post at the top of this forum. The first 3 items of that post, in fact.

For Superspeed having no vertical component, and Teleport using lots of end...those are the balancing downsides for Superspeed being the second fastest travel power and having built in stealth, and Teleport being the fastest travel power of all.

Yes, TP's the fastest of all, even with the current activation time, and gets faster still if you add Range Enhancements to it. Are you using one of the mouse click binds? If not, try one, as it can make things a lot easier to control.

The following:

/bind tab "target_enemy_next$$target_custom_next enemy alive marcone capo"

...should do the job. Change the name of the bind key and remove the initial target_enemy_next$$ (makes it do a normal target if there are no Capos about) according to taste.

[ QUOTE ]
Article by lighthouse


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ According to this that article and the one on IGN is false and therefore not worth a worthwhile argument

[/ QUOTE ]
Crazy talk!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nowhere I recall did I use the term "calendar year" either.

[/ QUOTE ]You didn't actually use the term, but you implied it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Where?

AFAICS I've only ever talked about 3 issues/year meaning 4 months between issues, or 3 within a some fixed - but very definitely non-calendar year - 12 month period.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that whenever you choose to start your 12 month window from, once you've picked a date you've got to stick with it.

[/ QUOTE ] Why???


[/ QUOTE ]
Because otherwise you're not giving a figure that accurately reflects the real rate issues are coming out at. If the figure was accurate for 12 months, you'd expect (on average) to be able to double the time window's length to 24 months and get twice the number of issues inside it. Treble the length to 36 months and get 3 times the number of issues. This is how it does work if you have a real "every 4 months" release rate.

If you've fiddled things by positioning a 12 month window so it just covers 3 issues of a 5.5 month release rate, though, a 24 month window will only have 5 issues in it (average 2.5 issues/year) and a 36 month window will only have 7 (average 2.3 issues/year).

As you increase the window's size you get a figure that's closer and closer to the real average - a bit over 2/year.

[ QUOTE ]
If you work (and I'm sure you do), you'll know that goals and objectives sometimes cannot be achieved. As long as progress can be seen, then that's good enough for me!

If someone (NCNC) in this case kept promising something then not delivering, then Id understand people getting frustrated, and voting with their feet.

I'd personally wait 6 months per issue (2 a year, 3 if your were as stringent as Standoff), if the content worked on many levels, and was virtually bug free.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you're arguing against a point I never made; in the very first post I made to this thread I finished with "Not that I'm personally bothered - good issues whenever they can suits me fine".

Oh, I don't think we're actually disagreeing here - as far as I can see we both say "three per year" should sensibly interpreted as one every 4 months, but could be stretched to cover one every 5.999 months with a magic moving window and a bit of disingenuous fiddling with meanings. Which is where management would come in.

Nine Claws comment is strictly true, but doesn't actually touch upon anything anyone claimed in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While a I13 release this November-ish would technically give them 3 releases in a suitably chosen 12 month slot, that's not really 3 issues/year as most people would interpret it

[/ QUOTE ]Nowhere that I have seen does it state that there would be 3 issues per calendar year (Jan 1 - Dec 31st), just that they are trying to achieve 3 issues per 12 (rolling) months.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nowhere I recall did I use the term "calendar year" either.

My point is that whenever you choose to start your 12 month window from, once you've picked a date you've got to stick with it. You can't slide the window around every time to try to fit an earlier issue in that's already been counted in a different window. Well, you can, but you'll convince no one and undermine your own credibility.

All of that said, I've seen no evidence at all that NCSoft are trying it on that way; in the quote PRAF gave earlier in the thread, BaB was quite clear that they were aiming for an issue every 4 months, and not quite making it lately.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't work in a government press office, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. But I do believe in being honest about what numbers actually mean.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are Alistair Campbell and I claim my 50 pounds!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While a I13 release this November-ish would technically give them 3 releases in a suitably chosen 12 month slot, that's not really 3 issues/year as most people would interpret it. For that, you'd need an average of 4 months between issues, in reality they're doing one every 5-6 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, you see, I would dispute this, personally. They have been very clear about wanting to release no less than three issues every 12 months. I actually believe that while they WANT to release one every 4 months (4 issues per year), their plan is to not slip below 3 per 12 months, which enables their schedule to slip to 1 every 6 months if it needs to. I just think that the Devs who have been commenting on it have not recognised how much leeway 3 per 12 gives them.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does give them that flexibility - with the current schedule they can get creative and start moving the 12 month "in a year" slot about so it always takes in 3 issues. As you say, even with a release frequency that's actually 5 1/2 months you could still rationalise that as 3/year if you move the slot so its end just covers in the latest release every time.

IMHO it'd be a mistake to do so - that's mathematical sophistry, and would be fairly obvious as such to a lot of people (and to even more people once sceptics started pointing things out on forums). Trying it on like that can quickly destroy confidence in devs' and companies' credibility.

c.f. Labour's habit of double-counting spending announcements, which made things look very appealing at the time but did them no favours at all in the longer term.