concreteshift

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is you are using subjective terms like "small SGs" and "unaffordable."

[/ QUOTE ]

So are the Devs. The problem, in a nutshell, is that some people don't think they really mean it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. That would mean that many believe that the devs are being equivocal or speaking fraudulently. We're pointing out the perception of need and what is "affordable" can be completely relative and subjective. Not the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The devs accept they make mistakes, why can't everyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Making mistakes is one thing; accidentally failing to design something around small SGs when that's what you've set out to do is another thing altogether. I believe the Devs are fallible, but I don't believe they're idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument only works if you assume that any possible design mistake made to help small SGs is can only be caused by or is due to idiocy. Evil Geko and Red Zero have pointed out countless times that there is a logical possibility (along with history and player perspective) that the devs can and have made mistakes that were bad design implementations that had negative impact on players, none of which were caused by idiocy but in fact were made by very smart and reasonable people.

You whole rant is one long big restatement of: Because Positron said it's designed for smaller SGs, it will absolutely be perfect or close to it for solving the issue.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually it already exists

[/ QUOTE ]

Ledgesit is for hanging your feet of ledges, if you try to do it on a chair/bench your feet go through the floor, thus it isn't a 'proper sit emote'. If we had to use ledgesit while strategizing around our new table, we sure wouldn't look very confident in our plans, what with our heads hanging down and looking all sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it'll work if the entire SG ledgesits on the edge of the table. But then everyone would be facing away from each other!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The additions sound great but they certainly do sound ridiculously expensive. Especially the ones where you can create your own special buffs for your SG.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, stop there. Positron has explained that the whole POINT of the empowerment stations and the storage devices is that they CAN be afforded by a small SG, to make their bases more functional. This is supposed to be the boost that small SGs need.

The one thing they won't be is ridiculously expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I don't believe you but I can't find this mentioned in the Dev Digest. Any link available?

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't see anything about an influence bank.

Did I miss it? Will I still need to have another player character to transfer funds to my lowbies?

EDIT: Beyond that.... VERY NICE STUFF, Devs

[/ QUOTE ]

Was an influence bank ever mentioned? I don't seem to remember in any interviews by the devs but I have missed many discussions on Issue 7.

[ QUOTE ]
Costs for a 10-slot inspiration bin? 1million!

Cost for a 10-slot enhancement container? 500K!




I'm just afraid to even ponder how much these things will cost.....Everything even remotely nice is priced so that small groups can't get them. I'll wait till it hits test to see if my SG has a chance at ever owning one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The additions sound great but they certainly do sound ridiculously expensive. Especially the ones where you can create your own special buffs for your SG. Generating prestige in a small to medium sized SG is a grind to maintain the needs of a base to accomodate raids and items of power. This isn't going to make the prestige crunch any easier.

Hopefully Cryptic will realize this and ease off on the high costs of maintaining a base. If not, only 3-4 of the super SGs per server are going to active raiding each other. Especially if items can be permanently damaged.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, Mayhem missions aren't generally at the Portal Corp.

Second, Longbow is one of the groups you might be fighting. There are others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Third. Still sick of seeing Longbow and CoT...

Just saying...



Would like to see Malta operating in CoV, more from the Wyvern, etc. Especially want more good guys to fight. Even the latest info on I7 today makes me feel like I am a hero, or at best a rival gang in a turf war. Mayhem Missions do sound like a step in the right direction, but don't forget from an overall motivation and storyarc perspective we'd like to be VILLAINS not just playing king of the hill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Longbow are crap. They don't even look cool. Somehow they're supposed to evince the retro Golden Age/Silver Age but they just end up looking like embarrassed mercenaries with spandex wedgies.

If we're going against a hero paramilitary org. can't we fight something as sophisticated and original as the Malta?? It was great taking on Gunslingers and giant robots. Instead we have inferior looking Statesman clones using the silliest gun model in the game. Yeah, fun. Plus they're in every other mission. At least give them some cooler vehicles instead of recycled Sky Raider skiffs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Surly some of these things could be fixed with a simple run through with a spell checker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should see far fewer typo's in powers with I7. Thing's like "it's" for "its" on the other hand, are still likely to crop up and be low priority fixes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suggest backhanding the content typers with a copy of Strunk and Whites The Elements of Style. It will do wonders for grammatical errors.

[ QUOTE ]
Surly some of these things could be fixed with a simple run through with a spell checker.

[/ QUOTE ]

And don't call me Shirley!!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cuppa's been trying, but she has yet to be able to convince the devs to throw us a bone.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF we were to ever add a way to get Isolator post-Tutorial, it would most likely be incredibly hard to get. Annoyingly hard. Irritatingly hard. There-would-be-a-zillion-people-asking-to-make-it-easier hard.

But IF we were to add it, it would be available nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh...why? Cryptic is making some value judgment on the need to prevent rewarding of the Isolator badge far beyond its inherent value. It's not an accolade or required for anything. Yet there is now a design decision to make it extremely difficult to obtain. Aside from just being obstinate for kicks, what's the negative for allowing completists who through innocent ignorance did not acquire the Isolator? Just to be onery?

Aside from some strange philosophical viewpoint that some things should be denied just because. Especially when a new player is starting out he/she has no idea about badges in the first place.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about Isolator and don't have it on half my toons because sometimes I don't want to play mind numbing crap like killing 100 mobs.

Yet there's some incredible bias against allowing people to subsequently pick up Isolator without any real reason put forth. Just curious and scratching my head.

If it's just because just because, state it.

[ QUOTE ]

Zone Giant Monsters are getting the buff. GM's that are mission-specified (like the ambush ones, or the Eden trial, etc) are not being touched. Those GMs are "arch-villain" level, i.e. made to be beaten by 1 team.

Zone Giant Monsters are the GM's that appear randomly (or triggered) in zones. This does not include the ambushes that are triggered from missions.

This change will be both CoH and CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does Hamidon count as a Zone Giant Monster? Sounds like he does.

Man, I really don't want to face an even tougher Hamidon. These raids already last long enough post-ED.

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume he means "Three times in a row with the _same_ attack."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking he means "If you miss 3 times in a row with the same attack and your target is an even con minion." I can't imagine mob level doesn't extend your misses somehow because everyone really has missed more than three times in a row in the game. I've never tried three times in a row with the same attack though since I have attack chains for all my characters.

[ QUOTE ]
suppression is to prevent you from running after the attack. jousting, in this limited form, is still okay because even after the attack you land and can't speed away yet, giving your opponent time to counterattack.

suppression was simply put in to give player a chance to return fire. it still works in this case, not an exploit.

and you know what, claws gets the short end of the stick on so much other stuff that even if this was an exploit, so what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not calling for a nerf, nor do I not think that claws should have some tactical advantages in PvP. I'm just pointing out the inherent inconsistency in application brought about by a Red Name posting that this is a legitimate tactic:

1. There is a policy in place that jousting is an exploit. Hence, suppression was introduced to make sure a player jousting cannot speed away without enduring the risk of counterattack. Fine by me (although I don't agree on the policy).

2. The OP stated "Focus fires off and they are dead, rightfully thinning the herd. Your momentum carries you flying by.
By the time you land suppression is over."

Note what he's saying, suppression is not affecting the player because of his momentum. Therefore, no risk of counterattack.

3. A Developer posted this is a legitimate attack and not an exploit.

4. Suppression is not applied consistently. If your momentum in superjump carries you beyond counterattack you are safe. In the same instance, if I divebomb using fly, suppression kicks in immediately (regardless of momentum). Therefore, I should be like superjump in that after my attack my momentum carries me beyond a counterattack. But it doesn't, once I attack with fly, my momentum completely disappears. Same thing with superspeed.

Therefore, why is this not considered an exploit? If it's not, then my stalker and PvP designed scrapper is going for superjump so I can play in Bloody Bay. I just want it to be clear now that this is not a missed application of suppression. Apparently, based on the post, this is working as intended. That's all I'm asking.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of my favorite tactics, actually. Nice to see other folks using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why is this not considered as jousting?

[/ QUOTE ]

jousting is combining (travel powers + melee attacks + activation lag) to make ghetto-range attacks.

Jousting is still possible, just alot harder to do it more then once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which begs the question, why is this considered as a legitimate attack when we're told that this tactic (jousting) is an exploit. I hate suppression too but my understanding is that it was put in place to prevent jousting. Therefore I accept that it should not be used because it's an exploit. Now here we're told it is legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]
One of my favorite tactics, actually. Nice to see other folks using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why is this not considered as jousting? Not flaming, just curious. Isn't the whole point of suppression is to stop attacks where there is no penalty for a counterattack? I'm trying to grasp PvP tactics and how gameplay is managed.

Positron,

Now how is this consistent with the Enhancement Depreciation that is being force fed down everyone's throats?

The whole point is to bully players into slotting different enhancements in their powers. Reduce end. cost just shoots this policy in its foot. This is one less enhancement I need to slot then. It's bad enough that MOST enhancements do not provide much benefit compared to the opportunity cost endured by not six slotting the hell out of a power to maximize efficiency.

Endurance savings is not going to save my Blaster from succumbing to the pummeling he's going to suffer from Boss fights because damage is all he does! Damage is what Blasters bring to the table. With your Global Defense Nerfs, I have gotten rid of Stealth and Weave because they are useless. Now I can't make fights short and bring mobs down. I am compelled by your Enhancement Depreciation to engage in a prolonged firefight to do the same amount of damage I used to be able to do. This leaves most Blasters dead. Long fights are not what Blasters are designed for, and no amount of knockback enhancments, range, endurance reduction is going to change that.

This is just a pitiful little bone to throw out due to the outrage caused by this unfair, arbitrary and overbearing nerf called Enhancement Depreciation.

[ QUOTE ]
Stealth, Grant Invisibility, Invisibility,Combat Flight, Weave, Maneuvers, Vengeance, and Combat Jumping will grant a Defense bonus to Smashing and Lethal Attacks in addition to Melee and Ranged attacks.

I added the same to Controller/Illusion/Group Invisibility.

The result of this is that ALL defense builds will benefit from Pool powers. Previously, Ice Tankers suffered somewhat because the Pool defenses did not stack with their defense powers. This is now rectified.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I'm kinda confused. How does this "defense bonus" work? Is it a bonus on top of the defense inherent in the power?

Is this how it works:

Stealth Defense + Defense bonus (if Smashing/Lethal) = Stacked Defense.

Anyone wise enough to the comprehend the mystery that is "Defense" implementation in this game?

Oh yeah, how much of a bonus Statesman? 5%? 10%? 91.6667%? And can you add to the defense bonus if you slot defense enhancements?

Me No Comprende. Es muy difícil.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The CCG will intially be all hero-vs-hero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me be the first to say that I believe all the I6 nerfs are because of CCG balance issues.

Scorus

[/ QUOTE ]

DOH! Beat me to it by 3 hrs! I said as much in my reply in the Phase Shift thread, although I was talking about I5...

[ QUOTE ]
BTW: I think these changes are being made, not only for PvP(CoV), but also to solidify the rules set for the P&P and card games. Kinda hard to nerf those after printing. I'm guessing we are beta testing those as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what, screw that. World of Warcraft is not dependent on the rules of gameplay inherent in the RTS games. And it's damn sure that Starcraft:Ghost is not dependent on Starcraft for its gameplay balance either. Yes both are inspired by their source, but not beholden to it. The medium limitations dictate the decisions that go into fun gameplay.

As for the CCG and the RPG and the upcoming novel they're pushing like it's the new Harry Potter, they can forget it after what's Issue 5 is going to do to my characters. 2 months prior I would have slapped down my credit card without any hesitation. I have a very nice job and it allows me to have the disposable income to support my various hobbies. However, I'm not going to support a system that constantly creates aggravation for me and my friends. Our entertainment dollars can be used on other channels too. Let's face it, if they keep the pattern on nerfing and completely changing gameplay balance on the MMORPG, do you think that the CCG is going to ever be balanced? How many times is your Regen card going to be changed? Do you have to check the publishing date for every deck?

Heck, I'll bet every expansion Card Set with require buying a new accompanying ruleset manual...Oh wait, maybe that's what they want.

Well I tested Defiance repeatedly on Test Server with my Blaster, my highest character on CoH. Here are my thoughts:

1. Defiance is helpful in the lower levels 1-25 and then completely useless after level 30. Even with the increased hitpoints (which I think is greater improvement than Defiance) Blasters are still subject to multiple strikes if aggro is lost in a team and Defiance does not have time to activate. In addition, there seems to be a slight delay before Defiance kicks in when my health plummets down to 40%. Blasters need Defiance to activate immediately the nanosecond health reaches 40% level because it's usually the very next shot that is the one that will either stop the villain or the villain stops you, permanently.

2. I think that the tactical scenarios that Statesman suggested is ludicrous given how Blasters MUST play in CoH. When my Blaster health reaches 40%, I am running for the elevator or popping a Respite. In an intense firefight (the ones that Statesman absolutely wants to encourage through the new defensive, tanker and controller nerfs) a Blaster absolutely cannot depend on surviving the next hit. The attacks are too random and being two-shotted or three-shotted happens the majority of the time. To ask a healer not to heal and try to depend on Defiance is bad tactics. Why?

---- A. Blasters still can MISS. I miss all too often, even with Aim+Buildup. Defiance should have an accuracy boost to ensure that Defiance is really an enhancement to help Blaster survivability. I'd rather guarantee a hit than to have a non-existent damage boost that never lands because of the percentage miss probabilities built into the game.

---- B. The Damage Stacking Delay. I absolutely hate this feature in the game. When a Blaster faces multiple opponents, especially in large teams, sometimes a wave of attacks/damage hits the Blaster. The game registers a "hit" but the Blaster is already hightailing it around the corner, over the fence. The attacks then trail him until they catch up. Sometimes this takes several seconds. Blasters are at a disadvantage to really assess at what level their health is at in real time, hence not know if the situation calls for utilizing Defiance or taking a Respite. The gameplay feedback and damage delay renders Defiance almost useless as something to depend on in real battle.

---- C. The overall defensive nerfs in Issue 5 makes it absolutely insane to be able to depend on your team to manage aggro for a you as a Blaster from now on. If a Tanker taunt is limited to 5, a Controller is limited to only 10 for lockdown, and a Defender's debuffs on villain accuracy is limited to 10, the risk is too great for an arbitrary and capricious reward. Before Issue 5 you can depend on a Tanker to be able to jump in after a "pull" by the Blaster or a lockdown by the Controller. Now, with the "needed challenge" posited by the Issue 5 and Statesman, a Blaster is on his own. And a smart Blaster never, ever (!) aggros more than he can handle on his own. Anything else is bad Blaster tactics.

Let me say this again: A GOOD Blaster always knows the end result of a firefight before it begins. That's why we make such good soloers. The margin for error is so high, good Blasters do not randomly aggro a mob without having a good idea that he is going to survive. Therefore, Defiance is so random with the accuracy issues and the damage delay, no Blaster is going to aggro to the point of hitting below 40% to utilize Defiance.

3. The Defiance graphic needs to provide clarity in feedback. The third line beneath the endurance bar is barely noticeable. Also, I have no idea what the percentages mean when Defiance bar starts to go up. It's very unintuitive. There should be a clear signal that Defiance is "activated" like Scrapper criticals in the game. It should say "Defiance!" in the gamescreen.

Suggestions:

1. Add accuracy bonus to Defiance. The whole point is to damage the villain that is causing us grief, if we miss, what help is Defiance?

2. Make Defiance kick in at 60%, alittle higher health bar would make a difference and encourage Blasters to actually utilize the gameplay mechanic.

3. I'd rather have criticals/bullseyes or earlier control.

Conclusion: Defiance is not a gameplay enhancement for Blasters. It is a semi-interestinng wrinkle to play around with but would never be a tactical factor in how good Blasters play. Defiance is merely artificial coloring added to the Blaster mix that gives it a little shine but is ultimately worthless for the nutritional care and feeding of our Blasters.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Couple of changes we're making in I5:

1) Instead of the first five levels being debt free, the first TEN levels will be debt free.

2) XP debt will be halved on mission maps (that includes outdoor mission maps, too).

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this. It will make the hollows a bit more bearable. I like the hollows, but man, sometimes its tough to go across map at lvl 6 and get wiped out by some huge mob that spawns right in front of me, hehe.

Cool stuff STATES!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can anyone tell me what the big outcry is about?? I think, like many reasonable players on this thread, that this is a good change. Do players really want more debt on a mission? Just change your difficulty setting to the hardest imaginable. These changes do not affect the hard-core gamer in any way! I play a blaster, and unfortunately for me, all my friends in my supergroup play on invincible setting, all at 3 levels above me. I get SK'ed but I am incredibly vulnerable playing at that level. I enjoy it and I enjoy playing with my supergroup so I accept the risk. This makes playing with my supergroup even better because now I don't have to worry as much about being in Super Perma Debt. You still have to play cautiously if you're a squishy AT. The danger and risk is not taken away. If you play stupid you pay a penalty. The only thing that has changed is that the penalty is not as harsh so you can devote your time to missions and actually enjoying the game as opposed to boring street sweeping to get out of debt.

What are the real problems with these changes??

Yes! Yes! Yes! My resurrected demi-god hero needs a new leather jacket and some Converse All-Stars to slum in when he's not arresting the Banished Pantheon! Forget PvP, new costumes NOW please!

Thank you Statesman! I think the ability to solo is something that must absolutely be preserved even though I love teaming up on this game. It's one of the greatest pleasures. However, I have been unfortunate in sometimes being teamed up with a group of players who were selfish, never worked together and aggroed mass mobs to the detriment of all. This allows all players to be able to finish their missions and not worry about having to endure massive debt and headaches just to be able to finish.

One question though, does this mean the new changes to Bosses have already been implemented on the live servers or will be soon?? I didn't quite understand if Statesman's post means things have now been rolled back.