docbuzzard

I just cranked it down to 1280x800 and I lost most of the issues of graphic slowness. However I still crash a lot.

Initially I had it running on the standard resolution with recommended and it crashed all the damn time. I really don't recall the PC version being nearly this crash prone. Heck I don't think it's this crash prone just playing on my laptop.

I'm aware that the resolution is appreciably higher, I'm just curious if anyone knows a sweet spot resolution I can use without going all the way down the resolution of my laptop.

Yes, there is no excuse for dividing the markets into a good one and a ghetto one.

I'm wondering why nobody gets my point. Hand clap is a knock back that stuns. It doesn't do damage.

This I would have liked to have seen. Was the key waiting for the mobs to die of old age or something?

Again, we return to inanity. Fun in not a comparable quantity as it is wholly subjective. What is fun for one person may be like nails on a chalkboard for another. Thus arguing over what is fun is just plain stupid. You can certainly express what is fun to you, and that is fair enough. However to pull that as in any way relevant when people are arguing effectiveness is daft.

If I'm designing an AT I can balance and account for effectiveness. I can't necessarily account for fun. This thread shows a vast difference in what ATs people think are fun. Controllers are some of the most effective builds in the game as are scrappers. Personally I don't much care for either AT. I know they are powerful, and have some, but just don't like the play style. However I am capable of objectively evaluating how effective they are. I don't let some subjective fun measure intrude into the comparison. That ability to subjectively evaluate effectiveness appears to be pretty rare around here.


Rubbish. You can certainly evaluate kheldians on the basis of effectiveness. If someone is peformance forcused, then khelds will not measure up. They might be fun to some, and not to others, but that is not an objective quantity capable of comparison any more than "I like blue" vs. "I like green".

If the person who says they "feel like fail" is making his claim on the basis of comparable effectivness, he will be right.



This is about as insightful as saying rain is wet and the day is light. You've just said that there is no point in a subjective argument about like. Of course that's what I've been saying and what you bothered to 'dispute'. You could just soon argue which AT is best for costume contests or role play. Neither or measurable in a quantitative, objective manner so any such debate is just blowing smoke.

Quote:

Kheldians are WAI, it's just that some players intend for their Kheldians to perform in ways Kheldians were specifically designed not to.

Yes, people expect Kheldians to perform as well as other classes. They do not. As such some people are disapointed. They were designed to be jack of all trades, and certainly master of none.

This is utter nonsense. I mean nonsense on a level that is staggering. The objective of the game is to defeat your enemies. You do this by inflicting damage and surviving. Period. Whether you have fun while you do this is, of course, important, but has no bearing on the mechanics involved or the rules of how things work. Fun is a subjective issue, and as such cannot be objectively compared in an evaluation.

This is equally nonsensical. There are objective means for comparison of the effectiveness of an AT. You can measure DPS. You can measure defenses. You can measure control effectiveness. These are all measurable quantities. Fun, however, is not one of them by any means. To say that your argument of fun trumps objective measurements of effectiveness is just plain inane.

Oh yeah, if you want to keep a team safe, you can't beat FF. It may be one trick, but it's supreme in that trick.

The Cysts present in Cimerora missions and the ITF are nothing like the ones you get for having a Kheldian on your team. The Cim ones don't keep spawning enemies, they have a set population.

So you want everyone to have TEATs?(works better spoken)

Given that we're talking about ATs which are designed around teaming (note their inherent), to have one better at dealing with groups of enemies than the other is a pretty significant imbalance. You know, a design flaw.

His argument is that the shape shifting is bad design. As such, working around the forms is avoiding the bad design as per his argument.

You can debate that his thesis "forms were bad design" is wrong, but this above statement makes no sense in the context of his argument.

Ooh, you figured out the ignore function. I'm impressed. Maybe you'll figure out VEATs someday as well.

That's rather amusing. I thought you didn't like VEATs because you found them gimpy? I can provide your quotes if you like.

Oh, never mind, quoting you directly is a reading comprehension problem.

Odd I don't remember the contradiction. I'll have to see if I can still find the rulebook somewhere. I'm pretty sure I still have it.

As I recall the formula was:
((str/10)^3 + end/10)*weight/2

If there was a written passage that contradicted this, I probably missed it.

I used to love that game. I played it off and on for quite a few years.

He did flat out state that VEATs sucked. While he didn't say they needed to be changed, I don't really care. If you claim an AT sucks, and are flat out wrong, I will dispute it. Granted he is entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't seem to be based on much of anything other than misplaced expectations.

VEATs don't suck. They have lots of build options which can result in some very powerful characters. They are often tight builds if you really like to optimize, but there are a lot of directions you can take them, and they offer many options you just can't get elsewhere.

Odd, then why did you say you think the mechanic should have been introduced earlier if you found it disappointing? Then you could have complained earlier?

Your primary complaints that we've seen have been about them being lousy stalkers.

Here's you:

My reaction playing them has generally been - and I believe I mentioned this before - "Why didn't I just roll another stalker?" Doing that and taking leadership nets the *same thing* for all intents and purposes without a crap "storyline" that the dev team should be ashamed of. Except, of course, you get better stealth. And an early placate. And more options. And you don't have to re-figure your build at 24 (twice, if you decide to try a dual build.)

I haven't changed anything. Those are your words. It sounds like you're just trying to play a stalker by another name. VEATs can be taken in that direction, but it's only one choice, and not even an optimum one. Of course a stealthy status protected blaster is rather different, but you don't see that. You're focused on something to complain about, not on what is actually possible.

You said you had a bane parked at 40 just sitting there that you didn't like. You know you can just respec it into a crab at any time right? You can adjust the build in any direction you see fit. You're just grousing because you like to. At 40 you can pretty much make any set up you like with all of the powers from the possible sets available. The fact that you haven't been able to find a decent playable version with that sitting there while plenty of other people have managed merely says things about you, or your attitude.

Yeah, it's all me. It's not you being obtuse and slippery.

If you don't care what I think, why do you bother responding? Odd that. Though I find it amusing that before you complained about the branching mechanic, and now you laud it. Can you keep your complaining in order please?

So you wanted to play a VEAT as a stalker, and were shocked when it wasn't a stalker. I don't see why I would need to point out that stupid expectations are not the fault of the AT design.

Considering you've complained that neither VEAT performs as well as a stalker, then yes, it is tunnel vision. It would be silly to point out they are not stalkers since it isn't quite rocket science to realize that. Your inability to understand their play style again says nothing about the AT itself.

I've seen plenty of effective builds of many different types on all flavors of VEATs. Any deficiencies in your experience would have to be left at your doorstep.

I call BS.

Try this on for size:
Leadership on a stalker is nowhere near the value that it is on a VEAT. You get a much higher value on the VEATs (manuevers that is) for a lower endurance cost.

This is not to mention you are focused on only bane spiders or widows, and if you are that plagued by tunnel vision, you completely don't understand the VEATs.

As for the oh-so-rough re-speccing a build, please. I can't imagine anyone who's played this game as long as you have finds a respec to be a chore. That's a sad nitpick if I've ever seen one.

If nothing else, the fact that a VEAT can be a ranged attacker with solid status protection makes them very different from almost every AT (there are exceptions in FF and Sonic, but those have holes that VEATs don't).