__Goldie__

[ QUOTE ]
FoL reborn

[/ QUOTE ]
JALocity

[ QUOTE ]
At this point, you may as well just remove the heavies entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes please.

[ QUOTE ]
@Craggs

[/ QUOTE ]
ZOMG, you don't want this guy!! Don't you know his entire SG quit the game because they couldn't stack veng?

[ QUOTE ]
Just put FoL 1st on the ladder and call it good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Strange...since, as far as I've read, all the FoLers have been saying that OS deserved the top spot.

Kinda shoots a hole into the idiotic theories about them just being selfish and wanting the #1 seed. Maybe it's just that they expect the rules to be observed as laid out beforehand, and not changed on a whim to accommodate the *actual* crybabies.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be on fury.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can I have your stuff?

[ QUOTE ]
...it is also not the point, as NDX was one of my favorite SG's out there and I pray they can get their team up and running again.

[/ QUOTE ]
If that's true, then maybe you could avoid disparaging us as a group just because Putz hurt your feelings. We were never anything but courteous to you and you're acting like a [male chicken]-sucker.

[ QUOTE ]
...but when you have to work fulltime, go to graduate school, and feed two infant babies every couple hours/change diapers/etc., then maybe you'll understand. Until then, I could care less....I'm happy giving people who can give 110% to the team a chance to shine...

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I "retired" from test PvP as opposed to joining up with anyone else. Believe it or not, there are other adults who play this game and have responsibilities outside of Co* that take precedent...that being said, maybe I should submit my application to FoL so I can pwn vicariously through Ed, Ownage, and Putz...I mean, hell, just because I don't play for "my team" doesn't mean "my team" doesn't kick [censored] or that I shouldn't get any credit for it. Right?

[ QUOTE ]
No, the next step would be quitting my SG after Vengeance stacking is no longer allowed and we can't compete and joining FOL.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I were to make a list of people qualified to talk [censored] about NDX, you would be at the very bottom. You know damn well that we did all kinds of no-veng matches with you before, and after, our official with OS and you never even came *close* to beating us...I don't think you ever got kills in the double digits.

If I remember correctly, after everyone agreed to stop using veng, Velocity were to only ones to beat us with any consistency.

No, wait...I do remember losing a match or two to JAL right before we finally called it quits. But that wasn't really to JAL, it was to those 8 guys who came aboard to replace JAL...you know, that new team that *you* don't play for.

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK, veng stacking was around for a while, until the pre-match stacking came about and that the info leaked onto the boards. So it wasn't really a problem until then, apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much the way I see it too. The [censored] really started with the pre-stack and all of a sudden *any* stacked veng was "zomg easy mode"...even though every team on test had been doing it to one degree or another for months. Go figure.

[ QUOTE ]
I also [censored] love how nobody got on LD or NDX about Venge stacking like the Freaks are on us now...

[/ QUOTE ]
We've taken our fair share of grief over stacking veng. Our match with OS is pretty much what set off this whole firestorm, and there have been quite a few people that have said, publicly and in tells, that we're pretty much nothing without it...even though we've had vengless scrimmages (before and since) and the results were the same as the matches with.

After the OS match and all the crap we took about veng stacking, we pretty much stopped practicing it...and it showed in our scrimmages against Velocity on Monday.

I'm more or less of the opinion that, yes, I'd like to see the bug fixed, but as long as it isn't, we're going to keep practicing the way we were. Unless you explicitly forbid veng in a match, there's no way to regulate its use and no reason to expect your opponent wont be using it against you.

Everyone can keep crying about veng stacking all they want, but until the Devs fix it, we either deal with it as is or forbid its use completely. There's no other answer.

So, what do we all want to do?

[ QUOTE ]
Our jump team has beaten our 4 storm team.

[/ QUOTE ]
...on the Eden map.

[ QUOTE ]
Out of the enemy groups Hero side, Nem's are high on my list o hate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, what?!? There are things to kill in this game besides Family mobsters and other players?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, there are people who think email was invented in 1991.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because there wasn't anyone out there to tell us we had it until then. "You've got mail!"

[/ QUOTE ]
We kinda did. I remember some people doing ridiculously wild things with their biff alerts, too.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTH?!? Email outside of AOL in 1991? That's unpossible!

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, there are people who think email was invented in 1991.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because there wasn't anyone out there to tell us we had it until then. "You've got mail!"

[ QUOTE ]
I’d really like to know who was taking a class in MMORPGs in the year 1979 when my college was still using punch cards to teach programming.

[/ QUOTE ]
Game Theory /= MMORPG Class

And you questioned *my* reading comprehension?

[edit] bleh, Thor beat me to it...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously someone who PvPs would visit the PvP zones so often to know that they are ghost towns... right?

[/ QUOTE ]-=edited for brevity=-

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure who it is you quoted there. But it wasn't me.

[/ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

I use quick reply or tend to reply to the last person in a thread because I often try to reply to several people at once instead of posting multiple times in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]
Condescending sighs aside, quick replying to someone and then directly quoting someone else immediately beneath their name is confusing. It's already difficult to follow this thread without tossing random, incorrectly attributed quotes into lenghty replies with no way to track the conversation back.

Just sayin'.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously someone who PvPs would visit the PvP zones so often to know that they are ghost towns... right?

[/ QUOTE ]-=edited for brevity=-

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure who it is you quoted there. But it wasn't me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm having a really, really hard time believing nobody knows what Jack's talking about. It's true that it's hard to define what level of [blank]holery is unacceptable without descending into suffocating legalese, and I agree that Jack has used some (shall we say) sweeping generalizations in his rhetoric, but is everyone really going to act like they don't know what kind of conduct he's talking about?

Really?

[/ QUOTE ]


It serves their purpose to willfully pretend that they don't, it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or you could just make a valid point instead of a verbose and thinly veiled complaint that people aren't playing according to *your* rules.

[ QUOTE ]
But as long as the PvPer crowd tolerates the utter tools that are on their side of the fence, the general opinion of Non-PvPers is unlikely to change.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think we have any more choice in tolerating the utter tools on our side of the fence than anyone else? That's like me saying, "I will never PvE again until *you people* figure out a way to silence the belligerent and obscene 12 year olds that seem to live in Atlas Park's broadcast channel. Outside of petitioning EULA breaking speech, there's noting more we can do than anyone else. Every population in this game has its share of jerks and loud mouths.

I suppose we could target "the tools" in zones and gank the crap out of them until they shut up or leave the game, but then we'd only be doing something *else* that those outside the general PvP population deem as [censored]-hattery. And then who decides who gets ganked and who doesn't? There's no local sheriff, so I guess we'd have to rely on a lynch-mob. That's always fair and acceptable behavior.

Or is it okay for PvPers to gank other PvPers as long as the PvE community gives us the go ahead?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could ask the same thing in reverse. If you're coming into a PvP zone, and there are PvPers there, why can't you give them what they want? A good fight. At least attempt it. Hell, you might find it entertaining. They are participating in the zone the way it was intended by attempting to kill you as much as you are by grabbing badges.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not really reversing my question. My question is "why consistently attack someone who's asking not to be?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's an exact reversal of your question. You ask why PvPers won't give you what you want, and I asked the same of you. Perfectly valid. Why *won't* you fight in a PvP zone?

[ QUOTE ]
But the simple answer to your question is "because by doing what I'm doing, I'm not in any way interfering with you or your enjoyment of the game." It's not really a lot to ask, courteously, to just lay off a guy who's not really there to put up a fight or do much of anything to take skin off anyone's back.

[/ QUOTE ]
You being in the zone potentially affects my gameplay. Period. I have no idea what your intentions are when you zone in and if you con orange, you are another potential author of my demise. Even if you announce your intentions, "I'm only here for badges", how do I know you're telling the truth? I don't know you. I can't count how many times I've been jumped by people who were "just farming pillboxes", or "just lookin' around".

Just last night, I got smacked by some pillboxer's heavy in RV while fighting someone else because they didn't know how to put the thing on passive while they watched.

I sent them to the hospital for it. Not because I was pissed off at them, but because they didn't know how to control the pet and I wanted it off my back. They were easier to kill than the heavy. Problem solved. No harm done. They were there for the pillbox badge. They affected my gameplay.

[ QUOTE ]
Your examples of a person doing PvE stuff that affects you in some way -- well, that's fine. But we're talking about people specifically looking for badges, not people participating in a PvP zone's "story."

[/ QUOTE ]
Are we just talking about exploration badges? Why even announce that? You already know where you're going (vidiot maps), go there and get out. Announcing your presence just makes you an instant target. And as stated above, nobody has any reason to take you at your word regarding your intentions. All you did was tell everyone in the zone that an enemy has arrived.

And even if you're just getting exploration badges...you're yet another entity in the zone screwing up my targetting. Don't be surprised if someone tabs to you in the middle of a fight and takes some shots.

So please understand, just because *you* don't think you're affecting my gameplay, doesn't mean you aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
I do have to ask, and please don't take it like I'm flaming you, but if someone says they're just there for badges.. why can't you leave them alone? It's a courtesy thing, and I understand resenting someone who goes about it rudely, but I can't imagine they all do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could ask the same thing in reverse. If you're coming into a PvP zone, and there are PvPers there, why can't you give them what they want? A good fight. At least attempt it. Hell, you might find it entertaining. They are participating in the zone the way it was intended by attempting to kill you as much as you are by grabbing badges.

There are also many other reasons to attack the self declared "not here for PvPers". Depending on the zone, the actions of non-combatants may have a direct affect on the people who *are* PvPing. Completing zone missions buffs your faction/de-buffs the opposite faction. If someone is in the zone "just for missions" they are directly affecting my abilities. Why would I let them get to their door missions unmolested? Would I stand there idly while they threw an Enervating field on me and then declared, "I'm not here to fight"? Should I not attack a buffer who is buffing that opposing brute or scrapper's damage output? Then why would I not attack someone who is doing the same thing indirectly?

PvP zone temp powers were created with the knowledge that they would be difficult to obtain because you would come under attack by other players in the process. Declaring, then, that those very players are somehow discourteous for playing the game, or the zone, as intended is beyond ridiculous. As I keep saying, if you don't like the way the game is layed out regarding risk vs reward, your beef is with the devs, not the PvPers.

Personally, if someone askes me to leave them alone because they are just looking for a badge or running door missions, I tend to do so. But if I'm already outnumbered in the zone and I see a couple of de-buff icons on me due to zone de-buffs, you better believe that I'm going to go after the ones de-buffing me. PvPers are not persecuting you.

I'd prefer that PvE content be completely taken out of PvP zones so that you know whenever you see an orange name, they are there for a fight. I'm tired of being labeled/derided as a jerk/ganker/SOB in broadcast and on the forums for killing some "non-combatant" who's mind I couldn't read, or who didn't realize that they were not in fact a non-combatant after all.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm having a really, really hard time believing nobody knows what Jack's talking about. It's true that it's hard to define what level of [blank]holery is unacceptable without descending into suffocating legalese, and I agree that Jack has used some (shall we say) sweeping generalizations in his rhetoric, but is everyone really going to act like they don't know what kind of conduct he's talking about?

Really?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Because the standard is entirely subjective. Apparently, the rules of conduct as they stand right now are not good enough for some and they would rather the "standard of conduct" be raised.

So lets say that the Devs (the only actual authority here) decide that certain behaviors are now going to become petitionable offenses. Super. But there are going to be people who think the standard is *still* not high enough and complain to no end that they are being "griefed", when in actuality, they are not being griefed, simply personally offended because someone is not playign "fair" or according the the extra rules they've tdetermined should be enforced in their heads.

I think Jack's logic is horrible and, in my opinion, he is behaving like an obtuse moron and purposfully using hyperbole and BS to obfuscate the fact that the behaviors he described are not "griefing", at least not under the current set of rules handed down by the makers of this game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jack Butler is a poo monkey.

See how that works?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean do I see how you're not bothering to even try and respond to my posts, just insulting me out of hand? Yes, I see how that works.

To the primate house with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
But Fixer said you *were* a poo monkey, therefore by your own logic, you *must* be one.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are being labelled a poo monkey then you've done something to deserve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Fixer made his point quite eloquently. Either your logic is flawed, it somehow doesn't appy to you, or you are indeed a poo monkey.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are being labelled a poo monkey then you've done something to deserve it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. Because no one in the history of mankind has ever been wrongly accused, or even simply misunderstood.

Your logic is severely flawed if you really believe that.

[ QUOTE ]
He also forgot THE biggest -fly power and it exists on not 1 but 2 AT's. It's public enemy number 1...

Impale. 40' range, immob, -fly, high damage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Three ATs technically. Not that you see them all that often, but Thorny Assault Doms also get Impale, and I believe they got to keep the pre-nerf 80' range on it too. (Impale for Stalkers and Scrappers with 3x Dam/Rng HOs brings you back up to about 64'. Not as good as pre-nerf, but not terrible either.)

But yeah, I have to agree with 80, Impale alone will make you want to never fly in PvP again. Coupled with the GvE jump pack or any of the easily attainable temp jet packs, it's not hard to chase fliers down and impale them from the flight ceiling.

I /bug'ed it on test. I ended up having to reset the mission and made very sure not to let the PP lose line of sight on me the second time through.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that you can't assume that you're going to get a Hero at that difficulty. The missions randomly spawn Boss class "heroes".

[/ QUOTE ]

.......

If you assume you're getting a hero...and you prepare for a hero....then you don't get a hero....you're even better off. Prepare for the worst hope for the best. That way if you hit the worst atleast you're prepared for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I don't buy that. Either Hero means Hero or it doesn't. If I face a "hero" that is a +2 boss in a mission, why would I assume that they meant "Hero class mob" the next time they said it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Relentless difficulty has nothing to do with it since the terminology has been obscured.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with it. Since the AV/Solo-EB alterations setting on Relentless gives you an AV/Hero no matter how many are in your party.

[/ QUOTE ]
And as I already stated...my Relentless setting didn't seem to matter when that +2 Boss spawned instead of a Hero class mob. Would you at least make an attempt to argue within the context of the conversation?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The cape mission also says you're going after a "hero" and the best I've ever seen in that mission is a Boss level mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference though. There's a Hero....My Defender is a Hero....then there's a Hero level spawn. A Boss can be a nameds superhero but he's not a Hero level spawn... Personally I'm not confused by this at all but I can see where some might get confused if they don't look closely. I'd rather Archvillains and Hero level mobs all just be called Arch Enemy level mobs instead or Arch Hero instead of just Hero or something...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not confused by it either...but you can't deny that it's inconsistant. They probably should not have used "hero" in the naming convention for mob types. It's too generic a term in this game and relates to vastly different things depending on where it is being applied and who is applying it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Solo Relentless missions will spawn a Hero class mob that must be defeated to finish the mission", then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]
They already have...

[/ QUOTE ]
Not related to this discussion they haven't. If it were true, I would not have been facing off against a +2 boss instead of a Hero on some relentless missions.

Repeatedly and purposefully misunderstanding/misrepresenting what someone said really makes for a tedious discussion. Would you please at least read the context of the thread before answering with generic game mechanics that everyone knows and attempting to assert them as if they were gospel here? The whole point of the discussion is how it seems that the mob Boss, EB, AV spawn rules seem to be broken related to mayhem missions. What part of that are you not understanding?