Yogi_Bare

you may want to point out that both Poison Dart and Dart Burst have -regen as a secondary effect (which I've heard comes in handy for high regen badarses)

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of opportunities to be seen as a team or even as an individual leader in upcoming productions.

[/ QUOTE ]

so... what does this mean exactly?

Triumphant Insult: Chance to Disorient not working in non-aura powers

No Def Debuff IOs working in Thugs tier one minions (that slot allowance needs to be removed or their attack allowed to actually do debuffing)

You've gotta be kidding me!



This has got to be one of the most bunk wannabe features added to any mmo ever!







Nah, just kidding... nice job; all i'll need is my freebies and my vet slots... anything more than that is obsessing.

All the proliferation is fine and good but being that no Primaries are being ported over for MMs... PLZ fix the MM Thugs primary; either give their Tier 1 an attack that actually does -DEF or remove the -DEF slotting for them

sounds like a minor bug long overdue for a minor tweak

^yep

My favorite part of this so far is the 'click-on-name' feature for the chat window.

Even suggested it a while back.

Typing in extra-long names, binary names and names with the easily overlooked punctuation smooshed in between the name and the colon was getting to be a slight annoyance

oops...

do like the roman gear... it'll give me something to work with til I get my Samurai trappings

A team of eight with various team buffs, like:

Manuevers
Shadow Fall
Artic Fog
Sonic Dispersion
FFG

mixed with Aggro magnets like pets

and single target buffs...

PvE may have just been caked

(or 8 Storm/Dark Defs spamming Hurricanes in PvP)

spent a few hours CoVing it on Fri, Sat and Sun:

+2 lvls - rad corr
+2 lvls - ice dom
+2 lvls - another ice dom
+2 lvls - ss brute
+2 lvls - son corr
+2 lvls - nrg brute
+1 lvl - rbt mm
+1 (or 2) lvls - ice corr

can get the Jailbird Badge from the Zig flashback if you missed it in the beginning

Redcap badge and Tuatha badge also a winterlord badge of some sort

at Pax - i suppose so... but there have been 'maintenances' that fell considerably early compared to normal...

just wondering if that was the plan this time around...

being that it hasn't happened, I'll have to take it as a no and just wait til morning

----

Thnx LH

is this starting at midnight or at 7am?

Will the original Ritki Invasion have events that will be available for back-tracking... if so, would Vanguard merits still be earnable?

[ QUOTE ]
... "improve an idea or make it workable" - full stop, my friend. There are ides I just don't think are, should be, or can be made workable. Not even GOD almighty herself could possibly make such ideas workable.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, so have I... there's much in the way of ideas with extreme balance issues, trademark infringements, extreme cornyness, etc... but I let them be... I don't waste my time to even post a /no to it (if I feel that's all I'm capable of contributing to it); unless I like the concept... then I might suggest alternatives (like in the Rune Powerset thread)

I have the discipline to supress any urge that would force me to post something inane in a thread of a person that is not actively seeking to parse me off (as well as those that do)

and I enjoy brainstorming and working with people to make even what is seemingly impossible... somewhat feasable or workable... if I feel that I cannot do that, then anything else would be a waste of my time and theirs.


IMO, a thread started by me is of my thoughts and expression and I am being held accountable for it; by the community as well as the admin. (In referring t a post by me... the statement would more than likely consist of, "Your thread/post, 'X'...") Even if NCSoft/Cryptic holds rights to anything posted here... what I post is pretty much me and mine, I am not prohibited from taking any statement I post here and putting it into a personal notebook or elswhere and I can delete it at will. (but that's really not the issue at hand, is it?)

I have no problem with constructive disagreement... (as stated ad-nauseum)

I do have a problem with snotty attitudes and snide remarks in what's supposed to be an open and 'communty' environment... that's primarily what I'm addressing being that I've seen so much of it

I've seen more of that than I've seen /no, and /no more than I've seen anything that remotely resembles suggestions on how to improve or make an idea workable. And I've seen dogma that holds little weight in the grand scheme of occurances that have come to pass.

If /no were a few and far between type comment... I'd personally have no problem with it... the thing is that it has become a trend with a plethera of posers that think they're cool or somehow militant for doing it... and I cannot stand that kind of a mentality

I am aware that some posters may react badly to constructive criticism but being that constructive criticism is rare (when compared to the other drek), it also stands to reason that those bad reactions are rarer still and virtually moot when compared to rude busybodies...

It's not the fact that people are simply saying, "I don't like it."... it's the fact that they're throwing a bunch of other crap in there with it.

It's gotten to the point that when certain people touch a thread, it's a fight waiting to happen.

As I've said before... I've seen people capable of cordially, respectively, politely, professionally, etc... disagree with a topic but I've seen double that amount in [censored] posters that think just because they don't like an idea, or the idea has been brought up more than twice... that it's funny or cool to go in and flex indignation, contempt, condescension or flat out hostility in a thread.

As far as thread/post possession; if you post something (thread or otherwise...) that gets you banned... it's all you and yours baby, all the way out the door.

i'm not sure exactly when Jranger's 'no' parade started (which thread) but earlier that day... it wasn't about 'no', he was actually putting his two cents on something that had nothing to do the OP and that wasn't directed at him ... which was followed by a flamewar and then (after a brief hiatus...) the 'no' storm.

/no was pretty much a minor issue until it became a massive spam and troll campaign... it would've remained a minor issue at best but the ambulance chasers latched on and spread it like a disease (in number and intent); then it became a forum issue... which is more disruptive but at best, still minor

you couple that in with the people-and-thread bashing at a surging rate... then of course the 'red button' is also going to be hit at a corresponding rate; it goes from minor to major very quickly (and yes, if you're bashing a thread that is the same as bashing the creator of that thread - when you say that a thread is stupid; you're actually criticizng the intelligence/thought process behind it... ie. the OP)

The attitudes have gotten so self-righteous; that people are actually attempting to justify being meddlesome spammers, flamers and trolls. (And don't think that most people can't distinguish constructive criticism from 'slights of mouth')

Just because you think a thread is being used as flamebait doesn't mean it is just because you said so. (I've been accused of it on one or two threads when it wasn't the case just because some widgit chooses to read into something a particular way without asking questions before opening their massive gap.

People were given an opportunity to mod themselves and was given the reason why yet some insisted on biting the hand that was feeding them and you have the audacity to wonder why some of you are getting smacked down...

Even now, there's gnawing and the gnashing of teeth; well have fun with it while it lasts.

no one's confirmed or denied my impression of their being a no petitioning rule but if one does exists; /signed and /unsigned... /yes and /no responses are both violations... the rest, at that point, would be academics (and moot at that)

If there is not such a rule then I stand by assessment that a thread of /yes pretty much constitutes preaching to the choir and I don't see why the choir has to echo the same sentiment over and over (when /yes constitutes 100% agreement)

If a person likes the idea but wants to add, subtract or otherwise edit it then they're not at 100% agreement with the idea... this does not constitute a /yes... somewhere down the line... there is a disagreement about something in and/or about the idea... that would be a /maybe and just maybe that /maybe should be fleshed out a bit

If I'm a new poster to these boards and want to see what the forums are about before I start posting; if I scan 30 threads and see the same people posting /no everywhere, what are my options when drawing a conclusion about that group or the forums

1. If I hated every single topic that a bunch of /no was found... then I guess there's no problem

2. If I liked a few or more of the topics where a bunch of /no was found... then a problem begins to arise...

3. If it's the same person I'm seeing doing it in 90% of the threads that they're in... guess what, I've gotten my first impression of that person and it will affect how I deal with them in the event that I have to.

(remember... it's your choice whether or not to enter a thread, your choice whether or not to read it, your choice whether or not to respond - 3 decisions you have to make; 3 choices you are responsible for making and 3 choices you ultimately have to face the consequences of; good, bad or null)...

It's apalling to think that some think it's the OP's responsibilty to roll over when accosted, belittled or harrassed in their own thread.

It's pathetic that everyone that stands up for themselves or their ideas gets labeled as thin-skinned (heck, my skin would be thin too if a bunch of people kept rubbing on it continuously)

It's funny to me that the same people that can't leave a thread alone when it rubs them the wrong way are the same people that can't find their way out the forum door when the forum starts rubbing them the wrong way.

If you can't or refuse to adapt... leave, duh.

as far a a /yes goes... if the poster has detailed his idea enough to a responders topic and the responder agrees... what does he need to add besides the statment of agreement to support that he agrees with the topic - that would be an act of redundancy

If the responder only agrees with part; then he is inherently at a disagreement with something in the OP and if he responds as such... should detail the part he disagrees with

Example:

Topic: I like cats

Body: Cats are cool because they are furry.

Responder (Agrees):/signed

End of discourse... no followup neeeded


Responder (Partly Agrees): I like cats too but not because they're furry... I just like the way they purr

End of discourse. No followup needed

Responder (Disagrees):/no

Open ended. OP wants to know why the responder said no (Does he not like cats, does he not like furry... what?)



Responder(Disagrees): /no, this thread is stoopid

guess what you go on a watch list

easiest thing to do is just stay out of the thread if it bothers you... if you are incapable of doing that, then you're being just as moronic as the thread you're wasting your 'valuable' word/words on...

if i were at a table discussing something and someone at the table had nothing to say besides no (especially if it's repeatedly)... at some point I would (or some else would) most assuredly either call him out on it or tell him to shut the blank up. If he got all huffy about it, we'd ask him to leave... if he didn't... he suffers the consequences of his spite/ignorance/stupidity (your call)

If I'm at this same table and I'm having a one-on-one at this table; someone decides to butt in... he'd be asked to mind his own blankentyblank business (attitude dependant on the conversation at hand and the 'butt-in' comment); if he got huffy about it... he'd be asked to leave, if he didn't; he'd more than likely catch a right to the face.

Rudeness begins as soon as you've determined that you're going to post in a thread that you knowingly have a problem with. Period.

...and I have 7 kids, (from 10mos old to 13yrs old); it would be sooo easy just to run around and yell NO! at all of them... but they wouldn't learn anything without giving a reason behind the no.

I do give them a no (and a pass, if the action isn't out of bounds)... and I give them explanation on why not... so when they get out of line again, I can ask them if they know what they did wrong (which the older ones usually do) and when they get punished they know exactly why and for the most part... can accept that punishment

Only my younger ones lack the discipline needed to realize and accept their punishment and respond to such with whining in attempte to weasel out of that punishment.

Once it has been established that your child knows why they are being told no... it can be acceptable to reinforce it just by saying no... providing that at some point, you remind them again as to why

i think they gave ample explanation (and it is consistent with what I've seen at other sites)

bottom line is that they gave us an opportunity to act with maturity and social responsibility by allowing us to communicate without heavy handed modding but when we proved that we couldn't handle that opportunity... they had no choice but to change their approach... especially after, not one, but two public appeals/warnings for the community to 'try again' so as to prevent what everyone is complaining about now...

I fail to see the contradiction, I do see the applicable evolution

i hope people don't respond to their children the same way they respond (as addressesd) to threads and would consider it as 'constructive'.

The '/no without explanation/constructive dialogue' (with the supposition of being constructive) does not hold up in child or criminal psychology... it doesn't even hold up in animal training or the tech behind subliminal affirmation programming

[ QUOTE ]
Still not the same thing. What's happened to me doesn't require any subsequent action to be done by me - that old mistake of mine was resurrected behind the scenes, by their (yes, AFAIK, automated) filter. I believe it would have come up even if I had been a virtual Mother Theresa on these boards for the past six months.

Heck, if I'd been absent for six months, even.

And that just strikes me as "not right". So I dearly, DEARLY hope I'm wrong. Somehow. Despite the evidence of my eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many ex-cons that share the same sentiment...

Justice can be blind especially when it changes it's officers... (Edit: Maybe changing their filter setting would help alleviate some of this?)

sometimes Justice can just be a mean ol' cantakerous -explicative- (but I don't think that this is the case this time around)

Well, I don't know your case specifically... but it seems that because you're still here... your history wasn't enough to get you banned. If you got a stern warning this time around... then take it as just that... nothing more.

Maybe your name recently showed up in somebody's tattletale and that's why it seems that they're pulling this out of the blue; maybe they're running some kind of filter (which would make this impersonal) or maybe they're just going through their list/log of situations that they actually had to step in and do something (which would also make it impersonal)... I honestly don't know the exact method that's being used... but there has to be a reason for them pulling up something 2 years old... (even if it is something a Bot is sifting through)

in any event... I still don't see this as double jeapordy; the way you are explaining it to me is more akin to the 3-Strike laws... yes, you may have been convicted and served time for your felony but that felony can still be referenced in the process to determine whether or not you'd be considered a 'habitual offender' and punished as such

Edit: IMO, however, when I think of names that should be worried about this... yours doesn't come to mind... at least, not in my dealings