Arcanaville

Synapse has a history of trusting his coworkers a little too much.

The devs deliberately release this stuff, then claim it was an accident, because then they will encourage players to believe that it wasn't an accident, and was actually deliberately planned, and in this way convince people to promote the fact that they are more fiendishly diabolical than they actually are. This way, when an accident does happen, no one will believe they made a mistake and will thus conclude its all part of some greater plan.

In other words, its basically a Nemesis plot.

Wow.

Paragon seems to have toned down the developer disciplinary options significantly.

Honestly, if it was me, I would transform the target point to a normalized one as if there was no roll (basically, undo the roll), do your calculations as you currently do them, and then transform the results back to the rolled frame of reference.

In most coordinate and graphics systems I've seen, most of the nitty gritty stuff is done in a simple frame of reference, and transforms are applied to it. So lets say your screen is currently rolled 40 degrees counter-clockwise. That means the y-plane is now more at 4 o-clock rather than 6 o-clock (aligned with the bottom of the screen). Rather than make more complex formulas to calculate what's going on, I would take the target point, rotate that 40 degrees *clockwise* and compute where it *would have been* if the screen wasn't rolled. That would tell me what the x,y,z of the target would have been. Then I roll that x,y,z target 40 degrees back counterclockwise, and that's where the puck goes. Calculating rotation about the z axis shouldn't be difficult by itself.

I really don't see how you can continue to repeat saying that there exists a badge whose requirements make it special, but that's totally irrelevant to an argument that says no set of requirements makes a badge special.

I'm not sure precisely how you go about disproving a statement that says "I am false" with more than zero steps.

That only works on Nemesis.

That I don't recognize the extreme nature of Bug Hunter, when I selected it specifically for its extreme nature, because that's precisely what you always select when you want to disprove an absolute statement which doesn't admit exceptions.

Actually, I'm doing neither of those things, which is part of your confusion.

I think it will have to happen before the devs believe it will happen.

I like the new options in general, though.

There's no such thing as too much Spam.

Wait, I take that back. I've been to Guam.

No, what I'm saying, which is an a priori true statement, is if the argument "if I have it there's no problem with the requirements" is true, its true regardless of the requirements of the badge because the actual argument says its blind to the requirements of the badge.

This is supposed to be a brain-dead straight forward true statement.


Oh I know I'm wasting my time in this particular case because logic hasn't made a guest appearance in over a week, but its my time to waste.

I haven't looked at those powers specifically, but there's a difference between changing effects based on target type, which we've always been able to do to varying degrees, and changing the mechanical targeting of a power which is what I was referring to. Specifically, I do not believe its possible to make a Location power to suddenly become a targeted power when in a PvP zone. If it is possible, the tech to allow that would potentially make a whole bunch of other interesting effects possible that were not possible before due to database architecture issues.

I have. I don't concur with it, but the logic some people follow is that without the tank the task force will fail anyway, so giving the temp to another character only doubles the chances for a d/c to make the task force impossible to complete.

Unless Arbiter Hawk is using the wrong term, Targeted AoEs require a target and Targeted Toggles anchor on the target until detoggled. An example of a Targeted AoE toggle would be Enervating Field.

So you're saying Bug Hunter would be an exception to the rule that possession implies reasonable requirements, because its requirements make it an exception.

What the exception is, is irrelevant. That is what I said. The only way you could be in disagreement with me is if you feel you personally are the singular arbiter of what a valid exception to that rule is.

The fact that exceptions can exist mean its valid to discuss whether the requirements of other badges, while different, constitute valid exceptions to that rule, which also makes the rule itself essentially offer no guidance for discussion purposes.


You know, even Another_Fan agreed with me completely, albeit unwillingly and unknowingly, because this is not an easy thing to rationally disagree with, although I'm impressed at the level of effort being put into the attempt.

You'd be wrong.

You can change the effects of a power for PvP, but not its mechanics. As far as I know, the tech does not exist to change how a power is targeted based on conditionals.

It depends on your definition of "dynamic." I believe the procs are very likely to adjust to the power they are slotted into, but I believe those are static calculations done based on the power definition and not the actual live performance of the power with buffs.

I could be wrong there, but that's my current suspicion.

Also, either Clockwork 01 is mistaken about how the procs work, or someone is going to have a very interesting time writing text descriptions for them. If Clockwork 01 is correct, the maximum proc rate is dependent upon what power the proc is slotted into. But that would mean any attempt to say "this enhancement procs about X times per minute" would be misleading.

I don't know how the new proc system was implemented, but I do know all attuned procs have an implied PPM baked into them that seems to match the text description. Whether that is used as a PPM limit or used to calculate an on-the-fly limit is a different matter, and one difficult at the moment to test.

I don't know if we lost it, but I suspect the current dev team does not include any of the people that originally created it, which makes it problematic to maintain or extend.

The fact that their "gravitational constant" problem wasn't instantly reverted says a lot.

So what you're saying is that because the requirements for the badge are arbitrary, the fact that some people have it is not relevant to whether the requirements are fair, correct?

I have no specific problem with that opinion.

The response seem to suggest customer service combined the two, as the response specifically mentions the acts of another player, rather than the mechanical bug in question.

If it was me, I would report the bug first with no mention of the player at all or anything remotely related to player intent, and only after the mission was reset would I then, if I so chose, petition the player.

Its essentially gaming customer service, but to be honest there isn't a tier 1 customer service center in the world I'm 100% straight towards. They play a game: see if we can find a way to make this not our fault. So I play the opposite game: see if I can find the magic words that will get them to do what I need them to do. These magic words may or may not actually describe the problem I currently possess., but that's irrelevant.

Once, I had a monitor fail in a peculiar way: when I tried to turn it on, it made a loud pop, and I began to smell what seemed to be burning plastic. I called the vendor and when they asked me to describe the problem I told them when I turned the monitor on it caught fire I asked them if they would like me to turn it on again and tell them if it catches fire again and they very quickly said "no, no, don't do anything; unplug it and we'll send you another one. Don't do anything at all with that one."

Next time I need a monitor replacement fast, I know how to escalate the problem to the end of the support script instantly.

Its possible there's a distinction made between asking for a mission to be autocompleted due solely to a game bug that makes the mission impossible to complete, and asking for a mission to be autocompleted in an attempt to circumvent the intent of another player to make it impossible to complete. The GMs might be saying by policy that if I run a mission, I have just as much right to decide what happens in that mission as any other player, and the GMs do not want to get involved in arbitrating a player dispute.

Ironically you might have had better luck reporting it strictly as a game bug, and not as a game bug exploited by another player.