Arcanaville
-
Posts
10683 -
Joined
-
Quote:Wouldn't you also need evidence the poster was actually male?Originally Posted by KaliMagdalene
Hey, when a guy starts talking about how he'd tap that ***, that's flaunting heterosexuality.
There is nothing wrong with flaunting heterosexuality, I'm just gathering evidence the next time someone claims that no one does that.
I was only saying I think the thread itself wasn't explicitly heterosexual, and I do think there is such a thing as being generically sexual without explicitly stating orientation. Not easy to do in person, of course, but theoretically possible to do on internet forums.
I don't think you need too much evidence to counter the assertion that heterosexuals as a group (or anyone else) don't express sexuality of any kind in the game or on the forums. That assertion is just plain loony. And in this game, with our costume editor, delusional besides.
Edit, since I left the posting window open too long: for the record, bypassing the above to cut to the base topic, I personally have no problem with SGs promoting themselves as "LGBT-friendly." Although I recognize the special discriminatory situation, I don't even need to resort to using that as a justification since in general I think any time people want to advertise a specific inclusivity that might not be obvious they should be allowed to do so. That overrides anyone's uncomfortableness with the specific inclusivity being advertised. I think LGBT SGs need no special rights beyond the general rights we all have to attempt to connect with people with similar shared backgrounds of any kind in the game. The notion that "sexual orientation" has no place in the game is irrelevant: we can't eat chocolate ice cream in the game either but that's also irrelevant to wanting to connect to players that self-identify as chocolate ice cream lovers. Self-identification is separate from conduct.
Given all of that, I still think this forum thread isn't the best example of anything except the weirdness of our forums. -
Quote:I'm not sure its exactly heterosexuality that is being flaunted in this particular thread. I think this one is equal-opportunity weird.Originally Posted by KaliMagdalene
I'm not attacking you, really. One of the common arguments whenever someone brings up LGBT-friendly supergroups is that sexual orientation has no business in CoH. My point is that this is only applied to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (transgender isn't an orientation), and only to keep them invisible. These same people don't haunt threads like this, or the Redheads thread, or other similar discussions and complain about the straight people flaunting their heterosexuality because, honestly, they don't actually give a damn.
-
Quote:Of course, the important issue here is: which 10%.Originally Posted by Westley
Ironically enough, on my way home I was contemplating creating a "hawt dudez" thread to go along with the Redheads thread. Because I'm about 90% hetero, but 10% not... anyone that tries to say they are 100% one way or the other are either lying to you or to themselves or both.
-
Quote:Sometimes eighteen can't you those errors by off avoid.Originally Posted by Robo_Knight
Rewards
Fixed a bug that caused the Justin Augustine Taskforce to award 24 Reward Merits instead of 42 Reward Merits.
Stupid move, stupid move. -
Quote:The really lunatic thing is that Vista was *intended* to be an incremental upgrade to XP, while Windows 7 was intended to be the next major release. But Vista began stealing upstream features until that relationship was completely inverted.Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
This is an excellent object lesson in the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There wasn't any actual reason for them to make Windows Vista; they could've just kept updating XP, like Apple's done with OSX all these years. But no, the marketing department said, "It's time for a new version! It's time to boldly reinvent the wheel!" You'd think they'd have learned and just made the next rev Windows XP Service Pack 4: We're Really Sorry About Vista.
-
Quote:Actually, Vista started off as a fork of the XP codebase, and was reset to be a fork of the 2k3 codebase. It's problems stem from classic feature-creep making the design target a complete mess. It's actually Windows 7 that is mostly based on a clean base, and it's more focused design ended up generating a much better product overall.Originally Posted by MasConejos
Doing a re-write is seldom as wise or as easy a move as people think. For a code-base as mature as CoX, there is a MASSIVE amount of *debugged* and *working* code. Yes it has a few limitations and quirks, but 95% of it is perfectly good and usable. Additionally, in the case of CoX, I have no doubt that the content is tightly coupled to the code. Not only would a rewrite involve throwing out all the code, it would (in all probability) involve throwing out all the content and re-writing it to match the new system. Throwing years of labor and valid code should only be done when the benefit outweighs the cost, and that doesn't happen very often.
The Windows team discovered this when trying to write what became Vista. They started with a fresh code base, and in the end had to throw it out (after ~3 years) and seed off of Server 2003 because they had too many issues trying to get it to work (where it took an additional ~3 years to complete Vista)
Starting from scratch is not intrinsically problematic. The problem comes when you're unclear about what the old code did or have insufficient direction over what the new code is supposed to do or both. -
Quote:My guess is that a total rewrite of either the game client or the server-side systems is highly unlikely, but I will say that I believe it is unsafe to make any extrapolations as to the amount of resources NCSoft/Paragon Studios is willing to invest in the development of the game. I would not currently hazard a guess as to what level of resources they are currently committing to the development of CoX. I only know that from the moment of the NCSoft buyout, my best educated guess has always been lower than what it has later turned out to be likely to be, and my best educated guess has consistently been revised upward.Originally Posted by UnSub
If the playerbase was large enough, growing and there were a bunch of features a new engine could bring even more players to it, redeveloping the engine could be a priority.
That's a lot of "if". Going Rogue will have a graphical enhancement aspect to it, but unless the CoH/V player base is doing a lot better than I think it is I don't think the resource rational exists for a complete re-write of the engine, which would have huge potential downsides (e.g. breaking things that work now) in return for little short-term upsides (sure, in the long-term it might allow more flexibility, but in the short-term all the work would be on making sure things that worked right under the old engine work right under the new engine i.e. a backend change that the majority wouldn't even see if it was done right).
How long it will be sustained is an open question, but I believe NCSoft is committing more resources to developing the product than any player is likely to be guessing. That bodes well for us (the playerbase) in at least the medium term. -
Quote:Hmm... Let marketing handle it...Originally Posted by BackAlleyBrawler
I'll let marketting handle that.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Paragon Studios is pleased to announce that Christopher "Back Alley Brawler" Bruce has accepted a position as Lead Indentured Servant. Under the terms of his new contract Bruce will be working twenty hours a day on a new customized powers system for the City of Heroes / City of Villains game engine.
"We believe this represents a significant innovation in the development of MMOs" said Brian Clayton, general manager of Paragon Studios and executive producer for the City of Heroes franchise. "As pioneers in both the comic book-inspired MMO genre and the fifteen man MMO development team, we believe this move furthers our mission to continually strive for innovation, solidify the strength of our brand, and wring productivity out of our development teams as blood from a stone."
Bruce, formerly the lead animation artist for Paragon Studios, has been a long-time proponent of increasing the amount of resources available to enhance the visual elements of the "City of" games. "We felt the time was right to demonstrate our continued dedication to the quality of our product," said Matt Miller, lead designer of Paragon Studios, "and I could think of no better person to lead this effort than Chris."
The advantages of the Indentured Servant concept are significant. MMO developers are provided adequate accommodations and food, and no longer have the need or right to leave the premises. This allows them to dedicate an average of 82% more time to game development while reducing external distractions from sources such as hobbies or spouses by 93%.
"We believe this innovation in game implementation represents only a small fraction of the potential of this program," said Miller. "For example, I understand pohsyb has been complaining that he needs a faster compiler."
About Paragon Studios
Paragon Studios is a wholly owned development studio of NCsoft West, and is dedicated to the growth of the City of Heroes franchise. Located in Mountain View, California, the team at Paragon Studios brings the world of comic books alive in a massively multiplayer 3D online universe, by any means necessary. -
Quote:Not really, but SRs are more vulnerable to tohit buffs than most other things, and tohit buffs aren't resistable by SR scrappers. Pets have a base 75% chance to hit, so they are all effectively running +25% tohit buffs. Things with tactics or Aim are also going to cause much more hardship for defense-oriented player builds than most other things. If you wanted to make something that was explicitly designed to reduce the effectiveness of softcapping, that's where I would go (my scrapper challenge mission has pets for precisely that reason).Originally Posted by BlackBellatrix
Ok, I understand how defense debuffs would automatically lopside the challenge towards Shield and SR (though, my level 41 SS/Shield was getting owned pretty hard, even on +0/x8, but he isn't slotted for DDR yet and he doesn't have Weave/Grant Cover yet...). So, if someone was going to make a challenge that would be challenging yet not impossible, what types of debuffs would I look for? Are there any auto-hit debuffs that would be a good place to start for an /SR that wouldn't cripple builds without DDR?
One comment on defense debuff resistance. I've always believed it shouldn't have been fully slottable as it currently is, but even so one way to reduce DDR to make it more "fair" as mitigation goes is to simply reduce the DDR cap from 0.95 (95%) to 0.9 (90%). The absolute *worst* that a defense debuff can do so something with no defense is to just about double incoming damage (because after that the attacker hits the tohit ceiling and it doesn't matter any more) and that occurs after about -50% debuff (really -45% debuff, and if the attacker has any accuracy than its a bit less than that). If the absolute best DDR that SR could slot for was 90%, then the amount of defense debuffing that would double incoming damage would be -5% (from an effective 45% defense to 40% defense)** and that would be reached after -50% stacked defense debuffs. That's at least within the realm of possibility (speaking about PvE here) and the high strength of that level of debuffing is compensated for somewhat by the still possible effect of cascade debuffing and by the fact that tohit buffs are out there as a completely separate and unresistable effect.
** this is an oversimplification for discussion purposes: it would take a very involved discussion to account for overstacking defense (which would put you above 45% defense - for which there is no damage mitigation benefit but a significant debuff protection benefit) and the effects of debuff avoidance vs cascading at high defense levels. I'm not ignoring those issues so much as I'm setting them aside here for simplicity for the moment. -
Quote:If it will make your friend feel better, show him this.Originally Posted by Kahlan_
When I told my friend about the Arcana challenge he immediately tried it on his invuln scrapper, and died just by fighting the psi boss. He didn't even get to spawn the first wave. It was hilarious.
I wish I had a better video, but to be honest I spent most of my time laughing my butt off and wasn't paying attention to camera angles. Back in I14 beta, version 1.1 of the scrapper challenge had computers instead of the psi boss that you would click to spawn the challenge waves (a change to the MA forced me to use ambushes on bosses instead).
The challenge used to have three computers called "medium" and "high" and "ultra." I ditched "low" to save resources. "Medium" was comparable to the first wave of the current challenge, but a bit harder. "Hard" was comparable to the second wave of the current challenge, but definitely twice as hard and included nasty things like perception debuffs (which I removed a couple iterations ago after go-live).
Then there was Ultra. Hard was meant to challenge the best of the best. Ultra was meant to challenge the best of the best who cheat. Which is to say, under Ultra you were supposed to see if *anything* would let you beat it: inspirations, temp powers, invisible buffing friends - it was actually meant to challenge devs running signature AV-class characters with everything but The I Win button or Power Suppression running.
I got pohsyb to take a shot at it with his test server cheating-******* controller, which had every single primary and secondary controller power, including every set of controller pets. Honestly, in retrospect I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did: even with all of his controller powers he still only had controller health. I think if he had tanker health or AV health, it would have been different.
True story: initially pohsyb thought I was helping him. I was actually watching him to see how well he did: it didn't occur to me to help him, because I thought he had a decent chance to beat it solo with his super-controller. Actually, I don't think helping him would have changed the outcome: I drop dead about five seconds after the point where the video ends: even under Elude I barely last thirty seconds, and keep in mind the aggro cap is preventing everything from attacking me simultaneously.
Oh, and when the leading edge of the attack wave enters the picture, you see me get pushed off the container. That's not attackers with repel, that's attackers with confuse. Yeah, it used to be really nasty. The current version is actually quite a bit toned down from its psychopathic ancestor. -
Quote:Well, if I have to give a yes or no answer, then the answer is no.Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
Sooo... yes.
The most important part of any operating system that non-professionals typically ignore is the operating environment. SUSE Linux is a Unix with a custom GUI.
OSX has a Unix operating system below, but the GUI is only the superficial component to OSX. The important part from an application point of view is the operating environment. Probably the best analog I can think of is WINE. WINE is a significant percentage of the Windows operating environment ported to Unix. The rough equivalents in OSX are the Carbon and Cocoa APIs and the subsystems that support them.
Graphically speaking, I'm not current on what version of X11 OSX supports, which is in essence another operating environment component, and what if any portability issues it introduces. Because of that, I don't know if porting a game from Windows to Unix to OSX is a trivial exercise on the second hop because of that. It might be, but its not certain to be. -
Quote:Well, that would be a simplistic way to describe it, but in essence OSX is an Apple operating environment sitting on a Mach/BSD hybrid kernel and a Posix-based Unix operating system. And Macs are now basically all Intel-based.Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
I don't see why it would. That would imply that what is being used for *nix users to run games ONLY work with OGL games and I don't believe that to be the case, but I've been wrong before.
Aren't current Apples nothing but a proprietary GUI on top of a *nix kernal running on PC hardware now? -
Quote:One source of confusion is that in an early post you said it would probably be better if power customization was implemented in a CoX-sequel rather than expending limited resources into retrofitting the feature in the existing game due to the amount of effort required. People latched onto that comment significantly before you began posting more informative power customization-related posts and were quoting it as saying power customization was impossible with the current engine. I remember because I responded to a couple by saying that a) BaB didn't say it was impossible and b) I don't think its quite as hard as he thinks it is myself.Originally Posted by BackAlleyBrawler
No. Never said that. I said we'd have to re-engineer the power/animation/VFX system and then convert all of the existing scripts to utilize that new format. Which we did. I also never said we needed a good reason, just the commitment of time and resources that it would require. Both of those were scarce commodities prior to NCSoft bringing the game into its fold.
It was never a limitation of the engine itself. It was the systems bolted into the engine that were designed in the traditional way that pretty much all powers/abilities systems for all games are designed.
Actually, I seem to recall we had several conversations about, for example, using mode bits to implement animation customization and using multiple PFX files (or rather: multiple entries in the same PFX file) to implement overall customization for powers. In all cases what you told me at the time was that those lines of attack only solved the technical implementation problem, not the more general problem of the lack of resources to make all of the additional graphical elements and animations.Quote:It's only when looking back, with the full knowledge of the present, than you can even conceive of it being done a different way. Much like how even now, looking back on Issue 16, I wish we'd have done a few things slightly differently...and were we to start from scratch, I'd want to do a lot of things very differently.
But the reason why the I16 implementation seems relatively straight-forward to me is because I always assumed that if the resources became available one day, this is more or less the way it was going to be done. I'm actually kinda surprised to hear you imply that the I16 implementation supercedes some other possibly less efficient way of doing it. I have to assume they involve data-side implementation specifics I'm not privvy to. -
Quote:Right now I'm trying to figure out how the programmer who did that even knew (incorrectly) where to put the first line, if he didn't know where the second one was. I'm guessing that the actual problem was that the code did something like this:Originally Posted by pohsyb
(note these lines were a lot further apart):
Influence += Reward->Experience;
Influence = Reward->Influence;
GiveInfluence( Player, Influence );
Influence = 0
...
...
...
Influence = Reward->Influence;
...
...
...
GiveInfluence( Player, Influence );
and at some point down the road, someone else needed to add the first line and looked for where Influence was initialized and said: ah, its being initialized to zero; I'll do this:
Influence += Reward->Experience;
right below: this must be safe.
Which is one of those sorts of errors programmers get into. Programmer #1 said "lets be safe: initialize Influence to zero, and then later on set it to the correct value. The first line doesn't actually do anything, but that's ok." Programmer #2 says "oh look: he initialized it: he must have accumulator code after this or he wouldn't need to initialize it. I'll just insert an addition code in there and the downstream code will just accumulate on top." Without the init line, or something similar, the accumulator line in question would have been Unsafe At Any Speed to insert without a logical code reference point to place the insertion.
Unless it was a single programmer that wrote all of the lines, in which case I have to assume alcohol played a factor. -
Quote:Claws and Widows (but not Soldiers) factor in cast times.Originally Posted by BackAlleyBrawler
FYI, there is no damage formula that balanced damage based on animation times other than for "claws" powersets. The formulas balance recharge times based on damage, everything else is pure happenstance.
-
QR
One has to be a bit careful about comparing AoE DPA. The logic behind comparing single target DPA is the presumption that for the circumstances we are analyzing for, a character can generate a full attack chain. When your attack chain is full, higher DPA attacks are better than lower DPA attacks for obvious reasons.
But when you cannot make a full attack chain, DPA is not as good of a proxy for attack power value. Suppose I have two powersets each with one AoE: one has an AoE that does 100 points of damage per target and recharges in 19 seconds, and the other does 125 points of damage per target and recharges in 24 seconds. Both have 1 second activation.
The first power does 100 points of damage per target with 20 second cycle time and the second does 125 points of damage per target with 25 second cycle time. Each does an average of 5 points of AoE damage per second. The first has much better DPA, but that higher DPA can't be used to do more AoE damage, because there are no more AoEs to use. Instead, that higher DPA means the first powerset has a little more time to devote to single target attacks.
Its for this reason that I do not judge AoE attacks by DPA in isolation. I believe the proper way to analyze attack powers is to judge single target attacks by DPA and AoEs by DPC (damage per cycle) unless the set has enough AoEs to make credibly full chains. And actually, I really only consider two cases myself these days: combined single/AoE attacks used against single targets for a single-target composite number, and combined single/AoE attacks used against groups of targets for a composite AoE-adjusted damage number.
To put it another way, I consider AoEs to be single target attacks that happen to do bonus damage when there is more stuff around. If we had two otherwise identical powersets and we added one of the two AoE attacks I mention above to each of them, even though one of them would be getting a much better AoE in one sense, the overall net effect on damage output would be very small.
I was one of the early evangelists for adopting DPA rather than DPC or base damage comparisons, but the logic was always that once your attack chain is full, the only way to improve damage is to have better DPA attacks: having more attacks or attacks that do more damage per attack doesn't help unless they deal more damage per activation-second. That justification doesn't hold for AoEs in most powersets that have them. -
Quote:Technically, Widows also have scaling resistances: theirs are split between CT:O and Foresight, and work on a slightly different formula than SR (I believe its (75-Health%)/60 * 25% for each power, or (75-Health%)/60*50 = (75-Health%) * 5/6 for the two combined. It maxes out at 62.5% resistance, and requires more than 37.5% base resistance to create a similar damage inversion curve (its not a coincidence that its always 100%-max resistance, by the way: the math works out that way because the degenerate case is always the case where resistance goes to 100% as health goes to zero).Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
As to your first caveat, that resistance is hard to obtain, I can only point to the post title and add it to the list of interesting facts about defense and resistance. As to the second caveat... well, Brutes have a 90% resist cap, which changes the formula somewhat. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, honestly, but it's the only other place besides invuln where you get a survivability increase as the situation becomes more dire.
I'm not sure I would describe it as a case where survivability increases as the situation becomes "more dire" because technically speaking a survival increase means its not really getting more dire, but in terms of increased survivability when facing more attackers, there are other examples. Dark Regeneration is one, although it saturates more quickly: it heals more when it hits more targets. Dark Armor in general is a special case for another reason: due to its auras its possible that adding more attackers in melee range contributes little or *no* incoming damage while they increase the strength of Dark Regeneration's heal: Dark Armor and Kinetics have the same "keep those guys alive, I'm using them" situation as a result.
Willpower doesn't quite scale that way with RTTC, but it could if we presuppose a Boss or higher foe accompanied by minions: its possible for the Boss to put you in the hole, and then each minion added to better your situation in some cases (because the Boss does more damage than he contributes in healing, but the minions contribute more healing than they do damage).
And then, of course, there is Eclipse. It also has a damage inversion, but also like Dark Regeneration it saturates so fast (if slotted) that the inversion happens early and then breaks when you hit the resistance cap. But its interesting to note (within the context of this thread) that Eclipse is a resistance buff, has damage-overtaking behavior without extra help (no base resistance outside of the power necessary) and it overtakes fast: I believe 4 is better than 3, and 5 is better than 4 (6 is worse than 5 because at that point you've exceeded the Kheldian resistance cap).
That reminds me: I really need to level my Warshade. -
Quote:Easy enough: the increasing resistance has to outrace descending health. That happens when base resistance is higher than 40%: the point where theoretically speaking resistance would reach 100% when health reaches zero. Of course, resistance caps prevent that from happening, but that's the point where the resistance side accelerates exactly as fast as health drops: in effect the value of your remaining health from every point from 60% to zero is exactly the same. 60% health; 40% resistance. Net value: 0.6/(1 - 0.4) = 100%. 30% health; 70% resistance. Net value: 0.3/(1-0.7) = 100%. Basically, no matter how low you go (up to just above zero) it always takes the same amount of incoming damage to one-shot you. Any base value higher than that, and the resistance benefit increases faster than health descends, and the reversal point is always the same: right at 60% health.Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
On a not totally unrelated note, I'm working out the relationship between the amount of base resistance on a SR and the point where it starts being a survival strategy to hurt yourself...
Basically, the remaining health value curve is hyperbolic descending or ascending, except for the degenerate case where its a flat horizontal line.
The problem is that its not really easy to get 40% resistance, and for scrappers the benefit runs out fast because of the 75% resistance cap. -
Quote:Not so fast. You're correct about the behavior of Invincibility, but not precisely correct about RTTC. Technically, if you're dying at N, it cannot get any better at N+1 for RTTC, but you've overlooked the possibility that for many situations RTTC starts off ahead and stays ahead.Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
And my point is that the way defense scales means that the amount of defense you start from has a much greater effect on the potence of the Invince bonus than the actual amount of the bonus. That's what makes Invincibility potentially "incredibly potent." The contrast here is not between Scrapper and Tanker Invuln as much as it is between Invince and RTTC. In the case of RTTC, if n identical enemies are killing you, n+1 will kill you faster - the additional regeneration from RTTC will not ever start to outstrip the additional DPS. In the case of Invince, once a certain defense value has been reached, it becomes safer to fight more enemies than fewer - at least up to 10, or the softcap, whichever comes first. That's what makes Invince enormously potent, and it's a quality that varies between Scrappers and Tankers only in the amount of non-variable defense needed.
That difference is approximately 10.3%.* I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how difficult this is to achieve.
* Assuming Invince, Tough Hide, and Weave slotted for 1.55x def, and unslotted CJ.
In I11 I ran a bunch of calculations that suggested that RTTC was much more powerful for tankers than scrappers than it might appear at first glance for two reasons: first, the numerically higher health meant the total regeneration increase per target was higher, and second tanker powersets tend on average to have higher offensive damage mitigation than scrapper ones do (parry/DA being the main exception). The combination of those two factors can make RTTC in practice much stronger for tankers than scrappers because its much more likely that a tanker could engineer situations where RTTC's incremental benefit was higher than one minion's damage.
I don't have time to reproduce the calculations at the moment, but I'll just point this fact out: if RTTC was ten times stronger than it is now, it would be obvious that each minion entering melee range would contribute more health regeneration than they would inflict in damage. It would still be technically true that *if* RTTC was dying at N, they would only get worse at N+1, but in this case it would also be true that RTTC had no disadvantage relative to Invincibility, because that "if" would be moot in this case.
For the actual RTTC numbers, this case requires very precise mathematics to make, because the numbers are just that close. So close that when I did the calculations in I11 beta Brutes ended up so close to the borderline (with the reasonable balance assumptions I used) and scrappers and tankers so equally bracketing that line that it almost looked like Castle *aimed* for that target specifically (but I know that he didn't actually do that deliberately). -
Quote:Originally, I believe invincibility's numbers were so high the stacking bug was irrelevant. It only became irrelevant after the devs tried to balance the power by significantly reducing it's numbers and it turned out that doing so seemed to have no effect: because invincibility's stacking behavior was soft-flooring invulns anyway.Originally Posted by NeverDark
Technically, the reason that Invuln worked so well in the early days was that Invincibility was literally broken. It counted itself twice per tick, meaning that Invincibility could very easily give more Defense than Elude.
Also, in the "early days" elude was, and I don't say thus lightly, a totally worthless power. If we got that power at level 2 or so it would have at least been a nice early travel power.
Of course, for me, the early days are the days before I2 elude. Or scrapper crits. Or level 41. -
Quote:This is why I suggested adding different options for SR scrappers to buy with inventions rather than overloading on defensive buffs, back when nerfs wouldn't have hurt anyone yet and you had a lot less colleagues.Originally Posted by Castle
A bit of both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zengar
My guess would be that it is either his personal opinion that there are too many options for defense which is not necessarily shared by his colleagues, or that he feels that there should have been less of that sort of thing from the very beginning but now reducing those would constitute a major nerf to far too many characters.
There's also a related PvP reason: the invention system originally had tohit buffs, not accuracy buffs. Giving out tohit buffs usable in PvP without having a compensating way to buy defense buffs would not have been fair to defense sets. The patch to convert accuracy buffs to tohit buffs didn't enter the QA queue until I9 already went live.
Every second after go-live reduced the chances that the prevalent +Def buffs would be allowed to be radically reduced, because that would act to balance the few defense min/maxers at the expense of the vast majority of players with only a few defensive benefits not even stacked onto high pre-existing defense.
For all that players blame devs for radically changing MMOs at their whim, the truth is that more often than you might think - more often than even they are sometimes willing to admit - MMO devs do not get second chances. -
Quote:They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.Originally Posted by Dreaming_Shadow
We should put together a charity event to Save Our Synapse.
Explain to me again how this doesn't get interpreted by Synapse, Sunstorm, and The Other Powers Guy as yet another instance of Castle getting all the perks while they do all the work.Quote:*walks into Castle's office dressed in a full leather outfit and thigh high heels, and wrestles the whip away from him. Then mists him in the face with cold water* -
Quote:In my version of the Halloween event, every door would spawn a completely random set of critters disguised as some other random set of critters that you would have to defeat to get your treat.Originally Posted by Neuronia
Arcanaville.
In a giant robot with laser beams.
And fire.
"I equate you with failure, EX-TER-MI-NATE!"
"Your power choices do not add up, EX-TER-MI-NATE!"
"This is a numbers game and you come out 0, EX-TER-MI-NATE!"
And she'd spawn random mobs dependant on zones...rain o' Mitos anyone?
So you might get a Rikti Monkey wearing a Jurassik costume that you can easily put down. Then again if you find a Cog packing laser beam eyes and total focus with thirty thousand health you might want to consider an easier door. -
Quote:Its basically impossible for DR to affect different powers in different ways, because the DR code basically looks at the attributes, not the powers.Originally Posted by LuxunS
The recharge cur is different for different archetypes
or
Something is off with mind link
But it *is* possible for DR to affect different archetypes differently, and in fact that happens with things in damage resistance deliberately in the case of tankers. But I don't think different archetypes had different DR parameters for recharge. I will check on that as soon as I can.
Just one problem with that: my home PC went kaboom last night, so I will need to deal with that first. Might be a good excuse to invest in an I7 desktop. Also, I've been wondering about this bad boy.
I *think* I can get the DR values on my laptop, but it might not happen until the weekend. And I'm going to be travelling for a few days starting tomorrow. I'll see what I can do though. -
Quote:That does seem to be too much of a discrepancy. I'm not in a position to do so now, but I will try to recheck the DR constants for recharge to make sure they haven't changed since the last time I looked. Perhaps my DR calculator is out of date for that attribute.Originally Posted by LuxunS
Any insight would be appreciated. Not sure if I'm making a mistake with my math somewhere, but this just isn't adding up for me.
Its also possible that DR is kicking in on global recharge bonuses specifically, but if it is then I believe that is not the intended behavior.