BellaStrega

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's a very defeatist attitude, and wholly ignores the fact that major bugs have repeatedly "squeaked" through QA, only to be caught almost immediately by the playerbase on Test, then often to once again "squeak" through to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

This happens because bugs reported only on the forums are prioritized below all bugs found by QA - apparently this is required by NCSoft and was noted in a Dev post recently (I think it was Positron's, yep, found it). They basically have to work on their lunch hour or on a weekend to fix anything players find, it seems...

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is the policy then that is lunacy. Bugs should be priorities on their importance regardless of where they come from.

The way some bugs have been reintroduced suggests to me a weak testing methodology, poor version control or someone messed up CVS

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect it's a change. There was a time when you could take a bug and evidence of that bug to QA and get the bug addressed fairly quickly.

It seems to point to a lack of sufficient staff now, but also some flaws in the QA process.

[ QUOTE ]
This particular one was never in a bug from NC Soft or Cryptic Internal, the only mention of it was on this forum. Since NC Soft and Cryptic bugs take priority, I had to make sure I cleared all of those before I could begin work on issues from the forums. Which I have been this week.

Hope this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

May I have the several hours I spent farming masks in Dark Astoria back, due to the portal mission masks not counting toward the total?

I'm sorry if I sound a bit bitter, but I do recall when we could find and report bugs to QA and get attention.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know what comic book tanks actually do? they knockout the enemy, they hold him, grab him, stop him toss him, knock him back, etc etc, so the enemy cant get to their squishier allies. They disable minnions and annoy the big bad ones enough to make sure he does not want to turn his back.

In other words: They are melee controllers that cant hold bosses and are very hard to control and kill themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

No, see, comic book tanks are big machines that the military employs to shoot supervillians ineffectively.

The term "Tank" is not a comic book TERM. I get a little tired of people complaining about "comic book tanks" being different from CoH tanks. Comics don't classify their heroes in archetypes. It's the players of CoH, that equate the concept of a "tank" with your Juggernauts and your Supermen.

A "Tank", my friend, is an MMO term for someone that protects their team by standing in the way of any attacks that happen to come along.

Personally, I wish they'd just give scrappers a super strength set and give people that want to play what they -THINK- a tank is have a way to actually -do- it, then they could stop complaining about the fact that "their AT" doesn't do what they want it to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You win the intarweb prize for arguing pointless semantics. Clever way to completely miss or try to divert the point.

[ QUOTE ]

But the fights were never impossible to finish with a reasonable team. Just very difficult. (Afore-mentioned damage insp huffing included) And it's not their job to make balance calls. The overriding priority of QA is making sure the frigging thing works. Cryptic takes care of balance and stuff, Thats why they have an internal test server.

[/ QUOTE ]

The internal test server is the QA server.

Also, your math is silly because it is there to support your assertion that if the debuff is balanced before issue 5 and 6, then it must be balanced after. Since the debuff did not change, but Invuln lost a large chunk of defense capability, it cannot be balanced by definition. It's even arguable whether it was balanced before.

[ QUOTE ]
QA wasting time doing AV fights over and over would be inefficient. They really don't have time for balance problems like that. One can make an argument for more extreme and obvious balance errors, but I think it is a tiny matter compared to the things QA ought to be concerned with. The balance errors are Cryptic's error.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, do you actually know what QA does? QA's job is to play the game over and over and over and over and dig out everything they can find. That's it. That's QA. They play the game until their eyes bleed. Then they crack open a box of Kleenex, wipe the blood off, and play some more. If it's impossible to finish a fight with a reasonable team, QA should notice.

And, actually, QA did notice. it was mentioned when they announced the contest to complete the LRSF.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the AV buffs were deliberate.

I think the main problem with the AV buffs is that they simulated player damage output under the assumption that every player on the team would be huffing reds like candy, and that doesn't tend to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think even that would account for it.

Anyway, I didn't say the AV buffs weren't deliberate. I said the overestimation probably wasn't.

[ QUOTE ]

Y'all are cute, really. But my point - as i'm sure you all know - is that the def debuff was not instituted to balance out the wholeset against the huge buffage that could be attained pre-ED and global defense nerfs. It was instituted as a matter of powerset balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

"powerset balance" = "what the powerset is capable of." You're being circular and claiming it's a straight line.

To spell it out in explicit terms: If the debuff was instituted as a matter of powerset balance (it wasn't, but we can come back to that later), then it was a matter of balancing what the powerset could do. What the powerset could do at the time the debuff was added was reach extreme heights of defense and resistance, making well-built invuln tankers practically unkillable against anything neither psi nor toxic. If the defenses are reduced (and they were, twice), then the debuff - which was balanced for the former capabilities - is now too powerful.

It's like algebra. If a = the desired balance point, and both the debuff and the powerset's capabilities are at the desired balance point, then a = a. If you change one, then one of those becomes b, or not-a. Naturally, a != b, especially if b is explicitly not-a.

So to sum it up: Your point isn't even wrong.

Anyway, the def debuff replaced the self-immob. The self-immob was added for flavor reasons, per one of the devs way back when. They later said that it was actually for balance, but that's a retcon, as it were.

[ QUOTE ]

And was the AV regen thing actually attributed to a goof? I missed that proclamation. I just wrote it off as yet another stealth nerf -- y'know, they nerf something to the nth degree, people complain, and then they swoop in and "adjust" it back down, assuring the player base that all is well and that they're oh so attentive. Until you realize that what they un-nerfed is STILL more nerfed than it was before. So all the while they're sucking up praise, they're secretly laughing at us cause they got their nerf in nonetheless.

But I'm derailing -- was the AV regen thing a goof and not a stealth nerf?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be a deliberate decision, which would suck.

It could also be that they thought it would make them properly tough, and QA missed that they were too tough.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was trying not to reference any of that EU jibberjabber

[/ QUOTE ]

leave the EU alone i actually like as do most other fans. I feel that the star wars universe is boring and not very fun if you take the EU out of it. And if you claim to being a star wars fan please dont tell me all you do is watch the movies. i am a star wars fan and i barely watch the movies. so keep your mouth shout about the EU.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say about the quality of the EU?

And for that matter, did the EU somehow reference nerfherders before TESB?

[ QUOTE ]
And btw if it originated in the movies that makes from the movies. Examples gundarks nerfs star destroyers the death star that creepy guy with one eye in rotj. Quinlan vos Aayla Secura arent from the movies but people thaught that they were so awsome that they put them in the movies. well you can see quinlan vos in episode 1. he is identified in a later comic book when aayla mentions they were on tatooine when they were stranded.


dont insult the EU

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't insult the EU. Stand down.

[/ QUOTE ]
ZOMGOOSES, Kali haets teh EU and weights the same as a duck burn her!

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not weigh the same as a duck.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason the global defense nerfs don't warrant a removal of the DEF penalty is, because, um... they were global nerfs. They had relatively minor effects on power balance.


[/ QUOTE ]

...
Saying that global nerfs have minor effects on specific powers balance is incredible BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well actually, I think even calling it BS is an insult to BS everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

"It is not even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli

[ QUOTE ]
I will rephrase: People [censored] about what QA isn't catching. They have no idea what they are catching. My view is that complaining about QA not catching balance errors is like complaining about QA not catching errors in the spellcheck dictionary. It's irritating and intereferes with the product. But it does not warrant the comments being made in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, QA's history does warrant the comments made in this thread. Not the really nasty comments, but definitely the criticism.

There's no way QA should have missed: AV regen, 50% defense debuff on Unyielding, or reintroduction of legacy bugs (like the inability to hit moving targets with AoEs). Yet they did. QA should have also noticed the discrepancies in the scrapper vs. +8s tests, but they didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason the global defense nerfs don't warrant a removal of the DEF penalty is, because, um... they were global nerfs. They had relatively minor effects on power balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that they were global does not change the fact that the Unyielding penalty is too much for Invulnerability's current state, as opposed to issue 4 and earlier. To put it another way: If the debuff was balanced for Invuln in issues 3 and 4, then it's most certainly not balanced after issues 5 and 6.

Also, your above statement is circular.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually it was the ability to max out both RESIST and DEFENSE on one char, but who cares...
The problem right now is simply that the non-S/L resists are so lousy, dropping the DEF and going for the old RES values for those types would improve the survivability...

[/ QUOTE ]

While it is true that the ability to cap resistance and defense was incredibly uber, you could run with about 50% resists and Invincibility and still be extremely uber.

Invincibility was the pony with the trick. If that had been fixed in issue 5, Invuln probably wouldn't have been hit as hard as it was in the resists.

It's pretty frustrating that Invincibility was fixed, but the resists are left as-is.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

QA catches major bugs. Not piddling decimal errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like that "piddling decimal error" which lost the NASA probe to Mars a couple years back? That was only a few hundred million bucks.

Do you even know what decimals are? From this response you sound like you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? I thought the Decepticons destroyed the Mars probe.

Sorry about this derailment.

[ QUOTE ]
it's not 'needed', what it is is not broken. complaints about it are absurd. a tank running close enough to the margin that 5% DEF either way makes a difference has much bigger problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before Invincibility and SOs, tankers do run close enough to the margin that 5% def either way makes a difference.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was trying not to reference any of that EU jibberjabber

[/ QUOTE ]

leave the EU alone i actually like as do most other fans. I feel that the star wars universe is boring and not very fun if you take the EU out of it. And if you claim to being a star wars fan please dont tell me all you do is watch the movies. i am a star wars fan and i barely watch the movies. so keep your mouth shout about the EU.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say about the quality of the EU?

And for that matter, did the EU somehow reference nerfherders before TESB?

[ QUOTE ]
And btw if it originated in the movies that makes from the movies. Examples gundarks nerfs star destroyers the death star that creepy guy with one eye in rotj. Quinlan vos Aayla Secura arent from the movies but people thaught that they were so awsome that they put them in the movies. well you can see quinlan vos in episode 1. he is identified in a later comic book when aayla mentions they were on tatooine when they were stranded.


dont insult the EU

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't insult the EU. Stand down.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i though the word nerf originated from star wars galaxies. i thought the term was used because a nerf was a highly unplesent animal. (dont ask how i know that)

[/ QUOTE ]

A nerf is a highly unpleasant animal referenced in The Empire Strikes Back, which I suspect predates SWG by a few years.

[/ QUOTE ]

A nerf is not just ANY unpleasant animal, but one that is used for food and basic clothing on agricultural colonies as well. They also make sausage. That's widely distributed and a staple for those who can't afford "better" food. Yeah, yeah, I'm a nerd. Sue me Anyway, the most correct answer here is that term STARTED being used way back in MUDs as a term for being weakened. Since then, the term has grown in "popularity" (a better word would be "infamy") and stuck. Because of the multiple connotations (the nerf bat/sword or becoming like a Nerf foam weapon), it hasn't changed and will likely be around for evah and evah. And evah moh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying not to reference any of that EU jibberjabber.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is Castle's sig quoting everyone's favourite robotic assassin from KOTOR?

[/ QUOTE ]

From KOTOR2, and I think it was one of the other HK models, but yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just finished playing it again. I love the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

HK is at least twice as fun as Black Whirlwind.

[ QUOTE ]
i though the word nerf originated from star wars galaxies. i thought the term was used because a nerf was a highly unplesent animal. (dont ask how i know that)

[/ QUOTE ]

A nerf is a highly unpleasant animal referenced in The Empire Strikes Back, which I suspect predates SWG by a few years.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not the use of the word "nerf" that anyone gives a rat's [censored] about, it's the actual changes that swirl the playerbase into a frenzy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more accurate to say:

"...it's any actual changes that swirl the playerbase into a frenzy. "

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, after a few radiation defender-playing people got all swirled into a tizzy over tar patch having a -res debuff, you might be right...

Then again, there weren't many frenzies after armor stacking was added, after Dark Miasma got its needed boost, and so on.

[ QUOTE ]

In any event, ED was just Statesman not having the courage after I5 of saying, "This is what we think the game needs. If it's not enough there might be more major changes later." That would have been the truth. Of course, it would have pushed some people away. But for me, having credibility with the customers would have been more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, that would've cut down a huge chunk of my own frustration with how ED was handled. I'd still be annoyed that issue 5 and 6 were back to back massive nerfage, but without the assurance that it wasn't going to happen, I wouldn't be to the point where I only believe what two devs say anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that can make the reaction worse is when you say something like "a little nerf" and then you make a major reduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or like when you say there's gonna be no more nerfs to powers ...

Then cut all enhancement effectiveness by half ???



[/ QUOTE ]

Key words highlighted. They were technically right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because of all those non-power uses for enhancements. I mean, it's not as if affecting how enhancements work has any bearing on powers...

Anyone who can argue with a straight face that ED was not a sweeping nerf to all powersets is not someone I'd ever choose to believe on any matter.

[/ QUOTE ]


Question: if, prior to the devs making HOs 50/50, they announced a "buff to all power sets was coming" would that have been the truth, a lie, or just misleading.

It seems to me that if increasing the maximum possible slotting capability is not a universal buff to all sets, but reducing the maximum possible slotting capability is a universal nerf to all sets, then we're talking much more about psychology than objective reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. If they said they were boosting all SOs to 50/33 from 33/20, that would certainly be a boost to all powersets. HOs, though, is a somewhat rarefied example. At best you could say you're boosting the level 50s. While there are a lot of 50s, I'd hesitate to place them in the majority.

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind, I'm the one who made the "mentioning it in the hallway" comment so I'm on record as thinking this was bad form right from the start. Just saying, I wonder if this is less about the devs being consistent and not misleading, and more about the devs not seeming to realize just how fragile credibility actually is.

I.e. "technically right" is usually not the goal when you're attempting to gain the trust of the people you're communicating with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. "Technically right" does not matter when you have these results - that the maximum possible boost to every power's features has been halved, at least from enhancements. If you had the right powers to make up for the lack otherwise, you could slot attacks to do triple base damage - actually a bit higher. Now you can just barely double them. IMO, this qualifies as a sweeping powerset nerf, and being technically correct - as you point out - that it doesn't directly affect the powers is completely meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that can make the reaction worse is when you say something like "a little nerf" and then you make a major reduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or like when you say there's gonna be no more nerfs to powers ...

Then cut all enhancement effectiveness by half ???



[/ QUOTE ]

Key words highlighted. They were technically right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because of all those non-power uses for enhancements. I mean, it's not as if affecting how enhancements work has any bearing on powers...

Anyone who can argue with a straight face that ED was not a sweeping nerf to all powersets is not someone I'd ever choose to believe on any matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually there were some powersets you didn't six slot for character design reasons. But there is no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who can show such a lack of game knowledge with a straight face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction; there were some powers you didn't six-slot. Entire powersets, though? Anyway, ED didn't just nerf powers that you six-slotted, it also nerfed (to a lesser extent) powers that you four- or five-slotted. Heck, many people slotted shields with five defense buff or resist SOs + one endurance reduction, but those were certainly reduced in capability because slotting past the first three SOs is largely pointless now. Lots of people would slot attacks with 1xacc, 4xdam, and 1x endred or rech, and those were reduced as well.

Of course, you also had people with slotted up targeting drone or focused accuracy who would drop accuracies from their attacks, allowing them to slot 5-6 damage per attack.

Could you clarify which primary or secondary powersets had no room or need for slotting 4-6 SOs of the same type in any powers whatsoever? I'm really curious.

Heck, which power pool completely lacks any powers that anyone might put 4-6 SOs of the same type into?

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a fun thing to try... any time you see the word 'nerf' substitute the word 'balance'. It works!

"Man! They really balanced that power this time!"
"Oh No! They balanced me!"
"I sure hope they don't try and balance <insert power here>."
"My fire tank was uber until the devs balanced him."
"They've balanced us one too many times! I'm quitting!"
...

[/ QUOTE ]

But then, in a demonstrably large number of circumstances, you'd be disseminating falsehoods.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that can make the reaction worse is when you say something like "a little nerf" and then you make a major reduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or like when you say there's gonna be no more nerfs to powers ...

Then cut all enhancement effectiveness by half ???



[/ QUOTE ]

Key words highlighted. They were technically right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because of all those non-power uses for enhancements. I mean, it's not as if affecting how enhancements work has any bearing on powers...

Anyone who can argue with a straight face that ED was not a sweeping nerf to all powersets is not someone I'd ever choose to believe on any matter.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hate the word, and try never to use it when talking about the game to players. It carries a very negative stigma that I like to avoid whenever possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

So does this mean no more nerfs? Or are you just going to use a different word for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Developers typically already do. Things are "rebalanced" or "tweaked" or "altered." It's pretty much all synonymous, but like Positron says, "nerfed" automatically illicits negative viewpoints. It's a very evocative term.

But rest assured, things will be "rebalanced," "tweaked," "altered" and even "nerfed" for years to come in any MMOG you play. Sometimes reductions in effectiveness/powers are just necessary whether we like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And sometimes they are not, but hapen anyway...or the wrong power will get nerfed, resulting in continued imbalance. Take invulnerability's resists vs. invincibility in issue 5, for example.

Bonus points for going back and adjusting the power that actually caused the imbalance, but leaving the nerfed-to-account-for-the-uber-power powers nerfed as they were, which potentially leaves the entire set underpowered.

Sad that it's probably not going.

Good that it was reduced for scrappers and brutes if it's not going.

I hate compromises like the above.

[ QUOTE ]

One more thing on this subject: never exaggerate or use hyperbole to draw attention to a problem. It only confuses the issue. It seems obvious to me that at least some people who sensed there was a problem elected to overdramatize the problem, in a way that made sense to them given what they thought the problem was. If you thought lucks occasionally stopped working, then exaggerating the effect by claiming "sometimes I would pop an entire tray of lucks and they still wouldn't do anything" sounds good. But in fact, it only served to blur the actual symptoms of the problem, and in retrospect, it now appears clear that no one should have been able to claim that particular symptom truthfully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely why I try to communicate how many inspirations I used how many hits and misses were involved, and whether anything changed after I stacked more onto the problem.

Not to say I haven't been guilty of overdramatizing things, but I like to think that in this particular matter, I elected more for precision.