Bill Z Bubba

Sad but true.

It's not a power. Claws' secondary effect is a 20% endurance and recharge discount off of the static equations the devs use for calculating damage and endurance.

It works like this:
Recharge for power is chosen
Damage is calculated from recharge value
Recharge is reduced by 20%
Endurance is calculated from the damage value and reduced by 20%

At least, that's how it used to be before the last round of animation changes introduced a damage tweak calculation based on cast time.

I bet we get a response about it today.

I'll be answering all these at once.

The rep system does, barring aforementioned exceptions, show the "net worth" of a given poster. It IS to be used to share one's opinion of another poster with the rest of the forum's population.

In this case, I gave Ultimo negative rep because I find his repeated starting of new threads on existing topics annoying and I often find his posts in general to be poorly thought out. His tirades in the past regarding not being able to build tankmages as per his favorite fictional character are a prime example. (Don't get me wrong, I think Iron Man rocks as well. Used to collect the comic.)

I don't neg rep people out of petty vindictiveness. I do so with the intent that keeping their rep low will either leave them in the red, or cause them to disable it to hide their shame, so that others viewing their posts can easily ascertain whether the post in question should be bothered with.

In other words, TSZ, I don't share your opinion that the rep system isn't representative of one's worth in this virtual community. Again, barring some exceptions.

Ultimo, it does not surprise me that you don't think your negative rep and comments are deserved. I, otoh, do.

And Leo, thank you for the negative rep. I'm glad to see you using the system. You even signed it. However, we disagree. I neg rep not only for individuals simply, as you put it in your comment, "acting like a ******," but also when I find their opinion to be lacking substance and worth.

I'm certainly not going to neg rep someone because they disagree with me. Were I to do that I'd be spending 99% of my forum dwelling time filling in comments. No thanks.

I'll stick to neg repping those that I feel deserve it, usually with a signature and an explanation if I feel they deserve such an effort, but sometimes with nothing more than a period when I don't.

It serves one purpose.

The truly stupid that leave actual insults can be plucked out by the mods and removed from the forums permanently.

The comments are only anonymous to us.

It justifies it just as much as hitting every thread you can find with anything negative being said about all the massive powerleveling that went on in the AE and railing against it like someone insulted your mother.

Accomplishes about as much as well.

Endurance light attacks would be nice, wouldn't they?

Claws pairs well with any secondary. Focus and shockwave are good mitigation to help with squishier secondaries.

The only thing I ever consider these days is whether to go with shockwave or eviscerate if I don't think I can fit both on top of spin.

For secondaries that have auras that feed your mitigation (invul and wp) it's probably best to go with eviscerate.

For secondaries that don't need to worry about keeping enemies nearby, shockwave is a beautiful thing.

Of course you'll continue starting new threads on topics with existing threads. It's what you do.

I hope you noticed that I signed my neg rep hit for you. I don't want you thinking I'm just another anonymous meanie head.

As mentioned, the vast majority of those individuals that consistently get negative rep comments deserve them.

If you wish to stop getting them, stop deserving them.

I'm not shouting you down. I'm only attempting to explain why you see what you see.

Long live the rep system!

Lrn 2 srch?

Similar but not the same. What I see, which is what has created my overall impression of new rep system, is that many of the posters which I've always viewed in a negative light have low reps or have disabled it.

There are, of course, exceptions. Some posters who I've always felt added to the community have chosen to disable theirs for reasons I'm sure they feel are valid. Cool. They have the option and are choosing to use it.

Some posters have capped rep due to partaking in forum games involving padding their rep. While I don't approve of such things, it was inevitable.

For the rest, the rep meters appear to be working as intended.

With all generalizations and stereotypes, there contains some level of truth. Same holds true here. Red repped individuals are *generally* a waste of space. Good repped individuals are *generally* not.

That leaves you and I on different sides of the keep or toss rep argument. I hope it stays in place for as long as these boards are used.

Did it ever cross your mind that you get negative messages daily because you annoy the hell out of your fellow gamers with useless threads and posts?

My problem with this is twofold:

1: It would imply that devs actually coded the spawn sizes to be based on team size, rather than basing spawns off of difficulty level. That would seem awfully bizarre. (However, two of the folks I've spoken to that feel like drops are better were either dual or triple boxing, so there may very well be something to that.)

2: It doesn't explain why I've seen ZERO uncommon or rare drops unless I'm just a truly unlucky *******.