-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
I just think the geysers should collapse into wormholes and become teleporters. No more worrying about trajectories, just quick and simple transportation.
-
Quote:See, conflict is the primary motivating factor in "short" media, such as movies (where other forms of motivation take too much time to truly explore). I know why Andrew snapped, and I can tell his motivation from his conflicts; what makes Matt act like he did in the last scenes? We don't know enough to truly tell, and what we do know comes from the conflict that arises from the situation.While conflict does define character, those conflicts are meaningless without defined characters... if that makes any sense. You gotta know what they are fighting for and why and who they are as a person to really get it. When I watch the film I get what Matt and Steve were doing before the movie starts because there is a definition there... Andrew on the other hand we are left to assume that he did nothing pre-camera.
And yes, we basically are supposed to assume he did nothing before the camera. However, that assumption isn't as great as you are making it. We know that he couldn't do anything at school because he hates and distrusts everyone, and his father obviously tries to control any pleasure that Andrew could feel (which is why he reacts violently when he learns about the camera). His father probably used his mother's illness as a way to control Andrew "You don't care about her! Using the computer to play games while she sits there and dies, how could you!" The camera was the first action he ever took towards freedom, perhaps so that he could use it to gain evidence for his father's abuse. Alternatively, Andrew may have been going Columbine anyway because of the abuse, and was going to use his footage to explain his actions after he committed suicide by police. Overall, I don't have a problem because his conflict essentially prevented him from leading a normal life and becoming "more defined." -
Quote:He was lying, and that was the point (as he obviously would not have reacted that way if he had actually looked through the camera). Before that point, he was just an abusive alcoholic, but at that point we learned that he was willing to lie for no reason but to hurt Andrew. It was a foreshadowing of the way the hospital scene was going to pan out, as the father's mental instability fed into Andrew's.You misunderstood what I wrote and only quoted the latter half of my idea in this post. I was not criticizing the relevance of the party bedroom scence... I was criticizing the script.
The stepfather tells APEX...." I went through that camera of yours and I saw you being a loser/weakling"..... ... so..................DID THIS GUY JUST OVERLOOK THE SUPERPOWERS IN THE FOOTAGE ?
Now we would have to assume that the bedroom scene was on a new tape. Otherwise it was a totally contrived way for the Stepfather to behave because he would have logically been more concerned with the Telekinesis than APEX's performance anxiety. -
Quote:See, I believe characters are defined through conflict, not through "he likes chess and does these things" (at least in movies), so I thought that Andrew was a well-defined character with powerful motives, while Matt felt like an uninspired hipster with little personality or development.That's semi true, but it comes off as a sorta as he becomes evil because everyone is mean to him. As if it is saying "yeah it's ok to be a jerk just because others are mean to you" it also seems to send the message of "you shouldn't bully people because one day they may be stronger than you" instead of a good message like "Hey you should be nice regardless of how the world treats you"
Conversely though if they had Matt or Steve become all villainy they'd send an equally bad message of "They're only nice to him and good is because they are so popular and have a good life" or "Just be glad they can't do worse because those popular people are psychos"
Overall I think it was just a little too forced with Andrew. Not that it's not realistic, but because the more they pile up on this one character the more they become unrelateable both in and out of the story.
Andrew is a loser who gets picked on in school, abused by his out of work father, while is mother is dying of sickness, who's only friends are the two most popular people in the school which came about by happen stance and he films everything for no reason who is also a virgin who not only has no skills but also recognizes he has no skills nor is he that intelligent and he doesn't seem have games or access to the net (or much) and he doesn't do drugs or play sports or read or do art or have any hobby defined.
From what we are told of this character we can only construct that his days are pretty much get bullied all day and sit in his room staring at the ceiling without thinking. You don't get the impression that he's smart or talented or doing well in school or anything that could give him that reality... all you get is him being screwed with and him looking at the ceiling doing nothing else more or less and everything we see other than that is a product of things that happens after the start of the movie.
He's a poorly developed character and doesn't work...
On the other hand Steve and Matt are far more developed and not just "well everything good happens to them" which is really kinda crappy because Steve is only really in there as a warning sign, which isn't utilized well at all either.
Matt, on the other hand, has a lot of deeper character. He's popular, he's nice, but he's not just popular and nice. He's also probably the smartest of the 3. He reads philosophy, has a girlfriend, has other friends, he's adventurous, and is thinking about the consequences of the actions that these powers might allow them to do.
now if you would have had Matt or Steve go evil and have Andrew as a tertiary background character you could have told better and more cerebral story imo. You see yourself in Matt or Steve because they are relatable and charismatic, plus they are completely different in their philosophies and I could see where they'd do this or that for their reasons. They would act like a hero or villain because there is so much you could do with the whole "fun loving politician" vs "Philosopher but slacker" positions no matter which way you go.
Andrew when you really look at him falls flat as a main character and noone can really relate to him because he acts like a child in his reaction and in his life in terms of throwing a fit and all like that, but he's not innocent in any way and as such his character is static and there is no arc there.
Note that Andrew could have gone on a power trip much earlier, but it was only when his father blasted him with the fact that his mother was dead (and that he blamed Andrew) that he completely snapped. Essentially, he only cared about 3 people in the world, and he accidentally killed one of them and was blamed for killing the other. He wasn't killing just because he thought humans were less powerful than him; he was trying to escape his sins, possibly using Matt as a way to suicide (since normal methods couldn't kill him).
However, he still had enough humanity left earlier in the movie to keep his father alive (and he actually didn't even use his powers until he looked like he could be seriously hurt). I think that the nuances in the movie make him much more complex than his last actions show. -
Quote:I don't know, I thought that the popular kid was portrayed as less stereotypical than most of his kind, as he seems to be a genuinely good person that simply didn't understand a different life, rather than being an arrogant *****. He was popular because he was nice and sociable (remember him leaving the party and being nice to Andrew?), so it makes sense that he would act like he did. Him being a villain would seem more stereotypical to me, as outcasts vs popular kids is a little overdone in my opinion.just watched it. I'd have preferred if the out comes of the characters arcs would have been reversed... as it is a little less cliche. I don't know if it was trying to give or trying to avoid messages, but the set up of the film seems that regardless of how it turned out would have given a message of some sort... i think the best possible route would have been if Steve or Matt would ave become the villain as you could avoid the whole Popular = good message, but whatever.
I hope there is a sequel where 3 come back ^.^ -
Just watched it. I think this is one movie that was definitely hurt by its commercials. Anyone who watched a single commercial or trailer would lose any sense of cinematic reveal, and may end up like a lot of movie-goers that think a film sucks if it didn't surprise them. Do not expect the film to be like the trailer; it is much better than the trailer indicates.
I thought the three main characters were all very well cast and very believable. There were a couple scenes that did actually manage to surprise me, and I'm so very glad that these scenes weren't the ones chosen for commercials (which mostly focused on the very beginning and very ending scenes). A couple characters stood out to me, including Michael B. Jordan as a popular black socialite that didn't fall into cliches of teen popularity, and Michael Kelly as the abusive father. Overall, I thought the characters acted believably and with real emotion, which made even the fairly predictable plot interesting and riveting to me. Props go to the first time writer-director Max Landis and write Josh Trank, who made great use of emotion to exploit the eccentricities of teen angst and interaction without appearing cliched. I look forward to seeing more from them.
As far as the "found-footage" mechanic goes, I thought it was very well done. This is NOT Paranormal Activities: Super Heroes. Instead, the camera work both aids the story and works very well to capture the feel, but never had me saying "this would work better with traditional cameras." The CGI was low-tech, but extremely well utilized and photo-realistic. I liked the way they used it far more than any summer block-buster I can recall. The flying scenes in particular were great. The minimalistic nature of the superpowers combine well with the camerawork to give a sense of "this is real," aided by the characters' emotions. I also liked the fact the film didn't try to overextend to be a traditional two hour movie; the shorter run-time fit well and should be used more often.
I had a few gripes, but they were mostly minor. For instance, one of the film's three main characters was very loosely defined compared to the other two (he liked philosophy and was "too cool for school"), but he still managed to appear real despite his limited background and characterization. Another character, the aforementioned character's love-interest, was used very little and seemed to have little point in the frame-work of the movie. Finally, the ending was a little anti-climatic and could have been done better with a little more foreshadowing to make it appear relevant and connected (feel free to walk out after the last fight scene).
Overall, the film's innovative use of low-budget CGI and camerawork aid the presentation and help the rather predictable story, which is aided by great performances by the actors and some of the best, non-cliched writing I've seen for teen characters. I'd recommend it because of its writing and superb use of technical features, though not necessarily for its fairly predictable plotline. I will warn you: it is dark. It doesn't sugarcoat issues like bullying, domestic violence, and animal cruelty (a spider, not a big part of the story but memorable). However, it is a well-rounded movie, with genuinely funny moments combined with genuinely depressing ones. I'd give it 9 out of 10 stars. -
Quote:Yes, the formula is for uptime. Average -res % would beOoh, very interesting.
I'm not certain I understand what this equation is telling me, though - your example gives .29, does that mean it's 29% uptime on average? Does the spacing of the procs in that chain matter?
Strength of -res (20% for achilles heel I believe) * formula from before.
Spacing in the chain should not matter long-term. -
Just popping in to say that the formula for the effectiveness of -res procs is
10 / (Time of chain/number of procs in the chain)*4+10)
For instance, a chain of 11.88 seconds with 2 achilles heel procs (perhaps from the using the power twice in one chain, or two different powers with the proc) would be
10 / ((11.88/2)*4+10).
Also, procs tend to do wonders for DPS, though I understand not using the because of their randomness. However, I've found that giving a low end/activation time power 3-4 procs and getting it to the damage cap can create a lot of DPS. Where procs really hurt is in end efficiency. You can make up recharge fairly easily with IOs, but it is hard to get back the end that a */end IO would give you.
Also, Ill. controllers and MMs (specifically /trap MMs) tend to be the only builds that can solo GMs at the lower end of investment (and no lore/reds/temps). I've soloed GMs on couple of melee characters (my TW/Elec and DM/SD), but on many I've had to use lore pets, especially if they have resists. -
The problem to me isn't that villains are saving the world once again.
Its that player villains are never the main enemy. The Rikti are a big threat, so we must go out and protect ourselves. The Praetorians are a big threat, so we must fight them to save ourselves. The Shivans/Battalions/Rularuu are big threat, and we ...
Why can't a player villain be "a big threat?" Player heroes get to save the world, but villains never get a chance to be proactive and destroy it. It makes player villains seem far less competent than their hero analogs, and even more so compared to actual NPC villains, even if that NPC villain is our future self (who apparently CAN plan and succeed). -
On a scrapper, consider just taking shadow meld and getting enough defense that you are over the cap while it is up. I have a scrapper build (you can find it on the bottom of the page linked in my signature) with a 25 second recharge time on SM, allowing you to use it at the start of most battles. I wouldn't actually use that build, as it was more a proof of concept than anything else, but consider doing something similar.
Personally, I like building for positionals, but I am weird like that. In general, S/L defense at 45% will be easier to achieve that getting positionals to 45%, and make you more survivable than getting positionals to 32.5% (one luck away). -
Quote:I would say the DPS edge would probably go to the scrapper. However, from what I've seen the difference would probably be within 5-10%, and to me the potentials of electric armor favor brutes more. Resist sets are just nicer on brutes, and that gives the brute a lot more protection than a similar scrapper.How much of a single target DPS difference do you think there is between a TW brute and scrapper? Or does fury boosting the DPS of the AOE aura help close that gap? Not having runners isn't THAT big a deal to me, but if the difference is close I'd rather go brute. Also going electric armor I am not that concerned about endurance once I get agility and ageless going.
However, a TW/Elec scrapper would still be perfectly viable. I would probably run Agility/Barrier, like the brute, but the scrapper has the option of going Musculature/Ageless for offensive improvement. One other option scrappers get is going for Shadow Meld, which would allow said build to have increased defense.
Basically, the scrapper would sacrifice the resistance of the brute for more damage, and would go aim to use shadow meld as active protection (instead of using lucks, so a lower level of defense). Will need to build for recharge though, because agility isn't used. For instance (this will be rough, made it in 3 minutes):
Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.953
http://www.cohplanner.com/
Click this DataLink to open the build!
Level 50 Magic Scrapper
Primary Power Set: Titan Weapons
Secondary Power Set: Electric Armor
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Leadership
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Speed
Ancillary Pool: Soul Mastery
Hero Profile:
Level 1: Crushing Blow -- C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(A), C'ngImp-Dmg/EndRdx(15), C'ngImp-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(17), C'ngImp-Dmg/Rchg(37), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(40), Achilles-ResDeb%(40)
Level 1: Charged Armor -- ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(A), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx(3), ImpArm-ResDam(3), ImpArm-ResDam/Rchg(7)
Level 2: Lightning Field -- HO:Nucle(A), Armgdn-Dmg(50), EndRdx-I(50)
Level 4: Conductive Shield -- ImpArm-ResDam(A), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx(5), ImpArm-ResDam/Rchg(5), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(7)
Level 6: Follow Through -- T'Death-Dam%(A), Mako-Dam%(9), ExStrk-Dam%(9), Hectmb-Dmg(13), GS-%Dam(15), Dmg-I(43)
Level 8: Build Momentum -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 10: Static Shield -- ImpArm-ResDam(A), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx(11), ImpArm-ResDam/Rchg(11), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(13)
Level 12: Titan Sweep -- Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(A), Oblit-Dmg(43), Oblit-Acc/Rchg(46), Oblit-%Dam(46), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg(48), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(48)
Level 14: Kick -- Empty(A)
Level 16: Grounded -- GA-3defTpProc(A), S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(17)
Level 18: Rend Armor -- Hectmb-Dam%(A), Hectmb-Dmg/EndRdx(19), Hectmb-Acc/Rchg(19), Hectmb-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(36), Hectmb-Dmg/Rchg(37), Achilles-ResDeb%(37)
Level 20: Energize -- Panac-Heal/EndRedux/Rchg(A), Panac-Heal/Rchg(21), Panac-EndRdx/Rchg(21), Panac-Heal(23), Panac-Heal/EndRedux(23)
Level 22: Tough -- HO:Ribo(A), ResDam-I(33)
Level 24: Weave -- LkGmblr-Def(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(25), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg(25)
Level 26: Whirling Smash -- Armgdn-Dam%(A), Armgdn-Dmg/EndRdx(27), Armgdn-Acc/Rchg(27), Armgdn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(29), Armgdn-Dmg/Rchg(29), FrcFbk-Rechg%(31)
Level 28: Lightning Reflexes -- Run-I(A)
Level 30: Maneuvers -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def(31), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(31)
Level 32: Arc of Destruction -- Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(A), Oblit-%Dam(34), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(34), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg(34), FotG-ResDeb%(36), Oblit-Dmg(36)
Level 35: Power Sink -- P'Shift-EndMod/Rchg(A)
Level 38: Dark Blast -- Apoc-Dam%(A), Apoc-Dmg/EndRdx(39), Apoc-Acc/Rchg(39), Apoc-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(39), Apoc-Dmg/Rchg(40)
Level 41: Shadow Meld -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg(42), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(42), LkGmblr-EndRdx/Rchg(42)
Level 44: Soul Storm -- UbrkCons-Dam%(A), UbrkCons-EndRdx/Hold(45), UbrkCons-Acc/Rchg(45), UbrkCons-Acc/Hold/Rchg(45), UbrkCons-Hold/Rchg(46)
Level 47: Combat Jumping -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def(48)
Level 49: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(50)
Level 0: Freedom Phalanx Reserve
Level 0: Task Force Commander
Level 0: The Atlas Medallion
Level 0: Portal Jockey
Level 50: Musculature Core Paragon
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Critical Hit
Level 1: Sprint -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Swift -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Health -- Numna-Regen/Rcvry+(A), Mrcl-Rcvry+(33)
Level 2: Hurdle -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Stamina -- EndMod-I(A), P'Shift-EndMod(33), P'Shift-End%(43)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 4: Ninja Run
Level 1: Momentum
If we take that build, and assume it can run the chain, it would get about 334 DPS. About equal with the brute, but you get ageless and shadow meld, and a much more powerful BM (only a 12.5% difference in damage boost, but it doesn't have to compete with damage saturation). The scrapper will also deal more at capped damage. -
Quote:No, SS is still the general best farmer. TW can eclipse SS, and does more damage at the damage cap, because Whirling Smash does almost as much damage as FS with a 14 second recharge (FS is 20).I took an extended holiday and just came back after about a month off. I see a TON of TW/FA Brutes either being PL'd in AE or doing the PL'ing in AE.
Has SS/FA lost the title as best farmer to TW/FA now?
However, whirling smash can only be used in momentum, which must be micromanaged, and needs more +damage to be able to compete. Because a TW character wouldn't have Rage double-stacked, they will need to be able to use enough reds to make up the difference (and rage improves your other AoEs too).
So SS is generally better, and easier to manage. However, quite a few people want something different than SS, and so far TW is the only comparable primary. Given that TW is both new, shiny, and possibly able to match SS, I can see why you've seen a lot of them pop up. -
Inferia and Flambo. They could have a battle talking each other to death.
-
Quote:Just to be clear, the build I have on live is the 32.5 to positionals build, and that build has darkest night listed above (with any Enzymes replaced by +5 lotg: defenses). I may build the build with 45% smashing/lethal later.Maybe I missed it but which build has Darkest Night in it?
**EDIT** NVM, I see you switched from Soul Mastery to Mu halfway through the thread.
Haven't posted much because I've been pretty busy lately. Hopefully will get some videos and a guide up sooner rather than later. -
-
Quote:What would you suggest I do differently? Despite my defensiveness, I accepted that my Shielder's DDR was unintended by the devs (despite the fact that I think that defense set should have high levels of DDR to protect against cascade failure), and have suggested ways to make this change palatable and even beneficial to the game.Excuse me? I never called you evil. I was suggesting that your feelings for the changes to your character were prompting you to make irrational claims. I used the term "nerdrage" a couple of times, but that's it. Again, no morality involved.
You seem to be getting a persecution complex about this issue.
I just suggested that you find a constructive way to discuss the change, rather than blowing the significance of this fix out of proportion.
Yes, I defended myself. The reason I "blew the significance of this fix out of proportion" was I was offended by the sentiment that this change was *no big deal*. To me, that would have been like telling energy melee that the fix to ET was no big deal. This change WAS a big deal to me, and it will have a large impact on any high-end shielder.
I also am opposed to any argument that states that this should be fixed primarily because it is unintended by developers, as it sounds way too much like Emmert's rationale. That is why I went after those that vilified the bug and its users, because that line of thinking is potentially destructive.
FRemember how long it took for the developers to fix this, and realize that it may take an equal amount of time for them to get back to HOs. If they are going to focus on this issue after years of waiting, at least go all the way and adjust HOs to the modern game. -
Quote:Yeah, I understand why it might have seem offensive. Basically though those things are just warning signs (bad names, random or generic costume) or things I have found to correlate to an enjoyable play session.Well you even dismiss people for their choice of bio or costume or even their name, which has nothing to do with their behavior, but I think we understand each other and why I lit up when I saw your post. I myself have an ongoing story with a certain range of characters, all sharing the same name with a different number at the end, because they are part of a product line (naturally all tech origin.)
And I didn't mean that uses numbers is bad, just inappropriately using them (as well as periods, spaces, and such) to replicate a name. I myself have a few tech characters that use numbers in their name. -
Quote:To me, if I team it isn't for increased rewards or different gameplay but to have a social experience. I find teaming with immature players to be annoying and unfun most of the time, regardless of whether or not I'm gaining max xp behind their FotM characters or not (sometimes I find a young player though, and help them out, so don't take immature to just mean young).You and I have very opposing views when it comes to these 5, since they have absolutely no bearing on gameplay or enjoyment with my own character. To me, this is just inherently picky and snobbish, applying your own restrictions and requirements that others have to live up to to be good enough for you.
My guidelines tend to let me find teammates that are fun to play with. They aren't "I will only invite people that meet my standards", but "This is who I look for first". Sometimes I get bad apples that look great from my guidelines, and sometimes people will surprise me and be much better than my first impression, but usually I find that mature players tend to put more creativity and thought into their characters, and so that is what I look for. -
I don't usually have much liquid influence out, but right now I have more than usual. Usually C or D, now probably closer to B after stripping a character.
Counting all of my slotted stuff, easily A. Multiple purpled out, +3 HOed, PvP IOed characters will do that for you. Don't farm much, just continually buy moderate recipes that generate profits of over 10 million (so that I have about 200 million incoming influence per character at most times), and try to just keep a steady income. Thought about PvP farming to push into the A range, but despite the potential influence it seems like exploitive behavior to me, and not really worth it considering how great the market is. -
Some general rules:
1. Players who have a coherent name, the cleverer the better.
Generally the first sign of what type of player a person is. If they use a Lord DarkityDark type character with mispellings and random capitals, the first impression I get is of a 12 year old. And in connection with that...
2. Good/No use of numbers in a name.
Sometimes using numbers make sense. Androids, robots, etc. can all have their name without breaking character, and this can let some more general names (Android 2012.1 for example) be reused. However SP1KEZ KI11 is not appropriate, and using numbers in order to get a generic name that has already been taken merely shows a lack of creativity that implies an immature player. 5UP3RM4N, for instance. Now, in some cases the use of 1337speak is okay, like a freakshow character, but they have to show signs that is deliberate and thoughtful.
3. Characters with bios
Easiest way to impress me is to have a personal info sheet that doesn't immediately show me your powers and set bonuses. Now, sometimes bios are hilariously bad, but at least they show that the player behind the wheels cares a little about the character they play. Extra points for perfect spelling and grammar, good formatting, and decent sense of humor or creative writing.
4. Costume
You've seen it. The guy who uses all of the enforcer armor "because it looks cool." It also is incredibly generic as every character that uses it looks alike. We have a robust character creator, use it. The more unique your character looks without looking like a random the better. Learn to mix and match various pieces from different sets to create different wardrobes, and try to avoid "generic" costume sets as a general rule (those sets that game suggests may work, but have been done over and over again). And if you have more than one costume, you get brownie points.
5. Character thought
This goes with the others. Basically, how much thought has a person put into their character, and how invested are they. Does the character have a costume and powerset combo that works with their name and bio? Do they have a theme or witticism that defines them?
6. Chattiness
I like to joke around when I play. Actually, my talkativeness is what made me switch to playing melee characters more often; I frequently take breaks from combat to type responses and used to die often because of it. Nothing is more awkward than being in a team of people that don't talk. It is like being with a bunch of fellow nerds, feeling more uncomfortable as a group than they did solo.
7. Buffs/Debuffs
When I form a team, I look for ATs in the following order: Controllers > Defenders > Corrupters > VEATs > Everyone else. Getting enough makes everything easier, and that gives me more time to chat, hang out, or enjoy the game. Melee isn't evil or anything, but it does make things go a little slower.
8. People without a stick stuck up their...
You know what I mean. Kills the game to team with people like that. Even worse is when you get more than one of them on a team and that start arguing. Also known as AP broadcast spammers. -
It might work. I thought about making a claws/something scraster, and may eventually get around to it. Of course, doing it with no primary contribution will be harder. Good luck.
-
Did this thread devolve into a discussion about Preator Snooki? For shame! You have fallen to their tricks and distractions. The only question about her is why her body is bigger and whiter when she is controlling it as opposed to Aurora Borealis.
I hear that the women loyal to the Praetorian side can actually be melted down and made into Wal*Mart toys. Maybe someone with fire blast could give it a try next time they face Boobcat or MM?
Oh, right, back on topic. Manly man stuff and what not. Chest hair anyone? -
Quote:To be fair, after the initial shock I softened somewhat. And it was always more of a "well, he'll never be as good as before" thing rather than a "OMG, look how weak he is now" deal. The closest change I could compare it to, feeling wise, would be the energy melee change.Significant enough that without use of the exploit, he no longer deems the character worthy of playing.
On a slightly different note, I think part of the reason these enhancements were so expensive is because most HOs were fairly worthless (comparatively, an HO pick was a risk because you easily get something worth less than the merits). Dam/Mez HOs may be useful in a few situations to a small number of people, but people only picked the HO option for Enzymes, Membranes, the travel/end HO, and Nucleoli, as those were the money makers. So someone looking for those specifically would have to wade through Crap of the Hunter type HOs to get to the ones they want. That is because most of the HOs do not do a job better than IO equivalents, or at least not good enough to compete with set bonuses. At current levels, this will dissuade people from picking an HO option, which may make the others even more expensive or simply turn people off from the HO system altogether.
Maybe the alpha slot just gave them the code they needed to easily fix the issue, but I simply figured that at some point in the future they would take some time and truly fix HOs, including this bug. It feels like they only went halfway on this change. Now, from their side it may not have worked or felt that way.
It just seems right for them to try and fix the issues around HOs. The bug was around for so long that receiving only enough attention to fix it seems a little shortsighted. Will we have to wait a similar amount of time for developer attention to turn back to HOs a second time and finally make them competitive? -
For me, mostly because I had thought HOs were in the same dark corner of design as bases and PvP, and that if Devs ever took a look at them they would take some time to rebalance them with the game rather than making them even less useful.
-
Quote:I think it is very telling that you use the word exploit. It implies a certain level of cheating, of game-breaking, when used in an MMO world. It paints those that use it with a broad brush, and it equates this with things that truly affect the game-world, like AE farms and kheldians one-shotting hami. I don't use the word because it is an exaggeration. The HO-bug isn't by nature abusive and didn't guarantee unbalanced levels of rewards for those that used it. At worst, it slightly gave shield an edge on balance by making it too well-rounded, and I have agreed that other sets should be closer to shields in regards to balance (by raising the DDR in other sets and making SR better).I think it is very telling that you refuse to say "exploit fix" or "exploit", instead favoring words like "changes" and "bug". In any online game, true exploits(like the use of +Def HO's in AD to gain unintended DDR) inevitably get fixed, especially those that are abused the most. Writing pages of straw man arguments in an attempt to garner some kind of sympathy does not change the fact that you abused a known exploit and are now upset that you will no longer be able to do so.
There's no need to call the exploit fix a "nerf", because that's exactly what it is not. It's a fix, plain and simple, to something that was never meant to be used the way players like you have used it. Your other comparisons are like apples to oranges.
And almost everyone of my posts was a reply to people trying to demonize me in one way or another. Demitrios has put it most blatantly, suggesting I and every other player that used it get banned, but JustBling, you, and others have all made arguments that people that used this glitch to gain either slightly higher defense for less slots or higher levels of DDR (and of course the PBU thing as well, but I never used that) are evil exploiters that are bad for the game.
I have suggested ways to make this change good for the game in general. I have tried to be constructive despite the fact that I feel this removes an aspect of a character I enjoyed and doesn't help overall game-balance. Painting me negatively is unnecessary and petty. I don't call it an exploit because it wasn't exploitive; I gained no unfair rewards from using it. If you claim that my performance level was in itself exploitive and generated unfair rewards, than any higher level of performance would also be exploitive, and you don't want to go down that road. 25% DDR isn't game-breaking or earth-shattering to balance, but it makes me feel completely different when playing the character.