CoyoteShaman

Super-Powered
  • Posts

    319
  • Joined

  1. I'm having to agree whole-heartedly with the no votes here. This is an epic bad idea and the only reason I can fathom for even bringing it up is that you've made a ton of people so angry that they left your teams. Aside from the odd child or rude person, which will always exist in any society, I haven't seen a lot of teams suffer from what I would consider undue attrition. That even goes for pugs. One has to expect some people are in a pug for a single mission or so. If they're good players you friend them and look for them later to try to team with them again. If they're not you don't.

    Frankly, and I try very hard to not say things like this, but what I'm getting out of this is that I would really like to not ever team with you. If you're seeing so much of this that you think the devs should hold a gun to players heads to keep them on your teams, it tells me you are not fun to team with.

    Robin
  2. While I don't really have an opinion of my own on if Gauntlet should be changed, as I don't play many tanks and I'm fairly certain the people who say I'm good at it are either just being kind or are not familiar with really good tanks, I do have an idea for how a change could work if it were decided it needed to be changed.

    Except for certain circumstances/builds, all tanks I've ever seen go low on endurance some of the time during large fights with big foes. That's especially true when fighting sapping type foes such as carnies. It's been mentioned that an end boost or -end res would be nice, but the implementation has seemed a bit unwieldy. I would recommend the following if this were to be needed:

    A combination of vigilance and fury: As the tanker attacks or is attacked, they fill a bar which indicates the level of their endurance discount (and/or -end/rec resistance). The max discount would never reach beyond a certain point (likely about %75 or so) but the max -end/rec res could probably go up to %100. Obviously I haven't given any thoughts to the game balance implications of this, since it's just off the top of my head, but as far as usefulness and implementation go I think this should be fairly good. The code would have to adapted from the brute inherent but it wouldn't have to be written from scratch and it would certainly be useful to all but the most tricked out of tanks, at least in heavy combat situations.

    Robin
  3. I think the difference in implementation is pretty major. Currently the math is very simple. You take the total of all the max hit points on the team and compare that to the total of all the current hit points on the team. The percentage difference is used to determine the endurance discount.

    Doing a bar based on when anyone on your team gets hit would require a lot of checking and some pretty massive calculations. When the brute gets hit or hits, it's only relative to one character. What you're suggesting would require that the server tracks it for eight people and applies that tracking to however many defenders are on the team. On a full team of defenders that would cause roughly the same server load as having a team of 64 brutes, as far as the inherent goes. And that doesn't even include the healing part of it.

    Further, that would aggravate instead of mitigate the problem of having it benefit different defenders to vastly different degrees. Healers would still heal the team and drop the bar more quickly than shielders, for instance.

    I agree, however, that something needs to be done. There are a few threads on the defender AT forum that are trying to come up with some solutions. I'm fairly certain a real solution would require a change to the AT, not just the inherent.

    Robin
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by AkuTenshiiZero View Post
    Really...Is it that difficult to just right click, click "Send Tell" (Or is it Chat?...Don't remember right now), and frikin' say something? Making it even easier for them will not make people stop sending blind invites.

    A much better solution would be a disgruntled monkey with a taser who punishes them every time they blind invite someone, and even that probably wouldn't work.
    Oooo! I like(!) this idea! Can we make it a RL monkey that appears next to the player? That might work! Eventually. After many applications. And lots of monkey poop.
  5. It is. S/He's thinking of the base teleporter or some such.
  6. I think the reason some people moan about things like this is that they're neophobes. Some people don't like change. They want the game to be the way it was and any substantive change will be met with distaste. They'd rather not have to learn the new culture the change will engender. They'd rather not have to struggle with finding new ways of handling the same situations.

    Not everyone is like that, but when a change is so universally accepted or celebrated, the naysayers usually do fall into that group. That's especially true when the change will really be a "take it or leave it" change. You don't like it? Then don't use it. Some people think, however, that if they don't like it then it shouldn't be available for anyone. C'est la vie.

    Robin.
  7. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Vanden View Post
    How do you know it's not a bug? The WW/BM teleporters leave you invisible for a period while you choose which zone to warp to.
    If it's working like that for everyone and has been since inception without fail then it's as designed (intentionally or not) and not a bug. Unless you're saying it's not working that way for you then I'm still assuming it's as designed.
  8. Quote:
    Originally Posted by CodeJunkie View Post
    An undesired result of this would be spamming. Think of how many invites you will now get with "Hey, wanna buy some inf...only 10.99/mill"
    Yikes! Good point.
  9. Quote:
    Originally Posted by BayBlast View Post
    Considering that most players I have encountered would rather type less than more, I really doubt that would be a problem.

    I wonder how this would be implemented though. I imagine anothe text field could be added to the Team box under "Search Comment", and a new command like /tellinvite could be used.
    You lost me. How does not wanting to type more relate to being annoyed with a bigger pop-up when you get invited? I'm talking about the pop-up being annoying to people being blind-invited.
  10. Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaddysGirl View Post
    oh and why when I "Kuthrang" a group of mobs with my scrapper, killing several..do some say.."mmm he looks dangerous but that blue buff pet must die first....(giggle )..I still like it but....yikes!!!
    I have a theory about this. Have you ever noticed that when you have multiple people on a team and some are hurt, the mobs will go for those people first? I assume that's the UI trying to finish them off first which makes sense as it's what I do to the spawns if they're roughly similar in damage output.

    Well, I looked at the stats for the buff pets in the power's details and found that the pets actually have a huge amount of hit points, but then have those hit points sapped with a -95% Health debuff or something of the sort. I think what's happening is that the UI is seeing an enemy that it thinks is very nearly already dead and trying to finish it off first.

    Just a theory, but it makes sense to me based on what I've always seen the UI do in the past.
  11. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Vanden View Post
    You should probably post this in the official visual effects bug thread.
    Why would I do that? It's not a bug. It's just the way it was designed. Unless you're saying it doesn't work that way for you.
  12. I did a search and couldn't find anything on this so who knows. It's hard to describe for a search engine.

    Right now when you trigger the base teleporter vet power, you go through the animation, flash out and then get the popup telling you to select where you want to go. While you're finding the right selection and clicking it, your character has reappeared and is just standing there looking stupid.

    It would be much better cinematically if the selection screen came at the beginning of the animation. When you click on the tram doors you get the selection screen at the time of the click, not later on when the tram shows up and the doors open. The same sequence should be done for the base teleporter as well.

    Robin
  13. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Garielle View Post
    I'm not sure the new system is going to officially be called anything. It's just going to happen. I got the impression that "Super Sidekicking" was sort of a nick name they were just using to put a label on it at the moment. Not sure on that though, of course.

    As for "Crossovering" as a name, I am not sure. That sounds more like a cross-server or cross-side feature IMHO. Perhaps, "Universal Teaming".
    I'm pretty sure s/he meant "crossover" as in when in comic books the heroes/villains of different comics who may or may not have vastly different common foes and power levels have a standard crossover run of one or more issues and for that duration their powers are seemingly on par with each other. For instance, when superman and batman team up, batman can still be of use even though their power levels are vastly different the rest of the time.
  14. Count me in with two thumbs up on this idea.

    /signed

    Robin
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect View Post
    Would also make blind invites slightly less annoying. You still didn't ask to be invited, but at least you'd get an idea of what the person is inviting you for.

    Unfortunately, the people who tend to blind invite a lot are also the people that probably wouldn't use this feature.
    Worse yet it would make the intrusive, unsolicited pop-up even bigger.

    That's not to say, however, that I think this is a bad idea. In fact, I do like it.

    While we're at it can we make the invitation come in the chat window? The team window could auto pop like it does when you join the team and a button for "accept" could be on that instead of the crappy dialog in the middle of the screen blocking your view from whatever you might be fighting.

    Hmm... Maybe that should have it's own thread.

    Robin
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by m3lon View Post
    Defenders in mass are overpowered?
    Not remotely likely, since having a roughly similar ratio of defenders in the game does not equate to having them being huge numbers on every team. A perfectly equal ratio would be just under 20% (just under because of the lower number of khelds). Even if you assume a full 20% for a slightly high ratio, you're still only looking at about 3 for every two teams. On one team you've only got one and the other team only two. Most certainly not what anyone would consider en masse nor what I would consider being overpowered.

    Robin
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan View Post
    It's an odd thought, but Defenders would be a lot handier if they came in pairs. In fact, two half-Defenders would do as well or better together than one whole-Defender does alone. After all, consider the Mastermind, and the amazing all-VEAT teams when they were first made available...
    Are you suggesting giving them a pets secondary where the pets would do some de/buffs instead of damage?
  18. Yes. You could have 7 level 1s on your team and all of them would auto-sk to 33.
  19. Kat, that's not even relevant to some of us (me in particular). I haven't gotten a single email that I wanted, or sent one, in years. I'm sure others are in the same situation. Turning it off completely is all we wanted.

    That being said, I agree with a lot of people that there should be more options for who to allow. Not for my sake 'cuz I'll just be leaving it off, but for the sake of many players. Some will want global friends, some will want SG, some will want server friends, some might want some combination thereof. Since the email system is global, it seems silly to not have the limitation selection be global as well. At least to me it does.

    Robin.

    PS: please don't take this as me saying your comment was a waste of time. I'm only saying that it's not actually a detail at all to some people. I was just pointing that out because it seems to have escaped some people.
  20. One of these days people are going to start smacking me for sounding like a broken record, but I think the real problem is that the comparison is valid in the first place. One can quite validly compare defenders to controllers and defenders to blasters. If you look at either comparison based only the common sets the results are obvious: defenders are better than controllers and worse than blasters.

    But when you take into account the whole of the ATs, the comparisons are just as valid and obvious, but now they become laughable. Blasters are actually damage dealers. Controllers are mitigators/mulitpliers: it's not their place to do direct damage so they're only mediocre at it, but when it comes to mitigation in any form they rock hard. Defenders are mitigators/multipliers/damage dealers: Both their primaries and secondaries are split between those three, with much more damage in the secondary and much less in the primary. So think about it: you can still compare defenders to blasters, but the defender is obviously inferior in damage. You can still compare defenders to controllers but taking into account the mitigation/multiplication of the controller primary the controllers win out in this field by quite some distance.

    There is, in my opinion, no possible way to fix this by nudging numbers around or modifying the inherent. The only way to change it is to make it so they simply aren't comparable. That would mean changing the defender's secondary to something that would fundamentally alter their role in the team. At the same time, this could be used as an opportunity to give them the boost they need for soloing. Creating some melee offense/defense combo sets for their secondaries would do this quite well, and in my opinion is the only thing that would (this is because I haven't thought of anything else and no one else has pointed out any other options).

    Do I think that's remotely likely? Of course not. It would take a huge amount of effort and resources for the devs to accomplish something like that. Do I think it's possible? Absolutely. They did something similar with the Dominator secondaries (ranged/melee as opposed to melee/defense) and all the powers already exist and are seen together in all four of the melee ATs (tanks/scraps/brutes/stalkers).

    Unless/until someone else chimes in on this concept, however, I think this is going to be the last time I bring it up. I don't want to get smacked.

    Robin
  21. Maybe it's just my OS (Win7) but I no longer can hit the enter key to close the dialog box saying I screwed up my password, nor tab from that dialog back into the UN/PW text boxes. I'd *really* like to be able to use the enter key to close that dialog and get the cursor back in the UN textbox.

    Please?

    Robin

    And also a major league /signed to the tabstop change (which is what the OP said, but in developerese).
  22. CoyoteShaman

    Foreshadowing?

    Hey, at least I said something other than "Hi" or some goofy crack about taking a seat.
  23. CoyoteShaman

    Foreshadowing?

    IIRC, someone somewhere said something about having some under-water zone or missions or some such. I'm wondering if the Oceanic Lounge is some kind of harbinger.

    Robin
  24. Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan View Post
    If low Defender population is actually a problem to be solved...
    Trash, I think this point right here is extremely lucid and is really the first thing to be determined. It would really help if we could find out from a dev if the ratio of defs in the game really is what we think it is (very low) and if that is how they want it to be. It's very possible that they want the number of defs to be low... for some reason I can't currently fathom.

    If we can even get them to look at that and make some kind of a statement about their desires, we'd not only have found out if this debate is worth having but also possibly nudged them towards some kind of decision about working on things.

    Robin
  25. Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShadowsBetween View Post
    Personally, the in-game voice chat is a big part of the reason that I've pretty much stopped playing WoW. Frankly, some people are offensive enough when they have to take time to type whatever gibberish is in their heads. Also, it does nothing for my immersion when the massive Tauren Warlord sounds like an eight year old girl, or the scantily clad Blood Elf rogue has the voice of Wolfman Jack. I realize that I'm in the minority on this. But I *hate* voice chat. (I'm not overly fond of cellphones, either. Maybe I'm just anti-social.)
    I agree. If there was an in-game voice chat I'd likely leave it off as much as I could. Only when on specific teams would I kick it into play.

    And while I don't play any Blood Elf rogues and my voice isn't like Wolfman Jack, I'm sure my normal male voice would really make it difficult for me to pull of the majority of my toons, which are fem.

    Robin