Eponymous_Bosch

[ QUOTE ]
To those who keep throwing out "unimaginative" and "uncreative". Those are not valid arguments. They are akin to trolling.

[/ QUOTE ] Not an argument, an opinion. Not trolling just sick of all the people with entitlement issues.

[ QUOTE ]
It is entirely possible to come up with a concept, googlesearch, read a thesaurus, and search the wikipedia to come up with a name and have it still not be available. I did this a couple of months ago with one concept. After about twenty different tries, I compromised and took a name I didn't care for. I didn't get that character past level 3. The name is the most important part of any concept. Don't dismiss so readily somebody's desire to have the right one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand. The same thing has happened to me. I find a variant I like or I don't play the character very long or at all.

My problem is people who want the whole, or most of, the level range of names up for grabs because they didn't get "The Red Bull" that some level 30 fire tank has and they feel their concept is sooooooooo much better and they really, really deserve it. And they can't live with "Roter Bulle" or "Toro Rojo" or some such.

Whatever. I'm done.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the policy is unreasonable. I do think that anybody that thinks names are scarce is just being unimaginative.


[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

On my 10-15 toons If a name I was going for is taken, it isusually because it is a blatantly obvious name that suits the power sets. Once I got past that and started being creative with my names I have had no trouble with them being taken at all.

I think the people really getting worked up over this are the ones that are so imaginitive that throwing a . in their name is a viable solution.

I am so glad that I come up with names that I won't see several people running around with . versions of them

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that calling those people who feel that the new name change policy "unimaginative" is pretty unfair. How do you know that they have a lack creativity? How can you even speculate that they are the ones who are putting "." in their characters' names? Perhaps they just disagree with the policy because they feel that Cryptic and NCsoft should give priority to actively paying customers instead basing their policy on a hope and a prayer that an inacctive accountholder will return (among other reasons).

Just because someone thinks that the new policy is too lax does not indicate a lack of creativity and imagination. I think in some cases, it's quite the contrary...these individuals have the creativity and imagination to think outside of the box and come up with a different solution that could better serve Cryptic's and NCsoft's customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not call anyone unimaginative for feeling this policy was unfair, too lax, or whatever. If a person feels they're entitled to the name Iceman or Icyhot, or whatever, and someone else has a level 20ish, 30ish, 40ish character with that name and they have had to deactivate for an extended period (6 months to a year) and people are already carping about how the policy doesn't yet handle this eventuality...well, let's just say I'd have a very different and unflattering set of adjectives to describe them.

As has been stated, there are many different reasons for extended leaves. You can't just toss away a persons investment in a character because you (or whoever) weren't there first to get that omg so obvious bloody name.

The policy will no doubt evolve over time as needs demand.

I don't think the policy is unreasonable. I do think that anybody that thinks names are scarce is just being unimaginative.

Cheers,

Simon

Well said Firebomb.

As my Ice Tank is sitting at 18 since I got back, I generally leave the comment/suggestions/feedback on Ice to those of you with much more experience. I'm currently fighting the Regen fight as that is where the majority of my experience lies.

I would love the Devs to get a real understanding of what Ice needs from knowledgeable players like Circeus, yourself, et al. I just haven't seen an inkling of realization in any of States posts on this thread.

I won't delete him because he's a great concept and I love the character; but I guess Fjellbjorn is just gonna sit on the shelf as a former favorite toy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
kk, Here's another thought.
When I use 'Hoarfrost', I think of it as an Ablative Ice Armor that breaks off in chunks as it absorbs damage. When the extra hit points are gone, weather due to damage or time, the armor is all gone.
But Ice is hard. If you don't hit it just right, it doesn't crack. So what I see is missing is some extra Defence to reflect this hardness. Maybe +7.5% that lasts only as long as the 'extra hit points' do. That would give the Ice Tank a non toggle defence, albeit a low one.
Conceptually it makes sense. And even if you were to raise the end cost a bit, it would still help the Tanker Tank...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Ablative idea is interesting. I've actually been typing up a proposal for a separate ablative armor set, but the more I think about it Ice Armor should be an Ablative type of set. I don't know I'll have to think on it some more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just apply the concept above to ALL the armours in the set. Make them all reasonably priced/timed/rechargy clicks that provide a certain level of resistance/defense AND an initial HP boost above base when you activate them. I'd say let them keep the defense that the power provides, i.e, each power has a base defense, say a non-ablative portion that will only run out at the end of the power's duration. So for example, you activate Click X, it provides 15% defense and +20% base HPs for 3 minutes. You have 15% defense for 3 minutes, and the +20% HPs for as long as they last (any left over after 3 minutes are subtracted). Having purely ablative armour I think would be much more difficult to code in under the current system, but having just an ablative portion certainly doesn't seem terribly difficult to imp.

It's entirely feasible and certainly keeping in tune with the idea of ice. Of course, no one really likes clicks so much...or at least an over-abundance of them. Heh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, instead of clicks, I was thinking something on the order of pulsing toggles that refresh on the next pulse (say 1-2 seconds) at depletion of the ablative pool. The damage overflow would go to the regular HP as actual damage taken. I think that provides a nice caveat.

[ QUOTE ]
kk, Here's another thought.
When I use 'Hoarfrost', I think of it as an Ablative Ice Armor that breaks off in chunks as it absorbs damage. When the extra hit points are gone, weather due to damage or time, the armor is all gone.
But Ice is hard. If you don't hit it just right, it doesn't crack. So what I see is missing is some extra Defence to reflect this hardness. Maybe +7.5% that lasts only as long as the 'extra hit points' do. That would give the Ice Tank a non toggle defence, albeit a low one.
Conceptually it makes sense. And even if you were to raise the end cost a bit, it would still help the Tanker Tank...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Ablative idea is interesting. I've actually been typing up a proposal for a separate ablative armor set, but the more I think about it Ice Armor should be an Ablative type of set. I don't know I'll have to think on it some more.

Here's my question (tongue firmly in check):

Can we get an alternate timeline story where Paragon City is actually located on the backs of 4 elephants standing on a giant turtle that swims through space. A place where Hero Corps is replaced by a super hero group called the City Watch. A city where Crey Corporation has been bought out and is now run by Havelock Vetenari (aka The Patrician). The AV of the CoT would be called Ridcully and one of the elite bosses would be Rincewind. Oh yeah, and I want talking dogs...and Trolls--real ones. Not the posers we have now.

Seriously though, can we get more satirical humor in the story arcs.

[ QUOTE ]
A few other things you forgot to take into account: If you do not have alot of mobs around you when you trigger EA you are woefully unprepared when more Mobs arrive.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if they made EA have a higher initial buff to Def for a single mob and then ramp up if your fighting more mobs (up to the 14 limit).

That is 1 mob = higher initial buff, 2 mobs = higher initial buff + regular Def increase, etc. for 3-14.

I think someone suggested either the same thing or something similar.

This is just me stating my opinion, but look at it this way.

Imagine they were of 1% across the board.

so:

FA = 1%
Weave = 1%
WE = 1%
EA = 1% * 14 = 14%

Total = 17 %

Where that 1% really hurts is EA and Invinc.

I'm sure one of the gurus could throw out some better examples than mine though.

Changed GA to Weave because of damage typing

It is also the principle though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe this is what is actually happening and it adds up correctly.

7.5 * (1+ ( 6 * (.2 + .03))) = 17.85

Basically, each enhancement is worth .20 and each + is .01 on the enhancement (assuming maximum +3 difference.)

{{PS. I am amazed that I figured it out if it is right. I'm not that good at math.}}

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what's happening, but not why; your numbers work out because:

6 * .2 * 1.15
6 * (.2 * 1.15)
6 * ((.2 * 1) + (.2 * .15))
6 * (.2 + .03)

Each over-level + is worth 0.01 simply because 5% of 0.2 = 0.01. This wouldn't work properly for the "damage-type" enhancements which have a base of .333.

HTH,

Kam

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for that too Kam. You and Circeus are teaching me alot.

I used to be better at this stuff around I2-I3.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Why do you calculate it like that with the 1.15 instead of just adding the incremental increase? Like .2 + (+3 value increase) Is it because the incremental increase is a run-on decimal or something i.e. .1234567 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because its actually 1.15, saying 0.23 is actually a shortcut. Since you asked, and that I actually have this coded (for my EA calc program):

double CCoHEnhInfo::sm_dfType1Bases[eEnhTypeCount] = { 0.08300, 0.16700, 0.33300 };
double CCoHEnhInfo::sm_dfType2Bases[eEnhTypeCount] = { 0.05000, 0.10000, 0.20000 };
double CCoHEnhInfo::sm_dfLevelMods[eNumLevels] = { 0.70000, 0.80000, 0.90000, 1.00000, 1.05000, 1.10000, 1.15000 };
const char *CCoHEnhInfo::sm_szEnhTypeNames[eEnhTypeCount] = { "Generic", "Dual Origin", "Single Origin" };

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was .05 per level. I'm used to using the short-cut of .23, but I couldn't remember the increase per level. 90% of the time I just calculate with even-con SOs since I'm mostly doing it for myself and not to test and provide numbers to the Devs. Thanks for that btw Circeus.


On another note, I didn't realize the reduction was twice the increase.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like others have pointed out, bad math...

The forumla is

7.5 * (1 + (6 * 0.2 * 1.15)) = 17.85%

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I have 2 questions:

1. What are the incremental increases for green SOs?
+1 = ? +2 = ? +3 = ?

2. Why do you calculate it like that with the 1.15 instead of just adding the incremental increase? Like .2 + (+3 value increase) Is it because the incremental increase is a run-on decimal or something i.e. .1234567 ?

I'm not being snarky or anything. I just want to understand this better.

One last thing. I agree with Circeus as well that we need the end cost of Icicles lowered. With the taunt/punch/aura-voke and the changes in taunt, tankers in general are much more reliant on their auras (and attacks) to manage aggro.

[ QUOTE ]
thx States! Now I am justified in making fun of my ice tank brethren

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell I'm gonna start making fun of myself.

After reading Circeus analyses, which reconfirm his testing, my initial hopefulness has been dampened.

I am--once again--Shelved.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your brother going to Iraq... I recall he was recently in Korea before. Seems he's chewing the same dirt as this former combat engineer (korea 93-94, Iraq 90-91).


[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny chase. I was stationed at Camp Hovey Korea from 93-94.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We really could use that number on EA as well. Since you feel like sharing data.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Energy Absorption provides the same buff for every foe within melee range.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm. That's not the way I read it, but ok. Assuming that it is also either .005 or .05 then:

6 slotted as before (even con SOs)

.011*14 = 15.4%

.11*14 = 154% !?!?!?

Soooo 15.4% + 1.1% = 16.4% WE is still too low then

Still, that is assuming you get 14 mobs in range of EA.

Corrected WE % cause gsolo was right I made a mistake lol.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way did you mean to put that decimal point before the 5%?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Wet Ice and Energy Absorption provide relatively small DEF buffs. This is not a bug and by design. Wet Ice provides a base defense of +.5%;

[/ QUOTE ]

Because with both the % and the . that equates to .005 not .05.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good catch EG. That would make the numbers look like this:

.005 = 6 slotted for def (2.2*.005)*100 = 1.1%

vs.

.05 = 6 slotted for def (2.2*.05)*100 = 11%

**assuming even con SOs.

We really could use that number on EA as well. Since you feel like sharing data.

As a 7 year Vet. US Army Infantry btw. I wish your brother the best and tell him to "keep his head down"

As to your responses, I've never seen them as 'flippant' or 'snarky'. At least, I don't think I've ever said anything like that. It is IMO refreshing to see a Dev not only communicate so regularly with their playerbase, but to speak their mind as well.

So--if you don't call me a dick for speaking my mind. I won't call you one for speaking yours.

[ QUOTE ]
Gof Forbid defenders blur the lines a bit, meanwhile troller secondaries work at 80-100% effectiveness of defenders. Meanwhile defender secondaries work at 66%.

Cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with both you and kurg. It was always my feeling that defenders were meant to blur the lines between the other ranged ATs.

OMG I almost spit my coffee out. Bravo

[ QUOTE ]
We're working (or more precisely our wunder-programmer Martin) on a change to melee combat that will enable you to hit runners. No more angling just in front of the fleeing foe - yep - you can punch him from behind!

We hope to get this into Update 3, but it needs testing. But I thought you'd like to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

YAY!!!!!

Runners give me a freakin' rash.

I'm curious if there's going to be a move toward standardizing/clarifying power descriptions. That is, when I look at a power like Thunder Kick it says it has a minor disorient, but doesn't tell me if that disorient is minor in duration or chance to hit or both.

There was a thread that discussed this, but I can't find it. May have been purged recently during board maintenance.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great post and combined with the information from dev starts to shed some light.

Does anyone know what the resistance modifier numbers are for the commonly used status effect protections like combat jumping, acrobatics, weave, US, Unstoppable, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as far as I know, Combat Jumping and Weave give NO protection from status effects. Only Acrobatics (out of the Power Pool) does. Stimulant allows you to raise the status resitance of someone ELSE.

[/ QUOTE ]

CJ adds resistance to immobilization. Weave does not protect against status effects. Acrobatics adds resistance to holds and allows avoidance of most knockbacks.

Nice job Zoner. I love it when people take the time to do this. It's how things that could be easily overlooked get fixed. Heck, I should do more stuff like this. But I'm a lazy A$$.

[ QUOTE ]
Damn you, Statesman!! DAMN YOU!! Even your official announcements are an enigma. (What's the plural of "enigma" anyway? Enigmi?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Enigmas--that's the plural.

Are you sure it's Thursday? I'm gonna be out of town Thursday. Are you sure it's not Saturday?