Lemur Lad

Part of the limitations in our current game have to do with how files are written and read, how maps are built rendered and interacted with, and how the game makes use of stored text strings. In other words, in order to make the kind of improvements you're talking about, yet still use old maps models etc. They would not only have to write a new more robust file system to handle new capabilities, they would have to write translators that converted all the old files into the new formats.

Even if such a translator worked perfectly, they would have to go in and apply new attributes for the new characteristics that define the kind of improvements you're talking about.

In short, they'd spend more time converting and debugging old code than they would if they wrote all new stuff from scratch, and even then there would likely be legacy errors, or it flat out wouldn't look or work as good as all new assets would.

Let's put it this way, there's a reason the costume designers spend more time on all new items than they do upgrading the older ones. Besides the sturm and drang caused by people who act like you killed their babies when a hairstyle gets revised, the problems inherent in making something "just like the old one, but better" often mean it's a lot easier to make something new instead. And that's an example of the problems just within the same game, not even getting into conversion to a new system.

It wasn't a bug, it was an intentional change to resolve another issue. However people got really bothered dying to cars on their level 50 or taking precious minutes blasting a cardboard box on their level 50s. The final revision solved both the original issues, and the secondary ones.

It's really never about coding unless someone pretends they know about coding, then people who do know things about coding get bothered.

What the most common beef is is people post "Change X Now!" without explaining why it's not good enough, or what they'd like to see instead. This kind of post (which this thread is) is not in any way shape or form useful to a developer, or even other players interested in having a discussion.

Want to see change? Explain the change in understandable terms. You can explain what you like and what you don't like and what you'd like instead, without getting technical.

That doesn't mean ideas shouldn't be explained. People jump on folks that think they have a "big idea" but really it's just a couple of simple sentences with no thought about consequences or how to execute it.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to or resent change. However I want GOOD change and compelling reasons to make it. I resent the implication that because the case someone makes isn't in any way compelling, that I'm a rabid fanboy, or "afraid" because I state in plain terms that their idea is flawed.

You said you wanted an upgrade.

You were told we're getting one.

You gave a very vague response.

You were called on it.

You've tried to change the subject twice since then. I'm trying to talk to you about one thing, not everything. Stay focused.

Still haven't responded to this: Why isn't Ultra Mode enough of a graphical upgrade even though you said you'd like to see one?

Name Calling? How is that called for? Keep the discussion civil or stop posting please.

We have no way of knowing where the OP's heart is, because THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING IN THE POSTS TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WANT WHAT THEY WANT.

We're talking about the graphical upgrades of Ultra Mode, not Content, and not buying GR (since Ultra Mode is free in I17). No need to change the subject.

You and the OP say we need a graphics upgrade. We're telling you we're getting one. For some reason you have yet to explain, you think it's either nonexistent, or not enough. Explain yourself. Are we lying, or is Ultra Mode not up to your definition of a graphics upgrade?

I don't fear change. I simply can't judge a blanket statement as a good or bad idea when there is ZERO substance in it.

Make a new game. Is not an idea. Especially when you leave out any indication of what you're looking for in a new game.

If you're basing that on being in Closed Beta, you just broke your NDA.

If you're not, then don't base it on what has been said and shown publically so far, because that's not even scratching the surface, considering the sheer size of the I17 download.

Thing is, game engine is a nebulous term. Different devs mean different things at different times, depending on the context of the conversation.

The powers system? The Character Database? The Animation system? The login server? The Map Server?

They're all different "engines" designed to communicate and work together at different times.

Fact of the matter is, there ISN'T a "game engine"

I can see ordering someone not to use Gang War, or Carrion Creepers, but an order for an MM to not summon minions when the team isn't ghosting to a location is ridiculous.

I've been on Rad/* */Rad teams where I and another Plant/Rad summoned Vines during the Rommie fight just for grins. It was definitely slower, but not impossible. 5 minions doesn't mean squat on any reasonably competent team.

Edited out of existence. you can see what it said in my quoted reply though.

I still maintain that simple declarative statements are not ideas.

You need to read this site

Still no meat to your alleged "idea"

Later than immediately, but prior to after.

I think unless you're specific about why it's a good idea to give up on 6 years worth of content and upgrades to make a new game, and how precisely you think a sequel can and should be better than what we have now, there's no meat to your suggestion.

Translation of your post: Make me a brand new game.

This is a useless thing to ask without giving any actual details about what you'd like to see that you're not getting here.

that depends on what you mean by game engine.

If you're going to tweak someone for necro'ing your thread, it's best to go after the person who actually did it. Usually the first few replies after that are just people who didn't look closely at the dates.

That's what the reply button is for. Since your other thread was still active, that's where a follow up or expansion belongs, not in a new thread.

Here's the deal though. The people you're trying to make a point to? Won't get it. You use too many words, and not enough pictures. Especially when your revision goes back and adds more words.

The reason I maintain you're "trying to be funny" is that you're basically preaching to the choir. Which means you're looking for people to agree with you and chuckle at your sarcastic wit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of tweaking people's noses. But there's no need to audience shop.

For what it's worth, I'd consider firing useless debuffs and AoEs on an AV and ignoring needed team buffs to be Actively keeping the team from succeeding.

Blind during the AV fight? Useless.

Slow Movement? Useless if they fire immobs.

Holds? Unless all Controllers agree to spam Holds in order to over come Triangles Up, all it is is a bit more damage, and 1-3 missed attacks when the AV goes Held for Triangles Down, and even then a single controller can Hold a Triangles Down AV.


That's not even getting into the fact that if the Tank is running Yellow-Red, and the team's blue bars are empty because said player isn't using abilities that are sitting right there on their bar and would more than likely shorten the fight considerably, then that's antithetical to good team play.

The Fire/Kin didn't need to pull other mobs or AVs. She was weakening her own team and strengthening the AVs leverage to the point that it must have been like fighting 2 AVs anyway.