MadScientist

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute Amazement: Chance for ToHit Debuff.

Only debuffing target by 7.5% which doesnt match its description "debuffing target greatly". thought it was supposed to be -20% debuff.

[/ QUOTE ]
out of curiosity, what level was the target? Maybe it scales.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we get a clean list of all broken IO's ?

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm... is it time to reboot the thread and condense the list?

[ QUOTE ]
No upgrading, sure. But if you keep getting tier 3 oranges and you only want tier 3 blues, then feel free to convert those tier 3 oranges to tier 3 blues to your hearts content. At least that's how I read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

but with 8 possible Insp types and only 25 slots, odds are that you'll have 12 slots eaten up by 2-of-a-kind waiting for a third to drop. and that's a best-case where you're getting all the same tier drops. So you'll never really fill your tray with one type with this mechanic.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm more than half convinced that I must've missed the obvious here; I apologize if I'm asking something silly, but I've done several forum searches and come up with nada.

I've got Swift from the Fitness pool, and it claims to be able to take any Enhancements from the "Enhance Running Speed, Enhance Flying Speed" categories. I have in the past slotted basic "Invention: something" IOs into the first power from a power pool, so why can I not place "Quickfoot: Run" into this power? Is it "working as intended" that this power cannot take sets?

I've also noticed that Assault from the Leadership pool doesn't list any "Allowed Enhancement Sets Categories". All the other powers I took, though, from those same pools and from Leaping and Body Mastery, allow me to put IO sets in them if I want.

Thank you kindly for your patience!

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, the list of enhancements a power takes is not necessarily the same as the list of IO Sets a power can take.

For example, a lot of Pets can be slotted for Hold or Heal, but don't take those sets.

Sometimes there's a reason for not allowing sets, other times there's not, you just have to look at each power before you go shopping. (And hope you don't run into the few powers that list sets they actually don't take....)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So now your 95 million extra healing gives you the ability to save 50 Inf on the purchase of a Break Free. Yeah... I wonder if we can get a little base-lovin' this issue in the form of some item upgrades.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm reading the initial post correctly, your 95 million extra healing gives you the ability to spend an extra 50 Inf on the purchase of a Break Free.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. 100 million gives you Breaks for 50 more than a contact.

95 million is saying you have 5 mil already in an AutoDoc sitting right next to the Combat Logs. From the Auto Doc, 1 Break Free will be 150 for 3 Respites and a quick merge, which is 50 more than direct from the Logs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyone else annoyed at just how useless the Combat Logs is becoming?

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing I find most insulting about the combat logs is that it charges 100 inf for a breakfree when vendors charge 50 inf. Loading into a base automatically nullifies whatever convenience you gain. I healed 100 million points of damage for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

100? I didn't know that. (Yeah, we're still not at 100 million healing. Mostly because - even in a pretty large and successful SG - no one see a point in farming healing just for this one item.)

So now your 95 million extra healing gives you the ability to save 50 Inf on the purchase of a Break Free. Yeah... I wonder if we can get a little base-lovin' this issue in the form of some item upgrades.

[ QUOTE ]
All that is moot anyways since Pohsyb said that it is pure conversion and no tier climbing.

[/ QUOTE ]

yup.

the only remaining concern is the ability to play the market, like if tier 3 Breaks are worth 100k and tier 3 Damages go for only 10k. but that should even out by itself shortly enough. However, the buy-back prices on the auto-doc may have to be adjusted, Rezzes go for more than 3 times the other inspiration values.


anyone else annoyed at just how useless the Combat Logs is becoming?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering if these 8 trays are taken from the 1-9 trays we already have, or are in addition to those.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would guess they replace the THREE trays we already have. We don't have 9 trays, we have 9 possible pages of powers in 3 trays. I bet they'd keep the 9 pages and they're just redoing the window layout that puts them on the screen.



I wonder if this will be accompanied by any improvements to the way Respecs trash your tray layouts. For example, /savetray /loadtray commands similar to the way we save keybinds.

[ QUOTE ]
pohsyb you need to be in the game...Villians get missions from a radio and T.V. heroes should get a guy in a box that gives them missions.

Maybe a Rikti in "disguise".

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect he's the guy in the freezer in the RWZ morgue, but he probably wouldn't admit it. (and could you blame him for keeping quiet?)

[ QUOTE ]
* Level Up Boost: Upon reaching enough XP to level up (at all levels), one of each type of large inspiration is immediately cast upon your character, and health and endurance bars are immediately filled.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will be nice if 50s can also get an occasional buff. Start filling the XP bar and when it reaches the end, throw the buff and reset the bar even without the Level-Up.

oh, I also hope Inspiration Conversion works while you're dead. Might be a way to scrounge up an Awaken when you really need one.

[ QUOTE ]
* Inspiration Conversion: Right click an inspiration to convert three of that kind into any one inspiration of another kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope "another kind" means "I don't need blues, so let me cash these in for a purple" and not "I don't need blues, let me cash these in for a larger blue I still don't need."

for me, this is the most intriguing feature of the new release.

[ QUOTE ]
2. I will then fill to the requirement of 3 players, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can fill to 6, which would spawn bosses in the mobs, then it should be more noticable if /kicking a few of them actually improves your spawn generation at all.

Should we plan to meet on Test at 7pm? Run thru a few permutations then?


[ QUOTE ]
I am curious if this kick command recognizes the player online in any instance or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]
Think /kick @Global would do anything?

all I could find by searching was this http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat....ue#Post10292071

and we still would need to test if it interracts properly with the code that adjusts spawn sizes. it's possible that code only interacts with the Kick or Quit buttons (like a certain recent bug that did things with a button but didn't take into account a slash command that did the same thing)

[ QUOTE ]
You did see the part where you can /kick <playername> right? Even if they are logged off?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're asking if he saw the part that was posted in a reply 17 hours after the message you quoted and asked about?


and would someone actually confirm that this works? every time it's mentioned it sounds like someone "knows" it works, or someone they know was able to use it. and by "works", I don't just mean the command goes thru, I mean confirm that spawn sizes get adjusted.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Generator Energy Curtain doesn't work with Turbine or Fusion Generators

I believe this has been fixed, as my curtain attaches to my turbine generator at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]
PicsOrItDidn'tHappen, please.
Preferably showing the Generator's item interface listing current attachments.

[/ QUOTE ]

and btw...if you really think I care if you believe me or not...think again, lol.

And I certainly am not going to go out of my way to prove anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you got very defensive all of a sudden. Against someone who you just quoted as having a good list who's looking for any info about updates to it! Chill out.

But you gotta admit, it's a little hard to believe that a change to the Turbine's aux attachment list could have snuck in there as a general design alteration. Especially when they can't seem to do exactly that to fix the broken Rez rings. You probably placed the item but didn't attach it, just like Robo Surgeons.

[ QUOTE ]
Generator Energy Curtain doesn't work with Turbine or Fusion Generators

I believe this has been fixed, as my curtain attaches to my turbine generator at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]
PicsOrItDidn'tHappen, please.
Preferably showing the Generator's item interface listing current attachments.

some is outdated?

Let's see...
Teammate Entry Permissions now work.
Register's Inf->Pres conversion numbers are still broken, though the numbers they compare to toggling SG Mode may have changed.
Likewise, the Roster Limit changed, but the comment about Alts is still valid.

What else would you say is outdated?

[ QUOTE ]
8 people start a Task Force.
7 people log off and allow the 1 character that's a strong solo build to solo to the end.
The 7 other people log on just before the finish.
Complete the mission and 8 people obtain Pool C rewards for the work of 1 person.

The above behavior is something that we are not allowing to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does the above (and hence, this proposed change) apply to a Respec trial?

"Just before the finish" for a Respec means at least 50% of the final mission, and the final mission is pretty much the entire Respec. Logging out of a hunt and a quick door mission isn't that big a deal.

However, the Respec final missions are severely adjusted based on team size.

Is there really a farming of Pool D as well as C?

Been trying to think of a way to express how great this explanation is without simply quoting it and saying "Devs, please read this".

I fail. I'm going to just quote it because it's perfectly stated. Devs, please read this.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This currently being tested fix looks to be intended to be a more player-friendly compromise. Who knows whether it will go live? No harm in testing it while datamining to see if the Live fix is sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that this looks like it's intended to be a more player-friendly compromise, and I know several people have hailed it as such. The thing is that I question whether or not that's what it actually is.

I know this has been said before, but I think it bears reiteration. You can divide the cases where you lose someone on a TF, and the circumstances, into these four cases:

Case 1: Teammate quits the team, and the team is still at or above the minimum starting size.
Live version: spawns adjust
Test version: spawns adjust

Case 2: Teammate quits the team, and the team is now below the minimum starting size
Live version: spawns do not adjust
Test version: spawns adjust

Case 3: Teammate disconnects/logs without quitting, and the team is still at or above the minimum starting size.
Live version: spawns adjust
Test version: spawns do not adjust

Case 4: Teammate disconnects/logs without quitting, and the team is now below the minimum starting size.
Live version: spawns do not adjust
Test version: spawns do not adjust

In the first and last cases, there's nothing to choose between the two--they give the identical result. In the two middle cases, one is more hurtful with the live version, and one is more hurtful with the test version.

The first big question to me is: which of those two circumstances is more likely? I really don't know the answer to that. I haven't done loads of TF's, but I've seen both happen.

The next question that occurs to me is: which of these two is more under the players' control? That's where I think the live version comes out a little ahead.

If the TF has a minimum starting size of less than eight (or better, less then seven), it's possible to isulate yourself to some extent from the live change. Start the team with more than the minimum, and then if one or two people leave, you're still okay. With the test version, there's no way to do that. Your only choice is Lighthouse's suggestion:

[ QUOTE ]
However, I would have to advise you to better get to know the people you are grouping with. Simply put, if someone has a reputation for such, don't engage in a task / strike force or trial with them. You would be well advised to only take your most trusted allies with you to tackle such challenging and dangerous missions!

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only person it's occurred to that this advice can be as easily applied to the current live situation? If you think a person is likely to quit the TF, then don't invite them?

In the current version, I have both of these options to mitigate the situation. I can try to assess my prospective teammates' reliability, and not invite them if I think they won't stay on the team. And I can invite some extra people, above the minimum, to give a cushion in case I'm wrong.

In the test version, I have two different options. I can try to assess my prospective teammates's reliability, and not invite them if I think they'll deliberately log off without quitting. And I can try to assess the reliability of their internet connection, and not invite them if I think it's not up to the job.

Here's the crux of this, to me. Quitting the team is always a deliberate action. If you quit, you had to have meant to quit. This is by no means to say that you might not have very good reaasons to do it, I know things happen in real life. But you can't have done it by accident. (Okay, yeah, it's possible by hitting the wrong button. But there's a confirmation dialog, isn't there? You 'd have had to have had a major brain fart.)

Being disconnected, OTOH, is something that can be beyond your control--I mean literally beyond your control. You didn't look at it and make a decision, it just happened.

I can be okay with filtering my teammates according to an assessment of their personal reliability. I'm far less comfortable with filtering my teammates according to an assessment of their ISP's reliability.

The first thing that jumped into my mind when I saw this was this situation. I've started a TF on a Saturday afternoon. Things looked great when I started, but an hour or so into it .... was that thunder? Uh oh, storm coming up. Not at all uncommon in the midwest, especially in late summer.

So now I have to make a decision. An unexpected power outage could definitely happen. It does, around here. So do I quit, or do I try to keep on?

My inclination would be to try to stay. This is not only for my own sake, but because losing a team member, even with adjusted spawns, is often hurtful to a PUG TF. If I end up losing power, well, that's too bad, but the team is no worse off than it would have been if I quit. And at least I can say I tried. If I don't end up losing power, then I complete the TF and was a help to the other members.

But now, that would be a bad decision. If I think an outage might happen, my team would be better off if I quit--even though it would be losing a member, which as I said is probably harmful in itself. If I lose power, then I made the right decison. If I don't? Then I quit the team, hurting myself and the rest of the team, for no purpose. That's going to be pretty frustrating.

Of the two proposed changes, this is the one that makes me more reluctant to join a TF team. Not so much because of what others might do, but because of the possibility of me accidentally griefing my team.




Oh, okay, I know: tl:dr, in an already tl:dr thread. I didn't mean for it to be quite so long. Let me try for an executive summary:

I appreciate the fact that they're trying for a compromise here. The problem is that I don't think the proposed change mitigates the situation for a casual team, it only shifts it to another area, and arguably makes it worse. I'm fine with the goal, and understand that one or the other of these things is probably here to stay. But if given a choice between the two of them, I think I prefer the current live version.

If anyone actually read all that, thanks for your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

am I obligated to end with "QFT"?

[ QUOTE ]
How many times and in how many ways does Lighthouse need to say, "This is the best we could do with the time resources we have right now?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the best would be to leave things as they are on Live.
Is there a Hippocratic Oath for game programmers?

The latest patch setting a minimum spawn size has only been around for a week. Are we sure it's not doing its job well enough to justify a second fix that brings along these other troubles for non-exploiters?

[ QUOTE ]
This a good change, the only ones complaining about it are the FARMERS, even tho they clam themselves to be "the avg player". LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a farmer, and I'm opposed to the change.

The very reason I'm opposed to the change is because of the effect the change has on non-farmer teams. If a team sets out on a strikeforce, and one of them disconnects, then all the remaining team members are punished by having larger spawns than their team size would normally see. This does not affect farming, it is merely going to be a Bad Experience (TM) for people attempting strikeforces.

I find it interesting that there's even a comparison to Live in this discussion.

We've had the Live system about a week, we've had TF exploits since at least the time I9 released. and the Live system is getting rolled back, as if it never existed in the first place. so this is really a new, different attempt to fix the original system, not a change to last week's patch.

Let's compare the original TF system to this new proposed Test system. The Test system says this:
TF spawns will no longer reduce in size if players log out.

Taken in THOSE TERMS, I would hope the issue is clear. This system is terribly unforgiving of a normal non-exploitive disconnect. THAT by itself is a Bad Idea - the "experiment" they put on Live last week that they're rolling back is irrelevant to that evaluation.

[ QUOTE ]
<QR>

I for one prefer the way Task Forces operate on the live servers. However I am not going to complain. Instead I want to say thank you to the Devs.

Why is that?

Because they actually listened to their customers and implemented a change that was suggested by said customers and made good sense. So even though it isn't the change I'd prefer it was one that shows that they're actually listening to us. And I for one understand that "listening to your customers" is not the same as "doing what I want and ignoring everyone else."

I mean this change was suggested by us here on the forum. The devs listened to us and made this change even though they might not agree with it. All I can say is, what more can you expect than that? I guess you really can't please some people ever.

Thank you for listening to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, the nature of such a forum does not lend itself to large threads of "HOORAY for the status quo!!"

There were a large number of people applauding the current Live system. However, you'll always see more complaining than cheering for the current setup. You don't see threads such a "I love the Hess TF, don't ever change it!" or "The placement of pillboxes in RV is absolutely perfect!" or "Wow, this badge is awarded at exactly the right time, it should be the model for all other badges!" No, the negative posts always dominate. Don't let that skew the impression the community has of this change - the Live system is not universally hated.

The people who have supported the Live system are not being listened to, what do you have to say about the Devs with regard to that?

Let me sum it up this way:

I do not exploit TFs. What does this change do for me?

What it seems to do is bring risk. There's a risk that the person on the TF will not be there to contribute, but will continue to add to the TF's challenge.

I do not understand why, as someone who does not exploit TFs, this patch should bring me that increased risk. This is a negative change from my point of view.

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't understand why people are so opposed to this change. With either the Live version or the current one in testing, you have the problem with people logging off but not quitting the TF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in the case where the team size before the logout was at or below the starting minimum.

Let's consider a TF that takes 6. You start with 8.
2 log/crash/whatever. On Live, your team re-adjusts. On Test, your team continues to be for 8.
2 more log/crash/whatever. On Live, your team continues to be set for 6. On Test, it continues to be set for 8.
Seems Live is better there.

Let's instead take 2 quits and 2 disconnects.
You had 8, 2 quit. On Live, your team adjusts to 6. On Test, your team adjusts to 6.
2 more log/crash. On both Live and Test, your team is going to remain set for the 6 you still have.
Seems equal.

Do you see in both setups where it's hurting the Live team who has an uncontrolled disconnect?

OK, what if all are quits?
Well, we can get to a challenge set for 6 either way.
2 more quit. On Live, nothing happens. On Test, the team's challenge adjusts.
but SHOULD IT? This was a challenge for 6+ people. Why is the system going to adjust it for 4? This is reinforcing the wrong behavior. thus, again Live is better, since it's a better design for the actual content.



Let's take this from the point of view of non-exploiters setting out to do a TF, intending to have everyone who starts the TF stay on and participate. For them, this change can only be a detriment if unexpected factors alter who's online. On Live you can at least prepare for that with a buffer, starting the TF with more than the minimum.

The end result will probably be a team not taking a risk on additional members. If there's a chance that pickup teammate will disconnect (intentionally or otherwise) then it would have been better to never bring them in the first place. Adding 1 more member to a TF will at best even out (they pull their own weight) and at worst make things more difficult for everyone else. That is a bad design for a multiplayer game! This should be about GAIN, not about MINIMIZING LOSS!

In general this setup is too damaging to non-exploitive teams. Find a way to fix the exploit without making normal teams have problems!