NittanyLion

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually wouldn't Castle = Fortress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle is a reference to the chess maneuver of Castling, rather than to the architectural structure called a Castle. Hence my forum Avatar.

I was actually looking for a term synonymous with "Discovered Attack" for the Praetorian name, but settled on "Checkmate" when I couldn't find anything suitable in the 2 minutes I allowed myself to look.

EDIT: To add clarification:
[ QUOTE ]
In chess, a discovered attack is an attack revealed when one piece moves out of the way of another. Discovered attacks can be extremely powerful, as the piece moved can make a threat independently of the piece it reveals. Like many chess tactics, they succeed because the opponent is unable to meet two threats at once. While typically the consequence of a discovered attack is the gain of material, they do not have to do this to be effective; the tactic can be used merely to gain a tempo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taken from Wikipedia

[/ QUOTE ]

You could always go with Skewer. It's very similar to a double attack except the two pieces being attacked are in the same line.

First thing I thought of when hearing a Type R programmer was you needed a a programmer who programs in R.

This sounds like fun. I'm always on the look out for good arcs to play.

If anyone gets a chance, here's my arc:

Arc Name: Groundhog Daze
Arc Id: 3465
Length: Medium

One problem seems to be the gold, silver, and bronze times on the new slope were set to be round numbers (50s, 1:00s, 1:10s) as opposed to numbers based on testing. I very well could be wrong and the new slopes were designed with these numbers in mind.

Last year's slope was and still is fun. As long as you had some sort of jump power (CJ, SJ, IR, Jump Pack) you could get gold easily once you learned the course.

The new slope seems to be a struggle in perfection. Getting gold times requires SJ + Hurdle or greater. The Jump Pack doesn't seem to supply enough "traction". Also any minor misstep yields greater than gold times.

Suggestion based on play testing: Up the gold, silver, and bronze times to something like 55s, 1:05s, 1:15s if "round" numbers are required.

I'm really suprised and disappointed that priority wasn't given to the Buster badge bug.

Whenever there has been a bug with previous events they were given priority precisely because they only happen once a year and need to be right.

A year is way too long to have to wait for a badge bug fix.

Buster badge is broken, wait 12 months then try again seems to me to be a poor response to a clearly broken event.

Were any alternate means considered to aleviate the Buster badge problem other than fixing the bug in the spawn rate?

If this was a "new" event badge there more than likely would have been a fix provided or at least a workaround.

Would lowering the badge requirements temporarily to say 3-4 still have the same impact on issue 13 date?

Alternatively could another spawn, like the Strengs, be temporarily used to count toward the buster badge for the remainder of the event?

The event is great except for the aforementioned Spirit ToT spawn rate. They seem to be spawning much lower, at least 4-5X lower than any other door spawn.

After ToT with 2 different characters and getting all the other door badges. Only about 5 spirits were seen with each character.

Having to ToT 4-5X as long just to get the Buster badge seems to be a bug. Other than that, it's been fun.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually wanted to go with Drops II: Drops Harder

[/ QUOTE ]

*sniff sniff*

Hmm. A faint odor of a positronic suit, there. Must be my imagination.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way, I would have gone with Drops II: Attack of the Drops.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about Drops II: The Search For More Influence

The biggest problem with this change is it makes it a lot more difficult for debuff defenders to solo. +1 minions are now hitting you over 2X as much as they did before. Also many minions have mezzes which shut off the debuff, so the change will really lead to even more hits by a spawn of 3 +1 minions.

While the change makes debuff defenders better able to handle large high level groups, they've really taken a hit while soloing.

Any chance of the exploration badges getting a different graphic based on the zone it was found in? The exploration badge art seems very monotonous as it is now.

Will you also allow players above the current maximum level to receive the PvP zone missions? These PvP missions affect the entire zone, so it doesn't seem correct to only let a subset of the PvP players in the zone to affect it.

If the mobs don't scale correctly to higher level players in the zone, why not make the missions autoexemp players to the PvP zone level?

Shouldn't EF at least have an endurance cost reduction to go with its reduced effectiveness? It already had the highest endurance cost of the -res powers and now with its reduced effectiveness it costs way too much.

Since issue 3 also added the mission difficulty slider, would it be possible to add a lower level than 'Hard Boiled' that would spawn the mission the same as 'Hard Boiled' but with the bosses decremented one level? This would have the effect of giving players the choice to have missions similar in difficulty as pre-issue 3.