Shadowe

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly?

You're assuming it's even possible to fix some of those.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you assuming they can't be fixed

[/ QUOTE ]

Fact: Data transmitted electronically cannot ever be made 100% guaranteed to be delivered. The physics simply doesn't allow it.

While it is possible for this to be mitigated somewhat by sending the same data multiple times and choosing the most common version to be received, there is no way to prevent some of the data being corrupted. This corrupt data is part of the cause of server lag, mapserver disconnects and game crashes and it is physically impossible to fix it.

I'm inclined to agree, in some respects, Sal.

You are addicted to badging

All humour aside, though, by my take on things, the day-job badges and accolades are there for one reason only - to encourage altoholism in badgewho... hunters.

It makes more sense if you think about it that way - they want you to leave your main character offline so that you can earn badges on them. What else can you do? Why, use another toon for badgehunting, of course!

I think that's the intention.

We shall see.

Hello, Zenkolt! Welcome to the game and the forum.

Enjoy yourself in our fair city, and see you around!

It does make sense. The code was changed to affect those missions, but an error was made (hence why this is a known issue) that has resulted in it being proliferated across a much wider range of missions than the target set.

If it wasn't a known issue, it would be WAI, but since it is, then we can infer that an error has cropped up in some piece of code, and since this piece of code has been implemented to prevent this issue for the new missions, it seems likely that the error is in that bit of code.

In an interview, Bruce Harlick (sp?) did comment that code needed to be changed so that mixed teams couldn't do the new missions in Cimerora - since this change is preventing that, it has been concluded, logically, that that's where it comes from.

((Well, since the explosion would destroy an smallpox stored inside the vehicle, I don't see the need - the car just needs to be removed. Unfortunately, Dicky's not strong enough to lift it.))

Richard slowed his speed to something only marginally breakneck when he rounded the corner and saw the small crowd gathered at the parking lot, and allowed himself to drop to the floor.

"... a way of containing the blast?"

He ignored the others for a moment, taking the time to look at the car, and grimaced beneath his mask.

"Yes," he replied, still not looking at the others. "But I'd rather not risk the potential long-term damage."

Satisfied with what he could see, he finally turned his attention to the gathering. "So, whose bright idea was it to start a riot?"

Agreed. Clearly a case of FEBCAK.

Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than... well, a man of his size, at least. Able to, umm, fly, so leaping tall buildings at a single bound was sort of redundant.

Richard Huntington, clad in the black leather costume of his heroic persona, Shadowe, watched as Helena projected a likely location for the cry from a woman nearby. Skimming the streets just above head-height, he veered sharply to avoid a delivery truck, catching his shoulder on it, and sending him tumbling to the ground.

"Damn. Helena, start tracking the source of that transmission, and let me know if you get anything useful."

He scrambled to his feet and, throwing caution to the wind, launched himself into the air again.

"Ed, when I get my hands on you, I'm going to be very upset. You dragged me out of my comfortable bed, with my comfortable fiancee, on this bloody cold morning, just for some stupidly inane plot that's only going to make you look stupid."

[ QUOTE ]
<snip> but penalize pvprs to try to make pvers love pvp isgreatly wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh*

You appear to have missed the intention.

No one is being penalised. The rate at which benefits provide their buffs has been reduced, yes, but if you have, say, 3x Large Damage Bonus from sets, you do more damage, all else being equal, than someone who only has 1. It just doesn't matter as much as it used to. But it still has an effect.

Under the new system - a fully tricked out PvP newbie is less likely to be insta-killed in PvP, but an experienced PvPer on a pure SO build will probably beat them.

[ QUOTE ]
that's the point, why i can be king of pve and not of pvp?
balancing things is good, but waste all player efforts slottin toon is not the right way to do it

[/ QUOTE ]

What's stopping you being King of PvP? Sets do provide an advantage in PvP, still. It's just not as much of an advantage as it was. The idea being that your skill as a PvPer now matters a lot more than the Enhancement sets or AT/Powersets you've gone for.

[ QUOTE ]
cant the pve well done with SO as we do some issues ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course it can! But some of us want to be really good at it, so we set out our PvE builds to let us do that.

[ QUOTE ]
- what's the point to slot set enachements when i can't see any change on my toon performances

[/ QUOTE ]

I can. I monitor various stats on my main, and I exemp him a lot. The ease with which he defeats things at lower levels is hugely overshadowed (no pun intended) by the ease with which he defeats things at L50. There is a change. Trust me.

[ QUOTE ]
-what's the poin in buyin a 50 millions worth recipe with many millions worth salvages to craft it whan a normal Io or a SO will have the same result

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take that "useless" LotG Global Recharge off your hands, then...

[ QUOTE ]
-what's the point in introducing the merit system when the dreamed unique recipes are now useless

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, this is the one that confused me... NOW useless? Nothing has changed. If they are NOW useless then you are sayign thart they have ALWAYS been useless... when did set bonuses stop happening?

[ QUOTE ]
-what's the point mantainin the markets when single or Io recipes can bought other ways

[/ QUOTE ]

To be able to buy them cheaply?

[ QUOTE ]
-what's the point savin hundred millions when with 10 15 at least u can full slot a toon with So and doin ur job in a decent manner

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't any. You're correct. However, if you want to have your character significantly better, then you can spend a fortune on a setted build. And it WILL be better.

[ QUOTE ]
-what's the point introducing new set enachements when even the old purple ones became useless

[/ QUOTE ]

Like others have said, if you don't want your purples, I'll take them!

Lions, sorry, haven't read through all of this thread, and don't have time to, right this moment.

One question: You mentioned taking an averagely slotted character up against a setted one. Was this on Test Server or last night after I13 went live?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it seems to be a stealth insert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just commenting on this quickly: the idea of "stealth" changes in a patch is a myth in the vast majority of cases.

If it's a deliberate change then its absence from the patch notes is a simple oversight. There's over 4500 words worth of patch notes there, and you can be sure the raw notes they were created from were enormous. I've been that person who has to compile patch notes before - it's phenomenally easy to overlook things, including major features that were announced publicly prior to the update. Take the notes you have seen: these are the polished notes, with extraneous and duplicate material removed. Now multiply those notes by a factor of at least 10 to get a start for knowing what the raw changelog might have looked like in terms of size.

If it isn't a deliberate change, then it's a bug.

It's that simple.

On the topic of this particular undocumented change, I'll ask and see what I can find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehehehehe.

Fair point, GR, and thanks, PRAF for that BAB quote earlier, too.

Yes, "undocumented feature" is a far more... reasonable way to describe this issue. You will note that I rather carefully avoided the use of the word 'nerf' anywhere, because I don't think of it as a nerf. It's a change to a feature of the game, and I can certainly see reasons to do it. I just can't see why it needed to be done now, and I can't see why something that fundamentally changes how teams select missions didn't get put into any of the patch notes on Test or the Live version (though I do fully appreciate what you mean about the quantity of data that goes into patch notes).

[ QUOTE ]
So, seeing as they DID with PvP, you shouldn't be surprised that they do it with something ELSE too!

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference being that they were clear that they were adjusting PvP based on datamines of Arena/Base-raids in this update, and that Zonal PvP would be looked at later, and that they were making the changes...

I've not seen a patch note that says "Team Leaders can no longer select a mission if all members of the team are not in the same zone".

Thus, it seems to me, that they felt the need to hide this change. Why? To allow more flexibility with future technology in the game? Tell us. To reduce the ease of filling? Tell us. Can't tell us? Tell us that, then, and we'll not moan about stealth-features.

That'll teach me to post things in a hurry without full and detailed explanations...

Right this moment in time, the disadvantages of activating the feature seem to outweigh the advantages. Plus, since it doesn't appear in the patch notes, it seems to be a stealth insert.

Going to make something of an assumption, now, because I think that this has FAR more utility in Going Rogue than it does in the current state of the game - With Going Rogue, you may be able to have a variable morality, which would imply that there would be a third, Neutral, faction, who can team with both Heroes and Villains anywhere.

If that assumption is correct (and it would be an awesome idea), then the game will need to check if someone is appropriate for teaming, and since it can only check toons in the current zone, then this restriction makes a lot of sense, and it would make a lot of sense to implement the feature with Going Rogue, because then people would be able to see the reason why, very clearly.

However, as the game currently stands it appears as a major change to the casual teaming process for negligible gain.

That's why I don't understand why it's been implemented now.

As I understand it, NOD dislikes CoX updates. You can safely allow CoH through as an exception (or an ignored program, depending on how NOD phrases it). I don't use it myself, so I can't tell you which settings need to be changed, though.

I can agree with you, PRAF, that it could actually be a lead up to something like the Going Rogue feature - once that's in place, it actually makes a LOT of sense.

I just can't see much reason to implement it right NOW.

I agree with Birdy.

To be honest, it would make a lot more sense to make the "Select Task" button trigger a check - Is this mish from a coop zone, single side contact? If yes, go to next step, if no, Select Task. Are all team currently in zone? If yes, go to next step. If no, Task cannot be selected. Are all team from same side? If yes, Select Task, if no, Task cannot be selected.

That would prevent the problem of joint teams in coop zone single side missions, and would not require this rather clunky feature.

Further, it makes a lot more sense to me if it's an anti-farming measure rather than a means to prevent incorrect characters doing one of two stoy arcs.

That's simple enough, however I see no reason for the change - up until now the game simply wouldn't allow a mixed team unless they were all in the same co-op zone. That seems a far simpler and more elegant solution to the problem than disallowing teams in separated zones.

Someone mentioned earlier that this change is with relation to mixed-teams. I can't see how that can possibly be the case, as (taking RWZ, Cimerora and PD as examples) if someone on the team leaves the zone (except in the case of entering a mission instance), they are auto-booted from the team. Unless, of course, that has now been changed. In which case I still can't see why this change has been implemented, because removal of the auto-boot would be a QoL improvement.

The only reason I can conceive of for this change is to prevent filler requests (and it won't get rid of those, because all it means is that the filler team now all needs to be in the same zone before the person wanting it spawns the map).

It is, as some have said, a minor annoyance, relatively speaking, but it is an annoyance, and interferes with casual play.

I sincerely hope that this is a bug, not an undocumented feature.

The changes to mission selection in Issue 13 have now started causing me a bit of grief.

For anyone who doesn't know what I mean - you can no longer select missions for your team until all team members are in the same zone.

This seems like a step backwards, to me. To be unable to select a mission while everyone is out of the zone may effectively block Filling requests (which aren't all that much of a bother, even if I, personally, never take them up), it has made it harder (albeit marginally) for groups who happen to start in disparate locations.

Case in point - last night, I was in my weekly 'Fender Frenzy team on Defiant. Our team leader invited everyone, but one team member was busy in another zone for a few minutes. Normally, we would have just got on with the first mission of the evening, but because of this change we were unable to select the mission that we wanted to do, or any mission at all. This left us waiting for the busy team member before we could begin, and delayed our start by a good length of time.

Does anyone else feel that this change is more problematic than it is worth?

It is because of the merit system, which has replaced the old TF rewards.

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... Issue 15 on or near April 28th?
I guess i14 will be a Feb/March release then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which would be consistent with the Quarter 1 release intention that we've been given previously.