St_Angelius
-
Posts
389 -
Joined
-
Quote:Ok, maybe not the self damage, but the lock out before you can detoggle would work just as well.Originally Posted by Demobot
I was thinking about something like this, only it would sorta break the cottage rule a bit. My idea was to change Time Bomb to Remote Explosive, and it would basically function similarly to what you suggest, except it would persist much longer than 15 seconds. Perhaps there would be a lockout window of a few seconds, to prevent the explosive from being detonated early. I don't like the idea of self-damaging powers on a blaster though. -
Quote:It may be Tier 5 over all, but it is Tier 3 single target. for comparison to the other blasts that are getting bosted...Originally Posted by PsychicKitty
Shout is T5 not T3 but it is 40 feet....but since they dont want to do changes to lighting field but want to instead effect Thunderclap...i will assume that they wont make changes to a T5 power under that same pseudo logic as to why they dont want lightning field to have improvements and instead insist on using a minor damage point blank area of effect knock back attack with a hefty starter animation(i consider anything that makes enemies many times kill you before you get it off a hefty starter animation)that most of the time wont be able to be used unless you want to risk your character by running into a group of enemies......and also make it impossible to hit things with area of effect powers because the Thunder Clap power disperses them.
Executioner's Shot = Tier 7
Lancer Shot = Tier 6
Power Burst = Tier 4
Blaze = Tier 7
Bitter Ice Blast = Tier 7
Cosmic Burst = Tier 7
But basicly, it is all the 40ft and 50ft single target blasts that are getting normalized to 80ft. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Arbiter Hawk
If we were going to do this to Time Bomb, we would have a way of doing it without granting you any extra powers or making you click any buttons that weren't Time Bomb.
Oooooo, that seem interesting. Toggle on, Time bomb drops. Toggles runs for 15 second and Time bomb explodes and toggle ends. Drop toggle early, time bomb explodes. Maybe make it so the explosion hurts the caster to discourage toggling on and off straght away and at least having to retreat first.Quote:Originally Posted by Codewalker
I'll choose to read that as "a toggle a la Dimension Shift". -
Quote:No, because Dual Pistols doesn't have a snipe to make insta.Originally Posted by Iannis
Isn't Dual Pistols in the same poo? No Aim or Build Up, they had the Swap Ammo mechanic instead.
Seems like a simple choice would be to just slightly dink their basic bonus to-hit for using a "weapon" up. You're basically just a bit more accurate as compensation for your firearms not being able to supercharge up an Aim/BU. -
Quote:basily Hawk wants to go through all the NPC Crowd control powers and add in a supress mechanic that means that if they hit you with a mez they can't hit you again with it for something like 12. At least as far as he said in the stream yesterday.Originally Posted by Jetpack
Wait, what?
Can you explain this further?
I think I know what this means, but I reaaallly want to make sure before I go further. -
Quote:I believe it's also because The Tower deals a chunk of damage to you when you accept.Originally Posted by Codewalker
It's not, and I was under the impression that this was intentional.
IIRC, The Fool is the reason that Mystic Fortune prompts you, because of the risk involved in accepting the buff. That's reinforced by the somewhat extreme lengths that the power goes to in order to stop someone from "cheating" by replacing it with a different buff.
That said, I certainly wouldn't complain if it became cancelable. -
Quote:Stalkers and scrappers can get ranged snipes from the epic pools that are affected by these changes.Originally Posted by LittleGreyDuck
Um... Stalkers have Assassin Strike, which isn't a ranged snipe. And Scrappers... I don't know where you're getting "Scrappers have a Snipe" from at all, honestly.
Did I miss something? -
Quote:Well, when I brought it up in this thread, I had expanded it from someone elses idea of solely having it based off stacks of Defiance as it is now, while other were saying the +ToHit threshold should be lowered. I just kinda combined the 2 ideas and hadn't seen anyone else do it.Originally Posted by Garent
I saw it, Angelius. The idea's been mentioned by at least three people now.
-
Quote:Ah, but lowering the threshold has it's own problems, if done across the board the other AT's will still get the insta snipe easier than blasters, and if only done for blasters the other AT's players will feel agrieved that they have to slot for a higher +ToHit than blasters.Originally Posted by JayboH
It would be easier to just lower the requirement of tohit.
-
Some of the deiscussions that have been kicking around since the stream yesterday have noticed that due to the higher buffs Defenders and Corruptors get from Tactics towards the Insta-Snipe than blasters, outside of /Devices, and can a lot more easily make it perma. So is there a chance that Defiane get a small (ish) +ToHit buff along with the +Damage buff from using powers. Scaled like the +Damage buff with different powers giving differing amounts. Not enough to trigger the Insta-Snipe on their own, but enough to do so with Tactics or Targeting Drone moderatly slotted.
This will help all Snipe set on blasters acess the Insta-Snipe more, though not permanently.
This will help the sets without Aim achieve the Insta snipe more.
This will give a buff to the sets without a Snipe.
Does this sound unreasonable or over powered? -
Quote:I made the same suggestion in both threads too, and got over looked as the more well known forum posters debated other things.Originally Posted by newchemicals
I made a suggestion on the other topic that defiance 3.0 also give a to hit buff bonus as well. So maybe then a blaster could hit "insta" snipe with tactics + Kismet.
-
Quote:Is what I suggested up thread a little that got completely overlooked during some back and forth between a few posters.Originally Posted by newchemicals
Maybe we can convince the devs to change defiance *again* and defiance 3.0 gives a small damage buff AND a small to hit buff for blasting.
-
Quote:I'm happy, only thew out my suggestion, that went unnoticed, or was just too bad for comment, for those unhappy that Defs and Corrs can get more milage out of the insta-snipe.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Am I the only person that is actually HAPPY about these changes?
-
Ok, I suggested this in the other thread, but seems to have gone unnoticed so far. But how about this to help blasters, at all levels, get a bit more out of the insta-snipe, as well as a buff to all powers...
Add a +ToHit buff to the +Damage buff to the defiance buff each power, samll enough so as to not get the insta-snipe on it's own maybe, but enough to get there with a modest buffed Tactics and/or TD. Give a larger buff to the set without Aim, to allow them to get the buff more, and sets without a snipe still gain the stacks of +ToHit for all their other powers/ -
Hmmmm, Loving the snipe changes, and I almost always take the snipes, unless I'm built to blap (only 1 toon so far, fire/mental/flame), And yes, looking at my builds, it does seem problematic making it perma-instant on most of them, with my corrs and fenders coming out ahead.
I was a proposed change to the gate upthread somewhere, about making defiance changes and activation via stacks of defiance. Not so keen on that idea, but have an alternate yet similar sugestion.
How about simply adding a small(ish maybe, I'll let someone else run the numbers) tohit buff to the damage buff to defiance. Maybe make it higher on sets that don't have Aim. If done right defiance stacks alone won't trigger the insta snipe, but with Tactics at it's current scale for blasters + Kismet IO, the more shots a blaster fires the more chance the insta snipe activates.
That way, blaster have an easier time getting the insta-snipe up more, sets without aim and/or build up in their secondary get more of a chance to get there and sets without snipes get a benefit too. -
The thing is, Arcana, nore anyone else for that matter, doesn't need to convince you, or anyone else who is happy with the status quo, that blasters need fixing. The fact of the matter is, the Dev's have done their own testing and found that thier performance is sub optimal for the task at hand and have decided to do something about it.
It doesn't matter that a preportion of the player base have learned to work around the qwirks of blasters. All that matters is that they take conciderably more investmant(time energy and thought as well as inf) to get them to perform at the same level as all other AT's. I play blasters, and I enjoy them and do well with them, just like I played stalkers and enjoyed them and did well with them, and have enjoyed and done just as well with after their changes.
Basicly, the dev's aren't gonna make big changes to an AT based on a few 'greedy' whining players on the forums and their cries of "I wnt moar powah!" They will if THEY see a problem. -
Quote:And that helps a blaster get from 1-49 how?Originally Posted by JayboH
-
Quote:Not the only one. Just hope I got the time zones right and it'll be at 18:30 GMT, or i'll have to wait for the recorded version!Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I wouldn't miss that.
-
Well, Arbiter Hawk is joining zwill on the coffe talk tomorrow to talk about some of the blaster changes! will have to check it out and see!
-
Quote:You are right, of course, and every time I typed 'copyright', I did, in fact mean, trademark. I know the difference and knew it was wrong when typing, but was more trying to get across what was being said that was being disputed. Guess I should have just cleared up the confusion first rather than compounding it. But my point, as you say, was the unique naming system is there to avoid confusion as much as anything.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
That's within the context of the EULA. The subject seemed to have come up in relation to analogizing what the unique naming policy is intended to do within the game. It seems to be more related to trademark, where the intent of the law is to prevent confusion by preventing people from using trademarks that are too similar to someone else's within the same context (roughly analogous to CoH requiring unique character names within a specific server), rather than copyright which is intended to protect creators by allowing them to be the only person that can profit from their creations for a limited amount of time (some people seem to think that limit apparently is "until the heat death of the universe", but that's the principle).
I don't think NCSoft is attempting to make sure I am the only person that gets to play with my names until I die, I think NCSoft is attempting to make sure no confusion arises between two different character names and all other players that could confuse the two.
It was bad enough when freedom was about to launch and we got access to Exhaulted and I was running to Ms Lib to train a new toon only to run into another, L50 (obviously transfered) toon. This toon had the same name and similar cossie to an SG mate on my home (read predominantly played server, not only server). I start to strike up a conversation thinking it is said SG mate (I know, should have checked my globals list first, but hey ho) only to have the person utterly confused by having this random person comming up to them and talking what may have been gibberish.
No harm, no foul. As far as I know, was not done for greifing perposes, was was enough to leave me very confused for a little. But if however, this was happening on my home server becase unique naming had been revoked I could see it happening so much more. -
Quote:This is the point I ws trying to make. Only, I wouldn't have been able to give quite as many details as that.Originally Posted by Texas Justice
Actually, there is a previous Dev team to a large extent.
Back Alley Brawler is gone. Castle is gone. pohsyb is gone. Ken Morse is gone. JLove is gone. Hero 1 has moved to the other project. The Dark Watcher has moved to the other project (I think Vince was part of that group but I could be wrong).
Considering that the group that stayed on the game was known as the Freem 15, well, that's a good sized chunk of the Dev team that made up NCSoft NorCal (NCNC) after Cryptic sold their share of the game to NCSoft.
And considering that this was planned for Issue 3, I'm not even sure that BAB or Castle was working there yet. pohsyb did so much bouncing back and forth it's hard to tell if he was part of the CoH team at that time and it might have even pre-dated JLove's tenure there. I think Manticore and Gilgamesh were still on the game then working from Austin and possibly Arctic Sun, although I might have my timing wrong on him.
So yeah, we have a few Devs that were here then (Positron and War Witch, possibly Ghost Falcon, anyone else?) but a large number of the ones that were here when the SSOOCS was being worked on are likely long gone. -
The system sounds very interesting. To some degree, I see Goats point, Some players would use the system to their advantage to make content easier. But then, I agree with everyone else in that not everyone would.
It's like a new tech introduced recently in 2 missions where, depending on dialogue choices, you can either have to fight an NPC super, of have them help you. Namely Icedrome in sonra costels arc and Leon in Laura Lockhearts. It's also seen in some of the DA stuff, eg, choose to fight or not to fight.
Now unless everyone, or at least an overwhelming preportion of the player base, chose exactly the same options, then you cannot say the same about this system either.
And, just because the previous dev team, for whatever reason, decided to not implement this system, does not dictate what the current dev team may or may not do. -
Quote:But you cannot be EXACTLY the same, in that the name used to identify you to others has to be different. Same as in copyright/trademark laws. I could go out and make a chocolate bar made exactly the same as a Snickers bar, put it in a similar looking wrapper, I just cannot call it Snickers.Originally Posted by Premonitions
Them actually being exactly the same is a matter of personal taste. I can exactly copy someone else's build and costume in this game.
-
Quote:Oh, you mean like pepsi is to coca-cola?Originally Posted by Premonitions
You can already make a character that is the same as someone else in everything copyright actually covers(in so much as we can pretend it applies to the game), though, appearance, e.t.c.
-
Quote:Actually, it's not a bad metaphor In copyright law, 2 thing of the same nature cannot be called the sdame thing. for example. I can't decide to make a new chocolate bar and call it 'Snickers' as there is already one out there copy written. Same with coke and soft drinks. Mobile phones and IPhone etc. the same with this game and character names on each server. that is where the metaphor is and it is valid!Originally Posted by Premonitions
[IMG]Let me say it again. That "simile" involves two different things which have nothing to do with the thing being described.
In other words, it's a bad metaphor.
I don't use hubristic highfalutin misconstrued arguments. I use facts, it's a bad metaphor because the two concepts involved don't have anything in common.Apples and oranges. Using copyright as the basis of your argument is wrong.
Also: The name isn't yours but I still can't have it.(I also don't want it, I'm more or less happy with the names I get)