Toony
-
Posts
409 -
Joined
-
I remember on my (now deleted) WS, I had gone into the sewers in dwarf form to help out some lowbie (unteamed with them). And instead I spawned a cyst that killed them all...
I also remember doing the Sara Moore TF on my scrapper and there was a cyst in the same room as Ruladak the strong. -
Quote:But this is just fanfiction. It does not matter in the game, it does not move any storylines forward (like the coming storm), and it is heavily limited in what it can do.Originally Posted by Nethergoat
Or play one of the excellent stories realized by your fellow players.
Even ignoring everything but Dev's Choice I14 delivered quite a few fresh gameplay experiences.
As for devs choice....in my experience it is just that. The devs choice. A dev liked it, doesn't mean I will. Just because George Lucas likes someones movie doesn't mean I will. -
Quote:Some people honestly don't care about power customization. Quite a few, actually. So for those who don't care about power customization, this issue doesn't give alot.Originally Posted by Steel_Shaman
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is once more proof that some people simply cannot be pleased.
I understand the desire for more story content, but when I think about the enormous amount of work represented by these additions, I say cut the Devs some slack.
Not to mention I15 was story light (two badly written TF's), and I14 had basically no story at all (make your own).
I'm excited for power customization but I can understand that others would like some actual story content. -
Quote:The TF/SF seems incredibly unpopular. For a brand new TF it seem's very rare that I see someone forming a KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN or Barracuda TF/SF. And that's probably because these TF's just suck. Then again it's rare I see anyone forming a TF that isn't ITF. The heroes is easier but the story is horrible. If it was an MA arc I would 1 star it. The villain one has a better story, is more epic, but is waaaaaay harder than the hero one (usually the case with hero/villain parallel TF's) with it's nigh-required AT's and the part where the entire 5th ambushes you.Originally Posted by Zamuel
Open question: How have (or haven't) people's opinion changed now that this SF has been out for a while?
I finished the villain SF once. Several wipes, the team getting ready to quit. Took four hours. We ended up having to clear the entire map of 5th AGAIN and summon numerous shivans to down Reichsman.
The hero version I've done twice and took an hour each. It was, simply put, easy. Easier than the ITF or most other TF's in game. It was simply tedious what with it taking 15-30 minutes just to down one AV.
So in my experience the villain version is very very hard. Not LRSF hard but maybe a level below it.
And the hero one is easy easy easy. Easier than the ITF or any other TF I've done, save POSSIBLY Katie. -
Quote:Scared? No. Realize I cannot take an 8 man teams alpha of +2 cimerorans and survive? That's knowing my limits. Especially if the team is now counting on me to somehow tank these things I know I cannot tank without a bunch of buffs. I have no desire to waste my and the teams time.Originally Posted by New Dawn
I don't care if someones Brute plays more like a Tanker or like a Scrapper. If its scared of a few Cimemorans then I am dismayed, Brutes should be fearless.
-
If we had infinite slots or heck, more slots, maybe I'd take it. But with my primary being DB (which is fairly end heavy as well, and needs alot of acc for the combos, and needs most of the attacks for the combos) I don't have the available power choice, end, or slots to run death shroud.
In other news I did an ITF last night. We failed. The team leader appointed me as the tank (even though I was 41, said I didn't tank, and we had plenty of level 50 IO'd out scrappers). I mostly just face planted alot. -
Quote:My DA doesn't have death shroud. I saw no point in piling on more end problems on an already end heavy set for abit more damage.Originally Posted by _Deth_
Anyone that says you have to tank as a brute misunderstands the mechanics. If people stopped trying to force a square peg into a round hole, i.e., saying brutes are tanks/scrappers, it wouldn't be an issue. As I have stated, aggro management is part of what a brute is, whether people like it or not. Whether it is active or passive is up to the playstyle of the person playing the brute.
I am just wondering what defense set you can use and not have a taunt aura without severely impairing yourself, as it is a secondary effect in a major aura power in each set.
I can possibly see not having the taunt auras on DA, FA, ElA, Stone and SD without severely compromising survivability, but then you are gimping your damage output. -
I vaguely remember a player mentioning the sounds the police drones make. And noting they mention a street name he lived on.
-
Quote:Carnifax put it best. Simply don't assume I'm gonna tank. None of my brutes have taunt and likely never will. Some of my brutes don't have a taunt aura. If the brute tanks, that's great. My problem is when people tell me I should/have to tank because I am a brute. And as said before, any tanking I do is an unfortunate side effect.Originally Posted by _Deth_
I think you mistook what my point was. When on a team, the team has to act as a unit, or will essentially it will just be a waste of everyone's time and effort. If you don't want to contribute to a group, go solo, it's that simple. I am not saying that everyone should build their toons and play in a fashion that they are dependent on others, I hate stone armor tanks and brutes specifically for that reason. At the same time, if I am in a group, and I jump into a large number of mobs and DON'T get backup from them, I am usually pretty annoyed at that point, and if it becomes the norm with the group I leave. Being self-sufficient is all well and good, but there are situations where all the self sufficiency in the world amounts to jack.
The roommate example is a good one. If I could afford to pay the rent on my own, I wouldn't need the roommate in the first place. If my roommate can't make the rent, I get a new one.
If you are in that situation, then you are on a crappy team. A brute, with proper support, is more than able to tank. Those are the key words, and what seperates brutes from tanks. As a brute, I run at the biggest meanest thing in the group, I hold its aggro, and will generally grab the rest of the aggro in the process. I don't do this to protect the team, I do this to maximize my fury as quickly as possible. I generally only grab strays if they are really stomping on someone. My survivability and my tactics make me the tank by default, and if the team is worth a crap it works out swimmingly. My job is to kill the biggest and nastiest of the mobs face to face, with his eyes on me. The beauty of this, is that villains all have damage as their primary set, with the exception of Doms, and even their mechanics provide for a ton of damage. All the weaker mobs, in a team of 8, should be decimated by the rest of the team, aggro or no aggro. It's funny how I can tank on boss missions with my brute, without actually tanking. I run in swinging, and all I do is attack. I might throw a taunt here and there so I don't have to chase things. I don't run around taunting mobs off of squishies unless they are in serious trouble. Keeping the squishies alive usually keeps my damage bonuses higher, so I can hit harder and crush better. Wait, if i "protect teh squishies" I get a benefit of being able to kill better, funny how that works.
This sums it up beautifully.
The thing is, the brute IS tanking in that scenario, just not in the traditional tanker "meat shield" fashion.
Just because the mechanics are different, in a team setting, the roles are the same. Brutes are not tanks, this is true enough, and the way they play is different if played well. A tank, in a group, has one job, and that is to get the attention of all mobs and keep it on him, damage is secondary. Brutes grab the attention of the mobs by putting out tons of damage. Too many people compare brutes to scrappers, and too many try to make them tanks. The reality is they are almost dead in between, and if played well, can be both at the same time.
Some play their brutes as tanks. Some as scrappers. Some as something else. I think it just does everyone a good service to not assume they'll play X way. -
I simply leave a team or decline to tank if they appoint me as the "tank". I know my brutes limits and unless I have a bunch of buffs on me, I am not going to be leaving that +3 mob of cimerorans set for a team of 8, alive. It'd be a waste of mine and the teams time if they put their hopes on me being able to "tank". Generally, if I wanted to tank I'd be on my tanker.
-
I recently got into an arguement about brutes. Apparently I am supposed to be a tank, should be tanking, and if I don't want to, I'm not doing my job. Which is odd as I always thought my job was SMASH! Not "protect teh squishiez!"
-
The reason I rarely do MA missions is because, with offical arcs I have this assurance the arcs make sense, are decently put together, and not a "KILL TEH PLAYAR!" arc or a farm. With MA....not so much. The answer I guess is to only do HOF or DC, but that kinda defeats alot of the point of MA. I suppose I could just only do recommended arcs but tastes differ alot.
-
Quote:In my experience devs choice does not mean an arc is good, has good writing, lack of custom groups, or is fun. It means one thing. A dev liked it. And tastes differ alot.Originally Posted by KaliMagdalene
I find it interesting that people are talking about the MA as if it's composed strictly of bad custom groups and farm maps. How many people have played through the Developer Choice arcs? Or the Hall of Fame? Admittedly, you need to read the mission text, the clues, and the souvenirs to get the impact, but I think it's worthwhile. There really is some good stuff in there that rivals or exceeds the official content.
-
Quote:To be fair it's probably because my DB is also /DAOriginally Posted by Blood_Spectre
Also, on a tangent, my Dual Blades is almost always at capped Fury. Sweep is awesome.
-
Heh looks like I won't be getting into beta. Oh well.
-
There really is no reason anymore. Originally we could not have axe/mace/bs/any weapons because they apparently hurt fury due to redraw. Now we have them. We also have had dark armor since day 1 of COV and it has two powers that disorient and fear mobs, meaning they can't attack you. We also have DB which in my opinion is terrible for fury unless you ignore the combos.
-
I thought this was gonna be about meeting Mark Twain.
-
I have a monthly recurring sub. I assume aslong as I keep paying it I'll be good? I don't have to sign up for a 3 or so month thing?
-
I hope TOR is good. I like star wars. But the numerous suggestions from the SWTOR forumbase worries me. Most of them are terrible. Tons of "make PVP unavoidable! No communication between sides! Make a cap on how many of each side can be on a server at a given time!" and such. Bioware adopts any of those ideas, would kill the game to me.
-
Quote:Called it!Originally Posted by ridgid
This game gives us a TON of free stuff (16 issues). so a $10 here and there is nothing as far as im concerned, AND its not stuff needed to play the game, so if you dont wanna pay thats cool, you dont need the stuff anyway. WoW had 2 expansions for $50 a piece and you needed those to contiune on the game.
but thats my opinion, plus im loaded so money is no issue (sarcasticly said)
Be good, Be safe, Behave
-
Quote:Completely agree.Originally Posted by Djeannie
You know, I HATE micropayments. I already pay 16 bucks a month and change (due to tax) to play.
I have bought a booster or two in the past (wedding pack springs to mind immediately).
In my opinion too many of the things in these packs should be included in the game instead of "pay us a monthly fee and MOAR money for ingame stuff". I also don't consider 2/3 the monthly fee to be very "micro". Micro is a couple bucks.
Just my 2c.
And now this thread is going to devolve into a "MICRO RAWKZ! U HAV ENTITLMENT ISSUES!" and "NO U!" arguement. -
All I've heard is "new zones (plural, no specifics, for all I know it could be 2), side switching, two powersets". Everything else I hear has been speculation or stuff said at comic con that they'd "like to put in in the future."
I'm with Mr. Playskool. Cinematic trailer is nice. But I'm gonna need some screenshots etc before I commit to buying or anything. Yes, I'm aware those will come at some point. I'm just not able to be like others and say "even if it just had side switching, two sets, and one new zone...I'd buy it!"
And COV had more than 6 new zones. It had completely new 1-40 content, new AT's, etc. I don't think GR needs that much, but it'll need atleast 5 full fledged zones (real zones. Not mini-zones like Ouroborus or pocket D.), side switching, new TF's, etc.
I hope it'll have all that. -
Quote:As much as those hurt by the NGE wish it wasn't true....SWG still has players. The populated servers arn't that dead. The game feels fairly alive to me.Originally Posted by Furio
SWG already had it's mass exodus when they did the NGE. It's players are scattered around in a lot of current games...I think most games will lose a good chunk of active players when TOR comes out. Not saying they'll all quit their current games, but there are a *lot* of SWG refugees out there.
-
'the diabeetus' made me laugh.
-
In my eyes it's just gonna need alot more than whats announced to justify an expansion. The hardcore crowd will buy it no doubt. But I have a feeling GR is aimed more toward introducing/getting back players. Not retaining the players who would never leave in the first place. For that, it's gonna need abit more.