[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, Fanboy, but you know very well that there's no understanding what the hell goes on in these people's minds.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't completely dispute that.
[ QUOTE ]
Does that scream out to you "Nerf Defenders, Dominators, and non-EM Blasters heavily without giving them a single thing back?"
[/ QUOTE ]
if i were a dev, yes- it would. but only because my ears were muffled by my asscheeks. (i really hope asscheeks makes it through the filter)
as with everything else, they fixed one thing and introduced a whole bunch more. par for the course so far.
for the record, i think they do throughly test all of this stuff. shouts of incompetence make me want to slap people. I just think that their view of how we should perform and our view of it is radically different. I also think that it is perfectly acceptable to them to have a bunch of people be weaker than they should than to have a few people be stronger than they should. ""if those other people get run over by nerfs to the strongest, well then they'll just have for a better solution."" i don't like that line of thought, but i think it's a popular one in cryptic.
it perfectly fine to to yell about what you think is a bad decision. I'd be the worst hypocrit on these boards if I said otherwise. I strongly object to people calling them incompetent.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. But taking the two together, and looking at how changes/nerfs/buffs have worked in the past, I think it screams "we're not done with this yet."
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea....
I thought that for a bit, when I put in a few complaints about Defender damage in PvP not being enough to take down a Tanker with an unslotted heal active. Then we had i6, and Defenders are doing 66% of the damage against a Tanker that's still got his same, unslotted heal.
It's been six months since then, and I haven't seen a huge change. Even if one comes, do you think anyone will care?
[ QUOTE ]
if i were a dev, yes- it would. but only because my ears were muffled by my asscheeks. (i really hope asscheeks makes it through the filter)
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know why on Earth it did, but I'm afraid I've got to quote for righteousness there. It'll be gone by tomorrow morning, still, but given that "Count" is probably still censored on the game servers, it's a nice victory.
[ QUOTE ]
for the record, i think they do throughly test all of this stuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
EF nerf, Regen nerf, I could go on but those two I know you and many others remember.
I know they test things, that doesn't mean they are always testing what we will be playing. If you don't think that their testing other versions of the game results in ideas of how the game works other than how we see it, then I think you are putting your hands over your eyes and praying loudly.
[ QUOTE ]
I strongly object to people calling them incompetent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can I call them out of touch with the reality in which we play at times?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if i were a dev, yes- it would. but only because my ears were muffled by my asscheeks. (i really hope asscheeks makes it through the filter)
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know why on Earth it did, but I'm afraid I've got to quote for righteousness there. It'll be gone by tomorrow morning, still, but given that "Count" is probably still censored on the game servers, it's a nice victory.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember that. Funniest bug ever.
Yes, oddly, asscheeks made it through the filter. *golfclap*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I strongly object to people calling them incompetent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can I call them out of touch with the reality in which we play at times?
[/ QUOTE ]
hell yes! i definitely agree that very often, we're playing a much different game than they are. I did mention that " I just think that their view of how we should perform and our view of it is radically different." That translates directly into issues like this one.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, actually I do. I remember blasters insisting that scrappers spend a majority of their time at the 500% damage cap (not true), that broadsword scrappers were two-shotting +3 bosses (definitely not true), and so on. I've read blaster anti-melee whine-threads since issue 2 and the smoke grenade nerf, and I know I'm not the only poster who has seen this.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would consider the winner in the "Which AT has the stupidests complainers" too close to call myself.
For instance, blasters *and* scrappers were arguing for months over which one should get the higher damage cap, and no amount of logic could convince hardly anyone that who got the *higher* cap was a practically meaningless question. They were arguing over an issue comparable to which one should get the louder sound effects. But trying to argue that the issue was really whether each cap was appropriate to each set independently was something between Herculean and Quixotic, and I didn't have the energy to figure out which.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing that blasters have more complainers than scrappers, Arcana. On the other hand, scrappers were by and large not starting multipage threads to nerf scrappers.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, Fanboy, but you know very well that there's no understanding what the hell goes on in these people's minds.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't completely dispute that.
[ QUOTE ]
Does that scream out to you "Nerf Defenders, Dominators, and non-EM Blasters heavily without giving them a single thing back?"
[/ QUOTE ]
if i were a dev, yes- it would. but only because my ears were muffled by my asscheeks. (i really hope asscheeks makes it through the filter)
as with everything else, they fixed one thing and introduced a whole bunch more. par for the course so far.
for the record, i think they do throughly test all of this stuff. shouts of incompetence make me want to slap people. I just think that their view of how we should perform and our view of it is radically different. I also think that it is perfectly acceptable to them to have a bunch of people be weaker than they should than to have a few people be stronger than they should. ""if those other people get run over by nerfs to the strongest, well then they'll just have for a better solution."" i don't like that line of thought, but i think it's a popular one in cryptic.
it perfectly fine to to yell about what you think is a bad decision. I'd be the worst hypocrit on these boards if I said otherwise. I strongly object to people calling them incompetent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you.
Every decision is not automatically right, nor is it automatically wrong. It's also not automatically incompetent just because I don't like it.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, please quote, exactly, where I made this claim. Come on. Do it. Quote my claim, verbatim, that "Bonesmasher drops three toggles 100% of the time."
[/ QUOTE ]
I did quote you. You just dont like the fact that you overstated your case, and got called on it.
NOWHERE Did I ever say that YOU said, Bonesmasher drops three toggles 100% of the time. Those are words that youre putting into my mouth. The exchange went as follows:
You said:
[ QUOTE ]
In testing with a buddy he dropped 3 toggles every time he touched me with Bonesmasher.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then Bayani said:
[ QUOTE ]
As for your example, that's just dead wrong. It's not a 100% chance to drop 3 toggles. Either you're overexaggerating or you used a small sample size of 2-3 attempts. Bonesmasher does not drop 3 toggles 100% of the time.
[/ QUOTE ]
To which you replied:
[ QUOTE ]
Did I say 100%? No. I said "very reliable". Thanks for playing, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which I found to be not only rude and condescending, but also revisionist. As any reasonable person would conclude that every time = 100% of the time.
And so I said:
[ QUOTE ]
In the post he was responding to, you did not say "very reliable." You said:
[ QUOTE ]
In testing with a buddy he dropped 3 toggles every time he touched me with Bonesmasher.
[/ QUOTE ]
every time = 100%
Sorry, but our judges have awarded this round to the Challenger. Here's a copy of our home game and don't let the studio doors hit you in the [censored] on your way out!
[/ QUOTE ]
(You will note that I used the same snippy little game show cut down on you that you used on Bayani, revised slightly for originality. I did this just because you were being rude to him and I wanted you to taste your own medicine.)
At which point you pulled out your big philosophical and rhetorical guns and called me an [censored]. And you started backpeddling on what you said, and tried to say that what you clearly said was not what you meant.
Ill say it again, and I will challenge anyone OTHER THAN YOU to say this is an unreasonable interpretation:
every time = 100%
You jumped on Bayanis [censored] for assuming that when you said every time you meant 100%. This was unjustified, unreasonable, and uncalled for on your part. And I busted your chops for it. Now youre backpeddling and trying to reinterpret your own words to wriggle out of the embarrassing situation that youve put yourself into.
And youre accusing me of sematic gamesmanship when it is you driving the argument in this area. Here it is again, straight from you:
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, please quote, exactly, where I made this claim. Come on. Do it. Quote my claim, verbatim, that "Bonesmasher drops three toggles 100% of the time."
[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to discuss the merits of your ideas, then stop demanding that we argue about semantics. Not a difficult concept, is it?
The actual mature thing for you to do at this point would be to admit that you overstated your case, and/or exaggerated. It would also be cool to apologize to Bayani for being rude toward him. You know, that IS allowed on the forums.
But of course you wont.
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
[ QUOTE ]
(You will note that I used the same snippy little game show cut down on you that you used on Bayani, revised slightly for originality. I did this just because you were being rude to him and I wanted you to taste your own medicine.)
At which point you pulled out your big philosophical and rhetorical guns and called me an [censored]. And you started backpeddling on what you said, and tried to say that what you clearly said was not what you meant.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, I'm sorry, I admire your certainty in how well you understand my thought processes, and my intentions, but you are wrong. No matter how clear you think this is, no matter how awesome you think your command of this situation is, the fact is that you are wrong. Why can I say that? Because I am the only one here who can read my mind.
I misattributed what part of my post he was talking about. It never occurred to me that he meant the part about the testing I did with my buds. Why? Because I knew that what I meant (and not what I said) would never imply that.
But read on.
[ QUOTE ]
You jumped on Bayanis [censored] for assuming that when you said every time you meant 100%. This was unjustified, unreasonable, and uncalled for on your part. And I busted your chops for it. Now youre backpeddling and trying to reinterpret your own words to wriggle out of the embarrassing situation that youve put yourself into.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, am I embarrassed now? Hm. No. Not really. Embarrassed would require me to be uncomfortable with the situation. I'm not.
[ QUOTE ]
The actual mature thing for you to do at this point would be to admit that you overstated your case, and/or exaggerated. It would also be cool to apologize to Bayani for being rude toward him. You know, that IS allowed on the forums.
[/ QUOTE ]
The second part of my post, the part about the informal testing, was poorly stated. That is all. It was not my intention to use it as overstatement. I posted it in the middle of a Hamidon raid in which I was at least partially active. I didn't complete my thoughts clearly.
Was I unclear? Yes. Was I condescending in my response? Yes. Am I sorry? For jumping on him, yes.
[ QUOTE ]
But of course you wont.
[/ QUOTE ]
For the rudeness I have offered you? Not really. Given that your stated point was, at least in part, to "teach me a lesson", I have little patience for or interest in such folk. Take me or leave me, I'm not interested in moral lessons on Internet game forums. Bayanis doubtless capable of defending himself, and if I'm wrong, he can probably catch me at it on his own.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unlike some people, I don't come here to wordsmith everything not only that I say, but that others say too.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is demonstrably false. It is EXACTLY what you tried to do with Bayani. And I busted your chops for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh really? You can demonstrate that my purpose in coming here to this forum and making my original post was to wordsmith? Please, do tell me how you know my purpose? No, you have inferred my purpose from my actions. A reasonable first approximation that reasonable people recognize as being a poor absolute final determination.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those still listening out there, you'll notice that nowhere in the last four or so responses has anyone actually addressed the one salient point in my post. Oh, no, they've been picking at my semantic constructs (or lack thereof).
[/ QUOTE ]
That would be because of you. I am talking about your semantic constructs because you have DEMANDED that I do so. Its right there, at the top of this post. A direct quote from you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Impressive. By distracting you with other things to talk about I've actually actively disabled your ability to address the topic of the thread. This is a tactic I must remember for later use.
[ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
A smirking behavior is, ultimately, why I will offer you no apology.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
Was I unclear? Yes. Was I condescending in my response? Yes. Am I sorry? For jumping on him, yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
THERE we go. Honestly, I didnt think you had it in you. You proved me wrong!
[ QUOTE ]
A smirking behavior is, ultimately, why I will offer you no apology.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never asked for one. I said you owed one to Bayani. And he got it. As for me, I made my point, so Im happy. Its un-cool for you to jump on someones [censored] for reasonably paraphrasing what you said and responding to it.
But I will offer an apology (albeit a small one) to you. When I first responded to your response to Bayani, I said Sorry, but our judges have awarded this round to the Challenger. Here's a copy of our home game and don't let the studio doors hit you in the [censored] on your way out! I should have left out the part after the phrase home game. It was unnecessarily inflammatory.
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
Sweet. So are we gonna get back to flaming the devs about toggle droppers instead of flaming each other now? ^^
Toggle dropping powers is bad, period.
Why you ask, because it takes away the fun for all those AT:s that need to spend 70% of the time putting on toggles after having them dropped.
Now, there are four AT:s that still should have powers that drop toggles and those are:
Defenders, Dominators, controllers and corruptors.
The reason for this is that they do not have the damage needed to be effective against toggle heavy AT:s unless they can drop toggles.
Dominators and controllers should have less chance then defenders and corruptors with toggle dropping powers because they also have holds as a primary.
Blaster, scrapper and Stalkers already have unresisted damage that bypass all toggles so there is absolutely no need for them to have toggle dropping powers.
Tank and brutes could be discussed, especially tanks since they are low on the damage side.
The change was absolutely needed, toggle dropping could not remain on the current lvl if Cryptic wanted toggle heavy AT:s to PvP.
What ticks me off is that Stalkers are the ones who still have the highest chance to knock toggles off. That is just so wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters needed to have their toggle dropping nearly outrigt removed.
[/ QUOTE ]
You got your wish. 
[ QUOTE ]
I was getting sick of having my Brute out-meleed by a ranged attack class.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. It sure is tiresome when those other players are able to defeat you. You choose the melee class toon, therefore by design you should always win against a "ranged attack class."
Sigh.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did I say always win?
No, I said out-meleed. It's one thing to be jousted to death with ranged attacks and the occaisonal blap, which has been done to me before, and hey, I didnt complain.
When I have /EM blaster walk up and three shot my EM/DA Brute with nothing but pure melee attacks, it shows something was wrong with the old system of toggle drops.
[ QUOTE ]
Toggle dropping powers is bad, period.
Why you ask, because it takes away the fun for all those AT:s that need to spend 70% of the time putting on toggles after having them dropped.
Now, there are four AT:s that still should have powers that drop toggles and those are:
Defenders, Dominators, controllers and corruptors.
The reason for this is that they do not have the damage needed to be effective against toggle heavy AT:s unless they can drop toggles.
Dominators and controllers should have less chance then defenders and corruptors with toggle dropping powers because they also have holds as a primary.
Blaster, scrapper and Stalkers already have unresisted damage that bypass all toggles so there is absolutely no need for them to have toggle dropping powers.
Tank and brutes could be discussed, especially tanks since they are low on the damage side.
The change was absolutely needed, toggle dropping could not remain on the current lvl if Cryptic wanted toggle heavy AT:s to PvP.
What ticks me off is that Stalkers are the ones who still have the highest chance to knock toggles off. That is just so wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's sad that while this reasoning is sound and I agree completely, I'm fairly sure it will be overwhelmingly overlooked, and ultimately forgotten.
My current mains are a /Stormer and a Brute. One that's big on toggle dropping, and one that relies on not getting toggle dropped. It feels like things went from way too much toggle-dropping, to way too little. I mean, there couldn't have been some reasonable in-between values we could try first?
*Edited by Cricket*
NO! I'm right and you're wrong. Quote me on that.
rofl. I see these quote wars and I skip everything they say.
It's egoes battling for rightness when we are merely stating opinions. Everyone's opinion is right!
[ QUOTE ]
What a big, stupid bunch of he-said-she-said recap and backbiting. Who cares what you said, when you said it, why you said it, and what you really meant? Wasn't this topic about toggle-dropping and not your personal ego-fluffing?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ironically, you're perpetuating what you're complaining about. Wouldn't it be more productive for you to post about toggle dropping?
That exchange was on-topic, though. The point being that it's hypocritical to insist that the changes you personally like are justified, and the changes you hate are obviously the result of incompetence.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
I wasn't talking about your exchanges, which are pretty clearly on-topic, but rather the very personal and blatantly ad hominem post I was responding to. I don't see anything much to do with toggle dropping in that large recycled collection of quotes, bruised ego, and defenses of minutiae no one cares about except perhaps the person who posted it.
But for an obligatory comment about toggle-dropping - it's now no more than a verrrry minor side-effect to various attacks. I think it's a painful nerf for Blasters, sure, but dominators REALLY did not need a nerf in this department. At least the blaster has pretty high damage to contribute. Dominators, I don't see why a nerf to their toggle drops was required at all. Rotten damage, primary negated by breakfrees - and now a greatly lessened potential for toggle drops.
To the brute complaining about getting 3-shotted by /EM blappers, that's not due to toggle drops and you'll pretty likely still get 3-shotted by the same guy if you don't change any of your tactics.
[ QUOTE ]
But for an obligatory comment about toggle-dropping - it's now no more than a verrrry minor side-effect to various attacks. I think it's a painful nerf for Blasters, sure, but dominators REALLY did not need a nerf in this department. At least the blaster has pretty high damage to contribute. Dominators, I don't see why a nerf to their toggle drops was required at all. Rotten damage, primary negated by breakfrees - and now a greatly lessened potential for toggle drops.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT+A
That's "Quoted For Truth and Accuracy"
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about your exchanges, which are pretty clearly on-topic, but rather the very personal and blatantly ad hominem post I was responding to. I don't see anything much to do with toggle dropping in that large recycled collection of quotes, bruised ego, and defenses of minutiae no one cares about except perhaps the person who posted it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, then, was on a hair-trigger.
[ QUOTE ]
But for an obligatory comment about toggle-dropping - it's now no more than a verrrry minor side-effect to various attacks. I think it's a painful nerf for Blasters, sure, but dominators REALLY did not need a nerf in this department. At least the blaster has pretty high damage to contribute. Dominators, I don't see why a nerf to their toggle drops was required at all. Rotten damage, primary negated by breakfrees - and now a greatly lessened potential for toggle drops.
To the brute complaining about getting 3-shotted by /EM blappers, that's not due to toggle drops and you'll pretty likely still get 3-shotted by the same guy if you don't change any of your tactics.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm reminded of a poster who complained about the possibility...the Platonic Ideal of a blaster that could two-shot his brutes as evidence that blappers should be nerfed. He later said he never actually lost in PVP to blasters.
The change is a PVP nerf. Blasters very probably need some help in PVP, and Dominators even moreso. Tweaking the toggle drop percentages might be worthwhile.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
Did I say always win?
No, I said out-meleed. It's one thing to be jousted to death with ranged attacks and the occaisonal blap, which has been done to me before, and hey, I didnt complain.
When I have /EM blaster walk up and three shot my EM/DA Brute with nothing but pure melee attacks, it shows something was wrong with the old system of toggle drops.
[/ QUOTE ]
It might just show that the blaster gets lucky occasionally. How often has a blaster walked up to you and you handed him his [censored]?
Ive seen it before, and Im seeing it here too. The attitude that says a melee toon being defeated by a well-played blaster is wrong. As if melee should walk like gods among the squishies. As if it should be right and good that several squishies should be required to defeat a single brute.
I exaggerate here for effect, and Im not trying to single you out specifically, Haetron. Heck, just this past week a brute player in another thread flat-out stated that brutes should never have to run from a blaster. From my perspective
my blaster perspective, of course
this is a very prevalent and very arrogant attitude.
Having said all that
Yeah, it seems that an adjustment was required. But this goes too far the other direction.
In my squishy opinion.
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone's opinion is right!
[/ QUOTE ]
But some opinions are righter than others.
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
Man, it's like a big goofy Jenga game. Add this, tuck this in here, pull this out, ...
I don't guess it's going to literally fall over, because some people are desperate for PVP in this game, but ... a 1 in 5 chance to drop a single toggle? Why would my blaster close to melee in PVP now? ... One in FIVE? I guess I'm supposed to cycle my attacks five times to turn off the other guy's Combat Jumping *twirls finger*
Well the pvm is still good anyway!