Lucks and Insights do not work the way you think
By
Amarsir,
Posted on: 2006-06-06 11:23 in Player Guides
[ QUOTE ]
If one "swing" corresponds to a larger number of attacks, it seems like the 10k number would be off by several orders of magnitude.
But I probably just read too much into the presence of that number. I can be fairly good at that...
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually used the 10k figure because that numbers actually gets bandied about when people start discussing statistics on the boards. You hear people who know the term "sample size", and perhaps little else, suggest that anything less than 10k worth of hit/miss data is insufficient to draw conclusion from. 
I am, however, a professional trout-swinger. Like my father before me.
[ QUOTE ]
The only time I step up as you say when someone is posting about bugs, is when people make statements like "accuracy isn't working" when all they have to go off of is that they were fighting in this one mission and seemed to miss more than usual. Or attacks seem to be more drainy. Or recharges seem to be less or more. Or whatever. Because 99% of the time, they are wrong. Accuracy isn't nerfed, recharges aren't higher, and endurance usage didn't just go up.
I don't mind people posting bugs, but if someone believes there is a bug, they should test it and get some reliable numbers before getting everyone worked up about things.
I don't think that's too much to ask. If you think you've found a bug, test your bug and make sure what you think is happening is happening.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's one point... But we know Streak-Breaker code exists too. ...And unless it's been "nerfed" a bit, THERE IS a point where Joe-Schmoe with no calculator or Herostats can just count the number of times he missed in a row... and discern that one power may have changed or had an accuracy penalty applied to it.
Now their view might be skewed when their powerset in general runs well above a Base 75% ACC... but even on powers that are supposed to be 75%, you KNOW something's up when you miss more than 3 times in a row on it, several times a day. Just because no one can visibly witness Geko nerfing and taunting them from inside his Ivory tower... doesn't mean he's not doing exactly that.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are tohit buffs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Arcanaville, have you experimentally verified this?
In one of the earlier issues my testing indicated that Burn was being affected by Insights.
The same testing also suggested that Burn in PVP had a base accuracy of 75% and that lucks were 12.5%. (I think it was I5.)
[/ QUOTE ]
I have suggestive tests that would seem to confirm they are tohit buffs. I cannot claim to have definitive tests that prove they are.
What I know is this:
1. I've been told they are tohit buffs.
2. I've been told that if I wanted to make something like them accuracy buffs, there isn't an obvious way to do that given how accuracy buffs work internally.
I consider the statement "there's no supported way to make a self or ally accuracy buff in the current game engine" (paraphrased) quite strong. It implies not just that insights aren't accuracy buffs, but more importantly *nothing* that you think might be an accuracy buff can be one, except for accuracy enhancements, and inherent attack bonuses.
Nothing is absolute: I might have misunderstood, the person (people) that told me that might have been wrong, or there might be yet another thing going on that simulates accuracy buffs without being one literally.
But when I asked really specific questions about accuracy buffs, my understanding was that it was basically impossible for a power of any kind to confer one, given the current limitations of the game engine. That would seem to be fairly absolute on the question of whether or not insights could possibly be accuracy buffs or not.
I think people thought they were accuracy buffs instead of tohit buffs because they seemed to be much weaker than a tohit buff of their stated value could possibly be, but in fact, it was simply that they were, in fact, weaker than their stated value.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
We all know that Arcana doesn't swing trout
[/ QUOTE ]
Damn straight.
Err...
...this is a compliment, right?
And before this becomes too much of a "thank god they listen to Arcana" thread, I think a little perspective is in order.
I think there are red names that would listen to anyone who:
* is respectful, even if angry
* is patient, even if anxious
* knows what the heck they are talking about, and is willing to learn to speak their language when they talk about it
* Knows and respects the difference between reporting something is broken, and complaining about something that you don't approve of.
* Checks first, reports second; not the other way around.
Of course, none of them will have the Bragging Rights that I do, but that's another story.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many "alarms" can we check per day, while also generating and testing new content? I can guarantee we get more "alarms" than we have time to look at properly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Castle, I completely agree, but this: "you as players represent thousands of times more manpower than we have here", is precisely why the immediate kneejerk and rote "this isn't the problem you're looking for" /em Jedi hand wave is a very poor solution.
I'm certainly not suggesting that you chase down every claim that "I missed three times in a row; it's a nerf!", but when we see solid information and testing ignored or simply reported as working when we know there's more to it than that, it's quite vexing.
Off the top of my head, I'd say any report of strangeness voiced by Arcana, Circeus, or Fraktal is probably worth paying attention to, especially if there are a large number of people nodding in agreement. 
As a sidenote: isn't there a QA department that's specifically tasked with tracking down and testing for bugs of this nature? I would certainly agree that Pohsyb or yourself shouldn't be the ones who have to do this on their lunchbreaks or whenever. 
[/ QUOTE ]]
So, whens Arcana getting the Qa job.....right now shes doin it for free...but im sure you can throw in a free subscription and some airline penuts to get her to be your Qa
Line on the app....... will work for Penuts
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I forgot to mention this, but I honestly believe that the best way to get a good signal to noise ratio is to specifically target and read the posts of provenly reliable, and insightful/accurate posters like the aforementioned, and perhaps even go as far as to PM them, or encourage them to PM you about issues of concern.
Also, you can often tell who is and isn't an accurate tester by the tone of the post, and the amount of detail (especially insightful detail) it has, if you don't know the person's track record very well.
People often drop telling statements/little details into their posts (or don't, which is equally telling, or even say the opposite of what a knowledgeable person would say) that give hints to how much they've tested things, and how much real insight they have into the issues they've tested.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a question for you.
What if those "provenly reliable" posters happen to show even just one example of being BLATANTLY wrong about their perception (be it "feel" or testing) of a particular situation?
To use something specific as a point of reference... the final mission in the Villain respec trial. I've actually seen posts by some of the claimed "provenly reliable" posters stating that the final mission is too difficult, that it needs to be adjusted, and yet... the VG I am in, which is composed of only casual gamers, and no min/maxers, has never found that particular mission to be too hard. The "feel" that these "reliable" sources, these "experienced" players are reporting is not consistant at all. Here they are claiming that something is too difficult, when players who are supposedly "less reliable" or "less experienced" are having no difficulty with it at all.
Opinions are never accurate measurments of anything, IMO. They only state how one person (or group) perceives a situation, they do not accurately represent the truth of the situation at all. And the devs have to take everything they read that is opinion based with a grain of salt. Only hard numbers and facts can really "prove" anything.
As an aside, every single bug I have ever reported since CoH beta has been fixed (or at least acknowledged as a known bug with a fix in the works). I have never used /bug for an issue I have found and had it result in nothing. I have never harrassed, bugged or hounded a dev. I have never used the "I know what I'm doing so you must listen to me" tactic. Nor would most on these forums consider me to be one of the "provenly reliable" sources that "should be listened to". Yet EVERY bug I've reported was addressed if not corrected by the devs. So apparently I, not being one of the "provenly reliable" sources that "should be heeded", have a 100% accuracy in identifying ACTUAL bugs and problems in the game. How does that factor into the case you've stated?
1. Who the hell are you?
2. Where's your track record?
3. [ QUOTE ]
Opinions are never accurate measurments of anything, IMO. They only state how one person (or group) perceives a situation, they do not accurately represent the truth of the situation at all. And the devs have to take everything they read that is opinion based with a grain of salt. Only hard numbers and facts can really "prove" anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if those "provenly reliable" posters happen to show even just one example of being BLATANTLY wrong about their perception (be it "feel" or testing) of a particular situation?
To use something specific as a point of reference... the final mission in the Villain respec trial. I've actually seen posts by some of the claimed "provenly reliable" posters stating that the final mission is too difficult, that it needs to be adjusted, and yet... the VG I am in, which is composed of only casual gamers, and no min/maxers, has never found that particular mission to be too hard. The "feel" that these "reliable" sources, these "experienced" players are reporting is not consistant at all. Here they are claiming that something is too difficult, when players who are supposedly "less reliable" or "less experienced" are having no difficulty with it at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh-huh. So their opinion is magically 'blatantly wrong' and 'not an accurate measure', whereas YOUR opinion is 'definitely the right one because i'm a casual player and i say so etc etc'?
You succeed to YOUR expectations.
Look at the GM and AV change thread - your PLAYERS do not agree. You steal the FUN out of the game for Risk vs Reward mantra you Devs constantly spew.
STOP balancing the game against the Uber builds and balance it for the CASUAL gamer. I was in a mission at level 21 with my controller where I had to tell the tank to stop leading and let me do it because he was repeatedly getting killed and required full time healing because his Fire tank did not know to take Tough.
Yeah, how fun was it for him? It sucked having only the tank die 3 times and having my controller take over the tank job - in fact the tank could have turned his armor off after that because he no longer served his function.
[ QUOTE ]
1. Who the hell are you?
[/ QUOTE ]
A player of CoX, just like EVERY OTHER poster here. And as a subscribing member of CoX, a player with equal voice in ANY matter concerning the game as any other paying subscriber. Thank you for illustrating part of the point that's been made so clearly. People (like you) tend to think that someone has to "prove" themselves in order for their posts to carry any merit at all. You are incorrect in this assumption.
[ QUOTE ]
2. Where's your track record?
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you missed it, but that's the entire point. I don't have a track record with the forum community (even though my registration date IS 04/18/04, proving I'm certainly not new), but my track record with reporting issues that are legitimate bugs, and not just something I "wish" were different is 100%, as stated. A track record (by the definition you're asking for) means precisely NOTHING. Since someone with no track record can be right, and someone with a "proven" track record can be wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Uh-huh. So their opinion is magically 'blatantly wrong' and 'not an accurate measure', whereas YOUR opinion is 'definitely the right one because i'm a casual player and i say so etc etc'?
[/ QUOTE ]
Their opinion is not wrong. The point wasn't about their opinion though, it was about their assessment of the actual state of the situation. If something is "too hard" then it should not be easily completed by someone with "less" skills and experience, right? If it's too difficult for a veteran player with hours and hours of testing and playtime, who's tweaked their build to the fullest and simply "knows more" about the game than a casual player, then WHY can a casual player easily complete something that is supposedly "too hard"? The answer, is because it's apparently NOT "too hard" it's simply too hard for that person or in that person's opinion. That does not mean it is factually too difficult (ie, undoable) and needs to be changed. Being "too hard" for one person, or one group of people, is not a truth applied to EVERY player and is not a reason to make a change which affects EVERY player.
Point being, with factual evidence, and hard numbers, any player, regardless of reputation, track record, "proven reliablity" or forum popularity, can be CORRECT about an issue. And simply having these does not inherently make ANYONE correct about an issue without evidence and facts to back it up.
1. "Too hard" is an opinion, not a fact. Different people have different definitions. For all I know, your definition of 'not too hard' means 'we only wiped ten times'.
2. Big deal. You submitted bugs, you got letters saying they'd be looked at? Everyone does that. Wonderful. That's like walking into a top company looking for a job and saying 'I don't have a resume, but I swear I've done great things, like catalyse the Iraq war. Really.'
3. Maybe you got lucky. Did you cheat the vines? Did you have a particular-spec team? Etc.
4. I'm still inclined to trust people who've consistently helped the community out by posting things' numbers and views on gameplay balance over people who haven't posted much here on things at all.
(edit: Sorry if I sound mean. It's just how I tend to type.)
[ QUOTE ]
So, whens Arcana getting the Qa job.....right now shes doin it for free...but im sure you can throw in a free subscription and some airline penuts to get her to be your Qa
[/ QUOTE ]
QA?
Heck no. Then I would have to start being nice to all of you people.
Give me commit privileges, though, and you might see toxic defense before the next millenium.
You know, I don't test things just for the sake of testing things. Invariably, I'm thinking about a balance issue, and that requires testing things, and that requires testing other things, and that requires getting good numbers on other things, and before you know it, I'm trying to see if combat jumping is 1.875% defense, or 1.900% defense.
In this specific case, I started out testing SR vs Invuln with and without inspirations, against a really tough I7 target. And then the testing took a left turn, and I decided to pursue another angle. And here we are.
If I charged Cryptic what I normally charge to do the type of testing I do in CoH, they would have to comp my subscription until Issue 937: The Osteoporosis Wars. Statesman's travel power will be a power scooter, Swan will still be in the same costume, and no one will want to train in Brickstown anymore.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Will Synapse move at Hover speeds, and will Back Alley Brawler attack by clubbing you with his artificial hip?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clone Pohsybs instead, they pack into boxes better and don't require "vintage" rock music
[/ QUOTE ]
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
------------------------------------
| (^o^) | (^_^
| (*.*) | (-_-)zz |
------------------------------------
| (`_') | (;@_o) | d(^_^)b | (;_ |
------------------------------------
</pre><hr />
[/ QUOTE ]
Pohsyb stages of grief or how the box dwelling Pohsyb undergoes mitosis? 
Mitosis is overpowered.
Plz nerf it Devs.
PS: Samus, you lack the proof you begrudge other posters of lacking....in spades. Claiming that your VG is "casual gamers" and had no problem with the ThornTree has nothing to do with right or wrong or Stats because it's still just a judgement call and contributes nothing to this discussion. More-over, you're just "calling posters out" ...which ordinarilly no one would bat an eye at, but these are people who post constructively and aren't provoking anyone intentionally.
[ QUOTE ]
Mitosis is overpowered.
Plz nerf it Devs.
PS: Samus, you lack the proof you begrudge other posters of lacking....in spades. Claiming that your VG is "casual gamers" and had no problem with the ThornTree has nothing to do with right or wrong or Stats because it's still just a judgement call and contributes nothing to this discussion. More-over, you're just "calling posters out" ...which ordinarilly no one would bat an eye at, but these are people who post constructively and aren't provoking anyone intentionally.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree.. these posters are saying "I'm a veteran and I know what I'm talking about, so if I say it's [insert statement] then it must be and the devs should heed my posts." These posters are also saying that anyone who disagrees with them is automatically wrong, since they are "more experienced" and "more knowledgable".
I'm not calling out anyone specifically, but more addressing people who make claims based on vague, arbitrary terms such as "it FEELS bad" or "it doesn't SEEM right" rather than posting actual data backing up their claims.
The point made originally was that a veteran player, who spends countless hours "looking at the situation" can somehow simply feel that something is amiss. Yes, their intuition may prove right on many occaisions, but simply having that intuition is not proof of reliability of EVERY claim they make. In fact, as in the case of the Thorn Tree, sometimes that intuition is flat out inaccurate. Saying that "it's too diffucult" based on how it "feels" and not based on any sort of factual data is obviously inaccurate, since (supposedly) less experienced players do not have as much difficulty.
Einstein was a genius, yet he failed the liberal arts portion of his schooling in Zurich. Does that mean that the liberal arts classes were too difficult, for EVERYONE, and as such needed to be toned down (nerfed)? Or does it only mean that they were too difficult for Einstein? And that nothing was actually wrong with the classes themselves, at all.
Just because someone is a veteran player, with hours of time spent ingame, does not mean that they are an absolute authority on every aspect of every AT and every powerset and every mission or encounter. Having a "feel" that something is bad is meaningless to anyone other than the person with the feeling, since others may clearly (as shown by the difference of opinion with the Thorn Tree) have a completely different feeling.
The point is, any poster can come on the forums and spout of about how much they supposedly know, or have tested, or "feel" and without hard evidence, NO ONE is more of an authority than anyone else (on the player end). To say that any one poster should be given more merit than another, because of how long they've been around, or how much they've played, is pure garbage. The only criteria that devs should adhere to when judging "feedback" from the player base is evidence. Numbers, logs, demorecords, etc.
I'm done here. Thank god the devs appear to agree with what I've stated, or this game truly WOULD be doomed.
*Attempts to cut the arrogance with a knife*
*fails to scratch it*
*gives up on thread*
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree.. these posters are saying "I'm a veteran and I know what I'm talking about, so if I say it's [insert statement] then it must be and the devs should heed my posts." These posters are also saying that anyone who disagrees with them is automatically wrong, since they are "more experienced" and "more knowledgable".
[/ QUOTE ]
So you were bored today, and decided to invent a thread to get annoyed at? And needing a place to post you picked this one?
Okay, that makes more sense than taking what you were trying to say literally.
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 ]
This isn't complaining, this is QA testing to make the game better.
[/ QUOTE ]
Foo, do you ever get the odd feeling that a certain number of people who play the game and post to the forums don't want the game to get better? It seems inconceivable to me that this would be so (if you play the game, and pay for it, why would you not want the best you can have for your money?), and yet it seems to be. Almost any time someone dares point out that accuracy seems not to be working right, or damage is off from what one would expect, or anything like that -- frequently even when there ARE good numbers to back it up -- there is no shortage of people coming out of the woodwork to gainsay them.
And I just don't really understand it. If there really is a bug that's making the streak-breaker not work, for example, and the streak-breaker is SUPPOSED to work, then why would you try to shout down someone who had posted evidence that the streak-breaker is broken? If Luck is supposed to be a +25% buff and has been for 2+ years, and you find out that it isn't, why in the world would someone flame you for posting it?
Don't we WANT the devs to find the bugs and exterminate them? Do people really prefer playing a BUGGED game?
And yet, apparently some people do. I just don't get it.
F
[/ QUOTE ]
Never got this either. I prob spent more time on this game than some of the people who try and out shout me put together. I know when things are off, I know when things aren't working right, and I don't need to do a 1000 hit test to prove it to myself. You think I'm wrong then "YOU" show proof that I'm wrong.
Look at the AV changes as a classic example of what's right and what's wrong. I counted at the most 3 people on a 1112 replied thread that said they had no problems. Out of those people they had a Rad or Dark on there team. Then when we get a response it's "Get 8 people, put it on Heroic, and that's your balance."
More examples are the Master Mind bug that is devestating an entire AT set. Yet they put this hunk of crap they called I7 in anyways.
What's more is way back in the early days before these dickless wonders started prancing around in there bikini bottoms saying "The World is wonderful." we were stating "Dude there's something not right here." and we knew it. We know [censored] is wrong and then the the Dev's say "Go get a 1000 hits and then come back."
I7 is wrong and there still not listening. When the numbers start crashing, when there customer base gives them the finger (just like AC 2 and SWG customers did), you won't be able to get them back. MMORPG customers are finiky and once they leave there gone. They invest major amounts of time and money in a Hobby we expect others to care for.
I7 is bringing everything to a head. I call [censored] as I see em and right now this pile is pretty deep. I hope you guys can save this game but you are headed in the same direction as AC 2 and I called that hunk of garbage the first month it went live. You can't get customers back once they leave. First goal is to keep them from leaving in the first place and right now they might as well have poured gasoline on the fire that is sinking the ship.
[ QUOTE ]
Never got this either. I prob spent more time on this game than some of the people who try and out shout me put together. I know when things are off, I know when things aren't working right, and I don't need to do a 1000 hit test to prove it to myself. You think I'm wrong then "YOU" show proof that I'm wrong.
Look at the AV changes as a classic example of what's right and what's wrong. I counted at the most 3 people on a 1112 replied thread that said they had no problems. Out of those people they had a Rad or Dark on there team. Then when we get a response it's "Get 8 people, put it on Heroic, and that's your balance."
More examples are the Master Mind bug that is devestating an entire AT set. Yet they put this hunk of crap they called I7 in anyways.
What's more is way back in the early days before these dickless wonders started prancing around in there bikini bottoms saying "The World is wonderful." we were stating "Dude there's something not right here." and we knew it. We know [censored] is wrong and then the the Dev's say "Go get a 1000 hits and then come back."
I7 is wrong and there still not listening. When the numbers start crashing, when there customer base gives them the finger (just like AC 2 and SWG customers did), you won't be able to get them back. MMORPG customers are finiky and once they leave there gone. They invest major amounts of time and money in a Hobby we expect others to care for.
I7 is bringing everything to a head. I call [censored] as I see em and right now this pile is pretty deep. I hope you guys can save this game but you are headed in the same direction as AC 2 and I called that hunk of garbage the first month it went live. You can't get customers back once they leave. First goal is to keep them from leaving in the first place and right now they might as well have poured gasoline on the fire that is sinking the ship.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Well:
1. I, more than anyone, have suggested that for certain types of problems with accuracy any anecdote based on less than thousands of swings is questionable. In actual fact, I'm unaware of any dev specifically asking anyone to conduct any such test. If anyone out there thinks the devs are forcing people to do such things, I've seen no evidence of it. *I* do it because I know, given all the reports of accuracy not working - most of them unfounded - the burden of proof on all things accuracy is pretty high. And in fact, even for me, my own burden of proof is pretty high when other players report things to me. I don't dismiss reports out of hand, but neither do I track down every issue that's mentioned to me, either.
But the 1000 swing thing is probably my fault as much as it is anyones. Not every problem requires such a test to uncover. But frankly, many do. And even knowing which is which is, itself, a complicated problem. Everyone thinks they understand statistics. Statistically, most have to be wrong.
2. There is a difference between pointing out that something isn't working the way it ought to mechanically and pointing out that something isn't working they way you expect it to conceptually. And in fact, as I mentioned previously, I think its important to keep the two separate, because one is provable unambiguously, and the other one is highly subjective.
Inspirations are broken now, unambiguously, because they do not do what they are explicitly labelled as doing. There is no argument there at all.
If I think the actual values are not the right ones for game balance, thats a different issue entirely. I know I'm always right about such things, but not everyone has gotten the memo yet: I still have an obligation to state my case, and not everyone will agree, as horribly wrong as they obviously must be.
3. The burden of proof is on the person that wants something changed. Except for me, of course.
Random worthless anecdote: got asked to join a team to take down Numina, while playing my EM/DA brute. There was already a DM/DA brute on that team, so I wasn't the only one with psi resistances when I joined. They were apparently having a ton of problems with her before I joined, and after I joined, we creamed her.
Thing is, I have no idea what I did to help: I did not have continuous aggro, and my damage is good but not that good, and the team's composition was pretty random otherwise. I think it was just one of those things: sometimes AVs (and Heroes) just seem to have your number, and sometimes a small change in the team, or a change in tactics, resolves the situation. AVs and Heros seem harder now than before, but not inordinately to me. No idea whats responsible for the wide range of opinions there, but that sort of thing might be part of it.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry if I read too much into it, but it seems to me that an argument is being made that the devs should listen more carefully to "veteran" players. I'm simply pointing out that a potential problem is that it's not uncommon for "veteran" players to make claims that are about as silly as playing baseball with a trout.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think its a matter of listening to "veterans" I think its a matter of listening to the forum consensus. When the forums come to a collective decision its a pretty rare thing (like Invinc being the problem with Inv powerset) and should be given the priority it deserves.
The forum has a pretty good track record for this stuff.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
A few things.
As others have said.. this makes a lot of sense. It always felt like defense insps only worked half the time.. but that was because they were only half as powerfull as we thought! Why has no one thought of this before. We have had TWO YEARS and no one thought of this? Amazing. Behold the power of blind faith in text descriptions of powers.
Posts like this always make me feel so horrible! In my 11 thousand + posts I haven't done anything productive. I'm not good at collecting info. I don't post anything insightfull, and I can't even argue various important points right. At best I am just a forum oddball, and all that does is get my unusualy high postcount pointed out to me.
Blah..
::Goes to try and do something usefull.::
[ QUOTE ]
In my 11 thousand + posts I haven't done anything productive.
[/ QUOTE ]
You've made me smile on numerous occaisions.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my 11 thousand + posts I haven't done anything productive.
[/ QUOTE ]
You've made me smile on numerous occaisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bah! Any idiot can post a bit of random nonsense and get a laugh or two..
I mean just look at Foo..
[ QUOTE ]
More examples are the Master Mind bug that is devestating an entire AT set. Yet they put this hunk of crap they called I7 in anyways.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, my level 40 Mastermind is not having any difficulties solo. It is annoying at times, but I know they will get around to fixing it. Devestating? I don't think so
I think it falls along with what Samus was trying to say. What 'FEELS' like it is not right to someone, no matter how experienced they are, doesn't mean it actually 'IS' not right. A fact that is proven factual from a new player could be much more valuable than a 'It feels wrong to me' from a well respected forum poster.
But, I am just a dumb blond 
[ QUOTE ]
The only time I step up as you say when someone is posting about bugs, is when people make statements like "accuracy isn't working" when all they have to go off of is that they were fighting in this one mission and seemed to miss more than usual. Or attacks seem to be more drainy. Or recharges seem to be less or more. Or whatever. Because 99% of the time, they are wrong. Accuracy isn't nerfed, recharges aren't higher, and endurance usage didn't just go up.
I don't mind people posting bugs, but if someone believes there is a bug, they should test it and get some reliable numbers before getting everyone worked up about things.
I don't think that's too much to ask. If you think you've found a bug, test your bug and make sure what you think is happening is happening.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have told many people to come back with more testing in such cases. For example, someone on the Brute forum said something about Hand Clap not having good accuracy because he'd "used it once in PvP and it missed everyone".
That, THAT, is the kind of thing you file under G (for garbage!) and then go on with your day, and I'll be the first up to bat at that guy's head.