Toggle buffs

Because "collaborate" does not mean "everyone just agree, hold hands and sing Kumbaya." I see this as having issues both mechanically and potentially gameply (socially) - to "fix" a non-problem. In fact, the suggestion, IMO, makes playing a buffer *worse.* NOT bringing those up and keeping them visible is more of a disservice than doing so.

Currently:
- Few seconds to buff everyone. (Yes, it is only a few seconds.)
- Buffs persist regardless of buffer's END or HP.
- Buffs currently balanced around the reapplication (IE, if they were made longer, I'd expect the DEF/etc to be lowered and/or END raised, for example.)
- One time END cost per application - which means I can be free to attack, or run other toggles (Leadership, typically) or, in the case of Masterminds, resummon/rebuff pets (a very END intensive process) as needed.

Toggles:
- Same time to buff everyone, if that time isn't lengthened for balance.
- Buffs fall if caster runs out of END, either via fighting END draining enemies or attacking, resummoning pets, etc.
- Buffs *potentially* would fall if held. This may be done for balance.
- Buffs fall if caster dies.
- Buffs quite likely weakened to compensate for indefinite length.
- Higher END cost (running an additional 2-21 toggles, if not more - Sonic, for instance, having two shields and Clarity) for the character lowering the time to attack, the ability to run other helpful toggles (Leadership, Combat jumping, etc) and the desirability for the team to HAVE that character attacking or running those toggles.

Stacked duration:
- Currently, nothing in game does this. However, caster is tracked, as it prevents most buffs from being stacked - one FF defender can't re-bubble you and take you from zero to capped defense. It just resets duration.
- Allowing to *stack* duration would still, given prior dev stances and actions, likely result in the buffs being lowered, END cost being raised, cast time being lengthened or some other "balancing" penalty being applied.

[quote=Jordan Yen\
It's like you're saying I'm committing some grave sin by not buffing constantly. From the buffer's perspective, I would like the ability to have a buff stick.

And if I Nova, so be it. I get to play the game too, not just the melee types.[/quote]

No, from *your* perspective. And, believe it or not, you *don't* have to buff constantly. Don't try to play it off like that's all you do. I've a fair number of buffers myself. Few seconds to buff, then off I go.

And with your suggestion? If the Blaster nukes, they're out of END. Nobody else is affected. If YOU nuke? You've just dropped the team's defense, resistance, mez protection or whatever else you have on a toggle. Not what I would expect would make you all that popular on the team. Same with what happens if you fight and run out of END, or are hit by a sapper ("so stay by the door/stay back,") or Carnie death-drain, or Mu (also doing a -recov,) etc.

I'd say being told not to attack or getting kicked from the team for doing so (or nuking, etc.) and dropping those buffs as a result would have a *far* more negative impact on your gameplay than just buffing for a few seconds every few minutes.

Tell that to the masterminds I see with it, for instance. You don't like it, fine, don't take it then. "Nobody should," wrong.

See my Guides and Tutorials

Isn't unwanted buffs an entirely different issue? I can see how it relates to the issue at hand but it isn't introduced or exacerbated by trying to push for this QoL improvement.

And who said everyone had to agree on everything? If you're collaborating, your distinguishing the issue and thinking of ways to resolve it in some way. If you don't think an issue is present, why not bring up an argument stating why you think it's a 'non-problem' while others say there can be?

Not sure how stacked duration on specific buffs would upset balance (or what prior dev stance you're talking about). The only issue I could see arising is with +rech buffs that affect the caster (Accelerate Metabolism) and those could just be tagged not to if the code was written to do so. They could simply limit it to ST buffs (Clarity, Clear Mind, Deflection Field, Ice Shield, Speed Boost, etc).

Don't kid yourself, Forbin. I'm pretty sure those people are a**holes no matter what character they are playing.

I for one, ask people if they want SB and do my best to remember who to hand it out to and who to skip.

I would consider the End I expended to cast all of those buff, to then just be summarily dismissed to be a downside.

Now, if they could implement a system where if the receiver could select that they don't want the buff, and the caster gets "Non-targetedable" fine, you don't get your buff and I didn't just waste a buff.

Angel Red
"We're heroes. Fighting injustice is the thing we do." ~Rebel Scum

No. Unwanted buffs can be applied deliberately or accidentally.

Sure it is. Currently buffs wear off in a couple of minutes, and players are likely to tolerate an accidental buff. If the buff is persistant some players will be more likely to quit teams or kick the buffer rather than putting up with the frustration that the buff causes them.

Then there's that whole discriminating against certain powersets I mentioned earlier which currently goes on in the game.

You're right a lot of them are, but I've been surprised by some that I knew from their playing other powersets and they didn't act the same way they did when they switched to their Kinetic. You could almost say it was a Jeckyll and Hyde kind of switch.

But that isn't the problem being addressed by the OP. Looking through the thread that inspired this one, the complaint was "Stop nagging me about buffing you the second they expire" which links off into the OP's stance of "Short duration buffs can be a nuisance".

How that goes into "Keep your buffs away from me!" is beyond me. That's another issue.

And currently, if a buffer isn't compliant, they'll still throw speed boost on you. If they were toggles, they'd toggle them on you anyway. If the durations stacked, they'd still throw 5 on you + an extra 3 just because you said something.

What I'm saying is, players being non-compliant is *ANOTHER* issue, not this one. *THIS* issue seems to hinge on the question of "do short duration buffs interfere with other tasks or not?" Honestly, I'd simply say the Kinetic player shouldn't bother casting speed boost at all unless a teammate is moving remarkably slow (Granite tanker/brute or stuck in quicksand/caltrops, etc) or when the teammate's endurance is low. But what do I know? You're a kinetics, you're expected to keep speedboost on everyone that wants it all the time...which can often be all 7 teammates.

Exactly. That's why people are mentioning these things, because the OP didn't think of them when he made his suggestion. Now that he is aware of them he can reconsider his idea and see if there is a way to adjust his suggestion so that it addresses everything that has been brought to his attention. Doing so will make his idea more solid and feasible.

THIS!
Also known as collaboration that Leo was talking about.

Point out the negatives in a suggestion has lead to MANY great things being refined, properly presented to the devs, and actually IMPLEMENTED in game. That's the whole point of this forum.

Why anyone thinks pointing out the drawbacks to a suggestion is in any way shape or form a bad thing, is beyond me.

Which is NOT difficult.

Please don't think that maintaining speed boost on 7 teammates is some arduous task.

It's not.

It only takes 14 seconds to buff 7 teammates. If SB is slotted for faster recharge it can drop to 7 seconds.

Which is not what anyone has said.

So you're vote is to not change anything.

Several times I suggested the OPTION of applying a buff different ways. Options do not make things worse since you can continue to play the way you wish. Some people actually use SOs still for example.

Maybe.

Which IF that suggestion were implemented, gameplay could compensate. For example, I wouldn't likely want to Nuke if I were supporting buffs.

More importantly, I've rarely every played with people who are so anal about buffs though. You portray a team as being so dependant on them that you'd get kicked for not applying them properly?

The last time someone yelled too much for not having "their buff" they were the ones kicked from the team. Are people really so uptight?

Yeah, actually someone did.


Options that are implemented without considering the negative impacts they have on the game actually make the game worse.

Bad example to use because the game was designed and balanced around using SO's. They weren't an option that was added to the game to give players more choices. IO's were the option that was added.

Your current half finished idea if implemented would be more like the Mission Architect or PvP features in this game. It sounds great in theory but doesn't work as it was intended and ends up making the devs spend more time trying to fix it to make it work right.


So you want to give players the choice between being an asset to the team, and being a useless buffbot that has to rely on everyone else to defend and defeat his enemies. I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like it would be fun to play.

People currently get kicked or harassed over asking not to be buffed.

People currently kick players from teams because they aren't using their powers the way the leader wants them to.

People currently give people grief over what enhancements they have slotted in their powers.

People currently spend their time lecturing other players how stupid they are because of the powers they have or have not chosen.

People currently get kicked over roleplaying in an MMORPG.

We could sit here and give you a dozen more examples that show that yes the players are that uptight.

Plus... name one other power that can be used alternately as a click and a toggle. There is none. Just ask a /regen what happened to IH. Therefore, no, I would not be able to play the way that I wish if these were implemented. It would be a wholesale change - and given how, for instance, my Earth/FF can get on END in a rough fight, one that would lead me to shelve characters I currently enjoy playing.

See my Guides and Tutorials

No, what you're trying to do is railroad the suggestion into doing what you want it to do, which may be something completely different from what the OP is trying to look at.

There's a difference between bringing up an issue with an idea suggested and bringing up an issue so you can try and roll it into someone else's solution. There's not a problem with trying to solve multiple problems with one solution, but don't try shoveling it onto someone else's shoulders and point and yell as if they brought about this problem.

Yes, pointing out the drawbacks to a suggestion isn't a bad thing. However, it's more productive to try and apply solutions to those issues if you can but admitting you don't have any isn't a horrible thing to do either.

Like the endurance issue of toggling a team with speed boost? Yeah, a 1-cost toggle that simply lets you add teammates to the buff pool (i.e. SB will only cost x to toggle on but you have to spend the endurance to cast it on each teammate) wouldn't be the horrible drain on resources like is being brought up...


Things don't have to be difficult to be tedious.

See? This is what I'm talking about. First, you have to decide what the problem *IS*. You can't even agree that maybe, just maybe, keeping several different buffs on a team is tedious. Fine. I can agree that that playstyle is not for everyone. But if we're trying to widen the gap between more manageable and tedious, someone arguing this as a non-problem pretty much makes the entire thread moot to them. Why even respond?

If you want to get on your soapbox and bring up sweeping arguments about AE, PVP and the general state of MMORPGs, that's you. Just don't think it actually gives you a solid argument to back your stance...

Because the proposed "solution" would make it worse?

If someone suggests "Hey, round tires don't make us stand out very well, it's just like everyone else. How about oblong ones! We can advertise it as a new and exciting ride!" ... well, someone had better point out the problems there. As opposed to, oh, "Well, someone doesn't think round tires are a non-problem, so why even respond?"

There are decided *issues* with the OP's suggestions. Trading one person's tedium to make everyone have to stand around and really watch being able to do little things like, oh, *attack,* sounds like one hell of a downgrade.

Did you bother to actually read the exchange?

Jordan asked, in response to something I said, "Are players really that uptight?" Forbin gave examples of behaviour in game that show, yes, they really are. And it doesn't take much browsing on the forum to run across others giving similar complaints, so it's not him making it up.

So, yes, actually, it DOES back his (and my) stance that, with a team's buffs being a constant drain on END, it will make the play experience for the buffer who wants to do more than "Stay back and don't do ANYTHING ELSE!" miserable.

(It was also misrepresented by Jordan, who asked if Forbin would kick the person. I doubt he would. I wouldn't. Others, however - definitely.)

See my Guides and Tutorials

THEN PROPOSE A SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT WORSE!

My goodness, is this rocket science or what?

Did I not try offering a suggestion that may help out with the problem? You can too, right?

PS: Yes, I did read the exchange (although the one you're talking about is only regarding the MMORPG thing and *not* AE and PVP). The point is, if you're going to come in bumping a thread you think solves a non-problem, hopping on a soapbox to derail it with other 'stuff' doesn't make you right.

How about "Leave it alone?" Do you get that? That IS my solution. You can already do things in-game to make it less tedious - like put the bubbles on "9" and "0" or set up binds to speed up buffing. (I tend to use the left and right arrows.)

I don't believe it needs a change. If it's a playstyle the OP doesn't like, then don't play those characters. I don't tend to like playing Scrappers, so I don't. I don't suggest wholesale changes to scrappers. Others don't like playing Stalkers, or Controllers or specific sets.

If I don't feel something needs a change, I'll say so. If I feel the proposed changes are *worse,* I'll say so. YOU don't get to tell me to say otherwise, sparky. The OP's job is to convince me, and all they've done is propose a system that would make gameplay, both mechanically and socially, WORSE in my opinion... and I play a LOT of buffers.

Or, as Aura said:
I don't *have* to "give an alternative" if I think the current situation is fine and doesn't need adjusting. If someone's using a hammer to pound in a nail and someone says "hey, use a screwdriver," all I have to say is "No, he's using the proper tool the right way," not "No, but he could try a pipe wrench."


First, if it's a non-problem, it doesn't need solving.

Second, the exchange was *directly related* to the suggestion and its impact on gameplay, it is not a derailment. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Here, let me give you the full thing.

Me:
Jordan:
Forbin:

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.

See my Guides and Tutorials

"Leave it alone" is a viable stance. Now make it rather than trying to be a big **** and puffing out your chest.

Point out why this is a 'non-problem' or ways to alleviate the problem others have with short duration buffs (I already have mine...I just don't constantly SB/CM everyone, just when its needed). Already said how? Then you're just repeating yourself and wasting your time, really. But hounding how you hate an idea for a problem you don't think exist is beyond a waste of your time.

No one's telling you what to say but at least address the issue at hand. I have expressed issue with 'buff tedium' and so have others in the thread. Why not level with those post rather than trying to pick a fight with me? Lol or are you on a roll?

The rest really doesn't need to be responded to. If we're looking at an issue that could use a QoL patch to help while you're just hearing us as whining, there is little we'll get from this discussion.


And the part talking about AE and PvP as wastes of time that brought nothing but timesinks for the dev. Surely that's not a soapbox of a completely different and debatable topic that could very well derail things even more.

Forget reading comprehension. Apparently, you just don't read things so you have a reason to jump down people's throats.

The irony of this statment is priceless.

Hmm. I seem to have done that earlier.

Again, perhaps you should take your own advice about just jumping in.

No, responding to you, who obviously has a problem comprehending things that are written, seems to be a waste of time. Counter points are given, I put my own counters to them. It's called a "Discussion."

No, you're just trying to tell me not to reply if I have no counter "suggestion." Again, mine is - leave it as is, and if the gameplay doesn't appeal to you, either make binds/arrange powers to speed the process or don't play that sort of character.

This is not "picking a fight." I'm counterarguing, and you're not reading or not comprehending.
What does this even mean? Or are you trying, in your own words, to pick a fight?

Especially if someone decides not to bother actually reading what's been said. Or just ignore it, as you did when I pointed out that your "stacking" duration - something that doesn't exist in game - would likely lead to a reduction in buff effectiveness, increased END cost, and/or some other adjustment to compensate.


Again, your lack of comprehension. That is not what was said. Nowhere was this referred to as a "waste of time" - except by you. It was said that (a) the implementation (at that point) sounded half finished and that (b) it would be like AE and PVP in that it did (and does) end up requiring more dev time. Nowhere in there was the phrase "waste of time" or anything similar used, nor was such an implication made.

If ANYONE is using that comparison to derail the thread, it's you by repeatedly bringing it up. Like in response to the series of quotes that had NOTHING to do with either subject.

Really shouldn't post while looking at a mirror, should you.

See my Guides and Tutorials

So telling me I don't know how to read (repeatedly) isn't considered an insult in your parts? Because I know darn well I've been walking on eggshells this thread to not be confrontational (I don't know you well enough >_>). Any inclination of hostility is on your part. I'm only being persistent because it's an issue brought up by other players often enough to be noticeable.

So keep jumping down by throat. It's good exercise for me.

I still haven't heard what prior dev stance/actions you're talking about that laid precedence for actions to preserve balance with that suggestion. All you said was "If x were to happen then y would happen". If I remember what I was taught in other threads, that is the definition of a slippery slope fallacy.


Well, he said "require more dev time to make it work right" and this is for a non-problem. Could equate to not being worthy of that time in some respects but I can see how it'd be putting words in your mouth. But if you *read* the portion that went along with the quote you have so much revile for, it was regarding to the problems of the suggestion vs the problems being projected onto it ontop of the problems with the suggestion itself. Pulling up AE or PVP or the issues of RPers to support the magnitude of your conceived dilemma (seriously, how do you even know it'd be a drain on END when no one put down any figures or numbers?)? Whatever.

But honestly, Bill, you can keep pushing people's buttons. I don't care. Reading back, the OP even *said* they don't care if the toggle solution doesn't work so hammer on that all you want. No one is married to it.

What I do care about is the general heart of the suggestion and the underlying issue brought up. No, I don't play many buffers (not that I don't like the style, I just like the style of my other characters more) but I love to play with buffers. If my buffers aren't having fun buffing me, I'd like to look into why. We know why the suggestions could not work, but how about telling us why they should not work? Because your solution is basically taking away my buffers. *No one* takes away *anyone's* buffers.

You know well that this is the way balance is preserved in game. If the devs change one aspect of a power, other aspects of the same power get changed to keep it in balance.

As for this statement, I really think you need to go back and re-read the entire thread a few times before you speak again. While you are re-reading, pay close attention to the reasons why toggle buffs would not work and why they would not be welcome. In fact, re-read those more then a few times so it sinks in.