Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, it continues...
Quote:
Originally posted by Kuroshio
It's not about being clairyvoyant. It's about choosing a skillset, sticking with it and when a nicer item comes along getting rewarded by already having the skills for it. By not having to level to get it.
No, it has to do with luck. Manex could or could have not been fixed.
Quote:
As for your challenge concerning the Manex, mind if I have a GA4 smurf stand in. That way he can show you why the Manex is inferior :)
Any weapon has problems against fixer in GA4, not just a Manex. You have to do better than that. How long have you been playing this game again?
Quote:
Can't remember if it was a single crossbow or all of them that had the rifle/bow reversed. I do remember MAs had picked them up mostly for the alpha capacity in PvP, often switching to a real weapon (or fists) immediately after. So on that one: tough luck. They willingly chose immediate power over future benefit. It was their choice
No, they weren't forewarned about the fact that those things will change till a week before the patch. Check the MAs forum archives for more information. MAs have a green bow skill, but dark blue rifle. Yes it was a balancing fact on Funcom's part. Should the MAs who chose that route be reimbursed? That's a story for another thread.
Quote:
The possible NT crystal that is supposed to up their nuke damage in exchange for not being able to wield a weapon right? Erm...any NT that relies completely on that nuke power I'll enjoy eating for breakfast, even though the pins get stuck in my teeth. I'm a trader after all :D
An arrogant one too; just how can you be so sure of that?
Quote:
1 change was the primary cause. Overequipping. IP lost to release bugs prolly assisted FAR more than any other balance changes. Developers know that nerfs are inevitable. Only players want to pretend they're not.
Right, Init fixes=bug fixes, changes to xbows/LLTS in my book equate to the OE changes.
Quote:
And now you see why giving IPR away is a bad thing. Just be glad I'm ncie enough not to take advantage of it. Really I'm not that nice, but I won't go through the bother of stripping down and getting rebuffed just to squeeze an extra couple points of damage out of a weapon. Or squeezing and extra couple points of skill from min/maxing.
No I still don't; I think you are just lazy :) Personally I don't care about what you do in this game.
Quote:
Erm, lilnymph pointed those out again for you.
Yes, and I've answered all of those in this thread already :)
Thank you, come again.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, it continues...
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
Any weapon has problems against fixer in GA4, not just a Manex. You have to do better than that. How long have you been playing this game again?
.................................................. .
Yes, and I've answered all of those in this thread already :)
First part:
Weapons with either alot of specials, or fast recharge of specials do well against smurfs. Manex has neither so is bad, Which is why most fixers who PvP alot would switch to something else, like the faster recharging MCS to try and take one out. How long have you been playing this game again? (sorry, joking, couldn't resist it :D )
Now, your second point, I would have to say that all these where nerfed because "Everyone" (read alot of people, before someone gets picky on me) used them.
Quote:
Crit buffs/LLTS buffs has nothing to do with weapons being overused. A nova/x-3/beam/whatever do decent average damage. The argument for LLTS/Crit buff removal was one of people critting too much. I remember the days of gamma beamers, and when every other shot was a 3.5k crit. I miss them, but at the same time I understand the reasoning.
Here is where you "answered" them before. You start off with crit nerf, saying it was nothing to do with weapons being over used, and you are part right. It was partially to do with certain (shoguns) weapons being over used, partially to do with crit modifying equipment and nanos being over used, so these last where nerfed. why? Because everyone was using them and the game had become just a contest to see who would get a normal hit instead of a crit and so lose.
Quote:
FAs had very low multi-wield requirements. Instead of changing MW, Funcom removed them from drop tables. That was when they said there will be no IPR points given, allowing people to switch to different weapons. Check the replies to the IPR announcement. People were very grateful to be able to reset those skills, and put the IP somewhere else. Defenders are not that far off in terms of damage. Yet they weren't removed from the game, were they? Hint: MW requirements.
what has this to do with the fact everyone used them and so they where nerfed? Yes possibly Funcom did it in the wrong way, but they did it because everyone was shooting two of these.
Quote:
Decranium... Everyone still wears it; all 3 of my chars have a full set, Carrah got her's after the "Nerf". Besides, new armors appeared in the game since. Now my agent wears CDS armor.
Here you even say everyone uses it, which they do, and which is why the drop rate got nerfed.
Hugs
lilnymph
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, it continues...
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
No, it has to do with luck. Manex could or could have not been fixed.
You're dodging the point. This real trader chose SMG/Burst so he could make his own weapons and keep in character with his profession. I don't know if he's switched to Manex or not but if he has, it's a reward to him to have a new weapon that uses the skills he already has introduced.
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
Any weapon has problems against fixer in GA4, not just a Manex. You have to do better than that. How long have you been playing this game again?
Obviously, as lilnymph pointed out, the Manex is inferior against any high evade target. When the majority of your attacks are "Miss", you have to rely on special attack damage to do the trick. And the slow recharge on Burst means the smurf (and a lot of high level mobs) would be picking their teeth with your bones by the time the Manex recharged :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
No, they weren't forewarned about the fact that those things will change till a week before the patch. Check the MAs forum archives for more information. MAs have a green bow skill, but dark blue rifle. Yes it was a balancing fact on Funcom's part. Should the MAs who chose that route be reimbursed? That's a story for another thread.
I consider the titles they got while using the bugged crossbow adequate compensation. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't advocate leaving in a feature in game that causes this many issues. Not for them or anyone.
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
An arrogant one too; just how can you be so sure of that?
I am a Trader. Nanoskills are nice and tasty for me :cool: Anyone that relies on nanoskills during combat has issues with Traders. We are hated for a reason, ya know?
More seriously, the only way an NT would be a concern is if whatever Funcom is planning neutralizes Divest/Plunder, The only way to do that would be to signifantly boost the nanoresist or the nanoskills of the wielder. But that would make the NT ungodly powerful in PvM (mobs wouldn't stand a chance), so I doubt they'd do either. Hence NT = Lunchmeat.
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
Right, Init fixes=bug fixes, changes to xbows/LLTS in my book equate to the OE changes.
Your book is flawed. Overequipping was effecting more than a single profession, skill set, item or breed. Totally different scale.
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
No I still don't; I think you are just lazy :) Personally I don't care about what you do in this game.
Then why did you say:
Quote:
If the change to LLTS actually comes about, and funcom, as promised will give several IPR points back, it won't be fair to those who used LLTS. Because those points will be free to those who haven't used LLTS to begin with. And while those points are used by those with LLTS to fix themselves, they will be free to those who haven't to use for other things. Of course you won't need those points.
So it's not fair that someone like me, that doesn't have a use for the reset points, would receive them and could use them for whatever I pleased while others would use them to get out of LLTS? But it's fair that you can use reset points to aquire an amount of skill level that might have taken other people months to get?
So are you saying that only your concept of fair is tantamount here? People arguing against IPR have pointed out how it affects their personal sense of accomplishment, which you say doesn't matter. They have pointed out the numerous ways it has affected the game already, which you say doesn't count. And they point out how it affects the future development of the game, which you ignore. But when I say I won't need them, you pull fairness outta your hat pretty fast.
Hmm...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, it continues...
Quote:
Originally posted by Kuroshio
You are dodging...
No I'm not, I've explained myself on this one; he didn't choose a skillset foreseeing that one day a decent SMG will be introduced. It just happened that way.
Quote:
Obviously, as lilnymph pointed out, the Manex is inferior against any high evade target....
ANY weapon is inferior against a high evade target. How is Manex unique in that respect? Start a newbie, and then use your newbie backyard against the guard in the backyard. See how many times you hit.
Quote:
I consider the titles they got while using the bugged crossbow adequate compensation. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't advocate leaving in a feature in game that causes this many issues. Not for them or anyone.
And I don't. I don't think anyone should be punished by changes in game mechanics. Crossbows were never 'bugged'. Crossbows were changed. That's a huge difference.
Quote:
I am a Trader. Nanoskills are nice and tasty for me :cool: Anyone that relies on nanoskills during combat has issues with Traders. We are hated for a reason, ya know?
Any class has issues with traders, not just nano classes. Last time I checked trader debuffs lowered nano and weapon skills on the target.
Quote:
More seriously, the only way an NT would be a concern is if whatever Funcom is planning neutralizes Divest/Plunder, The only way to do that would be to signifantly boost the nanoresist or the nanoskills of the wielder. But that would make the NT ungodly powerful in PvM (mobs wouldn't stand a chance), so I doubt they'd do either. Hence NT = Lunchmeat.
That was part of the suggestions made. See NT boards for more info.
Quote:
Your book is flawed. Overequipping was effecting more than a single profession, skill set, item or breed. Totally different scale.
No, I feel that when game mechanics change, and affect a larger part of the population, then something should be done to compensate people for it. Whether its OE, or other changes.
Quote:
So it's not fair that someone like me, that doesn't have a use for the reset points, would receive them and could use them for whatever I pleased while others would use them to get out of LLTS? But it's fair that you can use reset points to aquire an amount of skill level that might have taken other people months to get?
See my conclusion for an answer to this; you ask the same question below.
Quote:
So are you saying that only your concept of fair is tantamount here? People arguing against IPR have pointed out how it affects their personal sense of accomplishment, which you say doesn't matter. They have pointed out the numerous ways it has affected the game already, which you say doesn't count. And they point out how it affects the future development of the game, which you ignore. But when I say I won't need them, you pull fairness outta your hat pretty fast.
YES!!!! I thought that's what you were saying here as well? Isn't that a prerequisite for a debate? To have different points of view? AO is not "A world according to Kuroshio", just like it isn't "A world according to Lori".
People arguing for IPR have pointed out how it affects not just their personal sense of accomplishment but also their game play. I think that counts for something too?
I didn't say the changes didn't you provided me in that list didn't affect the game. I just said I don't consider those items nerfed because everyone was using them. UVC/LMA were nerfed along with LLTS; people were critting a lot. Even the biggest change to the game mechanics, the OE change, the one that warranted an IPR, was not done because everyone was using the same set of items.
Finally, about your fairness question: I used you as an example of a person who (as you said it yourself) didn't use an item, and who, if a partial IPR was given, would benefit more than those for whom the partial IPR was intended for. I think that's unfair.
Thus, given the changes that are on the plate and coming, if I had to choose between a total IPR and no IPR at all, I'd choose IPR. That's why I bumped this thread.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, it continues...
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
ANY weapon is inferior against a high evade target. How is Manex unique in that respect? Start a newbie, and then use your newbie backyard against the guard in the backyard. See how many times you hit.
I did everything except provide results from Jayde's damage simulator, which I don't need since I have a crat alt that uses an OT Kerans. Against a high evade mob a weapon with a longer recharge can end up doing less damage than one with a quicker recharge. The reason being that for both weapons, the majority of the normal "hits" do not land. Damage tends to be done through special attacks. The slow burst recharge for a Manex can make it an inferior weapon choice depending on the situation.
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
And I don't. I don't think anyone should be punished by changes in game mechanics. Crossbows were never 'bugged'. Crossbows were changed. That's a huge difference.
What do you define using the wrong skill as? I call it a bug. And no, whether or not you think the crossbows were using the correct skill does not matter. Funcom decides which skills are the correct ones, not us. So, yes, crossbows were bugged.
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
Any class has issues with traders, not just nano classes. Last time I checked trader debuffs lowered nano and weapon skills on the target.
A weapon oriented profession can continue to use the weapon in their hands to do damage, even if it's at 75% or 50% effectiveness. A nano oriented profession has to find a nano they're capable of using in their Divested/Plundered state. At high levels where you have a lot of nanos, it's often easier to start running at that point. An NT that couldn't do any damage with weapons, because the crystal would allegedly prevent them from doing weapon damage, is instantly more vulnerable than a weapon user. Again, the weapon user can continue to do damage.
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
That was part of the suggestions made. See NT boards for more info.
Both possibilities I mentioned would have severe effects on PvM and would likely not be implemented. Raising the NT nanoresist to make them less vulnerable to Trader Divest/Plunder would also make them less vulnerable to mob nanos. Raising their nanoskills to offset a possible Divest/Plunder would grant them access to nanos far before they were supposed to get them. Both wouldn't be very appealing to the developers, given Funcom's history with Nanoresist and using nanos before intended levels.
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
No, I feel that when game mechanics change, and affect a larger part of the population, then something should be done to compensate people for it. Whether its OE, or other changes.
Difference is scale. Overequipping was being used by a much larger portion of the playerbase than the crossbows. And it was having a much larger affect on game balance than crit scopes.
Quote:
Originally posted by Loretta
YES!!!! I thought that's what you were saying here as well? Isn't that a prerequisite for a debate? To have different points of view? AO is not "A world according to Kuroshio", just like it isn't "A world according to Lori".
People arguing for IPR have pointed out how it affects not just their personal sense of accomplishment but also their game play. I think that counts for something too?
I didn't say the changes didn't you provided me in that list didn't affect the game. I just said I don't consider those items nerfed because everyone was using them. UVC/LMA were nerfed along with LLTS; people were critting a lot. Even the biggest change to the game mechanics, the OE change, the one that warranted an IPR, was not done because everyone was using the same set of items.
Finally, about your fairness question: I used you as an example of a person who (as you said it yourself) didn't use an item, and who, if a partial IPR was given, would benefit more than those for whom the partial IPR was intended for. I think that's unfair.
Thus, given the changes that are on the plate and coming, if I had to choose between a total IPR and no IPR at all, I'd choose IPR. That's why I bumped this thread.
The difference is the majority of the people that are demanding IPR from personal desire and saying "I don't care about the repercussions". I oppose all forms of IPR at a personal level as well but also have stated many many times I can deal with single reset points if they are earned. But I'm completely opposed to another complete IPR for the good of the game.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, it continues...
Quote:
Originally posted by Kuroshio
I did everything except provide results from Jayde's damage simulator, which I don't need since I have a crat alt that uses an OT Kerans. Against a high evade mob a weapon with a longer recharge can end up doing less damage than one with a quicker recharge. The reason being that for both weapons, the majority of the normal "hits" do not land. Damage tends to be done through special attacks. The slow burst recharge for a Manex can make it an inferior weapon choice depending on the situation.
LOL, in missions, you end up doing at most 1 special per mob. Even against high level mobs, I miss at most 75% of the time on regular shots. At 1/1, even with hellfury with burst recharging every 8 seconds, that amounts to 20% damage done by a special. Manex is good not because of it's one, slow recharging special, but because of high average damage. I don't rely on any database. I have 3 chars > 165 which use 3 different weapons. I rely upon my in-game experience.
Quote:
What do you define using the wrong skill as? I call it a bug. And no, whether or not you think the crossbows were using the correct skill does not matter. Funcom decides which skills are the correct ones, not us. So, yes, crossbows were bugged.
LOL again, why doesn't it matter what I think, but it does matter what you think? Read the patch notes where the changes were implemented. I and Funcom called it a change. I don't care what you call it, and no, crossbows weren't bugged. They were changed.
Quote:
A weapon oriented profession can continue to use the weapon in their hands to do damage, even if it's at 75% or 50% effectiveness. A nano oriented profession has to find a nano they're capable of using in their Divested/Plundered state. At high levels where you have a lot of nanos, it's often easier to start running at that point. An NT that couldn't do any damage with weapons, because the crystal would allegedly prevent them from doing weapon damage, is instantly more vulnerable than a weapon user. Again, the weapon user can continue to do damage.
Yes, that's why my NT has 3 different nukes in her hot bar, in case she gets divested in a mission. I don't have to find anything, I have it ready. I would be foolish to have to search my quick bar for a nano every time I got plundered/divested by a mob in mission.
Quote:
Both possibilities I mentioned would have severe effects on PvM and would likely not be implemented. Raising the NT nanoresist to make them less vulnerable to Trader Divest/Plunder would also make them less vulnerable to mob nanos. Raising their nanoskills to offset a possible Divest/Plunder would grant them access to nanos far before they were supposed to get them. Both wouldn't be very appealing to the developers, given Funcom's history with Nanoresist and using nanos before intended levels.
Thats a speculation on your part. Take this discussion to the NT forums please :)
Quote:
Difference is scale. Overequipping was being used by a much larger portion of the playerbase than the crossbows. And it was having a much larger affect on game balance than crit scopes.
Hehe, ok, check the number of posts in LLTS related threads. I won't go there. Obviously 500+ posts on the subject rivaled those that were posted about OE. I'd venture to say that's an important issue. Same with the crit issue.
Quote:
The difference is the majority of the people that are demanding IPR from personal desire and saying "I don't care about the repercussions". I oppose all forms of IPR at a personal level as well but also have stated many many times I can deal with single reset points if they are earned. But I'm completely opposed to another complete IPR for the good of the game.
And I support complete IPR. I don't really about those repercussions because thus far, the only repercussions I can see is that it will destroy someone's sense of accomplishment. That's not a good reason for me.
Re: Re: Re: but these are
Quote:
Originally posted by Blackwing
i think that the way funcom is going with restricting items to certain classes is the best way to ensure a limited class a lead in their focus - read for instance soldiers and enforcers. these classes are by definition limited. their trade skills suck, they are one dimensional and they should fulfill their task well.
without slapping specific class only reqs on new weapons you cannot reasonably limit access to their tools they need to do their job.
They wouldn't be able to if as they levelled and spread their IP into different skills they discovered that they couldn't come up with the IP necessary to raise a skill to meet an item requirement. If you put 50 levels of IP into AR then decided to switch to shotgun, depending on when you attempt it you will not have enough IP to be good at it for a couple levels. Even more, you'll have to ignore your other skills while raising shotgun. Compared to someont that's been using shotgun for those same 50 levels, you're a dilettante. You would be able to conceivably catch up. But you'd have to sacrifice some of your total ability to do so.
Quote:
Originally posted by Blackwing
people will use a variety of items IF said items are viable.
at the moment players emulate the high level "gods" and avid posters because they do not wish to be gimped later on - they fear experimentation or to squander their precious iprs.
this leads to MORE cookie cutters instead of less.
The "Gimped" excuse is a tired one. People equate "Not the absolute best" as gimped. Which is nonsense and just a cover. A person would have to go out of their way to "Gimp" themselves in AO. I can understand people naturally want to be the best. But that doesn't mean they automatically deserve to be the best. They have to earn it.
Maybe my perspective if different because on my characters I chose a balanced character instead of a focused one. And therefore I automatically know I won't be the best damage dealer or best tradeskiller or best wrangler. But I'm not gimped either. I've got good all around characters, capable of doing several things to some degree. Despite wielding a bow and having tradeskills :)