|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jun 18, 2011 3:27:17 GMT
And you can claim logic fail all you want. We'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't say the bardsong edit would have no effect at all, just that it would have no effect on the percieved need for bards. I see you latched on to the same weasel word as Cata. You even italicized it for us. That simply is NOT what you said. What you did say was this: There's no mention of perception there, and your freshly altered point would be completely nonresponsive to my original post stating the goals of the edits, which ALSO makes no mention of perception, because we don't traffic in perceived need, but actual need. Our edits are designed around game balance, not player perception of game balance (which would be an utter disaster). My favorite go-to example of this is IoF, which for a very long time was widely regarded as useless. In other words, you've never played without UUU. Imagine my surprise. You've also never run with me, or you wouldn't be trying to impress on me your barding chops. I'm not being antagonistic, and feelings really don't run hot around update time - at least not for the Team. I don't feel I've been attacked, either. I have no issue with any of Cata's feedback, and I wasn't aware you were even offering any beyond 'not a bad update', since you're now claiming you were talking about player perception and not game balancing, and were just echoing Cata's sentiments. I'm simply pointing out an error in your logic, and watching Cata and you attempt to pretzel yourselves out of it. If you aren't interested in understanding game balancing so you can participate in meaningful discussion of it, or you just have issues with admitting error, I can understand that. Attempting to attribute your mistake to me, by way of calling me arrogant, as Cata did, or implying that I'm somehow upset, as you did, will not unwrite what you actually said. And yes, working on expressing yourself clearly will get you a long way with me, since I read what you write, not what you mean (this always seems to surprise people). Funky
|
|
|
Post by leezard on Jun 18, 2011 3:50:58 GMT
i believe all the 41 and above augs (fom ,energy buffer ,remove curse ect....) shude have the same requirements as well then (being worn while resting to use ) as these blur class distinction and u dont even have to continue wearing the item after u use it and r quite easy to gain a large amount of them
also iridescent barrier and coils of gabdok both provide bio ware epic spells with out a single use restriction unlike tia gear which is class specific and no harm from removing them (spell slot, losing the spell effect etc ) to equip another for the spell
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jun 18, 2011 4:16:21 GMT
i believe all the 41 and above augs (fom ,energy buffer ,remove curse ect....) shude have the same requirements as well then (being worn while resting to use ) as these blur class distinction and u dont even have to continue wearing the item after u use it and r quite easy to gain a large amount of them also iridescent barrier and coils of gabdok both provide bio ware epic spells with out a single use restriction unlike tia gear which is class specific and no harm from removing them (spell slot, losing the spell effect etc ) to equip another for the spell We're mainly interested in the most egregious examples. You could strain this rationale even further, for example, by pointing out that weapons blur class distinctions. *Gasp!* What is that wizard doing with a STAFF?!? Weapons are for fighters! In other words, things that step on other builds' toes substantially. We pre-excluded those types of things from augs, for the most part, adding spells we regarded more as 'convenience'. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jun 18, 2011 6:39:40 GMT
The update will go live as servers reset. Please let us know quickly if anything blows up. It's been a while since the last update, and a lot of older edits went into this. We've testing things fairly extensively, but the gremlins, they are devious.
Thanks, Funky
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Jun 18, 2011 7:43:44 GMT
Well now that I've been royally spanked and made to feel small and insignificant I think I'll go slink back under my rock and whimper into my pillow fervently wishing I hadn't even bothered in the first place......
Cata
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Jun 18, 2011 9:33:39 GMT
And you can claim logic fail all you want. We'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't say the bardsong edit would have no effect at all, just that it would have no effect on the percieved need for bards. I see you latched on to the same weasel word as Cata. You even italicized it for us. That simply is NOT what you said. What you did say was this: There's no mention of perception there, and your freshly altered point would be completely nonresponsive to my original post stating the goals of the edits, which ALSO makes no mention of perception, because we don't traffic in perceived need, but actual need. Our edits are designed around game balance, not player perception of game balance (which would be an utter disaster). My favorite go-to example of this is IoF, which for a very long time was widely regarded as useless. In other words, you've never played without UUU. Imagine my surprise. You've also never run with me, or you wouldn't be trying to impress on me your barding chops. I'm not being antagonistic, and feelings really don't run hot around update time - at least not for the Team. I don't feel I've been attacked, either. I have no issue with any of Cata's feedback, and I wasn't aware you were even offering any beyond 'not a bad update', since you're now claiming you were talking about player perception and not game balancing, and were just echoing Cata's sentiments. I'm simply pointing out an error in your logic, and watching Cata and you attempt to pretzel yourselves out of it. If you aren't interested in understanding game balancing so you can participate in meaningful discussion of it, or you just have issues with admitting error, I can understand that. Attempting to attribute your mistake to me, by way of calling me arrogant, as Cata did, or implying that I'm somehow upset, as you did, will not unwrite what you actually said. And yes, working on expressing yourself clearly will get you a long way with me, since I read what you write, not what you mean (this always seems to surprise people). Funky I think I let it be known I wrote that quickly, and that my future posts would be more thourough. What that first quote should have read was: Nice quote trolling though. I did use some more italics for you since you seemed to enjoy it Next, of course you dont NEED UUU. Or HMR. If you dont mind nearly doubling the time of a run. Or farming ely for those tasty silence rings. Oh essence of the last word had silence imm too right? Farm those if ya want. Those are good rings. Yeah you can do w/o uuu. Just work those flippers into your gearset. Theres a few other items that can pick you up. Theres that cape from the abyss. Something else too right? All it takes is runs to farm these items. Just gotta win vs 9 others and fit it into your gearset. Oh, are you doing all those runs w/o UUU? And as far as me not running without UUU not sure where you got that from. I tried it several times. It sucked. Really bad. And we actually had good class balance minus bard. I refuse to try it anymore as I dont feel like adding an hour+ to a run along with all the associated KD deaths and instalimbos that can come from it. And as far as trying to bust out my barding "chops" I simply gave that statement as context to show that I knew the mod. Trying to impress you? Erm. Yeah. Moving along. As far as game balancing vs perception and your rebuttal you have a point there. My ego isnt so big I can't admit when I'm wrong. So I'll try to be concise here. Groups refuse to do deep hells runs or abyss w/o a bard. You CAN do these runs w/o a bard. It is possible. However, it is so painful, the overwhelming majority refuse to do so. I like the song/curse edits. It's one part of levelling the playing field. The other part, is either proactive, or reactive alternatives other classes can use that can mitigate KD/silence. The current situation with bards and groups not doing runs without them will not change until that happens. Perception and game balance are two different things, but here they overlap, just a bit. It is my opinion that only having 1 class with KD/Silence immunity/mitigation is a game balance issue. Yes, it's better than none. I don't think it's ideal. Some others share this stance. I have, and others have, given ideas on fixes and alternatives. Obviously what ends up being done is up to the dev team. Whether its your intent or not, it feels like any time one of us brings up this issue we get either ignored, or blasted on. Not all of us are eloquent linguists. Sometimes it takes a few tries to get it out right
|
|
|
Post by jonuhey on Jun 18, 2011 13:50:59 GMT
The update will go live as servers reset. Please let us know quickly if anything blows up. It's been a while since the last update, and a lot of older edits went into this. We've testing things fairly extensively, but the gremlins, they are devious. Thanks, Funky As of now no server has updated yet that I can see. At least inspiration belt can still be used, evards still have high ab in all fresh servers and in 111 (where murphy asked me to test).
|
|
|
Post by mrbadexample on Jun 18, 2011 14:30:22 GMT
All in all I am quite impressed by the update. I can see how some aspects might cause some upset, but those are easily dismissed. It will be interesting to see how hells runs and such will go without a bard in party. I've seen them done before with great success.
|
|
|
Post by Roo on Jun 18, 2011 14:40:29 GMT
Make high level summons useful, give them the ability to run around picking people up as a primary action before engaging any enemy =)
|
|
|
Post by gandoron on Jun 18, 2011 15:02:10 GMT
Roo I believe upgrading summons have been planned for a long time, but that is not trivial. and the game hasn't been designed around pets in general, which means it's harder to introduce with balance.
-G
|
|
|
Post by KnightErrant on Jun 18, 2011 15:05:24 GMT
Ah ok Funky. Can't say my Str assassin is terribly impressed but I can see why it was needed. Ret. Hopefully Assassins can get access to Crit Immunity with 40 base STR thru one of their spells like Paladins, BG's, Clerics & Rangers... Would seem to fit with the rest of the non arcane spell using classes that melee. KE.
|
|
|
Post by starlandra on Jun 18, 2011 15:56:56 GMT
just a quick word... love the update. Can't wait to try the hells, abyss with the new nerf song, and nerfed baddies... Star needs to take a vacation day and play it seems
|
|
|
Post by gandoron on Jun 18, 2011 16:03:05 GMT
actually crit imm as a spell for str assassins sounds like a pretty decent idea. I'll miss using my ep belts on many builds, including str CoT and StaffM, but it was OP cheese for sure. Though fighter, RDD and others don't get crit imm for str builds either. Str assassins are probably the lowest AC build of this group and have a spell book, so it would fit.
-G
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jun 18, 2011 16:07:45 GMT
Nice quote trolling though. I did use some more italics for you since you seemed to enjoy it Quote trolling? Lolz. Yes, how dare I expect the things you wrote one day to cohere with the things you wrote the next? That wasn't really the point I was making, but I'm glad we agree on that, at least. Also not the point I was making. I was remarking on the fact that you have never played HG during a time when UUU didn't exist in it's present form (or PT2, for that matter). I've noticed that this tends to have a marked effect on people's opinions regarding it. And again, not what I said. I said you were trying to impress ON me your barding chops - as in, convey to me the breadth of your bardic wisdom. I was teasing you about the irony of your remarks, because, had you been around a bit longer, you'd be aware that my main character is a bard, and that I've played 3 or 4 of them during my 7 years on the server, not counting splash builds made before legendary levels, when more standard bioware builds were somewhat more viable (think bard/WM/RDD). So, in your attempt to persuade me that you knew the mod, you were in fact revealing just how limited your experience of it was, from my longer perspective - the irony of which was too amusing to me to let pass up without comment. I didn't elaborate, however, because it really has no bearing on the legitimacy of your comments one way or the other, and I didn't want to derail the thread. You sort of forced me to explain it by misunderstanding my use of the phrase 'impress on', though, so there you go. Props for that. This is all accurate. What you don't seem to realize is that, insofar as player perceptions matter to people's willingness to run without bards, posts like yours and Cata's are part of the problem. Instead of accepting that change can be incremental rather than binary, and that this might actually have some effect on the actual need for bards, you choose to talk about how it won't affect anything - shaping player perception away from the reality of the edit. Which, of course, is why I felt the need to speak up. I'm not blasting you for anything, simply pointing out the problem with your line of reasoning. Nor do I hold you to the standard of eloquent linguist - I just expect you to say what you mean, and, if you fail to, not to get upset when someone takes your words at face value - I'm not psychic. Likewise, I expect you to respond to what I actually write, and not accuse me of things I didn't write (like blasting you for talking about UUU). Were you paying more attention, you would realize that I'm one of the people who AGREES that UUU is a game balance issue. I think the entire dev team does. Fixing it, however, is not entirely uncomplicated, as has already been pointed out in this post, by someone quoting what I said in another thread. If you're interested in what we ARE doing about it, take a look at the ideas discussed in the May Dev Meetings sheet. I've posted the links to it before - it's not like we're being coy about addressing this issue. Likewise, if you have constructive suggestions about other alternatives, by all means, make them known. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jun 18, 2011 16:08:52 GMT
All in all I am quite impressed by the update. I can see how some aspects might cause some upset, but those are easily dismissed. It will be interesting to see how hells runs and such will go without a bard in party. I've seen them done before with great success. Apparently the things causing the most distress are the things we DIDN'T do, like nerfing UUU. Funky
|
|