Development Cycle Archive
Thread: Publish 9.3 Feedback thread... DECREASED STARPORT TIMES, Poison resists, etc.
huan_the_destroyer
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:30 am
#105
i don't know about that.
the chest is completely covered and so are the arms.
i've been grinding for a week and haven't taken FULL damage once.
i don't even think are feet get hit!
surely in all that time i'd take full damage?
BrainMandinga
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:31 am
#106
While I agree with you on some of it, I will still disagree that we should have that much lower of an encumberance. Our helmet is integrated into our chest plate which should really be 2 pieces of armor rather than one piece of armor. No, we don't have boots, or bicep protection. I still don't see what the gripe is. Again, I see people who can get no more than 2 pieces of Comp on them without being buffed. At original values, I could get all my hunting armor on without buffs. Barely, but could do it. So no, despite your argument of the fact that it doesn't have 100% coverage, it wasn't fair the way it was. This way is considerably more fair. And yes we will have some armor holes, and we will still be the brunt of some beatings, but our encumberance raised, is still lower than good Comp armor.
If you really want to get into the mix of things with this, we are getting the effectiveness with the garbage resources (at least on Tarq) that are available right now. With greatly improved resources, I am sure that those values will be able to be lowered to a point which is once again lower than average.
However, we will still have to wait on the Combat Revamp to see how it affects our species as well as that of others. People often forget about the other people in the game and what one thing does to affect the rest of the community. This type of thought is very egocentric and leads to a lot of problems with regard to balance issues, and causes nerfs that many of us don't understand and can't understand unless we are truly in that position. Again, I have been a wookiee since day 1, and my other characters that I have made, have not owned armor, so I can't fully compare it. I just know that as a Master Doc, I get to see what my human guild members go through to get their good armor on themselves, cause I buff them into their armor. To be 100% realistic, few people go out hunting without buffs anymore anyway, and decent buffs more than compensate for the encumberance that the armor has anyway. You are speculating on a future that is months away and is going to have to take into account a great deal more things than just buff values versus wookiee armor encumberance.
Had to edit out the no leggings part...lol. Sometimes work gets my mind off the track of what is really important. 
On another note, I love these heated debates...lol. They are sooo much fun.
Message Edited by BrainMandinga on 08-10-2004 01:37 PM
nolan007
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:32 am
#107
huan_the_destroyer wrote:
i don't know about that.
the chest is completely covered and so are the arms.
i've been grinding for a week and haven't taken FULL damage once.
i don't even think are feet get hit!
surely in all that time i'd take full damage?
I've seen it many times... your Health bar will take a big hit. However, if you have an uber buff... you may not notice for long (depending on the mob).
JediMelvis137
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:32 am
#108
Earymi wrote:
Thunderheart wrote:
No. It means no matter how good or bad any particular poison or disease is, there will always be a 5% of being affected or a 5% chance of resisting. In other words, there will be no 100% all-of-the-time absolutes.
Um, maybe I'm just being dense today, but what's the other 90% chance? If there's a 5% chance of being affected and a 5% chance of resisting, then there's a 90% chance of what?
They are two different things:
5% chance of being affected = 95% chance of resisting
5% chance of resisting = 95% chance of being affected
Therefore, you look at it from what side you are on. For CM's there is always between a 5 and 95% chance of hitting. For their targets, there is always between a 5 and 95% chance of resisting...
Utess
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:35 am
#109
Earymi wrote:
Thunderheart wrote:
No. It means no matter how good or bad any particular poison or disease is, there will always be a 5% of being affected or a 5% chance of resisting. In other words, there will be no 100% all-of-the-time absolutes.
Um, maybe I'm just being dense today, but what's the other 90% chance? If there's a 5% chance of being affected and a 5% chance of resisting, then there's a 90% chance of what?
Lets say someone makes the worst poison in the world and is innoculated by a doctor with the best anti-poison buff pack ever. No matter how horrible the poison is, it will still have a 5% chance of hitting.
Now, lets say the CM makes the best poison ever, with insanely high potency, and they use it against someone who is unprotected. They still have a 5% chance they can miss.
No matter what, you always have a 5% chance you will miss or hit. The other 90% is determined by the potency of the poison/disease.
Message Edited by Utess on 08-10-2004 01:37 PM
Templar1865
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:39 am
#111
JustG: Thanks for being open to feedback. Here are some comments/suggestions/observations
Travel: If possible, decrease travel time in selected cities only; perhaps make less-used starport the 5-minute ones (or zero-delay ones) to distribute population away from Coronet and Theed. Coronet and Theed could stay at 10 minutes, thus encouraging people to visit other cities.
Wookiee Armor: I don't play a wookiee; however, this kind of change happening so quickly after the armor release does suggest that some more internal testing before release would be a good idea.
Profession: As a doctor and a combat medic, a couple issues here. First of all, giving both innoculations and area cures to the doctors was a pretty fantastic blunder. The innoculations make sense (doctors prepare people for combat and heal them afterwards), but area effects have always been the domain of the combat medic. Area curing is really only applicable in a combat situation, so the combat medics should get this one. Honestly, I believe that this is something that should be changed in time for publish 10.
Combat: This is a major anti-CM nerf on FOUR fronts: 1) doctors area cure 2) doctors innoculate 3) poisons and diseases no longer auto-hit 4) poisons and diseases, if they hit, no longer auto affect. I use the word nerf specifically as it connotes an unfair change. A "balance" is a fair change. Based on this information (will test it out in live later), combat medics should nowhave zero offensive ability in team PvP combat, and reduced effectiveness in PvE combat (no auto-hit). CMs were overpowered in PvP, but reducing their effectiveness to zero is a nerf. CMs were underpowered in PvE, so reducing their effectiveness there is as bad if not worse (here's a radical PvE thought--have poison and disease be lethal to MOBs but not players). Another suggestion would be to allow poisons and diseases to autohit (kind of hard to avoid a cloud of toxic vapors, a la the Geo Lab). The chance to resist, coupled with innoculations and area cures, seems more like a balance than the current nerf.
Poison/Disease Message: makes perfect sense from an interface standpoint. Please continue with these kinds of usability improvements.
Fire/Bleed stick frequency: Fine with this as long as it affects MOBs and players equally. Does it?
Turret Hitpoints: Ah....a factor of x3?? This smacks of the "it goes to eleven" habit we've seen with MOBs, POIs, etc. This will discourage low- and mid-level players engaging in GCW activities. Is that what the devs intended? Smaller, incremental changes, ladies and gentlemen--enough with the pedulum swings!
Crafting: Makes senses, especially in light of the impeding doom of recursive macros. Did the devs intend crafting professions to be a tedious bore until attaining Master? Anything that moves these professions into a more interesting, interactive way of gaining experience is great (I suggest substantially increasing user XP, but that's just my opinion. I know that this can be exploited if implemented incorrectly).
Please continue to fix bugs and correct imbalanced game systems.
Thanks.
KauraMonser
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:40 am
#112
BrainMandinga wrote:While I agree with you on some of it, I will still disagree that we should have that much lower of an encumberance. Our helmet is integrated into our chest plate which should really be 2 pieces of armor rather than one piece of armor. No, we don't have boots, or bicep protection. I still don't see what the gripe is. Again, I see people who can get no more than 2 pieces of Comp on them without being buffed. At original values, I could get all my hunting armor on without buffs. Barely, but could do it. So no, despite your argument of the fact that it doesn't have 100% coverage, it wasn't fair the way it was. This way is considerably more fair. And yes we will have some armor holes, and we will still be the brunt of some beatings, but our encumberance raised, is still lower than good Comp armor.If you really want to get into the mix of things with this, we are getting the effectiveness with the garbage resources (at least on Tarq) that are available right now. With greatly improved resources, I am sure that those values will be able to be lowered to a point which is once again lower than average.However, we will still have to wait on the Combat Revamp to see how it affects our species as well as that of others. People often forget about the other people in the game and what one thing does to affect the rest of the community. This type of thought is very egocentric and leads to a lot of problems with regard to balance issues, and causes nerfs that many of us don't understand and can't understand unless we are truly in that position. Again, I have been a wookiee since day 1, and my other characters that I have made, have not owned armor, so I can't fully compare it. I just know that as a Master Doc, I get to see what my human guild members go through to get their good armor on themselves, cause I buff them into their armor. To be 100% realistic, few people go out hunting without buffs anymore anyway, and decent buffs more than compensate for the encumberance that the armor has anyway. You are speculating on a future that is months away and is going to have to take into account a great deal more things than just buff values versus wookiee armor encumberance.Had to edit out the no leggings part...lol. Sometimes work gets my mind off the track of what is really important.On another note, I love these heated debates...lol. They are sooo much fun.Message Edited by BrainMandinga on 08-10-2004 01:37 PM
problem with the resources is that wood already has a cap on its stats. oq or sr, cant remember. again, if our secondary caps werent ridiculously low i would not complain about encumbrance.
Zooey
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:44 am
#113
Does anyone else think something is weird about loot? I killed 50 npcs this morning, and only looted one thing. Very abnormal.
-zooey
BrainMandinga
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:44 am
#114
What we need here is an armorsmith's data on their best comp armor and best wookiee armor put side by side and compared. Then we could see how the encumberances stack up. After that we would have to see how the armor holes in a good steady amount of combat to compare just how much more advantage the extra coverage of the comp armor has. From there, we can scientifically figure out if we are getting bent over with this update on encumberance or not.
Either way doesn't matter too much to me. It is better than the ceremonial armor (which I rarely wore), which was better than the wookiee smock, which means despite the encumberance issues, it could very well pull my furry butt out of a sling when needed!
What we are truly arguing here is if we feel it is fair or not. I feel it is fair, you don't. And unless there is scientific evidnece to the contrary of either of us, then I guess we are both left with our arguments on the matter. Personally, I would rather deal with the little extra encumberance than have to deal with the Wookiees are too powerful whines while we get owned in PvP...lol.
Happy trails my wookiee brother, and best of luck to you in your fight to lower the encumberance a bit. I know I won't complain if it happens.
Just so you know, I like things difficult for the purpose of the challenge. If I didn't, I wouldn't be an Imperial Colonel as a wookiee...lol.
Message Edited by BrainMandinga on 08-10-2004 01:48 PM
KauraMonser
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:50 am
#115
BrainMandinga wrote:What we need here is an armorsmith's data on their best comp armor and best wookiee armor put side by side and compared. Then we could see how the encumberances stack up. After that we would have to see how the armor holes in a good steady amount of combat to compare just how much more advantage the extra coverage of the comp armor has. From there, we can scientifically figure out if we are getting bent over with this update on encumberance or not.Either way doesn't matter too much to me. It is better than the ceremonial armor (which I rarely wore), which was better than the wookiee smock, which means despite the encumberance issues, it could very well pull my furry butt out of a sling when needed!What we are truly arguing here is if we feel it is fair or not. I feel it is fair, you don't. And unless there is scientific evidnece to the contrary of either of us, then I guess we are both left with our arguments on the matter. Personally, I would rather deal with the little extra encumberance than have to deal with the Wookiees are too powerful whines while we get owned in PvP...lol.Happy trails my wookiee brother, and best of luck to you in your fight to lower the encumberance a bit. I know I won't complain if it happens.Just so you know, I like things difficult for the purpose of the challenge. If I didn't, I wouldn't be an Imperial Colonel as a wookiee...lol.Message Edited by BrainMandinga on 08-10-2004 01:48 PM
/bow
i will settle for a stat cap removal on all species
Tataomm
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:55 am
#116
Thunderheart wrote:No. It means no matter how good or bad any particular poison or disease is, there will always be a 5% of being affected or a 5% chance of resisting. In other words, there will be no 100% all-of-the-time absolutes.
KingLuka wrote:Combat: The resistance effectiveness of the Poison Resist & Disease Resist Buffs will reduce the chance of being affected by a poison or disease. There will always be a 5% chance of being affected and a 5% chance of resisting no matter how high the resistance or potency ratings get.
Does this mean, no matter how good or bad of a resist buff I make, the end result will only be 5%? Just a little clarification, please.
Does this include DoT weapons as well? Some crappy DoT's actually have a less that 5% potency rating, does this mean that the lowerbound regardless of weapon is 5% potency?
KingLuka
Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:56 am
#117
Earymi wrote:
Thunderheart wrote:
No. It means no matter how good or bad any particular poison or disease is, there will always be a 5% of being affected or a 5% chance of resisting. In other words, there will be no 100% all-of-the-time absolutes.
Um, maybe I'm just being dense today, but what's the other 90% chance? If there's a 5% chance of being affected and a 5% chance of resisting, then there's a 90% chance of what?
The other 90% is where the actual poison/disease stats, and the stats on the Doc crafted resists come into play.
They way I'm taking it, is that everyone is naturally 5% able to resist, sort of like natural immunity or antibody to the disease/poison. The 5% affecting is like being in a room of people with the flu, you have a chance of getting it.
Least...i think that's what it means