Doctor Archive
Thread: Publish 7 Ability to overwrite buffs
- Removed the random factor in medical enhancements.
What's the point in overriding if there are no longer any low rolls? If my pack will always yield the average, I have no need to re-apply cause it will be exactly the same buff as before. I don't want average buffs at 2500. I want my 1200 low roll and 4k high roll, that way if I get 1200 I can still get 4k.
I'll start a Doc thread with Publish 7 stuff on TC, when it goes up and we can test stuff.
-T
JasonK wrote: It probably means all the whining about it paid off and now we're going to be stuck with something like 2000 max buffs. Thanks a lot you bunch of freakin cry babies.
Yup. and imagine when the big game hunters can't hunt anything tough anymore because everything will one shot them (with only 2k buffs), there will be big backlash on this if it goes through. But it wasn't so much the whiners as it was the doc correspondant that got this change. Zarlor has been working on it for months, and going around the boards claiming the majority of docs are in favor of the change.
Lexy wrote:
But it wasn't so much the whiners as it was the doc correspondant that got this change. Zarlor has been working on it for months, and going around the boards claiming the majority of docs are in favor of the change.
Ok, obviously you are just upset and looking for a scapegoat here.
I'm sorry to say that I have an opinion and that I voice that opinion on these very forums. As a paying customer and by abiding by the policies of these forums I feel it is my right to post my opinions here just as you have the right to post yours. Now what I post to this forum and what I post to the Dev forum may be two completely different things.
On this particular matter my personal opinion just happens to coincide with the VAST majority opinion of ths forum (and virtually every other Doc I've ever spoken with) which is that Enhance packs should have a reduced level of variability. Not removal. Not the current, insane, variability we have now. That is the opinion this forum pushed and it was the opinion I passed on to the Devs. When our Dev insisted that he was limited to No variability or the current level, I put it to a vote. I posted the results of that vote and stated, clearly, that the margin of error was likely too high for that vote to be a true indicator of a majority position and I again reiterated that the majority viewpoint was for reduced variability. Links were provided to relavent threads on the discussion and the vote.
Our Dev decided that he agreed the vote was not clear enough and suggested that he would likely not implementno variability. Instead the buff overwrite option was offered as an alternative, instead. And that was the last we heard of the issue (and the last it was dicussed on the Corre forum, for that matter.) Until it happened to pop up in the latest patch notes on TC. I have no idea why they decided to impliment this, it was never metnioned to any of the Correspondents, or even IF it is truly implemented on TC. I would suggest that anything on TC, however, is not finalized and is always subject to removal. That's why it's in testing.
My current position is that I think I would still rather have reduced variability, but if I am not given that option at all, I would prefer no variability.
Please, I'm asking you to simply calm down, reconsider what you are reading and see if maybe you are just looking for someone to lash out at about an issue you haven't even seen in action yet. Possibly even over a non-issue if this is not implemented at all on Test.
I would also ask that you make absooutely certain you have your facts straight before laying out accusations.
Lexy wrote:
Yup. and imagine when the big game hunters can't hunt anything tough anymore because everything will one shot them (with only 2k buffs), there will be big backlash on this if it goes through.
Really most people are content with 1.5k buff, not everyone can find these uber 4k buff that u give out. I think anything over 1-2k on 2nd stats will make u pretty hard to kill alrdy.
But it wasn't so much the whiners as it was the doc correspondant that got this change. Zarlor has been working on it for months, and going around the boards claiming the majority of docs are in favor of the change.
And really, this was uncalled for. I dont post much here. But i've been reading these forums since SWG started. Since Zarlor became Correspondant, i think he has done a great job. His system i think is almost as none bias as it gets. If u think it doesnt work, dont bash it, suggest another way for him. If u werent here when the doctors forums voted or didnt vote then u really cant say one way or the other. It wasnt like there's no back log of threads regarding these issues. Please read them first before openly attacking Zarlor. If u claim that "he" is the one who voiced the change, just read. Its that simple. There a whole search button for it.
And Zarlor, i hope this doesnt become a CM no poison incap nerf thing for u. You have done a great job in the medical community. I guess like u said, some people just need a scapegoat.
Message Edited by Melchoir on 02-27-2004 04:33 PM
Message Edited by Melchoir on 02-27-2004 04:33 PM
