nzer
-
Posts
284 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by nzer
-
-
1 minute ago, biostem said:
If the SCORE devs upped the XP and inf rates, but didn't raise the price of SOs, then it should be easier to afford them.
That would only be the case if you couldn't level out of them. Because you can, whether they became more or less affordable depends on the ratio of the increases. If XP was increased more then inf gain, for example, they would become less affordable because you would level out of them more quickly.
-
2 minutes ago, biostem said:
I never said the devs were infallible, so stop trying to position me like I did. What we do know is they had ample opportunity to adjust the inf/xp rates or TO/DO/SO costs, but never did. Evidence points to them being satisfied with said reward rates, which entails players not being able to fully slot their enhancements at all levels, full stop.
I'm not saying you said the devs were infallible. I'm saying the argument you're making requires them to have been infallible, otherwise it's not a sound argument.
5 minutes ago, biostem said:Where's the proof? Demonstrate that the devs intend you to be fully slotted at levels 20+. You haven't...
There are like four different comments immediately above this one demonstrating that your reasoning is unfounded. Where's your proof?
-
4 minutes ago, biostem said:
Sure they are - we went from discussing intent to discussing how you can disable XP when you couldn't before and such. The the other poster mentioned intent, and that's what I addressed. Who said the OG devs were infallible? They set the inf/XP earn rates and the enh costs. If you want to argue that was a miscalculation, that's fine. My argument is they had multiple years to adjust it and didn't. instead, they added the invention system with enh's that never expired...
No, they're not. Their argument was that the devs intended for players to be able to fill their enhancement slots at level 20+, and that is still their argument. They categorically can't be moving the goalposts if their argument isn't changing.
You're trying to use the fact that the devs set the rates and never changed them as evidence that all the results of those particular rates were intentional. That's a reasonable argument, but it's still just a supposition, because the original devs were not infallible. So it is also reasonable for someone to disagree with that based on other pieces of evidence, which is exactly what's happening.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, biostem said:
Move the goal posts much?
They're not moving the goalposts, your argument is genuinely fallacious. The original devs were not infallible, so you can't assume something being the way it is is concrete proof it was intended to be that way. Charitably, the disagreement is indeed just a difference of opinion.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Rudra said:
If your argument relies on those that do different from you just shutting up, then you have no argument.
Good thing their argument doesn't rely on that then.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, UltraAlt said:
We don't need to change. The game doesn't need to change.
This is such a ridiculous reason to oppose potential improvements. The game is not perfect, not even at what it's trying to be. And Homecoming is already different from live in a lot of fairly major ways, so this ship has sailed. If you're looking at Homecoming and having this thought, you're failing to recognize what "the game" even is.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
This game doesn't have much in the way of challenge, but removing all challenge kills both community and interest.
This is a slippery slope fallacy, no one is suggesting removing all challenge from the game. In fact I don't see anyone talking about challenge at all, except the people trying to dismiss the suggestion.
Again, the root of the issue here is the expectation among new players that they'll be able to fill the slots the game keeps giving them. It has nothing to do with difficulty.
-
3
-
-
8 minutes ago, Rudra said:
I'm running the risk of getting another warning with the length of this debate. So I'm just going to leave it at:
Getting multiple warnings over this kind of thing when the issue being brought up is so completely uncontroversial, especially when it was ostensibly caused by a change you yourself disagreed with, should probably be cause for some amount of self-reflection. If it was me, at least.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Rudra said:
you refuse to accept is that new players can play without filled enhancement slots and still enjoy playing the game because that is what it was meant to be.
Clearly not, based on the consistent stream of posts about this. If you're going to continue refusing to acknowledge any kind of criticism of the game at all on the grounds that the original devs could do no wrong and the game is perfect the way it is, we're done talking.
We're also apparently going to just ignore that TOs are a thing that existed in the original game and were only removed here on Homecoming. Why exactly are we pretending that not being able to fill your enhancement slots is how the game was meant to be when it is only the case because the cheapest enhancements were removed?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Rudra said:
So again, you are covering your eyes and ears singing "lalala I can't hear you" because what I posted does not line up with what you are claiming. You are even citing my comment about player experience to say I am not talking about player experience. So again, you are arguing in bad faith.
Rudra, what on earth are you talking about? The problem here is that when the game gives the player enhancement slots to assign to their powers the player expects to be able to use those slots, while the game is (allegedly, according to you) actually designed around the player not using all of those slots.
As I already said literally just minutes ago, misalignment between player expectation and design intent is a player experience issue. And both of the links you posted confirm this. So can you please not be aggressively contrarian about everything? It isn't productive for anyone in this thread.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Rudra said:
And neither of those say anything about players being at max effectiveness to have a good player experience.
That's irrelevant, because, as I've said multiple times now, this is not about effectiveness. It's about the player experience.
-
10 minutes ago, Rudra said:
You have to realize it's obvious you couldn't have had time to actually read those articles in the 30 seconds between our posts, right? Take a few minutes and try actually doing that, and you'll see that misalignment between the player's perception of a mechanic and the design intent of the mechanic is a textbook player experience issue.
Not that this is even relevant, since the point I'm making is obvious even if you don't know exactly what the term "player experience" means, but clearly you need something to be contrarian about.
10 minutes ago, Rudra said:Edit: Here's another thing. I keep hearing that new players expect to be able to fully slot their powers because that is what they do in other MMORPGs. And yet, when I was playing WoW, you couldn't even afford to buy your next power or power upgrade just using drops and sales. I remember every time I leveled up in WoW, it would cost easily 100x more money than I had just to upgrade my powers. For instance, I remember one power cost 5 gold to get, but the mobs were only dropping coppers and the occasional silver. In a game where it took 100 copper to get a silver and 100 silver to get a gold. So if they are coming from other games and thinking they should be able to keep all their enhancement slots filled, my question is why?
Yes, exactly. This kind of thing is poor design, which is why, more than a decade ago, spells in WoW were changed to be automatically unlocked at no charge when you reached the required level. And prior to that they were changed to not have multiple ranks, which made unlocking them immediately feasible with just the gold acquired from leveling.
-
3 minutes ago, Rudra said:
I'm not following since the player experience I'm aware of is how the game itself is played, not if I can keep all my enhancement slots filled.
Then you don't have a correct understanding of what the term "player experience" means, and I suggest you look it up.
6 minutes ago, Rudra said:Even in WoW I would run around without all my equipment slots filled because I couldn't get equipment to fill them.
Equipment slots in WoW are inherent, you have all of them at level one. A better comparison would be if WoW required an exorbitant amount of gold to slot each talent point, far in excess of what you could actually afford by the level the talent point was earned.
-
5 minutes ago, Rudra said:
Until you hit the end game and start tackling things like Hard Mode, you're perfectly fine running around with empty enhancement slots.
Irrelevant, as the concern here is not about balance. It's a poor player experience to award things the player is not intended to use.
7 minutes ago, Rudra said:SOs aren't the lowest tier. DOs are. And if you just go for DOs, slotting SOs as they become available through drops, it is far easier to keep your character slotted.
This has already been brought up and addressed. Even with DOs, it's not feasible for a player to fill their slots without special knowledge about inf-making and the AH.
8 minutes ago, Rudra said:we are expected to make use of the AH
If this is true, the expectation is ill-conceived and should be reevaluated. Players should not have to make use of an auction house to make use of basic game features.
-
On 3/1/2024 at 11:52 PM, golstat2003 said:
I'm against this idea that new players can't easily learn what they need to, to make enough inf to keep their slots up. All they need to do is ask in game. It is not at all difficult.
Players shouldn't need to ask other players for money making strategies to be able to use basic game features. We're not talking about affording full builds of IO sets here, just keeping your slots filled with enhancements of any kind.
On 3/1/2024 at 11:55 PM, golstat2003 said:I also like the idea of having all drops match your origin, that was suggested earlier.
I like this idea as well.
7 minutes ago, Mr. Apocalypse said:The word that seems to be missed in this discussion is enhancement. The power we choose do not need to be enhanced.
Yes, they do. They might not need to be enhanced just to play the game, but enhancement is a fundamental game feature, and players should be able to make use of it. It is poor design to give the player tons of slots that they can't use without reading forum guides about how to make inf. Again, if the goal is to have a sliding scale of power, the right solution is to have several tiers of enhancements. And there's no reason why players should not be able to fill all their slots with the lowest tier with just the inf they make from leveling.
-
Just now, Wavicle said:
Is your Hypothetical noob using Double XP boosters?
No
-
Just now, Wavicle said:
They can. They just might have to use some DOs.
I'm skeptical that this is the case, given the frequency at which non-IOs need to be replaced.
-
5 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:
Well yes . . . that's the point the devs were making when they said they expect players to use the AH in some capcaity for their inf making needs.
If the intent is that players will need to do research and engage with the AH just to keep their slots filled, then I think that intention is unreasonable. A player should be able to keep their slots filled playing blind, even if their enhancements are of lesser quality.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, macskull said:
…then that goal has already been accomplished, because every player has the same ability to make inf to buy enhancements
No, money making ability is dependent on knowledge.
-
1
-
-
Of course you should be able to get enough inf just from leveling to keep yourself fully slotted. The game gives you the slots, you should be able to use them without having to google around for money making guides or mooching off randos in atlas.
If the goal is to create a sliding scale of effectiveness based on money-making ability, the way to do that is to have different tiers of enhancements in which cost is proportional to effectiveness, not to deny players the ability to use the slots they have. This is something that already exists, and it's a problem that even the lowest tiers are still prohibitively expensive for a new player who's experiencing the game blind given they have to be replaced every six levels. I can't think of a reason why this should be the case.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Shenanigunner said:
To be honest, I'm thinking this for most of your posts here.
I don't see how. I gave you very specific arguments which you are actively choosing not to respond to.
1 hour ago, Shenanigunner said:If only there was a simple, completely effective workaround short of having the Dev drop everything to break the game for you.
Do you want us to form a support group to come over and play the game for you, too?
The workaround isn't "completely effective." I've already explained why, and instead of responding you decided to act like I'm not making any sense. If you need me to explain something more clearly I'm happy to do so, but you need to tell me what it is you're not understanding first. I don't expect you will though, you seem much more interested in insulting and dismissing people than in having actual discussion.
And I don't care whether multiple autocast is implemented, for what it's worth. Most of my characters wouldn't even need it. My problem is people shooting down perfectly reasonable suggestions for silly reasons that don't stand up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny.
1 hour ago, Shenanigunner said:We ALL have "wannas" but most of us seem to be able to differentiate between the ones that might be reasonable and the ones that will change fundamental aspects of the game — in generally negative ways — for all other users.
This is so rich coming from someone who literally wrote a guide explaining how to mimic multiple autocasts with binds. By all means, explain how one changes fundamental aspects of the game while the other doesn't.
1 hour ago, Shenanigunner said:No one agrees with you, for what I see as fairly solid nature-of-game reasons
I don't think nature-of-game reasons stand up to scrutiny, because the game already gives players tools to significantly automate gameplay.
You can, for example, use binds and macros to create a system where by spamming a single key you automatically target enemies, move to them, and cast all your abilities. You can literally create a system in which all you have to do is press F over and over, and the game will mostly play itself.
If multiple autocasts aren't allowed because they change the nature of the game, everything that allows for that scenario needs to be removed from the game, but I don't see anyone arguing that, and in fact your own guides explain how to do all of those things.
So if it's not a nature-of-game concern, it instead becomes a question of the practical value of restricting the player to a single autocast. And that's something I don't think anyone in this discussion has fielded a compelling argument for.
-
5 hours ago, Luminara said:
Moment of Glory. Elude. Light Form. Unstoppable.
Are you going to make some kind of argument, or am I supposed to read your mind?
5 hours ago, Luminara said:The sequencer prioritizes clicks/keypresses over auto.
I'm aware of that, but I don't see how it's relevant. You aren't queuing abilities literally 100% of the time, so there will be moments where something gets delayed because an autocast fired.
In fact, this also means your autocasts may not fire right away because you're inadvertently preventing them from firing by queuing abilities, which is yet another way autocast is less optimal than manual activation.
-
On 2/21/2024 at 6:31 PM, Shenanigunner said:
I can't find a single thing you've posted in this thread that corresponds to reality.
I can't find a single thing in this comment that is a response to something I'm arguing. How does anything I'm saying only apply to endgame, slotted-to-the-gills players, and how is asking for two or three autocasts instead of one the same as wanting "unlimited power"?
I provided very specific criticisms of the way this is currently accomplished. Do you want to attempt to respond to them at all?
On 2/21/2024 at 7:37 PM, Luminara said:They're stronger, so they're not guaranteed to be available at all times. In fact, they're expected to be unavailable at some times. That's the purpose of recharge times, ranges, endurance costs, and not having multiple powers set to auto.
Autocast has absolutely nothing to with any of this. If you have enough recharge to make the buff perma, it will be perma whether you're autocasting it or not. If not, it will not be perma whether you're autocasting it or not. The balancing of these powers has nothing to do with whether they can be autocasted, full stop. They're stronger than toggles because you have to invest into them to get more uptime, often to a staggering degree. Toggles, by definition, don't need recharge slotting plus five LotGs plus hasten plus set bonuses to be perma.
On 2/21/2024 at 7:37 PM, Luminara said:Do we want to use this heal, or are the benefits of a damage mitigation buff superior? What about a damage buff, would it provide the edge we need to reduce the number of enemies around us in time for our HP pool to begin filling up again? That momentary pause, that choice of how to respond to the risk, is one of many aspects that cumulatively give the brainless idiots we beat to a pulp the faintest hint of a chance of defeating us.
Your conclusion here is so completely backwards. Autocasts remove your ability to decide when to recast a buff, interrupting your attack chain unexpectedly, and you think that makes the player more effective?
It doesn't. In fact it is strictly unoptimal, and is purely a convenience.
On 2/21/2024 at 7:37 PM, Luminara said:Restrictions like these aren't there to inconvenience the player, they're there to prevent the game from becoming unbalanced.
The only way autocasts could possibly shift the balance of the game in the player's favor is if players are consistently unable to reactivate their click buffs in time without it.
Do you think that happens? How far off would you guess the typical player is, on average? Keeping in mind that most builds only have one or two click buffs and that there may be twenty seconds or more between when the ability recharges and when the buff falls off.
-
Again, I don't see what's bizarre about that. Arguing that the "auto-ness" of the game is already a matter of degree seems completely reasonable to me.
If colorful examples are all it takes to scare you away from an argument, I guess I may end up using more of them.
-
1
-
Aggressively reduce price of basic enhancements
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted · Edited by nzer
Speling
I'm not in favor of increasing inf rewards as a solution to this problem, but I do very much doubt changes in low level inf rewards would move the needle at all on inflation. A single fire farmer probably makes more in ten minutes than a new player's first character would make in its entire journey to 50.