[Wishful Thinking] Replace fixed RNG for effects with an accuracy check modifier

[Wavicle]

5 minutes ago, Chrome said:

that is the point it does not take any time away from anything,

And fundamentally you are wrong about this statement. Absolutely spending time doing one thing means not spending time doing another thing. Period.

[Chrome]

i never said it did not apply to me, but i am not the one saying that one idea will take any time way from another.

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, Chrome said:

i never said it did not apply to me, but i am not the one saying that one idea will take any time way from another.

You’re the one engaging in magical thinking that one thing doesn’t take time from another, an indisputable fact of basic physics.

[Chrome]

ok now you are stretching, first you did not quote my complete sentence i said it does not take time from anything except there personal lives.

 

which kills your magical thinking philosophy, secondly you still assume that your idea or what you want to happen is somehow a priority to the developers.

 

so on that basis i dont think i should continue this further, its obvious you are going to use anything it takes to validate your claim even if it means misquoting and insults.

 

good luck and sorry to derail this thread

[Wavicle]

Dude, you don’t get to just pretend you didn’t say what you said:

 

“while its is fact that our dev team is all volunteer,this does not mean that a change like this going to take time away from new ATs or new powersets. ”

 

You said that. I didn’t take it out of context. There isn’t anything snipped away that makes it mean something else. You said this. And fundamentally you are wrong.

[Chrome]

actually i can say that it is factual, because you have no idea if the dev team has ANY intentions at all of making a new AT or powerset. so fundamentally i am Right...if they do intend on large changes like this anytime soon they have not said it or even implied it.  the fact that you "feel " that the devs are working on them is based on an assumption.  if you want to believe your assumptions as facts, that is on you.

[Wavicle]

21 minutes ago, Chrome said:

actually i can say that it is factual, because you have no idea if the dev team has ANY intentions at all of making a new AT or powerset. so fundamentally i am Right...if they do intend on large changes like this anytime soon they have not said it or even implied it.  the fact that you "feel " that the devs are working on them is based on an assumption.  if you want to believe your assumptions as facts, that is on you.

No, that is not the point at all. It doesn't matter WHAT they are specifically working on. The point is if they work on X then they can't also work on Y because resources are devoted to X.  You are being deliberately obtuse.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Wavicle

[Chrome]

that was my ENTIRE point from the beginning... and because you misread or didnt care to read what i wrote you assumed...something you love to do.  my entire point was obtuse for a reason,people come here suggesting ideas and people come in saying that it would take too much time away from x. when what we need to do is look at these ideas as they are not something that is taking away from something else.  it is the developers decisions on what they do or not do.

[Wavicle]

20 minutes ago, Chrome said:

that was my ENTIRE point from the beginning... and because you misread or didnt care to read what i wrote you assumed...something you love to do.  my entire point was obtuse for a reason,people come here suggesting ideas and people come in saying that it would take too much time away from x. when what we need to do is look at these ideas as they are not something that is taking away from something else.  it is the developers decisions on what they do or not do.

I didn't misread.  You said you liked the suggestion and then went on a rant about how the devs can decide what they want to do, and supported it with a nonsensical argument about one thing not taking time away from another. Maybe you didn't communicate what you meant to, but that's not on me.

[Redlynne]

@Chrome

You do realize that taken to a logical conclusion ... your repeatedly stated position amounts to the notion that NO ONE should ever dare to suggest anything to the devs, because they're always going to be too busy to do anything that any of us might suggest, because Zero Sum Game.

 

And yet we have a suggestions forum ... for people to propose ideas and suggestions ...

 

[Chrome]

actually what i am suggesting is that all suggestions are equal and nobody outside of the developers should be the ones stating what should or should not be done, i am not sure how my point equates to nothing should be suggested ever.  i at no point said the developers are too busy to do anything, i merely stated that if somebody posts a suggestion that there shouldnt be that one guy saying the developers should focus on something else because reasons. i guess i did not make myself clear at all and i apologize for that.  i love reading suggestions but i dislike the fact that almost every suggestion thread equates to:

 

OP-COOL IDEA

First poster- i like it!

Second guy- that sucks why would devs spend time on this

 

my point is the second guy shouldnt use that as a reason. since he cant possibly know the capabilities or priorities of the homecoming developers.

 

and to be completely clear, i believe that if you dont like it, say you dont like it!! instead of using dev time as an excuse to why it shouldnt be done. come up with reasons why you dont like it to help further the idea into something you would like.  

 

 

[Redlynne]

Okay, now THAT's a reasonable response and position to take.

 

This is why I structured my proposal in the form of "THIS can be done with THESE existing components" so as to outline the possibilities that might not have been recognized ... and then proceeded to outline how the notion could be tested for validity in case there was dev interest in exploring the possibilities offered in a way that could be both managed and controlled without devouring unreasonable amounts of the finite resource of dev time (and attention span).  More of a "What If?" than a "DO THIS NAO!" kind of thing ... because it helps to have an offer of HOW to do (and test) an idea, rather than just an exhortation to "Make It So!" from the get go.

 

First you have to find the path.

Then you have to illuminate the path, so others can see it.

Then you invite others to journey down the path to find out if they see what you see along that path.

 

And I agree with you that there are often times unreasonable excuses offered for why a suggestion should NEVER appear on a white board of ideas for devs to consider.  Principled objections are fine ... but all too often we are faced with either maximalist unprincipled objections (for reasons that don't hold up under scrutiny) and/or outright bad faith (because it's easier and the path of least resistance to getting what you want).

 

That said, there's the old maxim that 90% of everything is crap ... and that is certainly true when it comes to suggestions!  The trick is figuring out which suggestions fall into the "10% not crap" category and then make judgement calls from there as to which ones are reasonable/achievable and would have a positive impact on the overall architecture of the game, even if that impact isn't something that will be felt immediately(!) but rather something that will pay off/pay for itself over time.  Code Refactoring is one of those areas in which the immediate gains are marginal to slightly negative (since ideally nothing apparent changes much for the end user despite the work put into the effort), but the long term gains are decidedly positive since the refactoring ENABLES other developments and things to happen more easily/cheaply/quickly.  After all, retiring technical debt can have a value that end users might not see/sense, but which the staff will certainly appreciate as they continue to develop and support a product.

 

But every development needs to start with a First Step on the journey ... and a part of making that first step is knowing where you're trying to GO and what you'd achieve by going THERE.  After that it turns into a judgement call as to whether or not that first step on that journey is worth taking (let alone that first step).  The better you can explain the desired destination and the means to get there, the easier it is to make that judgement call as to whether or not that journey is worth considering.

[Wavicle]

Look the point is that this game is not in Beta. This is a long established game. The devs should only be making changes as strictly necessary, big changes that affect game balance or quality of life for whole archetypes. This just does not qualify. This is not a change that is worth making.

[Leogunner]

I was actually pondering a different solution if the discontent is with partial chance KB.  What if you untie the chance of KB from the target ToHit check completely and make it a player-defined proc?  So the behavior would change from rolling a check-for-KB per target hit and 50% of the targets get KB and the other 50% doesn't to just check upon power activation and when activated 50% of the time, all targets hit are KB'ed and when not activated the other 50% of the time, no foes are KB'ed?

 

Just an idea that I had modified for the inherent to a suggested AT of mine where he had a chance to reapply the 2ndary effects of a power but rather than a % per target like Criticals, it's a % chance the attack applies double the secondary effect to all targets hit.

[oedipus_tex]

CoX was a game that was still changing even until its final days. Playing a game that was constantly evolving was the true CoX experience. That is why I am excited by the interest the Homecoming team has expressed in continuing to develop the game. I'm not particularly interested in playing a time capsule, because that isn't true to what the real experience was.

[Chrome]

On 2/19/2020 at 9:58 AM, Redlynne said:

Okay, now THAT's a reasonable response and position to take.

 

This is why I structured my proposal in the form of "THIS can be done with THESE existing components" so as to outline the possibilities that might not have been recognized ... and then proceeded to outline how the notion could be tested for validity in case there was dev interest in exploring the possibilities offered in a way that could be both managed and controlled without devouring unreasonable amounts of the finite resource of dev time (and attention span).  More of a "What If?" than a "DO THIS NAO!" kind of thing ... because it helps to have an offer of HOW to do (and test) an idea, rather than just an exhortation to "Make It So!" from the get go.

 

First you have to find the path.

Then you have to illuminate the path, so others can see it.

Then you invite others to journey down the path to find out if they see what you see along that path.

 

And I agree with you that there are often times unreasonable excuses offered for why a suggestion should NEVER appear on a white board of ideas for devs to consider.  Principled objections are fine ... but all too often we are faced with either maximalist unprincipled objections (for reasons that don't hold up under scrutiny) and/or outright bad faith (because it's easier and the path of least resistance to getting what you want).

 

That said, there's the old maxim that 90% of everything is crap ... and that is certainly true when it comes to suggestions!  The trick is figuring out which suggestions fall into the "10% not crap" category and then make judgement calls from there as to which ones are reasonable/achievable and would have a positive impact on the overall architecture of the game, even if that impact isn't something that will be felt immediately(!) but rather something that will pay off/pay for itself over time.  Code Refactoring is one of those areas in which the immediate gains are marginal to slightly negative (since ideally nothing apparent changes much for the end user despite the work put into the effort), but the long term gains are decidedly positive since the refactoring ENABLES other developments and things to happen more easily/cheaply/quickly.  After all, retiring technical debt can have a value that end users might not see/sense, but which the staff will certainly appreciate as they continue to develop and support a product.

 

But every development needs to start with a First Step on the journey ... and a part of making that first step is knowing where you're trying to GO and what you'd achieve by going THERE.  After that it turns into a judgement call as to whether or not that first step on that journey is worth taking (let alone that first step).  The better you can explain the desired destination and the means to get there, the easier it is to make that judgement call as to whether or not that journey is worth considering.

One of the reasons i like your idea is that it takes away an RNG factor out of the game, i have never been fond of Randomness that cannot be avoided or modified to be permanent.  RNG has its place in so many things such from to hit checks vs defense all the way to which door is the council going to be hiding behind this time.  While those are firmly situated in unavoidable game mechanics, things like chance for kb or chance for end drain is one thing that actually prevents me from choosing those particular powersets.  in the case of energy blast  the addition of sudden acceleration proc made that set available to me because i could then eliminate most of the randomness of the set.  i could now guarantee that my enemies will always stay in range of my attacks.  the type of change you have asked for allows me to go in the other direction and say "ok now i can slot for high accuracy like people were doing with the original fast snipe mechanic and guarantee that all my attacks will knock mofos back or drain endurance or what have you.  this i do believe would fundamentally change the way these sets are treated.  you could now slot for hi accuracy and abuse the kb-kd enhancement, to really soft cc bad guys reliably.  now if only we can come up with an idea to improve endurance drain powersets to work on AVs/Hard content.

 

ps i think your idea is in the 10%

[Wavicle]

3 hours ago, Chrome said:

 you could now slot for hi accuracy and abuse the kb-kd enhancement, to really soft cc bad guys reliably.  now if only we can come up with an idea to improve endurance drain powersets to work on AVs/Hard content.

And that is precisely why it’s a bad idea. The game is balanced, in part, around how effective those soft controls are. You are not supposed to be able to reliably soft CC groups and AVs with a Blast set. That’s what Buff and CC sets are for.

[Galaxy Brain]

14 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

And that is precisely why it’s a bad idea. The game is balanced, in part, around how effective those soft controls are. You are not supposed to be able to reliably soft CC groups and AVs with a Blast set. That’s what Buff and CC sets are for.

Dark Blast says hi

 

As does Sonic Blast

 

and Foot stomp (tho thats melee)

 

etc

[Wavicle]

Just now, Galaxy Brain said:

Dark Blast says hi

 

As does Sonic Blast

 

and Foot stomp (tho thats melee)

 

etc

You’ll note that in both cases of blast sets that you cited the powers in question do no damage! That is not insignificant.

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, Wavicle said:

You’ll note that in both cases of blast sets that you cited the powers in question do no damage! That is not insignificant.

Sonic Blast as a whole has reliable debuffing, and Shockwave as a 100% KB AND Siren's Song as a sleep

 

Dark Blast does a decent amount of damage and has straight up control powers that vary per AT, and it has great debuffs

[Wavicle]

37 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Sonic Blast as a whole has reliable debuffing, and Shockwave as a 100% KB AND Siren's Song as a sleep

 

Dark Blast does a decent amount of damage and has straight up control powers that vary per AT, and it has great debuffs

Those are true facts that actually don’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about here. Neither shockwave nor siren song does damage. That means that sonic is sacrificing a lot to get that protection. Same applies to dark blast. Not to mention that minus to hit is specifically not reliable, just as defense is specifically not reliable. No one is arguing that those sets aren’t good. But using them as examples to support this argument is seriously flawed reasoning.

[Galaxy Brain]

 

And in game:

 

Not as much as some cones, but it also does deal 100% guarenteed KB

 

Also, look a guarenteed AoE debuff

 

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Galaxy Brain

[Wavicle]

Crappy damage, and it loses the Debuff to get it.

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, Wavicle said:

Crappy damage, and it loses the Debuff to get it.

You don't get to shout me down by saying one thing, get proven 100% false, then respond like that. I want you to  do some homework, look up all these powers you claim are crappy due to side effects, and compare them before coming to a thread and speaking down to ideas and spouting false info.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Galaxy Brain

[Wavicle]

2 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

And in game:

 

Not as much as some cones, but it also does deal 100% guarenteed KB

 

Also, look a guarenteed AoE debuff

 

 

You’re just demonstrating that you don’t understand the game. Offensive and defensive debuffs are not comparable and neither is comparable with CC or soft controls.