Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 113

Thread: GTH and BR changes. (Info from Means)

  1. #61
    Sometimes you can't help to wonder what the f*** is going on in the head of the developers. Yep, instead of going to the trader forum or asking the trader professionals for help on this matter, ask what the soldiers want done with BR, then implement that suggestion without thinking it through!

    I know, it's not finalized yet, but I'm really stunned as to how an idea like this even came all the way to these forums.
    Kintaii: Genele is more hardcore than you, your guildmates, and anyone else you've ever played with...

    My pvp stats: Duel wins: 945 / losses: 368 - Solo kills: 5632 / team: 7511

    My org mate: Solo kills: 24 933 / Team: 683

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Elvi View Post
    10m that it will be changed.
    A debuff which crippels the caster more than the target is plain stupid, even FC will realise this.


    except it dosnt, vs soldiers, again, you should be happy, now theres two ways soldiers can give you rrfe!

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Strupstad View Post
    Sometimes you can't help to wonder what the f*** is going on in the head of the developers. Yep, instead of going to the trader forum or asking the trader professionals for help on this matter, ask what the soldiers want done with BR, then implement that suggestion without thinking it through!

    I know, it's not finalized yet, but I'm really stunned as to how an idea like this even came all the way to these forums.
    they cant ask for help to the traders since most actually think traders deserve 60% reflects, it wouldnt go anywhere, traders would just keep coming up with a version nobody likes and theyd keep changing it

    traders will still BR AMSed up solds tbh

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by heartless888 View Post
    they cant ask for help to the traders since most actually think traders deserve 60% reflects, it wouldnt go anywhere, traders would just keep coming up with a version nobody likes and theyd keep changing it
    That's just not true and if you don't intend to be in any way serious, then don't bother posting here. It's a waste of time.
    Veteran of Equilibrium

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrangeline View Post
    That's just not true and if you don't intend to be in any way serious, then don't bother posting here. It's a waste of time.
    i am serious, you only assume im not because i dont agree with you, its kinda insulting

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by heartless888 View Post
    i am serious, you only assume im not because i dont agree with you, its kinda insulting
    No, the insulting thing here is how you portray "most traders". I don't know where you get these kinds of opinions from. They can't be based on anything written on this forum because I read this forum too and I see the exact opposite of what you are insinuating.
    Veteran of Equilibrium

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrangeline View Post
    No, the insulting thing here is how you portray "most traders". I don't know where you get these kinds of opinions from. They can't be based on anything written on this forum because I read this forum too and I see the exact opposite of what you are insinuating.

    all the traders i talk to ingame wants BR to stack with rrfe, when you tell them it wont, they all say the same thing *its useless now*

    most traders is most traders, just like most people dont post on forums, right?

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by heartless888 View Post
    all the traders i talk to ingame wants BR to stack with rrfe, when you tell them it wont, they all say the same thing *its useless now*

    most traders is most traders, just like most people dont post on forums, right?
    I don't know what traders you have supposedly talked to ingame, but what you describe there is a faaaaar cry from what you insinuated earlier in this thread.

    You still tend to deal with issues in a very black and white manner and when people tell you something, they are either against or for something. There never seems to be much middle ground with you. Because of this, I honestly think you have read way to much into whatever people have told you ingame.

    The whole issue with BR is and have always been more complex than you seemingly have allowed yourself to consider.

    Should BR be ingame at all or not? This is a very different topic for discussion than how BR should be designed if it is to be ingame. You have said before that you generally don't want traders to use BR at all. If traders find 0 use for BR then you would be ok with that. Boiling it all down, you basically think BR shouldn't be ingame at all. This kind of logic came from you earlier in a different thread. I don't really disagree with this basic notion. I personally never asked for BR and I don't like nemesis nanos any more than you do. Especially when we can beat a soldier even without this nemesis nano. So that's fine.

    The problem seems to stem from the fact that you try to juggle two issues at the same time while traders realize what the situation actually is and concentrate on the essentials.

    Your two issues is "Do you even need BR at all?" and "if you do have BR, what effects should it have?"

    Traders have realized that FC have introduced BR and that it is apparently here to stay in one form or another. So the only issue traders are concerned with is "since it IS here to stay, how should it be designed?"

    Now, think about this for a moment. If a nano is put ingame, there has to be a point to it. A nano like BR should be situational and have a reasonable effect. If it doesn't have a reasonable effect then it's either OP or pointless. Soldiers, traders and everyone else doesn't want its effects to be too powerful and everyone should also agree that the nano shouldn't be pointless. If it's here to stay then there has to be a point to it. And if it is here to stay then we should make sure its designed in the best way possible. Which the latest proposal by Means currently isn't.

    So when traders tell you that BR becomes pointless when it doesn't stack with rrfe, that doesn't mean that they all think we SHOULD have 60% reflects. It means that we wont use it if it cancels our rrfe. When traders say they don't like this new version of BR, most are referring to the annoying side-effect it has, not the actual power it has in PvP.

    There's also a big difference between "what is good design?" and "what is good balance on its stats?". The current/latest version proposed by Means is badly designed. Means designed it the way he did for various reasons but those reasons can be met just as well with a different but better design.

    Just to bring this whole thing back down to earth again:

    1. If you ask traders how many actually think BR SHOULD give the trader 60% reflects for 1 minute, then I think you will find that most will say no. Active PvP'ing traders that is. I dare you to give me a list of names of PvP'ing traders that have told you ingame that traders deserve 60% reflect from BR.

    2. Saying that traders would just come up with versions of BR that no one would like, and that FC would have to change, is just false. It still is just false. Traders, more than most, have suggested new versions of BR that are less powerful than what many soldiers have proposed lately because we are less concerned by its power than what you people seem to think we are. What most traders here care about more than anything else, is that the nano isn't a JOKE (both in terms of OP'ness and uselessness). If we are to have BR in any form, then it has to function in a reasonable way. Having BR cancel rrfe is not reasonable because that's just annoying for the sake of being annoying. There are better ways of making BR situational.

    We traders care about quality. You care only about quantity. So when we say something about its quality, you think we are whining about the quantity and then start calling us silly. Which is ironic.

    I get somewhat irritated when so many of us have put a lot of effort into providing good ideas and insight into the situation but you accuse most traders of the exact opposite.
    Last edited by Wrangeline; Mar 7th, 2010 at 00:57:21.
    Veteran of Equilibrium

  9. #69
    Design versus stats, this is exactly what it is about imo. Giving my interpretation of Wrangle's concept :

    Design : creative part of the work, during which you create the cool-factor, smartness, roleplay coherence, lead peeps to think "this is cool i want it", see GA IV, knockback that didn't make it in game, etc, stuff like that. What is well designed or not is highly subjective and must vary a lot from player to player. GTH for instance might be seen like a genious design from people that like to annoy/piss off other people.

    It seems obvious this new BR proposition isn't seen as a well designed nano by the community, it doesn't make sense.

    Actual stats/numbers : technical part of the work, which leads to the balance of the whole game.

    We shouldn't discuss the numbers part if everything were right. We got a very tiny piece of the picture. Numbers discussed about the previous BR proposition may have been totally right in the big picture, once drain last 15 seconds, YEEIF healing rate is reduced in half, NBD is made highly situationnal cause trader can't refill nanopool, stuff like that. Picture gets larger once you take in consideration changes on 13 other professions.
    The concept/design of the previous proposition was also way simpler then the current one, which seems a good thing to me, but as this is the subjective part i m talking about, it is only personnal.

    So why do we bother discussing numbers ?

    Noone trust FC on the technical aspect of things, sadly . . .

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrangeline View Post
    I don't know what traders you have supposedly talked to ingame, but what you describe there is a faaaaar cry from what you insinuated earlier in this thread.

    You still tend to deal with issues in a very black and white manner and when people tell you something, they are either against or for something. There never seems to be much middle ground with you. Because of this, I honestly think you have read way to much into whatever people have told you ingame.

    The whole issue with BR is and have always been more complex than you seemingly have allowed yourself to consider.

    Should BR be ingame at all or not? This is a very different topic for discussion than how BR should be designed if it is to be ingame. You have said before that you generally don't want traders to use BR at all. If traders find 0 use for BR then you would be ok with that. Boiling it all down, you basically think BR shouldn't be ingame at all. This kind of logic came from you earlier in a different thread. I don't really disagree with this basic notion. I personally never asked for BR and I don't like nemesis nanos any more than you do. Especially when we can beat a soldier even without this nemesis nano. So that's fine.

    The problem seems to stem from the fact that you try to juggle two issues at the same time while traders realize what the situation actually is and concentrate on the essentials.

    Your two issues is "Do you even need BR at all?" and "if you do have BR, what effects should it have?"

    Traders have realized that FC have introduced BR and that it is apparently here to stay in one form or another. So the only issue traders are concerned with is "since it IS here to stay, how should it be designed?"

    Now, think about this for a moment. If a nano is put ingame, there has to be a point to it. A nano like BR should be situational and have a reasonable effect. If it doesn't have a reasonable effect then it's either OP or pointless. Soldiers, traders and everyone else doesn't want its effects to be too powerful and everyone should also agree that the nano shouldn't be pointless. If it's here to stay then there has to be a point to it. And if it is here to stay then we should make sure its designed in the best way possible. Which the latest proposal by Means currently isn't.

    So when traders tell you that BR becomes pointless when it doesn't stack with rrfe, that doesn't mean that they all think we SHOULD have 60% reflects. It means that we wont use it if it cancels our rrfe. When traders say they don't like this new version of BR, most are referring to the annoying side-effect it has, not the actual power it has in PvP.

    There's also a big difference between "what is good design?" and "what is good balance on its stats?". The current/latest version proposed by Means is badly designed. Means designed it the way he did for various reasons but those reasons can be met just as well with a different but better design.

    Just to bring this whole thing back down to earth again:

    1. If you ask traders how many actually think BR SHOULD give the trader 60% reflects for 1 minute, then I think you will find that most will say no. Active PvP'ing traders that is. I dare you to give me a list of names of PvP'ing traders that have told you ingame that traders deserve 60% reflect from BR.

    2. Saying that traders would just come up with versions of BR that no one would like, and that FC would have to change, is just false. It still is just false. Traders, more than most, have suggested new versions of BR that are less powerful than what many soldiers have proposed lately because we are less concerned by its power than what you people seem to think we are. What most traders here care about more than anything else, is that the nano isn't a JOKE (both in terms of OP'ness and uselessness). If we are to have BR in any form, then it has to function in a reasonable way. Having BR cancel rrfe is not reasonable because that's just annoying for the sake of being annoying. There are better ways of making BR situational.

    We traders care about quality. You care only about quantity. So when we say something about its quality, you think we are whining about the quantity and then start calling us silly. Which is ironic.

    I get somewhat irritated when so many of us have put a lot of effort into providing good ideas and insight into the situation but you accuse most traders of the exact opposite.

    maybe but it does tell you that traders think they should be able to have rrfe stacking with whatever buff BR gives, on top of GTH that makes NBD work well, on top of killing most peoples entire offense

    im a soldier, i got high reflects, its my defense, my offense can be resumed by quick but weak DD perks which only lands if you can first spend 9 seconds debuffing a target and specials which are totally random and miss on way too many people (seeing as we are supposed to be the highest AR prof ingame)

    while a traders offense is insane with those debuffs, same with relative evades vs a debuffed char, on top of nice ASes, roots and whatnot, and thats fine even though i dont like it, its what traders do, they debuff, but you cant expect soldiers to be fine with a class like trader that has sooooo many tools and also want stupid high reflects, its what you want, because god forbid there is a window where the target isnt debuffed where they can actually -do- something againt you, you think they should have rrfe and another stacking buff? its bad enough everyone runs around being hard to kill because of a buff WE cast, having traders with as much reflects as us, without the drawback and with AS + debuffs, im sorry, its way too much, someone might argue that solds got *too much* reflects, but thats all we got, traders cant say they *only* got something

    whatever BR does when it goes live, it should NOT stack with rrfe, same with Zset

    reflect is a nice def and i am tierd of being the reflect class...with barely a few % more than others

    did you know that an advy with rrfe and 1 reflect bracer has 44% reflects passive? PASSIVE.

    an MP with rrfe and shield has 60% minimum

    now traders want rrfe + BR buff

    NTs got virtually 90% reflects (dmg to nano) shields, even 100% reflects with NS2

    do you see my problem here? its WRONG that the reflect class, namely soldier, has LESS than others in certain cases, and barely a few% more with AMS up, nevermind the fact that they are going to cap reflects soon too so reflect twinking solds vs avrage solds gap will be smaller

    have BR lockout all your nanoskills too, like soldiers, like SS with MPs, make BR a self only reflect buff of 30%, rrfe should not be stacked with other buffs, its already painfully horrible to have advies run around with 37% reflects just with rrfe on...ADVIES man...and i go around with a puny 43 and im a pvp reflect tank class? what a joke
    Last edited by heartless888; Mar 7th, 2010 at 01:42:04.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by heartless888 View Post
    maybe but it does tell you that traders think they should be able to have rrfe stacking with whatever buff BR gives, on top of GTH that makes NBD work well, on top of killing most peoples entire offense

    im a soldier, i got high reflects, its my defense, my offense can be resumed by quick but weak DD perks which only lands if you can first spend 9 seconds debuffing a target and specials which are totally random and miss on way too many people (seeing as we are supposed to be the highest AR prof ingame)

    while a traders offense is insane with those debuffs, same with relative evades vs a debuffed char, on top of nice ASes, roots and whatnot, and thats fine even though i dont like it, its what traders do, they debuff, but you cant expect soldiers to be fine with a class like trader that has sooooo many tools and also want stupid high reflects, its what you want, because god forbid there is a window where the target isnt debuffed where they can actually -do- something againt you, you think they should have rrfe and another stacking buff? its bad enough everyone runs around being hard to kill because of a buff WE cast, having traders with as much reflects as us, without the drawback and with AS + debuffs, im sorry, its way too much, someone might argue that solds got *too much* reflects, but thats all we got, traders cant say they *only* got something

    whatever BR does when it goes live, it should NOT stack with rrfe, same with Zset

    reflect is a nice def and i am tierd of being the reflect class...with barely a few % more than others

    did you know that an advy with rrfe and 1 reflect bracer has 44% reflects passive? PASSIVE.

    an MP with rrfe and shield has 60% minimum

    now traders want rrfe + BR buff

    NTs got virtually 90% reflects (dmg to nano) shields, even 100% reflects with NS2

    do you see my problem here? its WRONG that the reflect class, namely soldier, has LESS than others in certain cases, and barely a few% more with AMS up, nevermind the fact that they are going to cap reflects soon too so reflect twinking solds vs avrage solds gap will be smaller

    have BR lockout all your nanoskills too, like soldiers, like SS with MPs, make BR a self only reflect buff of 30%, rrfe should not be stacked with other buffs, its already painfully horrible to have advies run around with 37% reflects just with rrfe on...ADVIES man...and i go around with a puny 43 and im a pvp reflect tank class? what a joke
    Almost none of that has much of anything to do with the current topic or context to be honest. You need to pick a context and stick with it.

    I mean, you said this for example:

    "..and also want stupid high reflects, its what you want.."

    That's what we want? Since when? Why do you keep saying stuff like that? Why do you keep making it seem like traders are so incredibly unreasonable, based on very little evidence or examples?

    Many traders, myself included, have suggested that BR should give only a novelty reflect buff to the trader OR not stack with rrfe at all. We have suggested long cast time. We have suggested shorter duration and long cooldowns. We have suggested pretty much everything you can possibly think of as an ALTERNATIVE solution to FC's approach of making BR situational, which was to have it remove our reflects.

    I have not seen a SINGLE trader propose that BR should give traders "stupid high reflects" of any kind. I have pretty much only seen the opposite of that so far. You keep saying that rrfe and BR shouldn't stack. Well have you even noticed that me and many other traders have SPECIFICALLY suggested that they indeed shouldn't stack but that this can be achieved without the trader actually losing rrfe? Trader losing reflect-buffs is annoying and that is the only problem. The strength of the debuff and the strength of the positive effect on the trader is a different topic entirely and I have not seen any traders suggest that we should get a lot of reflects from BR on top of rrfe or that we should be able to remove a lot of reflects from everyone.

    You need to remember that the original version of BR, the new suggestion of BR and the current newest suggestion for BR were ALL designed by FC, not traders. Trader's didn't ask for ANY of them. The only thing traders HAVE asked for is that BR shouldn't remove reflect-buffs because that's just annoying. If this can only be achieved and balanced by BR being very weak both in negative and positive effects, then so be it. We just don't want it to be annoying to use.

    And this has nothing to do with the things you just mentioned. Again, we didn't ask for BR. FC made it. So while BR is here, we traders will make sure it's not annoying and that it's reasonable. If you personally think BR is 100% crap no matter what and that it's only acceptable and reasonable if no traders ever use it in PvP, then that's your problem and you have to take that up with FC, not US. Because FC wanted this nano ingame, not us traders.

    And just to illustrate that you will in fact not respect any form of BR ingame, I will add this quote from soldier forum. Someone said it was strange that FC decided to make BR cancel reflect-buffs on trader and this was your reply:

    Quote Originally Posted by heartless888 View Post
    thats their way of getting rid of it tbh hopefully they are tierd of all this crap and just wanted to get rid of it
    Yeah, we get it, you don't want it ingame. I can understand that. We didn't ask for it either. It is here though and we will make sure it's reasonable and that the nano has a point to it. If you really do only wish to point out that you don't want this nano ingame then you have to tell FC that directly. Ranting on traders feedback on BR wont help you at all. The only people that can remove BR completely for you is FC. The rest of us mere mortals can only try to make the best out of what we have. Not in terms of power but in terms of reasonable designs that wont make the game less fun for anyone.
    Last edited by Wrangeline; Mar 7th, 2010 at 02:06:52.
    Veteran of Equilibrium

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by heartless888 View Post
    maybe but it does tell you that traders think they should be able to have rrfe stacking with whatever buff BR gives, on top of GTH that makes NBD work well, on top of killing most peoples entire offense
    No it doesn't. You see, this is a classic error of yours. You read something strange into something that other people say.

    That's not what it tells me at all.

    It tells me that traders don't want BR to remove reflect-buffs. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. If you personally choose to read into that that traders want BR to stack with rrfe for big reflect-gain then that's quite simply a mistake by you.

    The goal for us is to remove an annoying factor of BR and for it to be designed better. What POWER it should have is completely besides the point. I personally will gladly have BR give the trader 0 reflect as long as it doesn't remove any buffs I have running (though then the nano shouldn't be called "borrow" reflect). FC could even add a long cast time on it as well to make it hard to use in PvP. It would still have its use in some situations and as long as it doesn't remove any buffs from my ncu, that would be fine for all I care.

    I think you will find that most traders don't actually care a whole hoot about how strong BR is. I think you will find that most traders atm just want it to be reasonable. Having BR remove reflect-buffs from our NCU is not reasonable as long as there are plenty of better solutions out there that aren't annoying.
    Last edited by Wrangeline; Mar 7th, 2010 at 02:27:21.
    Veteran of Equilibrium

  13. #73
    I always thought the borrow part should be minor and stack with rrfe.
    Posted by Seventh: Has something to do with the fact that RL speaking im 172 sm high and weight 96 kg, all of which come in muscle form (and guessing your reaction about forum pvp, yes i can log into webcam )

    Said the pixels lol..

  14. #74
    Now ignoring Guttless but not Esqi id say that Esqi makes sense HOWEVER

    Cant they just give the buffs that hit the trader a stacking order so it only overwrites lower reflects then what you get OR

    if Melee Reflect 1> and <5
    Target -2% >insert all reflects here<
    if self reflect melee >3 Self Modify 3% >insert all reflects here<
    etc

    Ok so its not flawless in the code but i haven't been typing those things for a long time now so most is lost to me, however i think you get the general idea.

    It would mean that..
    A: You would always be able to use it without fear
    B: If you got more reflect already then what it gives then it wont go of BUT you still debuff the target giving you up to a 30% dmg boost against everyone for 15sec.
    Rktim - 220/70/30 Omni Soldier.
    Imdrunknow - 157+/XX/15+ Omni MA
    Quote Originally Posted by IHaveHugeNick View Post
    Messiah has spoken.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Rktim View Post
    Now ignoring Guttless but not Esqi id say that Esqi makes sense HOWEVER

    Cant they just give the buffs that hit the trader a stacking order so it only overwrites lower reflects then what you get OR

    if Melee Reflect 1> and <5
    Target -2% >insert all reflects here<
    if self reflect melee >3 Self Modify 3% >insert all reflects here<
    etc

    Ok so its not flawless in the code but i haven't been typing those things for a long time now so most is lost to me, however i think you get the general idea.

    It would mean that..
    A: You would always be able to use it without fear
    B: If you got more reflect already then what it gives then it wont go of BUT you still debuff the target giving you up to a 30% dmg boost against everyone for 15sec.
    or you could go bump my thread about making rrfe self only, then everything is solved!

  16. #76
    At least enable us to be able to delete nanos again. BR is no use anymore unless i cant get a RRFE from a soldier beforehand. Since soldiers are everywhere its never been hard.
    BarginDealer The Trader
    Moretea The Enforcer
    Bahba The Adventurer
    Lesstea The Shade

    General Knights of Ka

  17. #77
    Thanks a lot for fixing our defense again. It's just plain wrong that a trader could live for more than 20 seconds.

    Now you only need to force us to use the snakemaster again so that opponents don't bother attacking us unless they are really bored, and killing a player in pvp range would be worth a brag again (a few years ago i got more 'zomg, grats' tells after killing an adventurer in a self buffed duel than you get nowadays for dinging 220).
    Syy

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Syyceria View Post
    Thanks a lot for fixing our defense again. It's just plain wrong that a trader could live for more than 20 seconds.

    Now you only need to force us to use the snakemaster again so that opponents don't bother attacking us unless they are really bored, and killing a player in pvp range would be worth a brag again (a few years ago i got more 'zomg, grats' tells after killing an adventurer in a self buffed duel than you get nowadays for dinging 220).
    Don't complain your nanomage you got trader god mode.
    BarginDealer The Trader
    Moretea The Enforcer
    Bahba The Adventurer
    Lesstea The Shade

    General Knights of Ka

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by -Barg- View Post
    Don't complain your nanomage you got trader god mode.
    I believe you will find that aside from the current implementation of BR on live (obvious vulnerabilities to BR notwithstanding), there is no such thing as trader god mode.

    As I'm guessing your comment is in reference to the nanomage absorb, I shall point out that in fact, a 5k absorb does not make any nanomage/profession combo a god.
    Lusthorne - 220 Keeper | Isellthings - 220 Trader - PvP-Config
    Soupknotsie - 220 Doctor | Blabberus - 220 Crat
    and many more

    Boost outdoor sk in Pen/Inf or adjust missions for mixed factions
    A different approach to GTH
    Quote Originally Posted by Sterva View Post
    If you felt that I was implying that you are an idiot, it's probably because you are in fact, an idiot.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Syyceria View Post
    Thanks a lot for fixing our defense again. It's just plain wrong that a trader could live for more than 20 seconds.

    Now you only need to force us to use the snakemaster again so that opponents don't bother attacking us unless they are really bored, and killing a player in pvp range would be worth a brag again (a few years ago i got more 'zomg, grats' tells after killing an adventurer in a self buffed duel than you get nowadays for dinging 220).
    classic
    Tergx 220 Atrox Trader | 220 Soli doc | 220 Enf & other toons
    Synergy Factor org ~ APPLY HERE

    When readin replies in AO forums, just remember ........ there is no cure for stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Syyceria View Post
    Come on, it took me just 5 minutes to kill a level 178 MA with health-drains and trader pets...our toolset does work

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •