Sep 19th 2010 9:57PM What is WoW Insider's relationship with Massively? Officially you call yourselves "sister sites," and you link each other's stories from time to time, but the general attitude I've seen over there seems to suggest you're more like Israel and Palestine than a real family.
Sep 19th 2010 9:49PM Have you and Massively's Eliot Lefebvre had a dialouge about this sort of thing? He's been making the very claim you attempt to address here in his Storyboard column - and quite passionately, too. In all honesty, it sounds like the folks on that site love to bash WoW because it's the dominant game on the market. You guys call each other "sister sites," and you link each other's stories from time to time, but you seem more like Israel and Palestine than a real family. Is there any chance in Hades we could see some real collaboration?
Sep 18th 2010 10:08PM If it's a 200% increase, then it should TRIPLE your regen, not double it.
Aug 29th 2010 8:47PM Let me explain in further detail. I have Asperger Syndrome. I have trouble reading the subtle nonverbal cues that most people pick up on unconsciously. As a result, I usually don't even realize I've stepped on someone's toes until they start screaming at me. I realize that most people wouldn't agree, but I for one really do wish people would just up and say something before it comes to that point.
Aug 29th 2010 8:36PM But subtlety just doesn't work for some people, like young children or people with Asperger Syndrome. There really are some cases where you need to directly say what you're feeling.
Aug 25th 2010 12:56PM I have a question regarding the new leveling flow in post-cataclysm Azeroth. Zone level ranges (derived from Blizzard poster Motive's list) tell only part of the story. Where are you directed to go after completing Cape of Stranglethorn or EPL? How do you enter Badlands or Duskwood? Is there some mechanism for crossing into different flows (ie. Hinterlands to Dustwallow) without hoofing it halfway around the world?
Personally, I'd really like to know why the level ranges for Badlands, Searing Gorge, Burning Steppes, and Swamp of Sorrows have been squashed to half the size of other zones. It seems to me like we should be able to enter Badlands at level 35 rather than 45. It would give us more options at that level, and not make it seem like those zones are being shafted.
Jul 2nd 2010 2:04AM I really hope someone in the CoH community reads this, because I just had an epithany about how the alignment system may work on a detailed level.
In the video, Matt Miller describes rogues and vigilantes as transitional states between hero and villain. As I was watching this video, I thought: "Why do we have two seperate transitional states? What's the difference?"
And right after that, I imagined a developer giving me the obvious answer to my own question, which is: they represent two completely different character archetypes. One is basically in it all for himself but has a certain code of honor, and the other will fight for the greater good by any means necessary.
Then it dawned on me.
What that answer basically says is that there are two types of alignment being discussed here - ends and means. Ends are the basic goal of the character - whether you want to protect people or cause trouble for them - and means, of course, are what you are willing to do to accomplish that goal. If you think about it this way, then vigilantes and rogues are indeed complete opposites. The vigilante pursues "good" ends through "evil" means, while the rogue pursues "evil" ends through "good" means.
Then I took that logic a step further. What happens when your character has both good ends and good means, or evil ends and evil means?
Lo and behold, you have heroes and villains.
So now, imagine the four alignment states presented in this video, arranged in a 2x2 matrix:
HERO (good/good) - VIGILANTE (good/evil)
ROGUE (evil/good) - VILLAIN (evil/evil)
If we think back to how Miller describes the side-switching process, what he basically says is that when you play a morality mission, you have an opportunity to change one (and only one) of your alignments from one state to the other. For example, he says you can start out as a hero and then play a morality mission to become a vigilante (change means alignment), and then go from vigilante to outright villain (change ends alignment) in the same way. From there, the cycle may continue on villain to rogue (means change) and back to hero (ends change). This is the way the process goes in Miller's explanation.
However, there is an interesting implication in my theory. Who says we have to change our means alignment before our ends? If I'm a hero currently and I want to be a rogue, do I really have to cycle all the way though vigilante and villain? The alignment matrix I just created seems to say no. If you could choose which type of alignment to change in a morality mission, then a whole new range of possibilities just opened up. I believe a question should go out to the CoH developers on whether the morality cycle really works in a single direction or not.
And there you have it, my epithany. Sorry if it went over your heads a little. I think I might be thinking more like a developer than a player sometimes. If you like my idea, then I ask that you spread it around! I'm not a member of the CoH community myself, but I still wanted to get this out.
Jun 18th 2010 5:28PM I wonder if that "getting hit while in cover" thing was just a gameplay quirk to prevent AFKing while in cover. Certainly such behavior needs to be addressed, though I'm sure the OP would prefer some other mechanic such as the mobs moving to your blind side (which requires advanced AI).
Another possibility, similar to what CCon99 said, is that it was just a server/client hiccup. That's just a technical fact of life with these games.
Jun 11th 2010 9:21PM Thank you for confirming once again that scaling better with gear isn't good. Now, please remember that as I say something that I've been too scared for my life to admit until now.
I have always hated TG.
I've hated it ever since the Wrath alpha leaks. When I first read about it, I said to myself, "That'll never make it to launch." What this talent did was bring the class balance tightrope act into forbidden territory. If we want classes to ever be truly balanced, we need to hold on to as many constant values as possible. Stat budgets used to be one of those constant values; you could count on the fact that everyone on the same tier had the same total stats, and you could safely tune abilities and talents around that assumption. With TG, however, you have to add yet another variable to an already overburdened equation. I for one think that's just not acceptable.
Now, I myself have been a warrior since the beginning, and so I understand everything you've said in the past about how we are undertuned and suffering. However, you yourself just agreed that letting us benefit more from gear is the wrong way to compensate for anything we may lack. Not only does this exacerbate the problems that the rage mechanic gave us, but it's causing the Arms spec to lag behind Fury in terms of performance. Regardless of anyone's personal fondness for the barbarian fantasy, we need to bite the bullet and attack the extra stats portion of TG directly. We can do this either by halving stats on equipped weapons or ignoring the offhander's stats. After this, we would still have the higher DPS of 2-handers. No more of this damage tax or extra miss chance or any other attempt to counterbalance the issue.
The bottom line here is that I want us to stop clinging to unrelated buffs in compensation for long standing deficiencies. Address the root of the problem, don't try to work around it. When someone is sick, you give him medicine, not tell him to lose weight.
And most of all, don't get so focused on leveling the playing field as a whole that you disturb the areas that were already level to begin with. That, by definition, is the opposite of progress.
May 13th 2010 1:04PM I for one am very happy to hear about Advanced Classes. There's an ongoing rivalry in WoW between hybrids and pure DPS classes. Pures expect to get special treatment because they can't fulfill mutliple roles like hybrids can. What no one wants to discuss is that since pures have a single role, they can pick and choose from whatever skills they want from all their talent trees, whereas a hybrid has fewer choices in how to fulfill his or her chosen role.
This system is the best of both worlds. Every class in The Old Republic will have the versatility of a hybrid as well as the flexibility of a pure class. Yes, we knew the general idea for some time now, but it's still nice to see specifics like this. I never suspected that we would have multiple skill trees for each role. That's like a WoW warrior having a fourth talent tree dedicated to tanking. I for one think that's awesome.
And by the way, I'm totally gonna be a Juggernaut.