Poor Solutions to Potential Problems

[crschoen]

- Web spell and the history of the Misery's Web clickie
- Threnal South, part 3

I think change is a good thing. I'd rather have a game that was always trying to improve than one that was static. But yeah the general theme has been one of over-reacting to the extreme and then trying to fix it back later.

[icculus]

Unfortunatly, The WDA's from April/May of 07 have been lost. I Assure you. the Change was indeed announced.

Yes, the evasion change was announced by a Turbine dev before the modifying module came out.

No it was NOT announced by a Dev. It was announced by one of the Forum moderators. It is the difference between Eladrin's and Tolero's posts.

[icculus]

SO FIle a bug report and lets get it fixed..... Probably isnt a Priority since your the only person in the game thats actually taken Fighter Mobility enhancments without Taking Mobility as a feat.

It is the exact same problem as Minos Legens - yet they are NOT fixing it. Just as with armor/encumbrance issues not being properly addressed, they are doing the same now with feat granting items.

The answer to your "why not fix everything at once" is probably due to lack of unlimited resources and prioritization of said available resources. They fixed evasion, they introduced a number of monk abilities that don't work depending on the monk's encumbrance, weapon selection, armor & shield setup. So work going forward is trying to use the actual rules.

I am not arguing that they need to fix everything - the Soverign Host knows that is not going to happen - but rather that if they fix SOMETHING, they fix that something properly.

If you do not have time to do it right, do you have time to do it twice?


As an aside, I apologize for getting dragged into an off topic debate about Evasion - it was hashed out 18 odd months ago, and I was merely using it as an example of where their 'fix' was halfassed and how many other similar abilities with the exact same problem where left unaddressed. I will not be responding to it any more.

[Borror0]

I am holding mine in my hand as I type this and it clearly does not state any limitations on Evasion - perhaps we are looking at different sections

True. There are no limitations on Evasion, itself, but there are limitations on the Evasion ability that rogues, monks and rangers get which is why Evasion was NOT wroknig as intended. Oh, and it was announced by Samera (before M4) to warn us that they will change it in M4.1

[xman26]

You then went into negative credibility calling the old system death penalty bettar than todays. You even admit the old penalty made people stop playing, yet think that a few hundred plat in repairs is more doom-worthy than actively telling players "sorry, come back in a week when your penalty wears off".

The new death penalty system SUCKS!

[Noctus]

The new death penalty system SUCKS!

I like that death now has any meaning for the Endgame.

Or when leveling up that you will never again end a quest with less XP than you started it.

[xman26]

I like that death now has any meaning for the Endgame.

Or when leveling up that you will never again end a quest with less XP than you started it.

I preferred the old way, and to the guy who said the old style deterred casual gamers form play, I largely beg to differ. My main was 2 lvls from cap before the orchard was released and I went 100K in the hole, got back on the next night and went right back to work at lvling, took me longer, but it sure as hell didn't force me to have to sell off my good gear or go buy plat from plat farmers like the new system does.

[Uska]

This is utterly untrue. WotC has even ruled on it, and you are wrong again.

anything gotten from wotc boards now I entirely discount.

[Uska]

Do you even read the threads you post in?

Check this out...

As an aside, Rangers are not listed, but in any event, the Evasion ability is limited by what grants it not actually limited in and of itself.

nvm

[Borror0]

I like that death now has any meaning for the Endgame.

Or when leveling up that you will never again end a quest with less XP than you started it.

Word.

[secondchance]

No it was NOT announced by a Dev. It was announced by one of the Forum moderators. It is the difference between Eladrin's and Tolero's posts.

well when that happend tolero was a merslask (sp?) I mean she wasn't a dev or a fourm mod she was a player .... funny to me that people still talk about that fix/nerf.... the batman builds of that time were up in arms to be sure...I guess you got burned too huh?

[Aspenor]

No it was NOT announced by a Dev. It was announced by one of the Forum moderators. It is the difference between Eladrin's and Tolero's posts.

wrong.

it was announced by Samera, a DEVELOPER that used to actually be lead, aka Eladrin's peer.

Evasion is now WAI, and nothing WotC has ever released says anything about strength and evasion, except that you cannot evade when encumbered.

For purposes of determining what kind of armor you can wear, all evasion is considered the same as monk and/or rogue evasion. There is no such thing as "ranger evasion," as a ranger gains evasion just as a rogue would.

[sephiroth1084]

Personally, I'd rather Turbine spent less time fixing meaningless and/or unimportant bugs, and devoted that time to addressing real issues.

Yeah, the Minos issue was clearly a bug. They said it was not WAI. They said they are going to fix it. As for the mobility issue--who cares? I'm glad that, in this case, they took the quick and easy way to fix a minor bug (remove toughness from item, insert 20 HP without any code causing it to not stack, done), rather than possibly running into a headache as to how they should alter enhancements to check whether a character has the feat or whether they are wearing an item with it (which would probably have been necessary for mobility, or they would have had to change mobility to an unnamed +4 tumbling AC bonus, which might have been difficult).

No one cares about mobility because it makes an incredibly small impact on the game, and because there aren't any good items that have it attached to them--if you want to give up one of the far more beneficial effects to be found on armor just to get an additional +4 AC when you are not attacking something, more power to ya. If you then want to leverage that into some additional AC via AP spent, /shrug.

Yes, Turbine needs to apply more forethought to their coding, whether fixing issues or creating new content/abilities/items, but using quick and easy fixes for things that don't deserve more time, or as placeholders (as with the shop bug) until they can do a real fix are things I 'd prefer they continue doing.

[Borror0]

It is the exact same problem as Minos Legens - yet they are NOT fixing it.

All unintended features are not equally worth fixing.

The Mobility enhancement line offers a very insignificant bonus. On my intimitank, I would never even waste one AP on that line, and I knew of the exploit for a long while now. It's just not worth the AP.

Your attack is dishonest.

Trying to argue that, since they found Minos Legends' Toughness to meet the prereq to Toughness problem, they should also fix Mobility is idiotic. The Toughness line is way more powerful than the Mobility line. That, alone, justifies that they could fix one but not the other.

Secondly, they didn't change Minos Legends' Toughness feat to not meet the prereq to the Toughness enhancement line. Rather, they changed it to give a fixed amount of 20 HP. Lazy? Perhaps, but laziness can be excused since they work on limited budget. They cannot fix everything.

If you look at it, you have two good reasons to not fix the Mobility line:

• The Toughness line is powerful (and thus the bug problematic) but the Mobility line is not (and thus the bug is insignificant).
• Minos Legends can be fixed with a quick workaround. Mobility can only be fixed via new complicated coding.

In other words, Turbine fixed the main problem and didn't waste their time on useless fluff. Sure, it would have been nice that they fix everything as it opens the door to more cool items. However, they didn't deem that to be worth their time, for now. Maybe it will, in the future, but not now.

"Lazy coding" can be a good thing, if it's to better spend your time.

[moorewr]

I like that death now has any meaning for the Endgame.

Or when leveling up that you will never again end a quest with less XP than you started it.

I agree it is much, much better now. I'd like a more persistent penalty attached to it.. I proposed a while back a small hit to quest XP, perhaps 1% per death, in addition to current penalties.

[dragonoffrost]

This may come of harsh but if you are getting extremely high repair bills with the new death penalty, I have a suggestion, as a dev so eloquently stated about something "DON'T DIE." I mean if I die 3 times in a quest I might see an ugly bill but it is very rare I die 3 times in a quest.

I don't think anyone should be dying in game if they are really doing things smartly unless they are in a relatively unknown quest. If people in party know the quest well enough you really shouldn't be dying.

[SableShadow]

I rant sometimes.

This is a pretty one.

[Lucian_Navarro]

Well put.

ZEIRA

[Gratch]

No it was NOT announced by a Dev. It was announced by one of the Forum moderators. It is the difference between Eladrin's and Tolero's posts.

Though Tolero, Tarrant, Sporkfire, et al. are listed as community relations, I would fully include them as "developers" of this game. They're the feedback agents and cullers of info to help decide tasks that the community would like in the game. Without them, there's no reason to post in this development forum - since that feedback line would be mostly removed. You think Eladrin/Codog spend all their time looking at every thread - though I'm sure they do peruse some (especially the ones that a community rep might point them to checkout).

A project with only coders is usually something only that coder is able to appreciate and use fully. To get a robust and multi-user-functional program especially of this magnitude you need the game coders, content development, artists, qa, the infrastructure people, qa, a tools/build group, qa, beta testers (extended qa), and community relations/feedback to keep your application on track. Plus the administration above it that um... pays the bills and supposedly keeps tasks on time/target/budget... and the people above them... who get payed too much, setup sex dungeons and keep the drug trade going.

[Aspenor]

Though Tolero, Tarrant, Sporkfire, et al. are listed as community relations, I would fully include them as "developers" of this game. They're the feedback agents and cullers of info to help decide tasks that the community would like in the game. Without them, there's no reason to post in this development forum - since that feedback line would be mostly removed. You think Eladrin/Codog spend all their time looking at every thread - though I'm sure they do peruse some (especially the ones that a community rep might point them to checkout).

A project with only coders is usually something only that coder is able to appreciate and use fully. To get a robust and multi-user-functional program especially of this magnitude you need the game coders, content development, artists, qa, the infrastructure people, qa, a tools/build group, qa, beta testers (extended qa), and community relations/feedback to keep your application on track. Plus the administration above it that um... pays the bills and supposedly keeps tasks on time/target/budget... and the people above them... who get payed too much, setup sex dungeons and keep the drug trade going.

his statement was irrelevant, and wrong, anyway. Samera was the one that announced the evasion fix, and Samera was the LEAD DEVELOPER before Eladrin, and after David Eckelberry.