Lord_Of_Sith
-
Posts
114 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by Lord_Of_Sith
-
-
Bump.. and first post updated with links to a few other threads.
-
On my Juggernaut I have had no problems with my AE taunt. But on my PT, since 4.0 hit, i can often click the AE taunt button (either through keybind or actual clicking with mouse) repeatedly and not have it trigger.
-
In the new loot system (at least in groupfinder story mode), each boss other than last boss drops the following:
1 gear token, rolled upon by all members of the group.
2 MK-2 items (same as hmfp drops), which are preassigned to 2 random members of the group and match their class, but not necessarily their role.
The final boss of the operation drops the following:
1 gear token, rolled upon by all members of the group.
1 random MK-2 item, rolled upon by all members of the group.
8 MK-2 items, with one preassigned to each member of the group.
-
This is a purely visual bug. For example, if the platform has dropped and you can't see it, you can still jump onto it and you won't fall through. This applies to at least Soa and Gharj, and presumably to any other areas of the game that involve falling objects.
Work around: Look at the object that you want to see fall. For some reason, the animation will not trigger until you look at the object. For Soa, this means look up at the platform you are waiting to see drop. For Gharj, this means look up at the Stalactites on the ceiling. Just keep in mind that physically they may have already dropped, as the animations do not match up with the server's physics.
-
While players that used the component for a Defiant earpiece now probably have a 220 rating item recipe according to what I'm reading.
That is correct; the cybertech earpieces are functioning correctly; reverse engineering the 216 does grant the proper 220 schematics. It is just Biochem that is broken as far as I know.
-
This is due to auto-loot. It seems that when you loot two quest items simultaneously, it only gives quest credit for one of them. If you turn off auto-loot and click the items off of a corpse one at a time, it should credit you for each one.
-
The new conquest schematics for biochem are bugged. The second RE of them does not provide an upgrade; it provides a schematic with a new name but identical stats to the item being RE'd.
For Example:
Defiant Bastion Package MK-16 (208) reverse engineers into Defiant Bastion Package MK-26 (216) which reverse engineers into Exarch Bastion Package MK-26, which is supposed to be 220 rating but instead is bugged and providing a 216 rating identical to the previous 216 item.
Defiant Bastion Package MK-16 (Item Rating 208, 282 Mastery, 331 Endurance, 137 Shield, 154 Defense)
Defiant Bastion Package MK-26 (Item Rating 216, 313 Mastery, 369 Endurance, 152 Shield, 173 Defense)
Exarch Bastion Package MK-26 (Item Rating 216, 313 Mastery, 369 Endurance, 152 Shield, 173 Defense)
The 3rd item that is supposed to be 220 rating is instead completely identical to the prior 216 item except in name; however, the materials required to create it are consistent with other 220 items (i.e. 3 strategic resource matrix among other components), and if you have RE'd that far you have already wasted valuable materials expecting to find the 220 item that is supposed to be there.
Update: Plenty of other threads popping up about this issue; it would be nice if a dev would give a response that you're at least aware of this.
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=846084
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=849743
-
So... what, that 0.1% just has to suffer for the good of all? And not even because BW staff makes the conscious decision in each case, but because they are automatically denying any sanction disputes via a form letter?
You railroad enough of those innocent people and it starts building up. "Expect to get an official punishment for doing nothing at some point" should not be a part of the game.
So to be clear, your problem with how they handled this exploit is based on a hypothetical group of people that may or may not actually exist? Show me a single person who accidentally sold >49 back before the launcher warning went up and received even a warning for it, and I might care. Not only that, but show me that person who was then denied sanction disputes.
It's not worth arguing over hypotheticals like that. Yes, it would be bad if such people were disciplined- However, the people complaining aren't ones that fall into that category. The people complaining are ones that were warned, ignored the warning, and are upset that EAWare followed through with their threat.
-
And what about those folks who were logged before the warning went on launcher?
Yes, there is merit to that - there was about a 2 hour window between the servers coming up and the warnings going up. But of the 100+ pages in this thread, how many posts are from people who were logged in before the warning? Maybe there were 1 or 2 people who were legitimately excited about this chair and rushed to buy it the instant the servers came up, but I haven't heard of any of such people receiving as much as a warning.
I agree that if you log in without a warning of a glitch, and perform an inconsequential act through the normal course of play, you shouldn't be reprimanded for whatever that act was. That's just not the case with 99.9% of players for this issue.
-
The customers shouldn't have to constantly read warnings and watch for errors so that they don't stumble into whatever Bioware screwed up this week and accidentally end up with a few extra credits.
problem.
How many warnings have they ever put on the launcher? Maybe they have before, but I can't remember a single time since launch that they have put a warning like this into the launcher itself. Hardly a requirement for customers to "constantly read warnings."
-
No it's not. Selling back 49 of the 99 chairs you bought isn't exploiting. It's playing "normally". I PvP quite a bit...I am very accustomed to taking full stacks of ranked comms when I turn in my comms. It may not be natural to you, but it is to me. For 99 credits I'm not even going to bother trying to hit 50 on the slider.
I agree that in a 'normal' situation, buying 99 and selling back 49 would be 'normal'. I do that too; even if you couldn't sell them back, wasting 2 seconds on 49 credits simply isn't worth the time. However, this wasn't a normal situation. They put warnings everywhere and specifically said not to sell back a single chair. Context matters, and not all situations are equal. On a 'normal' stretch of road, I'll 'normally' go 5 over the speed limit without thinking about it. If I see a cop, or when I hit an active construction zone with signs saying tickets are doubled etc., I 'normally' go exactly the speed limit.
The fact that they warned everyone about the exploit ahead of time makes this a not 'normal' situation. Given that they warned me that I could be banned for selling back a single chair, you can bet that I went and took the time to buy exactly 50. If you thought that it wasn't worth 2 seconds to avoid doing an action you were warned against, that's your judgment call to make but you have no grounds to complain.
-
Even so, the numbers don't add up to the 310-330% XP that was promised.
The original "310% post" is misleading for subscribers, it also forgot to account for the subscriber bonus.
The original post said '200% base with 25% boost and 30% legacy, for 310% total".
Corrected for subscriber bonus, but still in terms of what a subscriber would see:
[normal subscriber xp] / [subscriber bonus xp] = [actual base xp]
[actual base xp] * [double xp] = [double xp base]
[double xp base] * [1 + subscriber bonus + boost + legacy] = [actual xp gain]
100/1.25=80
80*2=160
160*(1+.25+.25+.3)= 288
For a subscriber, the original post should have said 288%, not 310%.
Following this, including a 10% guild xp bonus would make it:
160*(1+.25+.25+.3+.1) = 304
With all boosts and bonuses, a subscriber during double xp should get 304% xp.
However, you could view this another way as 304xp/80xp base = 380% xp.
A subscriber will receive 380% xp with all boosts in double xp, but compared to the normal 125% from the subscriber bonus, it will only seem like 304%.
The 310% (and 330% numbers) are correct for f2p players:
160*(1+.25+.3)=248 -> 248/80 = 310%
160*(1+.25+.3+.1)= 264 -> 264/80 = 330%
TLDR: The 310%/330% numbers are what f2p will see. At max boost, a subscriber will receive 380%xp, however it will only appear to be 304% if you compare it to the number including the innate subscriber bonus.
-
Eric, this is really getting old to keep repeating, trying to get an answer. I bolded for better affect of this fact: your own math says you lie about xp boosts! I will point out, yet again, that xp boosts claim a 25% increase, NOT the 20% you keep showing.
If it was, in fact, the 25% shown on the boosts themselves, it would be a boost to 70 xp, with no other boosts applied.
So, I ask again, and beg an answer: what is actually going on with these numbers?
This has been answered several times in this thread, the most recent being this:
A lot of people are confused about this, but the numbers are in fact correct."Normal(No Boost)" is not the base xp, it is the normal XP that subscribers are getting, which is higher than base xp.
The 25% boost is based off the base xp, not the subscriber xp. When you calculate the boost based on the base xp, it is 25%; if you calculate it based on the subscriber xp, it will be lower.
In the dev post when it says no boost xp is 56, they mean subscriber with no additional boost is 56. Meaning that the actual base xp (f2p without subscriber xp boost) is 56/1.25 = 44.8. The actual base xp is 45, not 56. Now, boost this with the 25% consumable (and 25% subscriber xp boost) and you have a 50% xp boost, so 45*1.5 = 67.
This is the exact number in the dev post; there is no conspiracy to steal your xp. They probably should have used the f2p (actual base) numbers in the original dev number, but the number add up nonetheless.
-
Seeing as barrel roll has a cooldown, I'm not sure how it qualifies as "spammable".
It lasts 3 seconds and is on a 10 second cooldown. If it isn't spammable, it's awful close.
Anyways, the point is that (and I apologize for non-exact numbers) a ship with under 700m/s speed (such as a gunship) with barrel roll can nearly indefinitely outrun a scout with 850m/s+ speed without barrel roll.
-
"I have no right to complain, stop being so entitled etc etc",
At least you got something right.
Follow that link and.... "SUBSCRIBER EARLY ACCESS IS NOW OPEN!" Official 'launch' is a month and a half out.
Fight in multiple battle zones!
2 maps is hardly "multiple"
Multiple: "having or involving several parts, elements, or members." I'd say that two technically counts, although I do agree that more would be nice. However, "EARLY ACCESS". They have already said that more maps and game-types will be available at launch.
Customize your Starfighter
Oh so we can change our ship and make them look completely different to everyone elses? Nope
Paint jobs (we know you love reskins Bioware), buying a new premium ship is hardly "customizing" your ship because it's an entirely new ship, blaster engine and trail colours OH WOW!!!!!
From a functional standpoint, there is a LOT of customization, between the number of components, component upgrades, crew passives, copilot ability... I think they did a great job of providing functional customization.
From a cosmetic standpoint, many functional components that you choose alter your ship cosmetically. You can also change the paint pattern, paint colors, blaster colors, engine trail colors, or if you really want something different you can throw down some money to buy a completely different look where you have all of those cosmetic choices all over again.
I'm not exactly sure what you want, a design-your-own spaceship feature?
Master a variety of ship roles
Gunship, scout, strikefighter OH BOY SO MUCH VARIETY! SO MANY ACTIVITIES!
Again, "EARLY ACCESS". They have already said that at launch, there will at least be a bomber variant as well. And you clearly haven't played GS if you think that all scouts are the same or all strike fighters are the same.
There isn't even a cockpit view and you still have to target someone in order to attack them. This is not a flight simulator, it's a mini game. Ground pvp is more interesting than this.
Oh no! This isn't something that it was never said to be. Also, given that you don't like ground pvp, its not terribly surprising that you aren't the biggest fan of space pvp.
This "expansion" doesn't even feel complete.
"EARLY ACCESS". It isn't complete. There is much more coming, including pve flashpoints that incorporate GS features. I can't wait to see what they come up with.
-
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was in a game where my team was winning ~975 - 700. The enemy team ended up 3-capping us (leaving us at 975), and we ended up winning solely on points from kills, the final score being ~1000-995. If that last kill had been 2 seconds later, we would have lost...
-
I simply dislike it being used as a travel method.
While you were posting this, I was making my own post in another thread, copy and pasted here:
An idea that I would propose: have barrel roll leave a 20s debuff on the player. If the player has the debuff, barrel roll is still usable but will only launch them ~2-3km rather than the ~8-10km or whatever the distance is right now. This leaves its missile evading and temporary dogfight relief 100% intact, and leaves its occasional use 100% intact, but would remove its utility as a spammable travel mechanism that leaves everyone else in the dust.
-
1) Ion Railgun:...
Suggested Fix: All Railgun debuffs (whether from Ion, Slug or Plasma) should have a numerical magnitude, and that magnitude should be proportional to the amount of charge.
Excellent idea; I support this 100%.
2) Barrel Roll: ...
The issue is not that Barrel Roll gives missile evasion--it's that it effectively negates the need for afterburners because it throws you so far forward for so little engine cost. ...
Suggested Fix: Remove Barrel Roll from Gunships and replace it with another missile-evading ability.
I generally agree with your analysis of Barrel Roll, but I think the issue is more than just gunships. Your statement of "it effectively negates the need for afterburners" is dead-on and applies to all ships alike. I know I personally take it on my fast scout because it is the fastest form of travel. I think the ability needs some tweaking for all ships, to bring it back to what it is supposed to be: a missile evader, not the optimal form of travel.
An idea that I would propose: have barrel roll leave a 20s debuff on the player. If the player has the debuff, barrel roll is still usable but will only launch them ~2-3km rather than the ~8-10km or whatever the distance is right now. This leaves its missile evading and temporary dogfight relief 100% intact, and leaves its occasional use 100% intact, but would remove its utility as a spammable travel mechanism that leaves everyone else in the dust.
3) Bypass and Slugs: Other threads have been posted about this, but in short, a fully-upgraded Slug Railgun, when combined with the Bypass co-pilot ability, can take out a Scout in one shot--regardless of how the Scout has built for defense.
For others' reference, here is a link to one of my posts made in one of the many threads on this issue:
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=7022049#post7022049
My ultimate conclusion on the issue is that bypass should be reduced to 34% rather than 35%, which would remove a gunships ability to have guaranteed one-shots on scouts that are built for hp (wouldn't remove crit/RNG one-shots).
4) Burst Laser Cannons
I have no opinion here, as I have not used these or noticed them being used against me (thank you distortion field
). However, everything you said seems to make sense. -
I agree, OP. Taking anything but Barrel Roll (on any ship) is pretty much self-gimping at this point.
I'm really a fan of retro-thrusters myself. But on the ships that don't have it, I agree that there is absolutely no reason to use anything other than Barrel Roll.
Perhaps they should add a new engine option for all ships that is merely a missile-lock breaker with no movement? This would be more or less useless to people dogfighting in the open (you'd have a new missile lock on you immediately), but would be tremendously useful to people satellite hugging or playing in confined areas.
There is a distinct trade-off to letting players break missile locks without movement; I am fine with giving players that choice.
-
I spend time/money to invest in something I see as written.
BioWare changes what is written.
I get time/money (req) back.
I think we all can agree that at some point, sooner or later, the devs will need to make adjustments to various components in order to maintain balance in GSF.Clearly you spent time/money to invest in something that you expect to change.
Regardless of what components do get nerfed, I think it is vital that when such a nerf occurs, the upgrade tree for that component gets reset for everyone, and any requisition spent in upgrading that component is refunded.
I am honestly conflicted as to whether or not I agree with this.
I don't think any comparison can be made to character talent trees; talent points have always been freely refundable, and have had free regardless of frequency for quite some time. Further, there are a finite number of talent points that one may gain, while one may always earn more requisition. In fact, once you have mastered a ship, you gain an extra 10% requisition while using that ship.
I think that major tweaks/nerfs which change the use of an ability should be refunded (e.g. if rocket pods were changed to have a lock-on time), but minor tweaks should not (e.g. a damage boost upgrade is changed from 5% to 4%). However, I don't like the idea of arbitrary decisions for whether something is 'major' or 'minor', hence why I am conflicted as to whether or not I agree with your statement.
I also recommend that all of the refunded requisition be in the form of Fleet Requisition, even if the original upgrade purchases were not all made with Fleet Requisition. Why? Because it is very possible that a single overpowered component heavily influenced a player to focus on upgrading one particular ship. That player may have spent an inordinate amount of time playing that ship in particular in order to earn the requisition necessary to upgrade the broken component, or he may have used cartel coins to convert other ships' requisition into Fleet Req in order to do so.This would be truly absurd. I can't see how this is a good idea aside from wanting every player to only use FOTM OP components. You say that someone may have only chosen a ship because they wanted a single overpowered and broken component, and if that broken component is fixed they may not want to play that ship anymore. As with pursuing broken items, it has always been an at-your-own-risk activity with the expectation that it will get fixed sooner-or-later, the benefit being a temporary boost over other players. Should healers and dps have been given full wz/rwz comm refunds when they fixed reactive warding relics? Few players would say yes (although I'm sure that those utilizing the exploit would do so).
-
That said, I do have one correction to my original premise, which is that there is no effective counter to the one shot kill for a scout, and that is that with the Sting/Flashfire variant scouts are allowed to carry directional shields which do not have the -30% penalty. Carrying that shield and reinforced armor it is possible to have a scout build that can withstand a mastered railgun using Bypass. If you are charging and double front them, it's even possible (although unlikely) to survive two.
A sting/flashfire using fully upgraded directional shields, large reactor, and reinforced armor, and a companion with 10% shield capacity boost, will have 1140hp and 1820 shields. I have seen the number 175% thrown around for putting directional shields in one direction; if this is the case, there would be 3185 shields in that direction.
So we're looking at 3185 shields, 1140hp.
A slug railgun with damage upgrade does:
No copilot ability activated: 1232 shield damage, 528 hull damage. Takes 3 hits to kill.
Bypass activated: 616 shield damage, 1144 hull damage. One-shot (1144 hull damage regardless of shield strength).
A slug railgun with crit upgrade does :
No copilot ability activated, no crit. 1120 shield damage, 480 hull damage. Takes 3 hits to kill.
No copilot ability activated, crit. 2240 shield damage, 860 hull damage. Takes 2 hits to kill.
Bypass activated, no crit. 560 shield damage, 1040 hull damage. Takes 2 hits to kill.
Bypass activated, crit. 1120 shield damage, 2080 hull damage. One-shot.
Can still 1-shot even if you jack up shields and put them all in the direction of the shot. However, using directional shield can allow you to survive a normal crit hit.
-
But If anything I'd reduce the time it's active or reduce a few %. But EVERYONE can use Bypass so it's not like it's Gunship only.
The fact that it isn't gunship specific is why it's an excellent candidate for tweaking, to fix many 'gunship is OP' complaints. If bypass is lowered to 34% (from 35%), scouts would be able to choose a build (maxed hull hp armor) that would withstand a non-crit gunship hit
Scouts can adapt also many ways to make yourself able to withstand a bypass snipe.
As it stands, there is no way for a scout to withstand a bypass snipe, aside from not getting hit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the OP and I are on the same page regarding one-shotting scouts with gunships:
1. If the gunship gets a crit, it is a guaranteed one-shot on a scout. This is fine; it is left to RNG to get that crit. To repeat, we do not have a problem with gunships one-shotting people with crits.
2. If there is a guaranteed and controllable one-shot mechanism/build, there should be a counter-build available. This counter-build would allow a scout to choose specific components to avoid that guaranteed and controllable one-shot. However, this counter-build would still leave the scout vulnerable to one-shots from crits. It would also be vulnerable to one-shots if they are at anything less than full shields/hp. The only one-shots removed from the table would be 100%shield/100%hp noncrit bypass shots.
Any fundamental disagreements with those two premises probably won't be resolved through any forum discussion, as we just envision the ideal game in different ways.
Now our idea for how to fix #2:
Currently, bypass is a 15 second active ability that grants 35% shield penetration. When added to the natural 30% shield penetration (and 100% armor penetration) of a slug railgun, the 65% shield penetration allows a gunship to one-shot a scout regardless of how strong their shields or hull are. Bypass lasts for 15 seconds; this means that a gunship gets ~4-5 attempts to hit a target, and a guaranteed one-shot if they get a single hit.
If you look at my post linked in the OP above, you will see that most one-shots don't deplete the targets shields; the shield piercing is just so great that it depletes the hull regardless of shield strength. As it stands right now, there are a number of ways to boost shield strength, several ways to boost damage reduction, but one single way to increase hull hp: Reinforced armor. As shield strength and damage reduction are irrelevant against bypass gunships, this leaves hull hp, shield penetration, and gunship damage as the only factors in the one-shot equation.
To pull in numbers from the linked thread above (and if you disagree with my math, let me know and i'll take a look to fix it):
A scout has 950hp. With maxed reinforced armor, it gains 20%hp, bringing it up to 1140hp.
A Slug railgun w/ damage for T5 Upgrade, Bypass activated deals 616 shield, 1144 hull damage.
You'll see that if a bypass shot did 5 less hull damage, the scout would survive with 1hp. This is all we are asking for, less than half of a percent reduction in damage.
To fix this gap, you could
1) buff all scout base hp by 4 (after reinforced armor it would have 1145hp, leaving a scout with 1hp after being shot);
2) reduce base slug railgun damage by 7 (after 10%dmg upgrade and 65% shield piercing, it would deal 1139 hull dmg, leaving a scout with 1hp after being shot);
3) reduce base slug railgun shield piercing by 1% (would deal 1127 hull dmg, leaving a scout with 13hp after being shot)
4) increase reinforced armor to 21% instead of 20% (scout would have 1150hp, leaving it with 6hp after being shot);
5) add a new companion that gives +X% hull hp; likely numbers in-line with other companion buffs would be 5-10%, and that would be enough
6) reduce bypass shield piercing by 1% (gunship would deal 1127 hull dmg, leaving a scout with 13hp after being shot).
To address these: #1-3 are bad ideas; buffing a single ship or nerfing a single ship is just not necessary at this point in the game. #4 isn't terrible, but the Rycer (default strike fighter) doesn't get armor, so it wouldn't receive the buff while everyone else does. #5 would be my favorite out of all of this, but I won't count on them adding new companions or drastically changing existing ones. That leaves #6: reduce bypass from 35% to 34%. This would be an evenly applied negligible impact change, with the exception that it would allow scouts to build against bypass one-shots.
To be clear, this change (reducing bypass from 35% to 34%) would still allow any gunship to one shot any scout through a critical hit. It would also allow any gunship to one shot using bypass any scout that doesn't have fully upgraded reinforced armor.
This would simply give gunships the option of making a guaranteed one-shot build (which can also RNG one-shot through crits), but give scouts a possible build to avoid guaranteed one shots. The shot would still leave the scout crippled, and if they were already damaged (hull or shields) they would still be one shot; it would just avoid literal one-shots from 100%shields/100%health.
-
I'm pretty sure evasion just makes the centre leading reticule smaller and you can still hit somebody with over 100% evasion. I've hit my friend who I know has over 100% when he jousts me.
I have never been hit when I have distortion field active (with the exception of rocket pods), running at 41% evasion passive or 116% with distortion field. I am going to assume that the reason you could hit your friend is because your accuracy brought his evasion below 100%. All weapons have at least 110% accuracy at close range and you very possibly use a companion that gives 6% accuracy, meaning that with anything less than 41% passive evasion + 75% distortion field active, you won't have true 100% evasion at close range.
However, add in other ways to boost accuracy/lower evasion (targetting telemetry, anyone? 10% accuracy and 5% evasion reduction; or the copilot -20% evasion active) and it is definitely possible to get around high evasion.
-
You sure you didnt get into an in-progress match? that's happened to me a few times.
If he's talking about the same thing that I've seen, it is definitely before the match begins. Someone is able to spawn during the ~1:30 prep time before the match. Gives them enough time to capture at least one node and rack up a few points before the game even starts, also allowing turrets to spawn before the enemy team can even get there.
). However, everything you said seems to make sense.
New and all previous numbers for rank50 inf healing companion
in General Discussion
Posted
Beyond looking at the raw numbers, I think it would be far more helpful to look at the hps in an actual rotation. I don't know how the AI actually chooses a rotation, but for the sake of rough math to make a point I'll assume it goes soothe->mending->ameliorating force->ameliorating force-> sooth->ameliorating force->ameliorating force. This would be a sustainable, repeatable rotation lasting ~15s. Doing the math for the actual hps (based on your numbers and giving a % comparing to original) comes to:
Original: 7064 hps (100%)
Nerf: 2087 hps (30%)
Current: 5185 hps (73%)
Again, probably not the exact order that companions would use (actual rotation probably sub-optimal,making these numbers a bit high), but also not account for crit (meaning these numbers a bit low), but it should be a rough estimate good enough for a thread like this. For 1 target healing, that means the original 4.0 companions could heal about as well as a fully min-maxed pve healer utilizing all cds. Clearly too high for a companion, which is why people were kicking average healers from hmfps/tacticals and replacing them with companions.. However, 2k hps is easily attainable by a dps offhealing, so clearly too low. I'd personally say 5k hps is too high, but not high enough that people will kick healers out of gf content to intentionally replace them with companions (particularly with the lack of ae healing ability), thus healer comps should now be usable but not game-breaking the way they were. Problem solved.