AdrianDmitruk
-
Posts
1,328 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by AdrianDmitruk
-
-
Yeah except they put bubblestun in utilities instead of in lightning discipline.
Bubblestun, Fadeout, mobile innervate, and 30% DR while stunned. Oh, and this time I still get all my heals.
Given I can also reduce CD on stun and make it make you do less damage as well (first tier), and now further use alacrity to further reduce such cooldown, I anticipate being able to play a little bit too defensively.
While healing to full.
And making you pay for trying to kill me.
-
Sorc now king of 4v4 heals
Oooh, I know the answer! Nerf operatives!
-
I cracked up when I saw bubblestun available for all specs. It's still for the sorc only but really... this time the healing sorc can have ALL healing abilitys AND still have bubblestun.. ggwp -_-
And I main a sorc healer. I wasn't kidding about the UNLIMITED POWER. I already had to tell Bioware to tone down the sorc buffs they were going to give in 2.10 slightly, which they did, but now I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
-
Hybrids dead? LOL the bubblestun healer is back (with all teh healz to boot).
Sorc healers will perhaps be able to play too defensively while healing to full and making you pay. Especially given they can also take CD reduction on electrocute, continue to take Fadeout, take mobile heals and 30% DR while stunned...
Bioware doesn't know what they are talking about, they claim hybrids are dead, yet they put a core feature of lightning that has created huge hybrid balance issues in the past in utilities and not disciplines where it could be locked to the spec for which it was intended?
Allowing heals to take the other defensive utilities was probably appropriate but bubblestun is back with UNLIMITED POWER.
-
The thing i really would like to know about is are they happy with the resolve system, the short cooldowns on all the stuns, and the friggin overlapping stuns. I have seen and heard more complaints about stuns than anything else and has been ongoing for way to long with no answers, explination or anything that resembles giving to @#$%.
They did willfully and knowingly implement this, it was called 1.4.
And TTK has been in freefall since 2.0 as Bioware buffs DPS spec after DPS spec (never nerf, except for smash and orbital) as people complain their spec isn't wanted for NiM ops.
-
Holy Gravedig Batman!
But yeah, more than a year later, still hasn't been fixed. By now I have at least enough tank gear to "get by" tanking the HMs when I need a prompt queue pop...or when I don't mind waiting for a DPS pop but I want to alt-tab and do something else while I'm waiting...
I certainly don't want to be forced to tank just because I can't reliably hear GF pop sound if I queue as DPS and do something else while I'm waiting for the queue. Tacticals aren't enough as they don't give the same comms (nor should they).
Warzones don't have this problem; I can hear a warzone pop all the way from my restroom, so why does the GF pop have to be so ridiculously quiet?
I guess with Conquests getting more people to do flashpoints more people are noticing this?
-
"No."
Because "yes" is "too technically challenging."
-
sorry to bring this up, but I can't find an answer quickly with the wonderful "search" function:
Can you crit on Dark Project crafts? A guild mate says they had a companion come back "with great success" but no extra Dark Projects were created.
Thanks in advance for any replies.
I got lucky on crits and crafted 5 dark projects when I only had the mats for 3 (i.e. 2 crits). Saved me a boatload of mat costs for parking my ship outside Nar Shaddaa.
-
Hmm some good information here to keep in mind, just in case.
If we only have to pay reactivation for the initial room after a transfer, and the single reactivation fee covers all nine rooms (rather than having to pay to unlock them individually again), then:
1) Coruscant and DK stronghold reactivation costs are trivial.
2) Nar Shaddaa should automatically unlock because I got the first five rooms free as part of the subscriber perk.
3) I need to seriously consider unlocking subsequent strongholds with cartel coins, as Tatooine (and no doubt subsequent strongholds post-expansion) are significantly more expensive when unlocked with credits.
It definitely sucks that you are at number 3, and I hope Bioware does edit the FAQs to make them clearer. Thanks for the heads up for the rest of us.
-
Only the general minor and major XP boosts have bind timers, the GSF and space and WZ and FP boosts have no bind timers. Neither do companion gifts and a few other items.
I do remember opening a hypercrate and getting 8 of the minors, that must be why the issue stuck out so much to me. That's almost a full row just for the damn XP boosts...
-
I think that allowing the temp-bound XP boosts to be stackable alone would go a long way towards helping CM inventory management without negating the reasons why the bound timers exist. Say a hypercrate and a few miscellaneous packs purchased from leftover coins drop 5 each of 7 kinds of XP/social boosts. What's the harm of allowing the opening character to condense them into 5 inventory slots rather than bloating it up to 35, if the entire stack remains bound for the duration of the timer?
If merging timers is the issue, just have the merged stack use the longest bind timer from the items that were merged (so if you merge a just opened XP boost into a boost that was only bound for 18 more hours, it would reset to the full day and a half).
-
I'd also like to be able to legacy and/or CC unlock the different class tattoos (for example, SW tattoos on an inquisitor or Dark Jedi, BH tattoos on a smuggler, inquisitor slave scars on my sage who was liberated from the Empire, etc.)
-
The devs have been quoted saying that more than 25 causes game performance issues.
Fixing it would be too technically challenging
-
Won't work as tanks require endurance crystals placing them at 1936 to be at min max.
Not to mention set bonus issues for some classes (heal sorcs had this problem right up until release for 2.10 for example, we needed PVE set bonus which would bolster to 2012--hardly inadequate though still not magic 2018--though our PVP 4 piece finally got fixed).
Now if the game's set bonuses were perfectly happily balanced, I'd be fine with 2018, but when it takes 2+ years for devs to get around to fixing broke PVP set bonuses (like the above example from 1.2 all the way to 2.10), there should be some flexibility in such a cap. Perhaps 1936 for the tanks, perhaps require a combination of 1936 expertise and rating [insert current tier of PVP gear here, which changes from time to time] gear to keep out the people wearing bolstered greens mucking up such "flexibility" to drag down the queues.
-
i didn't realize they were planning on nerfing crafting i think thats a terrible idea.
Bioware hasn't announced plans but there is much butthurt and QQ from those who expect to coast on guild size without being willing to do what is necessary to gain conquest points.
FWIW, limiting PVE/PVP to dailies was also a horrible idea, Bioware swinging the nerfbat hard in response to exploit QQ. What Bioware should've done was make story mode worth less than HM, then further scale points by character level vs. content level--that would've fixed the Battle of Ilum exploit without starting the QQ-nerf cascade we now seem to be experiencing.
Those who were butthurt by the nerfs are now crying to have crafting nerfed too, rather than reverting the original nerfs. :/
-
Actually no, I'm not in a large guild. Nor do we have trouble usually placing in the top five. What I want is for there to be other viable ways to win a planet than just crafting, especially when, you know, it's not crafting week. Right now, nothing can touch the numbers. You have to craft in order to win. Which, is just well, really freaking boring, frankly.
Have you looked at the numbers quoted in this and the other crafting thread? There is no way, even if everything was set back to how it was, for PVP or PVE to compete with the numbers produced.
That's the problem.
I mean, seriously. If pvp week conquests are won by a handful of hard core crafters putting up millions of points on their alts - that's a broken system. If it's PVP week, you should win by doing mostly PVP. Same with GSF. Same with Flashpoints. It would be just as broken if PVP guilds won the crafting week by doing warzones.
Please reread the second sentence of the second paragraph you quoted from me:
The point values given by each activity (PVE, PVP, crafting) can then be rebalanced as necessary.But few of the anti-crafters seem interested in this. Instead they want crafting nerfed to be non-repeatable like PVP and PVE were made non-repeatable, as an over-reactive nerfhammer to various forms of QQ.
Level 55s farming level 10 SMs for points? Scale SMs to level of content/your level, and make SMs in general give fewer points than HMs.
Instead we have PVE made non-repeatable, then PVErs whined about PVP being repeatable so that too was made non-repeatable, and now we have everyone whining to make crafting non-repeatable--a solution that would hardcap literally any way a small guild might try to compete for that leaderboard spot.
The proper solution is to make all activities repeatable again but re-balance the point values to better reflect the difficulty and/or scalability of the content. That way small guilds could compete on being more active than larger, low-standards, mass-recruiting guilds and they wouldn't necessarily have to craft to do it if that wasn't their preferred playstyle.
-
I don't agree with many of the changes made by bioware (although some I think were needed, especially to level 55's running through level ten flashpoints and the Battle of Ilum exploits), but this simply isn't true. Look at the numbers people have posted in this thread about how much crafting brought for the first two weeks. Even when they were broken, gaming the flashpoints never brought in the kind of numbers hard core crafting does. PVP never could compete to begin with (despite what the hysterical carebears ignoring the actual math of the conquests thought), much less now.
You ignore the fact that guilds learned what mats would be needed while Strongholds was on PTS, and stockpiled them well in advance. That, while it temporarily did allow crafting to overwhelm even the Ilum exploits (which I acknowledged could have been fixed by a more surgical nerf to SMs instead of the anti-PVE sledgehammer), cannot last forever--eventually the pre-existing stockpiles will be depleted and crafting will be limited by grinding availability.
Honestly, I could care less about whether small guilds can compete.Translation: I'm in a large guild, and I want to coast to victory based upon the sheer size of my guild without having to worry about anyone smaller winning by higher individual effort.
To me, conquest becomes completely pointless when on GSF weeks, crafting wins. When on PVP weeks, crafting wins. When on FP/OPS weeks, crafting wins. That's just not fun. PVP planets should be won by doing mostly PVP. Same with FP/OPS or GSF. But you can't. If you want to win a planet, you have to do it by crafting. Which is a pretty sure fire way of getting a huge section of the player base to simply stop caring about conquests.So make PVE and PVP repeatable again. The point values given by each activity (PVE, PVP, crafting) can then be rebalanced as necessary. But gating everything behind some kind of hard cap per character (such as dailies) will make it impossible for smaller guilds who do wish to avail themselves of the new content to compete by exerting greater per capita effort than larger but more complacent guilds. Instead of having the kind of conquest race I described earlier in this thread, the results will be pre-determined by guild size at reset (barring utterly large-scale inactivity).
-
Should it be a contest of who has the most dedicated crafters on weeks/planets that focus on PVP? Should it be a contest of who has the most dedicated crafters on GSF weeks/planets? Should it be a contest of who has the most dedicated crafters on FP/OPS weeks/planets?
Cause that's what it is right now. Crafting blows everything else out of the water no matter what planet you choose, no matter what the week's theme or focus is. Having a few dedicated crafters with deep pockets, lots of alts, and banked stored materials blows everything else out of the water. Just look at some of the threads where people post their weekly numbers, ffs.
To me? That gets pointless pretty quick. Crafting should have only have the advantage on planets or weeks that favor it. I mean, would you be cool if PVP gave those kinds of numbers for the same amount of time involved? Would you think it's fair if on crafting week or a planet with a crafting bonus, a guild of dedicated crafters got blown out by GSF pilots because there's no way they could make the same amount of points?
Yeah, maybe it's helpful to take a look at why crafting blows everything out of the water. It isn't because crafting itself is an exploit, it's because Bioware took the easy way out of complaints about everything else by nerfing the ever-living **** out of it.
Week 1: ZOMG Guild X beat us by farming SM Battle of Ilum! Nerf FPs!
Rather than adjusting the points given by SM/HM (as they were both worth the same for some inexplicable reason), Bioware locks FPs and most other PVE sources of conquest points to dailies.
Week 2: PVErs: ZOMG now we can't compete against PVPers, because they can repeat their content and we can't!
Bioware responds by nerfing the everlasting **** out of PVP repeatability.
Week 3: PVErs and PVPers: ZOMG we're butthurt that a small crafting guild could dare place above us on the leaderboards! Nerf craftting!
Of course, people don't seem to consider that maybe weeks 1 and 2 were not handled properly, and now cry for nerfs to destroy the only remaining viable way for smaller guilds to compete, rather than demanding the nerfs be reverted (the nerf that started this whole failcascade could have been handled by fixing specific SM exploits instead). But Bioware used a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel and is now on the verge of breaking the whole system for any guild with less than 100 players (not alts) if it caves into the demands made on this thread.
-
Yup OP, I totally agree. Crafting is just out of control and if bioware doesn't set some limits on it, pretty soon most players are going to stop caring about conquest which just becomes a contest of who has the most dedicated crafters.
Or it will become a contest of which guild is the closest to the member cap, where quality and dedication of each individual guild member is far less important because of the individual caps.
-
wait beating the much larger guild you have a rivalry with wasn't reward enough? how so? If i was in that guild the thought of being worth 8 or so players in the other guild would have me smiling for weeks. Sure it's a lot of work but you act like it's something you have to do every week for it to be worthwhile content what's wrong with taking weeks off? heck if you retired from it after just that one time you're never going to lose bragging rights for that how is it it not worth it in and of itself?
The act of beating said guild was plenty reward enough!
However, you seem to have missed my point entirely, that being the proposed nerfs to crafting will render any repeat of said accomplishment impossible. If crafting for conquest points becomes gated by lockouts, the only way for my small guild to repeat such an accomplishment would be to expand to their guild's size as the per capita limit would apply to everything. The only way around it without diluting the closeness of the guild would be for each of us to literally make alts until we have, on average, eight times as many alts per player as they do.
Even if we suppose that the other guild only PVPs, and we're willing to PVP, PVE, and craft to attain the maximum breadth of point sources possible per character, we'd still need around 3 times as many alts per capita as them to have any hope of repeating that feat. Given that they also have alts, we would run into characters per server hardcaps very quickly.
-
preview is a static rendering, with no physics included.
Actual chars have physics on the armor allowing them to flap in the wind move while you move etc.
armor clipping is not something that can be easily solved withotu adding a ton of processing and collision detection which means you wont be able to drive through objects/people.
Is it really that huge of a deal?
Give us toggle then.
We have the option to either accept a static render of our character when mounted (thus sidestepping the physics limitation), as appears in the preview window. Eliminates clipping, but our robes won't flap in the wind and whatnot anymore.
Or we have an option to leave it as it is, accepting clipping in exchange for the physics.
Give players the choice.
-
Crafting deserves it's place as much as any of the other methods. Not all people on a pve server like to pvp. So that cuts the pvp points out for many people. Having said that I do agree there is an imbalance in the force as far as amount of points possible. I went with crafting because I have a ton of money and only like to play one or two toons a night. The rest I send on crafting missions. That has netted me in the last 3 weeks the following:
Week 1 - 885,265 points
Week 2 - 1,166,965 points
Week 3 - 847,637 points
*Screenshots supporting these numbers can be found following the link in my signature
I don't see how any "normal" human could push out those numbers through pvp or the other ways alone.
I'd like to see a max on all of the methods for getting points. No unlimited avenues. 10 times each of everything (maybe a few more) would stretch the involvement out for the duration of event. That would encourage involvement and effort, but not give any large advantage to any one method. Sprinkle in some more world boss and operations avenues for points or possibly some of the achievements (like the hero of XXX planet or the planetary champ achievements). 10 flash points, a few ops, a few world bosses, 10 pvp, 10 starfighter, 10 heroics, 10 flashpoints, and 10 crafting. For those that sleep 2 hours a night and play 22 hours....have imp side on a seperate counter.
I hate pvp, and despise being continuously forced to participate when they push them on people through these events and achievements. I picked a pve server for a reason. Same with starfighter - hate it. that's why they need to keep a blend. Not everyone wants to wander around a camped world boss or a camped champion.
In the end it is still a number game and it would be nice to see the number of active members factored in or different categories for small. medium, and large sized guilds.
Indeed your last sentence speaks to the huge imbalance in the Force that placing any kind of cap (other than the soft caps that exist because of mats/gathering times) will create in conquests based upon guild size.
Small guild? Don't bother if crafting is limited like PVP/PVE were; without a repeatable source of points you will have NO WAY of catching a megaguild that is many times your size. The only way for a small guild to compete for a place on the leaderboards under current rules will be to either merge into a megaguild, or mass recruit until the identity and culture of the guild (usually one of he big advantages of staying small in the first place) is gone.
Also, to all the people whining about how many mats can be farmed from level 2 and 3 missions: How are you consistently running those across more than one character? SWTOR is NOT dual box friendly as only one client will run on one computer at a time. The only way I know of to do it is to run a separate client on separate computers right next to each other, which would require a separate account for each client, and if someone wants to pay for 8 subs and/or freemium unlocks to run crafting I'm sure Bioware isn't complaining. If you're doing it only on the toon you're playing, 5 windows popping up every 4 minutes instead of every 34 is so incredibly distracting and disruptive to gameplay that it's probably not worth doing unless 1) you're desperate or 2) you play the game just to craft.
-
Crafting is literally the only option left for smaller guilds (like mine) to even compete in conquests without severely diminishing recruitment standards or merging. Running flashpoints was nerfed to dailies only because easily-farmable storymodes were worth just as much as hardmodes and farmed accordingly; PVP was nerfed because PVErs whined that their content was gated by dailies but PVP was not. Crafting is literally the last major conquests activity that is not gated, which leaves it as the only remaining option for small guilds that must amass very large per-capita participation to overcome a numbers disadvantage that can approach (or, if the small guild in question doesn't use many alts, easily exceed) a factor at ten.
For an example of what I'm talking about, reference this post, where I describe our guild taking on a rival eight times our size in conquests and squeaking by them by 30k points for a leaderboard spot. Oh, and anyone who thinks crafting is an "afk activity" can go ahead and gather mats on six toons on one faction, troll GTN, frantically place stronghold decorations to up the conquest point percentage bonus, and send all those mats over to the seven crafting toons from 8PM Sunday night to 5 AM Monday morning, right before server reset, just to keep my tiny guild in the race.
I suspect that anyone who actually tries to walk in my small guild's shoes will find that by the time you've gone through crafting/sending companions out across thirteen toons, the first toons you logged on are having their comps finish and it's time to start all over...there is a reason why my guild calls it "Troll Crafting!"
Also, unlike flashpoints or PVP warzones, crafting isn't unlimited. It's already gated by mats and the time/credits it takes to get them. It seems "unlimited" now because of stockpiled mats but those will eventually be exhausted.
If crafting is to be further gated by dailies or weeklies, then smaller guilds must be given an alternate, per-capita way to compete as the only way left to compete with everything hardcapped by dailies will be to disband and join a larger guild (or spam mass recruitment to grow bigger, which will have much the same effect albeit under the same guild tag). I get that people who don't want to craft are butthurt because Bioware took the dailies-gating nerfhammer to their preferred playstyles, but fixing that one problem by making everything dailies-gated will make the other problem much, much, much worse. Small guilds may as well not take part in conquests at all if the OP's ideas are implemented without other changes to adjust for them.
-
You bring logic and truth to the forums?
A small guild can compete. It seems, though, that many do not want to put forth any effort. Instead, they would rather ask BW to give them participation trophies, or to punish the guilds that do make top ten by banning them from competing again.
Indeed a smaller guild can "compete." The question of whether it is worth it, however, might be another story.
Take my guild for example. We have a small but incredibly tight knit core of five players (and another handful of casually active players as well). But I'm pretty sure the number of active, unique player accounts we have is less than 10. We can't even get all the numbers on at the same time to run operations as a guild. (FPs, yes, ops no, and I must pug the latter, but that's a different story.)
We also happen to have an intense rivalry with a guild about eight times our size, with about 40 players as active as we are, and this last week our two guilds happened to invade the same planet, which my guild effectively understood as a wardec.
We managed to place eighth, a mere 30k points ahead of their ninth place finish. We did technically "compete" and even win a spot on the leaderboards, but at what cost? I alone did 425k conquest points' worth of output, almost all of which was in the last two days of the event, because I had to work two double shifts earlier in the week and couldn't be on earlier.
Should a small guild literally have to be EIGHT TIMES as active and dedicated, as quantified by our results, both cumulative and per capita, as a larger guild simply to "compete?"
I set aside the question for now of whether or not a small guild should ever have a resonable expectation of placing first and taking a planet from the megaguilds as that is a very different question. But the present lack of tiers and/or per capita guild rewards creates an environment where smaller guilds who do wish to participate must heavily consider whether to merge and/or mass recruit, which in turn will dilute their identity and cohesiveness as a guild. By all means give the first place finishing guild an epic centerpiece or something for their guild ship. But guilds like us face a Faustian bargian of either slaving away at grinding (we placed only because I crafted for NINE CONSECUTIVE HOURS IN ONE SITTING RIGHT BEFORE RESET to keep up), diluting their cohesiveness/culture/identity by merging or lowering recruitment standards to fill up with warm bodies, or simply not opting to participate in the content at all. There's literally no incentive to run the content past the personal quota unless you know and expect your guild can place in the top 10, and even then the incentive is quite lackluster.
I really don't see a reason not to tier this that doesn't boil down to "I'm in a guild ten times your size and like it just the way it is so I can coast to victory without having to be nearly as dedicated as you."
Why is the Seneschal's Pack higher priced?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by AdrianDmitruk
I had stocked up on cartel coins (10k Monday night) in anticipation of getting 2 hypercrates. No doubt Bioware was expecting me to plunk down another $40 to absorb the price increase, and still get the two hypercrates.
Instead I just spent the coins I'd already bought; I chose instead to absorb the price increase by receiving less product (about 1.5 hypercrates), as I imagine quite a lot of people who had already bought CC in anticipation of the new packs (and expecting the 4.5k price) did.
If Bioware thinks they can make as much money with the new prices, there might be a bit of a flaw. I'd never really bought packs before GSH, only occasionally an armor set or something with coins saved from my sub/security key stipend. I bought the new shipment packs pretty much for the nice decorations (and got the centerpiece drop from each of the first two packs--the second shipment gave me 2 of the giant crystals too). But now with a 92% stronghold bonus, my decorating is almost filled out and what few individual items I still want, I'll just farm credits for on the GTN.
I think Bioware will find that a lot of people who had been spending beaucoup bucks on the new packs, and thus driving sales much higher than expected, are nearing saturation in terms of decorating. Which means that our capacity to absorb an increase back to the "historical" price is probably about to fall off a cliff. I'd consider buying another hypercrate next payday to fill out the remaining 8% at $40, but not for $60, especially when there's a substantial chance I'll get more of the same drops instead of new, unique ones.
I'm not upset or QQing about this. I'm just pointing out a headwind that Bioware might not be fully expecting when experimenting with the hypercrate prices.
I did get the altar of skulls, multiple ceiling tormented cages, and a very unusually high number of cartel certificates (10!) but no Revan statute. Given that patience will see me with Revan centerpiece statutes in 1.5 months anyway, not too concerned with the latter. I wasn't aware of the hunter's table or holo table until someone linked them upthread, and those will have to be GTN purchases for me.