Autorch
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by Autorch
-
-
What I've learned from this thread, thanks to being enlightened by several posters here, is that apples are equal to oranges. That's right! The phrase "comparing apples to oranges" to describe dissimilar things? Is totally wrong!
It's wrong, you see, because apples and oranges are both fruits! They both have seeds, both are mostly round in shape, both come from trees, both are eaten by people, and both are available as juices at my grocery store!
Because of those several similarities, that means they're actually equal and comparable! So apples really are the same as oranges!
That was sarcasm.
Seriously, you who are suggesting things like Mage to Rogue is the same as Sorcerer to Assassin, you have failed to correctly perform the most basic logical operation: identity and comparison.
Logic and facts are not matters of your opinion or belief. You may be entitled to the one but you are not entitled to the other. You believing or feeling or thinking that two objects are the same does not make them so, and providing a list of similarities does not make them so either. They're objects, they're objective, they exist outside of what you think about them. Objects can have a great many similarities yet still be an invalid comparison.
This post will now be followed by a flood of offended people who STILL don't understand identity and comparison, and will put forth a list of specifics and superficial differences to prove a point that, in their ignorance, they are actually making for the "other side" of the argument because their logic is bad at a 2+2=5 level.
Seriously. Have AC respec or don't. But if you haven't learned to think properly first, you really should get that straightened out before putting any more time into an MMO.
-
Saying that Sorceror to Assassin is the same scope of change as going from Mage to Rogue is to view things through a different lens from the OP. It's oversimplifying.
From an object-oriented programming perspective, that comparison isn't actually valid--that's pretty much comparing apples to oranges.
Being a programmer myself, let me try to explain it like I and obviously several other posters understand it, which is through the lens of polymorphism and inheritance. This just in the interest of fostering understanding.
To an OO programmer a "base class" means a code object that has the ability to go from general to specific in its definition, as other classes inherit its basics.
(Technically a base class can refer to something that itself inherits from other even more generalized base classes, but in loose talk it's kind of like the atom--you know, you don't need to divide it any further. It's an adult with no parents. Inherits from nothing.)
Inherited classes take a base class and bolt onto it, retaining all the features and capabilities of the original, and then extends and modifies them. Inherited classes move the definition of the object from the generalized to the specific.
Example: 4-Wheeled Land Vehicle is my base class. It has four wheels, rubber tires, an engine, and other base characteristics you'd expect from most 4-wheeled land vehicles.
Now, I make a new class that inherits from 4WLV, and I call it Sports Car. I don't have to create things like four wheels with rubber tires and an engine, because those already came with 4WLV. I might make the tires smaller and wider, the engine a V8 and turbocharged, and so forth.
But the base characteristics are the same: Sports Car HAS AN engine. Sports Car HAS 4 wheels and rubber tires.
Then I make another class that inherits from 4WLV, and I call it Truck. Truck is quite different from Sports Car. The engine is different, the tires are bigger, there might even be more than 4 wheels. But it IS going to have an engine, and there will be at LEAST four wheels.
From a programmer's perspective, I can absolutely change a Sports Car into a Truck. When that happens I lose everything that was specific to Sports Car, and I gain what Truck does, but I always retain what 4 Wheeled Land Vehicle had for me. I retain the commonality.
That's called casting--changing an object of one type to another, which you're able to do when they inherit from the same base--4 Wheeled Land Vehicle in this example.
Let's say I have another base class: Fixed Wing Air Vehicle. It has wings, minimum two engines, and so forth. From Fixed Wing Air Vehicle I make two new inherited classes: Fighter and Passenger Jet.
Now, I can turn a Sports Car into a Truck, and I can turn a Fighter into a Passenger Jet. I cannot change from a Fighter into a Truck, because I can't change the base class--I can't change a 4-Wheeled Land Vehicle into a Fixed Wing Air Vehicle.
Thus, the comparison of changing Mage to Rogue is the same as the comparison of 4-Wheeled Land Vehicle to Fixed Wing Air Vehicle. It's invalid. They are two different things at a base level.
One's combat mechanic is Energy and the other is Mana in that situation; this is as different from each other as "flying" is to "driving".
For nitpickers, if you're wanting to interject at this point that there are very different WoW classes that still share the same base combat mechanics, congratulations, you've missed the point. In that situation you're simply describing a different level of inheritance anyway.
That's why the comparison of changing Sports Car to Truck is more accurate. They share the same base class. They are NOT two different things at a base level. They are both "driving".
That the base-class/inherited class thing is how to accurately describe what's going on here is very obvious to any OO programmer. It's just not even up for grabs. A base SWTOR class shares the same base combat resource mechanic, it shares its class quest, its starting planet, one of its talent trees, a slew of its abilities, and so on.
It's a base class absolutely, and the AC's are the inherited classes because they retain the base class and then modify and extend that.
So in terms of this discussion, the first group is saying "can we change from Car to Truck?" and the second group is going "NO! You can't change from Fighter to Truck!", and the first group is going "but that's not what we said."
Now, you can chalk that up to a difference of perspective. As a matter of logic, the logical operation here is simply the comparison of similar things. Those in the second group have a much tighter definition of "completely different", and aren't really open to much nuance on that.
The first group is really on stronger logical ground. OK, if Mage to Rogue is as similar as Sorceror to Assassin, then you should be able to name a list of class abilities that Mages and Rogues share, and the amount of the same resource it costs them to use.
There aren't any, because Rogues don't use Mana any more than Mages use Energy.
In response, you definitely know there's a list of the class abilities that Sorcerors and Assassins share: same ability, same name, same combat resource. And you know they share way more than just the abilities.
That's why the WoW classes comparison isn't accurate--it's massively oversimplified. People saying otherwise are misrepresenting the OP, which means you're attacking a straw man, aka "He Didn't Say That, But You Said He Said That".
-
Regarding the upcoming improvements to UI customization, how would you compare what you're intending to provide vs. a theoretical WoW interface using three of the most popular UI mods--XPerl Unit Frames, Bartender, and CTMod (close, on parity, not even close, 72%--however you choose to answer)?
Follow-ons: If what you're intending to provide doesn't hold up well against that standard, do you have intent to continue improving it until it does? Will you ever crowdsource any of this and allow a mod developer community to take their own shot at it?
-
Another vote here for the LFD/LFG tool, agreeing with all the reasons given for and disagreeing with all the reasons given against.
Please, Bioware, make this a top priority. I just don't have the time to spend idle trying to get a group. It is agonizing.
-
Just as the title implies, please provide a sticky at the top that shows what suggestions are in what status.
In other words:
If some version of a suggestion is in progress, say so and for what expected release window, with the standard disclaimers of it's done when it's done and so forth.
If some version of a suggestion is under consideration, say so.
If some version of a suggestion is not under consideration due to a revamping or improving of another feature that may obsolete the suggestion itself, say so.
If some version of a suggestion is not under consideration simply because it's been considered and rejected, say so.
The idea here would be to reduce redundant traffic on suggestions and give some feedback to people that they're being heard. I don't see any direct evidence that this is the case in any suggestion thread that I've read, other than the notifications that a thread exceeded a post count.
Don't get me wrong, I know you're listening. I watched an interview with Casey Hudson a while back and I found it extremely interesting as he described the design process for ME2 and ME3, where they attempted to gather all feedback from everywhere, categorize it, and attempt to act on it.
I'm hoping and believing you're doing something similar, but again, there's no direct evidence of it beyond scattered posts, interview comments, and videos that indicate you are working on some of the things suggested (whether by coincidence or not).
I'd make such a sticky locked and uneditable except by you, otherwise it'll just turn into another thousand page thread of one-line worthlessness--see any other unlocked sticky post for evidence.
-
I actually find this one of the most annoying things when I'm in a group. The number of clicks and mouse moves required to get a target icon up with split-second timing is completely needless. These are crucial tools for coordination and they need some love.
Two levels of suggestion--the first within (I believe) what you've already got, and the second, beyond what you've already got.
First (improve):
- Please make targeting icons a top-level menu, not a second-level flyout. Since there ARE NO OTHER first level choices on a right-click of a mob portrait, WHY are they on a flyout at all?
- Please make targeting icons hotkey assignable, and button-barable.
- Provide a possible rights level options for targeting icons, like only the party lead and/or his designated assistants can place icons when this option is turned on.
Second (enhance):
- Make the targeting icons also contain customizable text, so that you can put short directions on them for the IQ-challenged in your pickup group. Like "[character name] CC" and so forth. If I had a dime for every time I said in party what the icons meant and then had somebody do exactly what I said not to, I could retire. There's no fix for stupid or rude, but there are assists for those who aren't, right?
- Please make targeting icons a top-level menu, not a second-level flyout. Since there ARE NO OTHER first level choices on a right-click of a mob portrait, WHY are they on a flyout at all?
-
Yes please. Also allow multiple authenticator keys per account. I don't want to carry my physical fob around to login to this site when I'm away from my home PC.
-
There’s a lot of suggestions around improving space combat, a lot of which are about changing it, or adding on something fundamentally different (PvP, what amounts to X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter, etc).
Those ideas are definitely worthy of consideration, but I wanted to forward some suggestions that would work if large changes like that aren’t in the pipeline. Or even if they were.
I have to say, I like space combat for what it is. Doesn’t mean it can’t be more, but I still have a lot of fun doing it. It beats the poop out of any WoW daily I can think of, for comparison.
Yeah, it’s not Wing Commander, Independence War, or Freespace, but I’m not sure I’d like it any better if it was. It’s a nice thing to be able to do in 5 minutes when I don’t have time for an actual play session. Get some creds, XP, finance some more crafting missions, and then log off. I like it. I’ve kind of adjusted my expectations of it, I guess you could say.
Anyway, the suggestions:
Content
- At 50 there’s not enough rewarding content. There should be 50-level or hardmode versions of unique earlier content (like the escort mission, the ace fighter attack, and the station attack) and some rewards to match, even if it’s just cash and more commendations.
- More content, period, would be welcome. It’d be nice to see one new 50-level space combat mission for every new Flashpoint you release. Although I suppose the map would get pretty full.
- More cleverly hidden bonus objectives, please.
UI suggestions
- Even though this isn’t Wing Commander, Independence War, or Freespace, some gestures in the direction of a UI like that would be sexier than it is now. Right now it’s an MMO UI that works just fine for the railshooter that it is, but if the UI were more HUDdy looking, that would be super cool.
- The numbers for ordnance should be the number remaining, not the number in reserve and you have to look at the tube or magazine status to get the true tale. Like proton torpedoes—when I see “0” I want it to mean 0, I don’t want to have to examine the torpedo icon to see if it’s lit or not. Same thing with the missile mag. Given that it auto-reloads and you are really just concerned with how many shots total you have left, have that number be accurate as well. It’s not like this is an FPS where the clip size and what’s in it matters terribly much.
- A better, more distinct locking animation and sound for the proton torpedoes would be nice. They also need a more distinct visual and firing sound. They’re very hard to see on a busy screen. I’ve fired more than one at the same target because I thought I hadn’t gotten the previous one off.
- I’d like the ability to define the keys for space movement, and commands as well for that matter. Right now I ignore the “turn” commands in regular movement; I turn with the mouse when not in space. My G13 is mapped to forward, back, sidestep left/right. I’d like it if my sidestep keys controlled the ship left/right, and not the turn keys.
Proton torpedoes
- Proton torpedoes and missiles should be toggleable like power conversion is.
- If you’re going to make it such that some targets are only torpedoable, fine, but warn that in the mission objectives.
- If you’re going to provide content where there’s more than 4 possibly torpedoable targets, capacity upgrades to the tube that are available to work toward would be nice.
Mission Summaries
I’d like to see post-mission summaries, with stats like:
• Blaster shots fired/Blaster hits
• Missiles fired/Missile hits/Missile kills
• # of fighters killed/Total fighters
• # of heavy fighters killed/Total heavy fighters
• # turrets destroyed/Total turrets
• # critical systems destroyed/Total critical systems possible to destroy
• # large targets destroyed/Total large targets possible to destroy
Further awesome here would be historical displays and graphs to see improvement or decay from the day(s) before, and further rewards for better performance (cash, titles, commendations, etc). You can really take that idea quite a bit farther, of course. Server leaderboards, cross-server leaderboards. Go hog wild.
Rewards
What’s available at the vendor, after you’ve worked your way through the ship upgrades, isn’t much. The pilot outfits are cute but not terribly useful. The purple bag for 380…if you’re going to make something that expensive, I think it ought to be less than random. I’ve seen other posts on the topic of how randomness in bags and crafting ought to be more deterministic and less random, and I’d have to say I at least partially agree. A couple of weeks of daily space combat to be rewarded with a purple that you can’t use is pretty lame.
I can’t think of much non-obvious to put at the vendor, but more and useful custom gear would be good, to include weaponry and mods. A vehicle perhaps, maybe visual ship customizations. Possibly trade fleet commendations for daily commendations at a ratio. The recent addition of daily commendations to one of the space missions, I thought that was a nice change.
Anyway, thanks for listening. I really like your game and I hope that space combat gets some more love in the future.
- At 50 there’s not enough rewarding content. There should be 50-level or hardmode versions of unique earlier content (like the escort mission, the ace fighter attack, and the station attack) and some rewards to match, even if it’s just cash and more commendations.
-
Agreed to all of the above.
And even if it's not possible to adjust the companion pathing, surely it is doable to prioritize what the mouse hits when you click. This is the case in combat, when you can click right through the companion to target the enemy.
If you're over loot or a door or another actionable object, prioritize THAT, don't prioritize hitting the companion. The companion should be pass-through to those when in proximity to an actionable object.
Design decisions and why the game engine hurts TOR
in General Discussion
Posted
Well stated, OP. I hope it gets read and taken to heart where it counts.
I like the game a lot, but two months in, I'm starting to lose interest.
I paid for a 6-month initial I liked it so much, and that's no big deal--hell, I spend that much eating out in a week and a half or so.
But I can foresee myself just logging off and not coming back for a good long while until and unless they get these things straightened out. My position has been changing from "I'll wait and see" to "I don't see why they waited until after release to implement/fix these issues that seem so incredibly obvious".
There's just a bunch of stuff that this game is reasonably missing, and it's at a point for me where they need to either put this stuff in or get ready to lose some subscribers.
To me it's mostly content that they're missing. The 1-50 leveling path is extremely linear, more so than many single-player RPGs. And they've put in about half the content you would have expected for that situation--to level an alt you're doing about 90% of the same content, in the same order.
If you level an alt of the same base class but different advanced class, you're doing about 100% of the same content in the same order. And I'm sorry, but choosing light/dark or different other options on a different playthrough is superficial at best. It's not actually different in any way that makes it feel different enough to justify the time spent on it.
At first I thought the fully voiced content and class story was cool, and it is, but its replayability value has turned out to be low for me. At this point I'd be willing to trade having class stories at all in exchange for double the number of planets/zones and the ability to take whatever path I wanted through them from 10-50.