PDA

View Full Version : Poor Solutions to Potential Problems



icculus
02-09-2009, 12:04 PM
Has anyone else noticed that Turbine artificially creates a problem and then uses that as justification to change it? This circular reasoning is continually used by Turbine to fix problems that they created by changing the mechanics of the game rather then actually fixing the problem.

For example, the old Death penalty (XP based) scaled linearly with level. This meant it was acceptable to die a few times in an appropriate level quest and still come out ahead. Then the XP penalty was changed to scale exponentially which meant that even a single death could result in more death penalty than the quest could offset. It was viewed as so bad that it was even adjusted down in scaling.

However, by not going back to the linear progression, it still meant that a few deaths would wipe out any progress made and still not be offset by the current quest. So Turbine adds in XP regen that reduces death penalty when NOT questing. Not surprisingly this lead to people not playing when they had massive XP debt – because no one foresaw that happening…

The kicker is that Turbine then used the fact that people are not questing as justification that the death penalty needed further adjustment and we have the crappy system we are stuck with today.


Evasion was nerfed to only function in light armor despite nowhere at the time saying that was a limitation (as it was not initially). Only recently was the Compendium updated to reflect this as neither the game manual nor the in-game description of the ability makes any reference to encumbrance or armor.

Yet despite all the effort put into this ‘fix’ no other armor/encumbrance limited ability has been likewise so changed:
Barbarian Fast Movement
Monk Fast Movement
Ranger Combat Styles
etc
as a minimum these all continue to work regardless of armor and encumbrance.


Another favorite was the ‘fix’ to the store interface when the buy table was unresponsive. Everyone quickly figured out that the work around was to go to the sell table than back to buy. Rather than fix this initially, Turbine merely sets everyone to the sell table first, thereby forcing people to go to the buy if they want to purchase anything and in so doing bypass the bug. Eventually they did actually fix the buy table issue and we now start on the buy screen again.
[as an aside, I much preferred starting on the selling table as I spend FAR more time selling than buying – and the buy table takes forever to populate anyway]


Minos Legens has been nerfed in the same way. Originally Minos Legens granted the Toughness feat. In PnP, granted feats work for feat pre-reqs, and currently while they do not work for DDO feat chains, they work for enhancements. As such this always struck me as a good way of ‘properly’ implementing them. In any event it will shortly no longer work for enhancements; yet rather than actually fix the problem (not allowing continued access to the enhancements once the Helm was removed) they nerf the item. Yet all indications are that the other feat granting items will still permit access to their enhancements… How hard would it have been to disable the enhancements when the item was removed?


Ultimately, I am trying to demonstrate that many of these ‘fixes’ have not only been counterproductive, but could have lead to much better development had they been addressed properly.


Another great example of lazy coding creating far more problems than it solved:

Evasion portion aside, the OP has a very valid point IMO. The problem is a lack of vision for the future, mixed with a little bit of laziness. Without a clear goal to code to, fixes beget fixes which beget fixes. The laziness factor comes into play when there is an easier way to do something... for example, making potions into clickies. Instead of introducing new code to handle a new way of doing things, they simply changed some potions to act as clickies. This, of course, caused many problems that should have been recognized from the second this idea was floated:

1) Barbs can no longer use these potions while raging (double-kicker: they have the code to get around this - lesser restoration pots - but have yet to apply it to other potions. Nice.)
2) They now share timers with clickies, which they should not.
3) Madstone rage now makes some potions unusable. Nice.

Impaqt
02-09-2009, 12:19 PM
Actually, the Original Game manual (As well as the PnP Ruleset the game is based on) did indeed say that evasion only works in Light or No armor.

Evasion should NOT work while in Med/Heavy armor or while med/heavily Encumbered. THis was NOT a nerf. It was a Fix.

I think the Death Penalty is just fine now and way better than any of its previous incarnations.

SInce there are no "Enhancements" in PnP there is no justification for Items granting prereq to Enhancements.

I think all the solutions turbine has come up with, Regardless of how long it or what route they took, have been positive for the game as a whole. so far....

secondchance
02-09-2009, 12:29 PM
I would agree that they have made some "boo-boo's" w/ making some changes to the game but the the the few you choose to list the minos helm and evasion ....arn't on that list

if you thought you should be able to get class and raical enhancements just by wearing that helm ....well I don't know what to tell ya but I promise you they did not intend for it to work that way .....the same thing w/ evasion and MFP

let me ask you this if you go to the 7-11 and buy something for $2.00 pay for it w/ a $10.00 bill but the clerk gives you change like you paid w/ a $20.00 what do you do?

not the smae thing you ask .... well I'd tell they are the same thing ...... now if you've been taking the xtra $8.00 for past few months don't get up set that the clerk now is making sure he gives you the right change....

not talking to us was a bad move by the dev's, slower content not good, but fixing the 2 things you listed were good ideas they just should of done them quicker....and just becasue there are other things that need to be fixed as well doesn't discount teh fix they did do

Bloodhaven
02-09-2009, 12:31 PM
He said she said... Quote your sources and there is no argument.

Rogues and monks cannot use evasion in medium or heavy armor. Some creatures with the evasion ability as an innate quality do not have this limitation.
Source: PHB

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_evasion&alpha=

secondchance
02-09-2009, 12:37 PM
He said she said... Quote your sources and there is no argument.

Rogues and monks cannot use evasion in medium or heavy armor. Some creatures with the evasion ability as an innate quality do not have this limitation.
Source: PHB

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_evasion&alpha=

hey blood I think we're on the smae same of this arguement here but those sources don't mean squat.... I say this becasue this game is only loosely based on DnD rules... it's not a 3.5 or 4.0 rules to the tee.... and it shouldn't be...this is a real time game some rules just won't work .... I think the dev's try to find a comon favor and go from there....and in that reguard how anyone could of thought evasion in full plate was okay is beyond me

icculus
02-09-2009, 12:51 PM
Actually, the Original Game manual (As well as the PnP Ruleset the game is based on) did indeed say that evasion only works in Light or No armor.

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?

Was Evasion working as intended and then changed? Yes. Was it nerf? By the very definition of the word indeed it was. Was that nerf necessarily a fix? That is dependent upon your point of view.


Again, my point is less about the specifics and more the constant changes used to justify additional changes...

Pyromaniac
02-09-2009, 12:57 PM
Has anyone else noticed that Turbine artificially creates a problem and then uses that as justification to change it?

no other armor/encumbrance limited ability has been likewise so changed:
Barbarian Fast Movement

I'd agree that more forethought would lead to less solving self-created problems later on.

Not so sure I agree with the examples given, as my barbarian can probably pickup and carry a fully loaded 18 wheeler with his strength.

Impaqt
02-09-2009, 01:21 PM
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?

Was Evasion working as intended and then changed? Yes. Was it nerf? By the very definition of the word indeed it was. Was that nerf necessarily a fix? That is dependent upon your point of view.


Again, my point is less about the specifics and more the constant changes used to justify additional changes...


No, Evasion was NOT WAI. The only misunderstanding came from our original lead Dev who once stated he didnt foresee a change.. Or something to that effect.....


Then on Page 61 of the Original Manual yours does say under "Rogue Special Abilities"


EVASION:
blah blah blah.....
Can be used only if the character is wearing light or no armor. blah blah blah

Then again on Page 68 under Feat description for Evasion.

If you like, I can scan the pages and post em for ya.

ahpook
02-09-2009, 02:40 PM
In the case of the Death Penalty, you need to look at why they boosted the penalty to be exponential. I would guess that they realized that the penalty was insufficient for power gamers with capped characters and they took steps to correct that. They tried to reduce the impact on the casual player in further tweaks but in the end they realized that the penalty simply didn't work in that form. The correct conclusion is not that they should have stayed with a linear DP model but that they should have changed it sooner.

I am not certain how the Minos Legens, Evasion, or store interface bolster your argument as they seem to be "we had a bug and we fixed it". These don't seem to fall into the camp of artificial problems used as justifications. Unless the original development counts as an artificial problem (that makes no sense to me).

So I would agree that it would be "much better development had they been addressed properly". But I would disagree that Turbine "artificially creates a problem and then uses that as justification to change it" and I don't think your examples backed up that point.

Turbine merely suffers from not always making the best choices (especially when viewed in hindsight). I don't think that is an uncommon failing.

Lithic
02-09-2009, 02:50 PM
You lost all credibility when you compared using evasion in heavy armour/encumbered to Barbarian/monk fast movement. I mean come on seriously, yours is the first thread ever to care that barbs in heavy armour shouldnt be able to run slightly faster (not that many barbs today actually wear heavy armour).

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".

ahpook
02-09-2009, 02:54 PM
..., 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".

yeah. I like how the doom sayers complain about the price of repairs from death even though those costs are usually less than 6 cure serious potions (or 3 heal scroll) which would not even fill their HP bar.

BLAKROC
02-09-2009, 02:58 PM
Actually, the Original Game manual (As well as the PnP Ruleset the game is based on) did indeed say that evasion only works in Light or No armor.

Evasion should NOT work while in Med/Heavy armor or while med/heavily Encumbered. THis was NOT a nerf. It was a Fix.

I think the Death Penalty is just fine now and way better than any of its previous incarnations.

SInce there are no "Enhancements" in PnP there is no justification for Items granting prereq to Enhancements.

I think all the solutions turbine has come up with, Regardless of how long it or what route they took, have been positive for the game as a whole. so far....

so a 14 barb 2 rogue with 40+str can't evade even when in heavy armor????/
str should be the key to evasion in heavy armor. not a blanket justification, after all in original dnd 18 str was massive ( remember 18 (100) was godlike)
btw i don't agree with the evasion as it currently stands lite armor or no armor is a joke and with the monk splash builds ac what differnece does it make overall if a evasion works with heavy armor?
game balance is somthing that isn't addressed with this.

Impaqt
02-09-2009, 03:09 PM
so a 14 barb 2 rogue with 40+str can't evade even when in heavy armor????/ That would be Absolutely Correct. Barbarians arent even Proficient in Heavy armor. No Amount of str would overcome that. and just because an armor is "Medium" doesnt mean its easy to move around in.
str should be the key to evasion in heavy armor. not a blanket justification, after all in original dnd 18 str was massive ( remember 18 (100) was godlike)
btw i don't agree with the evasion as it currently stands lite armor or no armor is a joke and with the monk splash builds ac what differnece does it make overall if a evasion works with heavy armor?
game balance is somthing that isn't addressed with this.


Evasion has never had anything at all to do with Strength. You could have a 500 STR and still not be able to take advantage of evasion in med/heavy armor.
Evasion is abut being nimble. No amount of str will make you Nimble in Brigadne or Plate mail.

Strakeln
02-09-2009, 03:23 PM
Evasion portion aside, the OP has a very valid point IMO. The problem is a lack of vision for the future, mixed with a little bit of laziness. Without a clear goal to code to, fixes beget fixes which beget fixes. The laziness factor comes into play when there is an easier way to do something... for example, making potions into clickies. Instead of introducing new code to handle a new way of doing things, they simply changed some potions to act as clickies. This, of course, caused many problems that should have been recognized from the second this idea was floated:

1) Barbs can no longer use these potions while raging (double-kicker: they have the code to get around this - lesser restoration pots - but have yet to apply it to other potions. Nice.)
2) They now share timers with clickies, which they should not.
3) Madstone rage now makes some potions unusable. Nice.

icculus
02-09-2009, 05:17 PM
Evasion portion aside, the OP has a very valid point IMO. The problem is a lack of vision for the future, mixed with a little bit of laziness. Without a clear goal to code to, fixes beget fixes which beget fixes. The laziness factor comes into play when there is an easier way to do something... for example, making potions into clickies. Instead of introducing new code to handle a new way of doing things, they simply changed some potions to act as clickies. This, of course, caused many problems that should have been recognized from the second this idea was floated:

1) Barbs can no longer use these potions while raging (double-kicker: they have the code to get around this - lesser restoration pots - but have yet to apply it to other potions. Nice.)
2) They now share timers with clickies, which they should not.
3) Madstone rage now makes some potions unusable. Nice.


Thank you - good to see someone with an actual understanding of the issue. OP updated!

icculus
02-09-2009, 05:19 PM
No, Evasion was NOT WAI. The only misunderstanding came from our original lead Dev who once stated he didnt foresee a change.. Or something to that effect.....


Then on Page 61 of the Original Manual yours does say under "Rogue Special Abilities"


Then again on Page 68 under Feat description for Evasion.

If you like, I can scan the pages and post em for ya.

Please do - because although I was prepared to be civil before, I honestly just think you are making **** up to obfuscate the actual point of my thread.

And yes, anyone that was actually around knows that Evasion was WAI before the change and now WAI after the change.

icculus
02-09-2009, 05:20 PM
Evasion has never had anything at all to do with Strength. You could have a 500 STR and still not be able to take advantage of evasion in med/heavy armor.
Evasion is abut being nimble. No amount of str will make you Nimble in Brigadne or Plate mail.

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

icculus
02-09-2009, 05:20 PM
You lost all credibility when you compared using evasion in heavy armour/encumbered to Barbarian/monk fast movement. I mean come on seriously, yours is the first thread ever to care that barbs in heavy armour shouldnt be able to run slightly faster (not that many barbs today actually wear heavy armour).
This is actual one of the points I am working to get across - that Turbine is prepared to bow to forumwarrior pressure and make changes to a specific ability/item rather than solve the problem. Evasion was not the only feat being 'exploited' so why single it out for a change? Minos Legens is not the only item being 'exploited' so why only change it?


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".

No - the original death XP penalty did NOT stop people from playing. What stopped people from playing was Turbine's change of this inital system into one that was oppressively punishing AND THEN rather than fixing it adding the ADDITIONAL ability to regen XP when NOT playing.

It was the combination of two **** poor changes that lead to people not playing - as clearly stated original. Unfortunately, people not playing was then used to justify the new Death Penalty.

Whether the original DP or the newest DP is better is debateable and mostly a matter of opinion, but the fact remains we only have the newest DP beacuse they ****ed up the old one first! :eek:

Impaqt
02-09-2009, 05:24 PM
This is utterly untrue. WotC has even ruled on it, and you are wrong again.


Please provide a Link.

icculus
02-09-2009, 05:25 PM
Please provide a Link.

Do you even read the threads you post in? :confused:

Check this out...

He said she said... Quote your sources and there is no argument.

Rogues and monks cannot use evasion in medium or heavy armor. Some creatures with the evasion ability as an innate quality do not have this limitation.
Source: PHB

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_evasion&alpha=
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.

Impaqt
02-09-2009, 05:25 PM
Please do - because although I was prepared to be civil before, I honestly just think you are making **** up to obfuscate the actual point of my thread.

And yes, anyone that was actually around knows that Evasion was WAI before the change and now WAI after the change.

Evasion was never WAI. It was just said that it wasnt on the radar for a change.

I'll scan that in tonight for ya.

moorewr
02-09-2009, 05:31 PM
Evasion was never WAI. It was just said that it wasnt on the radar for a change.

I'll scan that in tonight for ya.

Thanks for looking up the PnP rule.. the exchange was useful to see what the OP's real grievance is (and tasty food for my ignore list too).

:cool:

icculus
02-09-2009, 05:43 PM
Evasion was never WAI. It was just said that it wasnt on the radar for a change.

I'll scan that in tonight for ya.

Make sure to include the Ranger section as well - page14 in mine.

Lithic
02-09-2009, 05:46 PM
This is actual one of the points I am working to get across - that Turbine is prepared to bow to forumwarrior pressure and make changes to a specific ability/item rather than solve the problem. Evasion was not the only feat being 'exploited' so why single it out for a change? Minos Legens is not the only item being 'exploited' so why only change it?

What are you talking about? The changes to the item/feat WERE to solve the problem. Evasion worked in heavy armour, this was a problem, so they solved it by NOT making it work in heavy armour. Saying the other things are problems is like saying Skill: Focus listen is broken and overpowered because it provides a +2 to swim as well, IE: Nobody cares about the other ones because they don't matter at all.

As for items being exploited, minos is again in a class of it's own. Getting a free up to +100hp from enhancements you should not qualify for just for wearing an item during enhancement reset is much worse than say masterwork light crossbows displaying the transmuting effect.


No - the original death XP penalty did NOT stop people from playing. What stopped people from playing was Turbine's change of this inital system into one that was oppressively punishing AND THEN rather than fixing it adding the ADDITIONAL ability to regen XP when NOT playing.

It was the combination of two **** poor changes that lead to people not playing - as clearly stated original. Unfortunately, people not playing was then used to justify the new Death Penalty.

Whether the original DP or the newest DP is better is debateable and mostly a matter of opinion, but the fact remains we only have the newest DP beacuse they ****ed up the old one first! :eek:


Ok so I get what you are whining about. You are crying because the devs made mistakes. And because they didnt forsee such mistakes and prevent them. AND because they fixed said mistakes in ways you don't like, but that seem to be working pretty well at this point. That about sum it up?

Gratch
02-09-2009, 05:47 PM
Hmmm... /unsigned.

The Evasion change to align with PnP was announced by the devs before it happened. They said that the mechanics in the game engine now allowed them to differentiate abilities based on armor type (which it hadn't before). There were 60 pages of forum outcry when it was announced. Mostly gripes at a perceived nerf. Given the highest AC in game now is using an outfit... I'm not sure why people want to evade in full plate. You should be crying that full plate has lame AC/dr.

The current death penalty change had over 200 forum pages and multiple threads with some adjustments made after its announcement (like not doing perm damage). It now costs gold/resources for dying regardless of level but scaling with level. When it was an XP penalty for capped characters, it was laughable. Otoh, it was overly painful to casual players on low level characters.

The Minos change is fixing an obvious bug. Can you equip a mobility full plate and qualify for spring attack? Can you equip a precise shot bow and qualify for improved precise shot? A stat item that lets you qualify for feats/enhancements? Temporary feats/bonuses from items should not bypass prerequisites for feats or enhancements.

It sometimes feels like Turbine's dealing with people who had the "grandfathering DM". The one who once he let it stand once... let it stand forever. The one who never applied actual rules or WotC erratas to broken combinations that unbalanced a campaign and were used over and over by a set of players as their "goto" cheat when things got the least bit challenging. Turbine's changes are sometimes shocking and often will painfully damage a specific set of character builds - some of which were designed to get around those specific rules. Feels more like real D&D with a good DM to me if they keep the rules moving and trying to balance the game.

These minor minor minor minor minor changes concern me a lot less then how they plan to balance 100 AC builds on a d20 system, con damage, weapon/spell damage output and monster HP across the 20 levels. This will probably take a few mods and will still result in "best builds/equipment" that change between each set of changes. I'm just happy they're working on it and not the stale grandfathering types.

My solution: Switch to the D30!!!

Impaqt
02-09-2009, 05:56 PM
Make sure to include the Ranger section as well - page14 in mine.

This Page 14?
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9474/page14at7.png

The One from the V2.7 Manual that anyone can download? Cause Rangers in the ORIGINAL manual is actualy Page 9.

Sure, the Ranger version may not say it, but the Rogue one... Right next to it, Literally, clearly states "Can be use only if character is wearing light or no armor"

Ya didnt see a whole lot of 9 level ranger "splashes" when the cap was 10.

icculus
02-09-2009, 06:00 PM
What are you talking about? The changes to the item/feat WERE to solve the problem. Evasion worked in heavy armour, this was a problem, so they solved it by NOT making it work in heavy armour. Saying the other things are problems is like saying Skill: Focus listen is broken and overpowered because it provides a +2 to swim as well, IE: Nobody cares about the other ones because they don't matter at all.

As for items being exploited, minos is again in a class of it's own. Getting a free up to +100hp from enhancements you should not qualify for just for wearing an item during enhancement reset is much worse than say masterwork light crossbows displaying the transmuting effect.
Something that is actually broken SHOULD be fixed - but everything that is equally broken for the same reason should ALSO be equally fixed. Currently this is not, nor has it been, the case.

Currently if SF: Listen was broken as per your lame example, and SF: Jump was also equally broken giving a +2 to UMD say, only one of them would be fixed - in this case SF: Jump's UMD bonus would be removed, but SF: Listen's Swim bonus would not. And THAT is just lazy.

Evasion was changed to not work in Hvy Armor - there are MANY other abilities that should not work in Hvy Armor, but they have not equally been changed.



Ok so I get what you are whining about. You are crying because the devs made mistakes. And because they didnt forsee such mistakes and prevent them. AND because they fixed said mistakes in ways you don't like, but that seem to be working pretty well at this point. That about sum it up?

Regretably you do not :( My point is that if you are going to fix something, fix it - do not code a halfassed solution that does NOT fix the underlying problem. :rolleyes:

Dexxaan
02-09-2009, 06:01 PM
Actually, the Original Game manual (As well as the PnP Ruleset the game is based on) did indeed say that evasion only works in Light or No armor.

Evasion should NOT work while in Med/Heavy armor or while med/heavily Encumbered. THis was NOT a nerf. It was a Fix.

I think the Death Penalty is just fine now and way better than any of its previous incarnations.

SInce there are no "Enhancements" in PnP there is no justification for Items granting prereq to Enhancements.

I think all the solutions turbine has come up with, Regardless of how long it or what route they took, have been positive for the game as a whole. so far....


Very good response.

/Signed

icculus
02-09-2009, 06:06 PM
The Evasion change to align with PnP was announced by the devs before it happened. They said that the mechanics in the game engine now allowed them to differentiate abilities based on armor type (which it hadn't before). Mostly gripes at a perceived nerf. Given the highest AC in game now is using an outfit... I'm not sure why people want to evade in full plate. You should be crying that full plate has lame AC/dr.
Strictly speaking it was not announced by a Dev.

My point is that if the game mechanics now support the change, why not fix all the 'broken' abilties at the same time?

I do not want to evade in FP, but I would like to see the other Armor/Encumbrace abilities equally fixed.



The Minos change is fixing an obvious bug. Can you equip a mobility full plate and qualify for spring attack? Can you equip a precise shot bow and qualify for improved precise shot? A stat item that lets you qualify for feats/enhancements? Temporary feats/bonuses from items should not bypass prerequisites for feats or enhancements.

Actually, again in PnP it DOES work that way. That said, in DDO Mobility Plate does not allow you to get Spring Attack (providing you had Dodge), but like Minos it DOES allow you to get the feats associated enhancement: Fighter Mobility... so why not fix it as well?

icculus
02-09-2009, 06:09 PM
The One from the V2.7 Manual that anyone can download?

Sure, the Ranger version may not say it, but the Rogue one... Right next to it, Literally, clearly states "Can be use only if character is wearing light or no armor"

Ya didnt see a whole lot of 9 level ranger "splashes" when the cap was 10.

Yes, that is correct and what I was going to reference since it is available. Funny how Ranger was not updated...

We play on different servers, but you have got to be kiding me if you never saw Rng9/Ftr1s running around - although depending upon when you started lvl12 might have already been out.

teddok
02-09-2009, 06:13 PM
In regards to the evasion issue (i.e. not being able to be used in medium or heavy armor). Have any of you ever were a full chianmail suit. Well i have and its damned heavy. At least 60 pounds or so, and full plate while i have never worn a full suit weighs a whole heck of a lots more (im guessing minimum 200 lbs). Know tell me how many of you could actually dodge anything with any amount of skill and speed while wearing somthing like that.

Impaqt
02-09-2009, 06:15 PM
Strictly speaking it was not announced by a Dev.Unfortunatly, The WDA's from April/May of 07 have been lost. I Assure you. the Change was indeed announced.

My point is that if the game mechanics now support the change, why not fix all the 'broken' abilties at the same time?

I do not want to evade in FP, but I would like to see the other Armor/Encumbrace abilities equally fixed.




Actually, again in PnP it DOES work that way. That said, in DDO Mobility Plate does not allow you to get Spring Attack (providing you had Dodge), but like Minos it DOES allow you to get the feats associated enhancement: Fighter Mobility... so why not fix it as well?

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.

Impaqt
02-09-2009, 06:18 PM
Yes, that is correct and what I was going to reference since it is available. Funny how Ranger was not updated...

We play on different servers, but you have got to be kiding me if you never saw Rng9/Ftr1s running around - although depending upon when you started lvl12 might have already been out.

That Manual hasnt been Updated at all in like a year and a half.....

a 9 Ranger/1 Fighter would be a Fighter Splash. Not a Ranger Splash.

and no, the cap was indeed 10when I started.... You werent required ot have a forum account when I started so I didnt get here for some time....

moorewr
02-09-2009, 06:20 PM
In regards to the evasion issue (i.e. not being able to be used in medium or heavy armor). Have any of you ever were a full chianmail suit. Well i have and its damned heavy. At least 60 pounds or so, and full plate while i have never worn a full suit weighs a whole heck of a lots more (im guessing minimum 200 lbs). Know tell me how many of you could actually dodge anything with any amount of skill and speed while wearing somthing like that.

Oh not that much. D&D actually states how much "their" version weighs.. but you're looking at maybe 20 lbs for chain (plus gambeson), and the kit on a rider in plate is maybe 65 lbs. Any more than that and your poor 5'4" medieval noble wouldn't be able to raise his sword arm. :cool:

Ah, here we go: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm

Silly WotC - 40 lbs for chain mail, 50 for full plate.

ha! 45 lbs for a tower shield?! That sure would have surprised the Roman Legions...

Gratch
02-09-2009, 06:29 PM
Strictly speaking it was not announced by a Dev.

My point is that if the game mechanics now support the change, why not fix all the 'broken' abilties at the same time?

I do not want to evade in FP, but I would like to see the other Armor/Encumbrace abilities equally fixed.

Actually, again in PnP it DOES work that way. That said, in DDO Mobility Plate does not allow you to get Spring Attack (providing you had Dodge), but like Minos it DOES allow you to get the feats associated enhancement: Fighter Mobility... so why not fix it as well?

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

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'm sure if they spent the devs current budget of druid/half-orc/L17-20 character design/combat balance/new content time on adding this PnP tech to make temporarily granted feats allow the taking as well as graying out of permenantly taken feats/enhancements (as per PnP), then all these issues would be fixed at once... instead a dev spent a few minutes changing Minos Legens from granting a feat to granting bonus stacking HP and then got back to higher priority/higher visibility issues. It was nice of them to take even more time to tell us about it when there's much bigger issues to fry and an upcoming module that is sort of a make or break module for a lot of players.

Tat2Freak
02-09-2009, 06:43 PM
Just a thought and diferent way to look at things...it states here (http://http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_evasion&alpha=)..."Rogues and Monks cannot use evasion in medium or heavy armor."

Going off this picture...only Rogue lists an armor limitation to Evasion (does Monk show the same limitation?)....

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9474/page14at7.png

...you would think that an editor would notice (since they are right next to each other) that the Evasion descriptions are not the same, UNLESS IT WAS INTENDED THAT WAY...

Is it not possible that the way it is supposed to be, through whatever logic you want to use (Rangers by Level 9 use differnt means than Rogues/Monks at Level 2 to evade), is that Rangers Evasion is not as limiting (in regards to armor worn) as Rogue/Monks Evasion?

Impaqt
02-09-2009, 06:52 PM
Just a thought and diferent way to look at things...it states here (http://http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_evasion&alpha=)..."Rogues and Monks cannot use evasion in medium or heavy armor."

Going off this picture...only Rogue lists an armor limitation to Evasion (does Monk show the same limitation?)....

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9474/page14at7.png

...you would think that an editor would notice (since they are right next to each other) that the Evasion descriptions are not the same, UNLESS IT WAS INTENDED THAT WAY...

Is it not possible that the way it is supposed to be, through whatever logic you want to use (Rangers by Level 9 use differnt means than Rogues/Monks at Level 2 to evade), is that Rangers Evasion is not as limiting (in regards to armor worn) as Rogue/Monks Evasion?


Maybe they just ran out of space? It doest say it DOES work in medium/heavy for ranger now does it?

and if ya flip back to page 68 where the feat descriptions are, the evasion entry has the same armor restriction listed... and even says "Received by Ranger9 and Rogue 2"

Tat2Freak
02-09-2009, 06:55 PM
Maybe they just ran out of space? It doest say it DOES work in medium/heavy for ranger now does it?

and if ya flip back to page 68 where the feat descriptions are, the evasion entry has the same armor restriction listed... and even says "Received by Ranger9 and Rogue 2"


Bro, I'm just throwing another way to look at it (havent owned a book in over 20 years <--:eek: **** its been a long time!)

p.s. obviously with limited information on current rules (was just using those 2 pieces)

Gratch
02-09-2009, 06:59 PM
Going off this picture...only Rogue lists an armor limitation to Evasion (does Monk show the same limitation?)....

ALSO... check it... the Ranger Evasion says (Combat) whereas the Rogue Evasion says (Defensive). Due to this, I don't think that attacking rogues should get to evade. But rangers should of course.

Also.... Improved Evasion on the same page says "like Evasion", but it doesn't say which Evasion. Since the Rangers as per our analysis is vastly superior, maybe the Rogue's improved evasion gives the rogue the heavy armor evasion though it is still listed as (Defensive) so the rogue better not be attacking.

P.S: Also... i don't think that my warforged ranger should get evasion... because he doesn't look like their picture of a ranger at all. Sadly they don't have a pointed ear warforged model.... yet. Therefore they should have class and race specific evasion types. Oh... you have half-orc-monk evasion... sux to be you... doesn't that give you double damage for being ugly?

Tat2Freak
02-09-2009, 07:15 PM
ALSO... check it... the Ranger Evasion says (Combat) whereas the Rogue Evasion says (Defensive). Due to this, I don't think that attacking rogues should get to evade. But rangers should of course.

Also.... Improved Evasion on the same page says "like Evasion", but it doesn't say which Evasion. Since the Rangers as per our analysis is vastly superior, maybe the Rogue's improved evasion gives the rogue the heavy armor evasion though it is still listed as (Defensive) so the rogue better not be attacking.

P.S: Also... i don't think that my warforged ranger should get evasion... because he doesn't look like their picture of a ranger at all. Sadly they don't have a pointed ear warforged model.... yet. Therefore they should have class and race specific evasion types. Oh... you have half-orc-monk evasion... sux to be you... doesn't that give you double damage for being ugly?


Lol, I dont know how to take your post, but I do like you noticing the distinction on Combat/Defensive (wonder what thats about...)

crschoen
02-09-2009, 07:20 PM
- 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
02-09-2009, 08:57 PM
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
02-09-2009, 09:05 PM
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
02-10-2009, 01:39 AM
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
02-10-2009, 02:12 AM
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
02-10-2009, 02:17 AM
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
02-10-2009, 02:25 AM
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
02-10-2009, 02:49 AM
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
02-10-2009, 02:52 AM
Do you even read the threads you post in? :confused:

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
02-10-2009, 07:19 AM
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
02-10-2009, 08:06 AM
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
02-10-2009, 08:20 AM
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
02-10-2009, 08:27 AM
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
02-10-2009, 08:34 AM
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
02-10-2009, 08:40 AM
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
02-10-2009, 09:46 AM
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
02-10-2009, 10:50 AM
I rant sometimes.

This is a pretty one.

:)

Lucian_Navarro
02-10-2009, 12:46 PM
Well put.

ZEIRA

Gratch
02-10-2009, 01:29 PM
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 (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nicholas18jul18,0,7173518,full.story).

Aspenor
02-10-2009, 02:10 PM
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 (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nicholas18jul18,0,7173518,full.story).

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.

Borror0
02-10-2009, 02:22 PM
Samera was the LEAD DEVELOPER before Eladrin, and after David Eckelberry.
Me thinks you mean HSinclair.

Samera was the one that announced it, but I am pretty sure HSinclair defended it.

Aspenor
02-10-2009, 02:23 PM
Me thinks you mean HSinclair.

Samera was the one that announced it, but I am pretty sure HSinclair defended it.

heather was the dev that spearheaded the enhancement revamp

Borror0
02-10-2009, 02:37 PM
heather was the dev that spearheaded the enhancement revamp
...and the lead developer after David and before Eladrin.

Samera was the Community Relation Specialist until she got promoted.

Gratch
02-10-2009, 03:22 PM
My memory thinks Borror0 is closer to the mark. I don't remember Samera ever doing content design though she did get promoted to a niftier sounding title at some point.

If we retitle this thread to be: Pour Solutions to Potential Problems
my answer would be: Mountain Dew (possibly code Red style - but more likely diet stylebecause I'm old and can't handle the empty calories).

Seeing how far off topic I can go now that we're done analyzing a scan from a totally out of date manual.

Borror0
02-10-2009, 03:32 PM
My memory thinks Borror0 is closer to the mark. I don't remember Samera ever doing content design though she did get promoted to a niftier sounding title at some point.
Seems like I need to prove it. There. (http://ddo.tentonhammer.com/index.php?name=News&&catid=7&startnum=81) /victory

We can move on.

Chaos000
02-10-2009, 03:35 PM
Seems like I need to prove it. There. (http://ddo.tentonhammer.com/index.php?name=News&&catid=7&startnum=81) /victory

We can move on.

nerd! :D

icculus
02-10-2009, 03:52 PM
Samera was the LEAD DEVELOPER before Eladrin, and after David Eckelberry.

As Borror0 so eloquently points out, you are wrong again.

Angelus_dead
02-10-2009, 04:23 PM
laziness can NEVER be excused.
Adam Smith and Charles Darwin were just here looking for you.

They sounded mad.

Strakeln
02-10-2009, 05:04 PM
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. Ah, but fixing things in an improper ("lazy") manner will often cost more in the long run.

Example: XP penalty. How many times was it changed before they got it "right"? If they had implemented their current system instead of attempting to patch the other one multiple times, how many hours of development time (and corresponding resources) would have been saved and used towards something else?

Second example: potions (lesser restore, poison, etc): Since they did everything in a lazy way, they will be revisiting this issue (again).

Borror0
02-10-2009, 07:10 PM
No - but the problem being fixed should be fixed for ALL the same problems.
Wrong. Let me breakdown for you.

Problem A and problem B share a common fix, which would be the "ideal fix".
Problem A is really problematic, while problem B is nearly meaningless.
The "ideal fix" is really time-consuming.
Problem A can be fixed via a quick workaround.
If the gains of the "ideal fix" don't outweigh the gains of the time saved by the workaround, the logical decision is to save time.

In other words, Turbine decided that they had better things to do of their time.

If that is true, good for us! If they were wrong, well they were wrong. Telling them "stop doing mistakes" is as productive as saying "get better grades" to a bad student. Just because you say it doesn't mean it will happen. Fact is, they are probably trying to avoid mistakes.

Yeah, I'm serious, developers aren't purposely making bad decision! :eek:

Essentially your arguements have been reduced to if not many people exploit it, then no biggie.
No. That's not what I said.

I said that Turbine have to set priorities and use their time as best as possible. Some things are just not worth fixing. In an ideal world, they would fix it. Sadly, it is not at the top of their priority list.

there are other enhancements tied to item feats that are far more powerful than Toughness
Any of those come on currently existing items?

Yes, very lazy - and laziness can NEVER be excused.
Do you know that "time limitation" and "budget" mean? If not, look it up. If

Wonderful, your 'lazy' halfassed solution just cut down on the choices available - interesting how you can argue both for and against choice.
Perfect is the enemy of good. Turbine does not have unlimited manpower.

XP penalty. How many times was it changed before they got it "right"? If they had implemented their current system instead of attempting to patch the other one multiple times, how many hours of development time (and corresponding resources) would have been saved and used towards something else?
Bad example. It would only make sense if the reasons to change the system were the same each time and that the ideal system was obvious since the start.

Second example: potions (lesser restore, poison, etc): Since they did everything in a lazy way, they will be revisiting this issue (again).
I'm upset they didn't it right after messing it up. Most likely, the second fix was a temporary fix to make it easier to cope with the bug until it gets fixed.

I am sure that Turbine knew it wouldn't solve everything.

Impaqt
02-10-2009, 07:47 PM
Trust me. If y ou decided to start a campaign to fix the tumble enhancments along the same lines as the toughness enh, you wouldnt get any flack from the community.. No One cares about the Tumble enhancment working with a Mobility robe. Go ahead and file the bug report, Start a petition, make all those evil tumble exploiters pay for their crime!

And whether it was Samera or a dev that announced the change is of little importance. Samera didnt come up with the changes, she was a voice for the community much like Tolero is now. She was givin info, by the devs, to share with the community.

I still believe the Evasion fix was indeed announced in the WDA though.

BTW, thanks for starting the personal attacks.. this thread outgrew its usefulness a page or 2 ago.

Gratch
02-10-2009, 08:03 PM
BTW, thanks for starting the personal attacks.. this thread outgrew its usefulness a page or 2 ago.

I was having fun a page ago.

I still have the scene of Darwin and Smith wandering around the forums looking mad in my head. That mostly made this page worth it. I'm sure Adam Smith is wielding a halberd. Ooh... a pic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Halberdier-corps.jpg/200px-Halberdier-corps.jpg

I really hope those guys don't start "tumbling".

Ed: Sorry... halberd is Swiss... Smith would probably have a Lochaber axe or Claymore.

moorewr
02-10-2009, 08:31 PM
I was having fun a page ago.

I still have the scene of Darwin and Smith wandering around the forums looking mad in my head. That mostly made this page worth it. I'm sure Adam Smith is wielding a halberd. Ooh... a pic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Halberdier-corps.jpg/200px-Halberdier-corps.jpg

I really hope those guys don't start "tumbling".

Ed: Sorry... halberd is Swiss... Smith would probably have a Lochaber axe or Claymore.

Careful.. Darwin has a posse... (http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/posse/chazhasaposse.htm)
http://www.leonidas.org/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/blog/chazhasaposse.jpg

icculus
02-10-2009, 11:16 PM
Wrong. Let me breakdown for you.

Problem A and problem B share a common fix, which would be the "ideal fix".
Problem A is really problematic, while problem B is nearly meaningless.
The "ideal fix" is really time-consuming.
Problem A can be fixed via a quick workaround.
If the gains of the "ideal fix" don't outweigh the gains of the time saved by the workaround, the logical decision is to save time.

In other words, Turbine decided that they had better things to do of their time.

Except that it is right. If they do not have time to do it twice (or thrice or in many case more), then they have time to do it right. Further more, as we have repeatedly seen, their 'quick fix' as you are such a great proponent of, has resulted in significantly MORE problems than were there initially. For someone that is SO concerned about time & resources, wow we really have ****ED away that time...:eek:

Essentially, the two problems are they one, identify an issue that needs correcting but rather than actually fix it they only change whatever is the forum flame of the month; and two, in their rush to achieve this fix generally only succeed in making the situation worse.

For some reason, you seem content with this but I however am not.


No. That's not what I said.

I said that Turbine have to set priorities and use their time as best as possible. Some things are just not worth fixing. In an ideal world, they would fix it. Sadly, it is not at the top of their priority list.
Yes that is exactly what you have said, and in fact you just said it again:
"Some things are just not worth fixing"
and you have qualified that previously by saying that no one does it/that you do not do it/that not many people do it - ergo, that if no 'critical mass' of players are using the exploit then it just is not worth fixing.

I am fine with that point of view, even if I disagree with it myself, but do not try and say that you have not said it. :rolleyes:

Borror0
02-11-2009, 07:58 AM
If they do not have time to do it twice (or thrice or in many case more), then they have time to do it right.
Wrong. If they mess up, if the fix does not bring what they expected it to, they will fix it again.

Are you aware that what you are saying is "Turbine, stop messing up". I think they knew that much.

Further more, as we have repeatedly seen, their 'quick fix' as you are such a great proponent of, has resulted in significantly MORE problems than were there initially.
Give me one example of that.

Secondly, unless you believe they intended to mess up properly, you are blaming for... making a mistake? Useful feedback...:rolleyes:

I am fine with that point of view, even if I disagree with it myself, but do not try and say that you have not said it. :rolleyes:
You want Turbine to waste money for nothing? Great... a moral victory is what you are after?

Let me give you an example. In Qu├ębec, we have a social welfare program to aid those who can prove they cannot sustain themselves sufficiently. In that case, the individual receives an amount each month. Like every system, there are abuses. A lot. But, they are cheaper ignored than the money spent to catch the abusers. So, they are left alone because the government likes not wasting money but wants to keep the welfare program in place.

Through the years, the measures to moderate the offenders have been raised and lowered to adapt to the amount of abuses there were. If the number of fraud went up, the government raised the measure. Not because fraud is bad, but because fraud is costing them money. Asking the government to 'catch the bad people' would be stupid, because it would be asking them to waste our money.

That's what you're asking Turbine, if you believe a bug is a bug... and that they are all equivalent.

Turbine runs on a budget, they decide how they spend their money and how their employees best spend their time to maximize their profits. And that is why I said that some bugs are not worth fixing. I'd rather have Turbine fixing more important bugs the same way I rather them implementing features we care about over useless fluff we don't care about.

Aspenor
02-11-2009, 08:02 AM
As Borror0 so eloquently points out, you are wrong again.

details, details.

who cares who it was? the fact of the matter is you're still wrong about everything that matters.

xman26
02-11-2009, 08:15 AM
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.

I love how yopu defend Turbine, its as if you have a loved one who works there, or you do. But poor coding and laziness can not be excused ever and Turbine is full of laziness and coders who most likely couldn't get a job working for corner web developer.

Aspenor
02-11-2009, 08:29 AM
I love how yopu defend Turbine, its as if you have a loved one who works there, or you do. But poor coding and laziness can not be excused ever and Turbine is full of laziness and coders who most likely couldn't get a job working for corner web developer.

Says the guy with his computer specs in his sig.....speak for yourself buddy.

xman26
02-11-2009, 12:04 PM
Says the guy with his computer specs in his sig.....speak for yourself buddy.


Whats my computer got to do with poor coding? Or my post for that matter? I have had zero,zilch,zip problems with it.

Borror0
02-11-2009, 01:13 PM
I love how yopu defend Turbine, its as if you have a loved one who works there, or you do.
That's true. Codog and I are childhood sweethearts and are still maintaining a secret relationship behind the back of Mrs. Codog.

But hey, keep it a secret.

-_-'

Aspenor
02-11-2009, 04:40 PM
Whats my computer got to do with poor coding? Or my post for that matter? I have had zero,zilch,zip problems with it.

The point is that nobody cares what kind of computer you have, and that Turbine probably could care less what amateurs think of their coding.

Your sig leads me to believe that you have something you feel you need to make up for.

BlackRage
08-02-2009, 07:08 AM
We can add Dungeon Alert to the list of poor solutions. Wonder how long fixing it will take? :rolleyes:

Blaming the players for poor server performance is epically sad :(