[News] TC 1 Has Been Updated

[Sakkarah]

<blockquote><hr>

Seems like Archcure was originally intended as the counter to poison fields, rather than a replacement for Greater Cure potions. Of course, intentions like that are long lost in the mists of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. That was pretty much the only thing it was used for back in the days. But with the appearance of Lethal, specials and poison spamming mobs, Archcure went from a barely used spell to a very important spell. So there is no doubt any changes made to it will have significant ramifications that once weren't an issue.

 

[Guest]

I'm seeing two seemingly contradictory statements here - one, that Archcure is basically useless now, and two, that this change is a massive nerf. That's why I'm asking how often it gets used currently - I'm seeing a lot of statements about how it's pretty useless in PvP anyway - I want to isolate the people who will be the most affected by the change.

Oh, as for the IDOC changes, we are currently having a hardware issue with the housing server for the Test Centers. Until we get that back up, we can't test or publish the housing changes, so it slipped out til next publish. Sorry!

 

[Guest]

Ok, no housing fixes...

What about the next event?

 

[Guest]

You'll find there aren't any really.
Publish 25 was just prior to Samurai Empires, and just after Evocare ran off to make some game about orcs, elves and cowmen tourists.
The developer producing it changed 3 times, from Evocare to Helios and finally to Hanse &amp; Oaks, though Oaks was busy dressing up as a samurai with Sunsword in Japan.
I became quite heavily involved in it's design due to demonstrated knowledge, the fact I knew several people involved quite well and luck, then practically came up with half the publish. (the good half)
a few months later Hanse "left" too and they threw ninja death stars and drop kicked publish 25's PvP balance in favour of a catchy slogan. It's got ninjas.
At this point everyone I knew personally on the team had gone, be it for oppertunities elsewhere or forced relocation, PvP was an absoloute mess after I and several friends had just spent weeks helping fix it and any attempts to explain what was wrong and how to fix it fell on deaf ears, so I stopped playing for a year or two.

It's literally as I say, my reasoning behind it is the reason it happened. Arch cure was hashed out between me and Clx- discussing it, then testing it and finding it worked well. If there weren't a lot of other stuff to do then I probably would have also suggested the removal of AoE on arch cure all together because the targetting was annoying (which also needed fixing again later) especially with UOA and it was never cast prior to pub 25 anyway. I'm sure everyone playing then remembers making arch cure into a macro for the first time ever.

 

[Guest]

Going to be tested with this publish - once we let Draconi out of his cage I'm sure he'll share more details

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>


Oh, as for the IDOC changes, we are currently having a hardware issue with the housing server for the Test Centers. Until we get that back up, we can't test or publish the housing changes, so it slipped out til next publish. Sorry!

[/ QUOTE ]

And the cocoa trees?

*/signed the archcure change is ridiculous

 

[Guest]

For the love of all humanity, what about the event? Any trade-in stuff.

CURE
Petals, cast cure, cast archcure. It already works.


Want it to be fun.

"You cast cure and diminish the effects of the poison"

The higher your magery, the great chance to diminish the effects of level 4 or 5 poison.

Once diminished you can cast again and possibly cure.

Come on. Not only is it time to think outside the box for UO, it time to think BEYOND the outside of the box.

If you keep working the game as either ON or OFF. It will get boring. Nerfish. Maybe even selfish or Swedish. There is more that can be done beyond either hit or not hit.

IM done.

Thanks for the other changes though. Now about that event... And maybe word on TRADE-INS.

 

[`Lynk]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm seeing two seemingly contradictory statements here - one, that Archcure is basically useless now, and two, that this change is a massive nerf. That's why I'm asking how often it gets used currently - I'm seeing a lot of statements about how it's pretty useless in PvP anyway - I want to isolate the people who will be the most affected by the change.

Oh, as for the IDOC changes, we are currently having a hardware issue with the housing server for the Test Centers. Until we get that back up, we can't test or publish the housing changes, so it slipped out til next publish. Sorry!

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeremey - It is used VERY often by any mage who knows what they are doing. It is a mage's primary method of curing level 5 poison. It is very usefull in PvP presently. I personally carry 20 cures whenever I PvP, but I know that most poison dexers carry at least 2 DP pots which = 24 poison charges. There has to be another way to cure Lethal Poison.

It needed a bump down, but not down to 35%.

I think that at 120 magery, 80% chance to cure seems reasonable.

If someone puts all those skill points into poisoning it should have some effect. As it is right now, arch cure pretty much does the trick 100% of the time.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

And how exactly will this effect pets? Will the Cu be the only thing as a pet that will be able to cure itself? If so alot of monsters are gonna be left alone it pets are gonna become fodder if the tamer comes under fire and has to go defensive and out of vet range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. I hadn't thought about that yet. Argh!

 

[imported_Tina Small]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm seeing two seemingly contradictory statements here - one, that Archcure is basically useless now, and two, that this change is a massive nerf. That's why I'm asking how often it gets used currently - I'm seeing a lot of statements about how it's pretty useless in PvP anyway - I want to isolate the people who will be the most affected by the change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeremy, for PvM it affects mages that hunt or play a support character (i.e., medic) for groups that hunt monsters that cast or otherwise inflict high level poison. Cure spell's low effectiveness rate makes it pretty worthless in those situations and now you're going to make Arch Cure spell worthless for most of us, especially the ones who can't afford 120 magery scrolls. Me thinks you're just trying to force us to carry more potions and less gold!

 

[Guest]

Anyone telling you Arch cure is useless in PvP right now is an idiot with a narrow viewpoint.

To be frank, if you're actually listening to anyone saying that, then I feel like I'm wasting my time in my attempts to explain the situation.

 

[Seismic]

Jeremy, thanks much for the provo change - that bug has been around a LONG time .

 

[imported_archite666]

Well I dont know who would say arch cure ist used, I think its area effect ist used, but mages should have a strong way to cure something that cuts them down, lets not forget what happens to a mage who cant sure poison, I mean not only does it hurt him but it also makes him unable to caste spells, mages must have a decent way to cure high level poison.

 

[_Uriah Heep_]

Okay then do it this way,

Leave Arch cure nerfed as proposed...and leave it as AoE
Bump up Cure, to actually cure! *gasp* and make it work on single targets..
voila!!

Area cure cures everyone in 5 tiles...maybe, and up to a point
Directed Cure cures the target, with 85% chance at 100 Magery.

And Jeremy, I really really really have a serious problem with you guys basing all your calculations, nerfs, formulas, etc, on 120 magery. Anyone remember when we were told (the quote went something like) "You will NEVER *have* to ahve powerscrolls to compete"

MY God you guys have run this train into the ocean. Base your calculations and make your target groups, the GMs in skills...then let everything over that be a bonus, not a requirement!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Is Archcure currently the preferred method of curing poison, as opposed to drinking potions?

[/ QUOTE ]
It has been for me ... I've never gotten into the habit of using potions and found regular cure too hit-and-miss to risk using (light PvM). I'm not for or against ... it's just one of those things that will take some time for me to tell how easy or hard it will be to adapt.

 

[MrMiagi]

Can we now craft artifact bows like the night reaper exceptional and with runic bonuses or is it only the lesser artifact bows?

 

[`Lynk]

<blockquote><hr>


Area cure cures everyone in 5 tiles...maybe, and up to a point
Directed Cure cures the target, with 85% chance at 100 Magery.

And Jeremy, I really really really have a serious problem with you guys basing all your calculations, nerfs, formulas, etc, on 120 magery. Anyone remember when we were told (the quote went something like) "You will NEVER *have* to ahve powerscrolls to compete"


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. A level 2 spell should not have an 85% chance to cure something that people put 100 skill points in to. Maybe 80-85% with arch, but not regular cure.

And why wouldn't you base the effectiveness of a spell based on the level of someone's magery?

I don't think you thought that argument out too well. It's not the only way to cure. There are potions..

 

[_Uriah Heep_]

The level of magery should be a consideration...
But the basis of it all should be based on GM skills, and NOT 120 skills...
GM is the goal, the target, the supposed norm, everything over that, is just gravy. This is how it was intended, not for 120 to be the norm!

I don't have a problem with em lengthening the cast time for cure to an appropriate amount...If the AoE of arch is what is the problem, go ahead and nerf it, lengthen cast time for cure, and make it (single target) spell stronger.

But in either case, the basic Calcs should be done in reference to GM skills!!!!

 

[imported_archite666]

The changes greatly unbalance PvP, yes I agree 63 points does counter 100, but that happens with any skill, also please dont look at the point value, look at the application, yes magery can cure poison, in the same token, poison can completely throw off mages and its extremly quick, its put on a majority of fencing weapons which are notoriously fast, your basicly making poison fencers, mage killers.

 

[Clx-]

<blockquote><hr>



Seriously, I can't believe we have to explain this to anyone. This doesn't need to be tested. This is a bad change and needs to be removed from the plans immediately. Let's just say 9+ years of actually playing this damn game should have some weight as to how this is going to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahah post of the year.

 

[imported_ElRay]

<blockquote><hr>

Anyone telling you Arch cure is useless in PvP right now is an idiot with a narrow viewpoint.

To be frank, if you're actually listening to anyone saying that, then I feel like I'm wasting my time in my attempts to explain the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]


EXACTLY....... the arch cure spell is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in pvp right now, any changes that even slightly nerf the arch cure spell would spell disaster right now

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

your basicly making poison fencers, mage killers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this may or may not be a bad thing in the larger context of the game. Speaking in generalities, every template should have a counter - when they don't, everyone just plays that template. However, it may be that nox dexxers don't have a counter, or won't because of this change, and that IS a bad thing. Or it may be that there are so many other ways to counter poison (petals, pots, etc) that this isn't nearly as bad a change as it looks at first.

Some of the community's reaction to ANY change is always "OMG change! Change is BAD!" In order to accurately gauge impact, we have to figure that part of the reaction in to the calculations. And sometimes a change has long-term effects that none of us can accurately predict.

Edited to add, the fact that mages AREN'T item-dependent still drives me batty, personally. The skill was designed to require (stealable, consumable) reagents for EVERYTHING it did.

*goes off and sulks in the corner with her bandages*

 

[imported_ElRay]

<blockquote><hr>


Some of the community's reaction to ANY change is always "OMG change! Change is BAD!" In order to accurately gauge impact, we have to figure that part of the reaction in to the calculations. And sometimes a change has long-term effects that none of us can accurately predict.

[/ QUOTE ]

how about "if it aint broke dont fix it"

ever hear THAT phrase?

 

[_Uriah Heep_]

I'm with Him!!! *points up* ^

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Well, this may or may not be a bad thing in the larger context of the game. Speaking in generalities, every template should have a counter - when they don't, everyone just plays that template. However, it may be that nox dexxers don't have a counter, or won't because of this change, and that IS a bad thing. Or it may be that there are so many other ways to counter poison (petals, pots, etc) that this isn't nearly as bad a change as it looks at first.

Some of the community's reaction to ANY change is always "OMG change! Change is BAD!" In order to accurately gauge impact, we have to figure that part of the reaction in to the calculations. And sometimes a change has long-term effects that none of us can accurately predict.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are championing a change that is wrong Jeremy. It's very clear that you don't get it. Can't be nice anymore. I suggest you actually start playing UO isntead of "predicting" long-term changes.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>



Seriously, I can't believe we have to explain this to anyone. This doesn't need to be tested. This is a bad change and needs to be removed from the plans immediately. Let's just say 9+ years of actually playing this damn game should have some weight as to how this is going to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahah post of the year.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea who said that but i can agree with his sentiment.

This next part is NOT dev bashing

<font color="purple"> I am 99% sure none of the current dev team do any pvp to any great extent. I know people always say they do, but i mean.. lets say that over 50% of your uo time is done pvp'ing (for most pvprs i think this is the case). The fact that it might be clear to the dev team why something works the way it does (and why should it, it was designed by some other guy who left), it doesn't mean it should be changed.
</font>

<font color="orange">In general, pots are used to cure high level poison, cos even with arch cure it's not 100%. If you have no pots, or trying to conserve, you will either try casting normal cure several times until it casts, or you will cast arch cure and pretty much be sure of a cure (not guaranteed). It's not always so easy to cast arch cure, what with those pesky people hitting you with weapons, the poison damage ticking and lets not forget hit magic arrow/fireball. </font>

<font color="brown"> With the proposed changes to arch cure, it is basically saying that anyone with poisoning vs someone without pots has won. You don't have to wait for the paying subscribers to test this, you could have easily asked the focus group and i can guarantee any pvp'r who has an idea of balance (including those dexxers with poisoning) will have been able to tell you that this change is a bad idea. Alternatively you could go on test yourselves and try fighting in this situation. Get two characters, both decked out in the usual gear (decent resists stats etc). Give the dexxer a decent poisoning wep and see how long the mage survives with the new arch cure. </font>

If the post wasn't clear enough: Do not implement the arch cure change in its current form.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Can we now craft artifact bows like the night reaper exceptional and with runic bonuses or is it only the lesser artifact bows?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well ... test center 1 is now open for your inspection.

(spoiler: <font color="white">the answer is no, just the lessers</font> )

I notice the formating of the menu is a little askew (bug submitted, but I'm wondering if that's something that requires a client update ... I was also checking to see if KR cooks could make chocolates and it got me wondering if the crafting menus are purely generated client-side or from data pulled from the server)

 

[imported_Gwendar-SP]

<blockquote><hr>

Exceptional crafted chocolate will have the maker's mark attached correctly



[/ QUOTE ]

But will chocolate ever be good for anything other than taking up storage? I find it amazing that folks keep asking for items to stack and EA keeps introducing non-stacking items

 

[imported_Fran Fury]

Me too *points up and up again*

 

[Gildar]

<blockquote><hr>

That's another good question - how much does the area effect aspect actually get used?

[/ QUOTE ]I use the area effect aspect whenever I do the Sleeping Dragon champion spawn.
I also use it from time to time when I find myself and somebody else nearby poisoned while out hunting.
I've also used it a few times during group PvP.


I think high level poison and curing in general is a little out of whack.
Perhaps cures could have varying degrees of success?
For the highest level poisons, make it so there is a very low chance of any cure attempt completely curing the poison (except bandages for the time being [unless a bandage timer change could be included to make it so attempts to cure take less time than attempts to heal]... because it takes forever to use a bandage to cure). Instead, make it so that a successful cure will reduce the level of poison by a certain number of levels.
Using magery as an example...

% chance to cure = (10000+(A7*100) -2 * 3100)/100
Minimum Levels cured = 1
Maximum levels cured = 1 + ( Magery / 120 ) * 4
0-30: 1 level
30-60: 1-2 levels
60-90: 1-3 levels
90-120: 1-4 levels

 

[Sees Far]

Arch Cure is a necessity for Dreadhorn/Paroxymous.

Still not clear why the change was made. As someone else pointed out - I haven't heard anyone complaining about it.

As Winston Churchill once said - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

That's another good question - how much does the area effect aspect actually get used?

[/ QUOTE ]I use the area effect aspect whenever I do the Sleeping Dragon champion spawn.


[/ QUOTE ]
*nods in agreement*
Sleeping Dragon and Paroxy peerless are the important ones when it comes to the AoE of ArchCure. (I say this because in the two instances it is meant to be difficult and perhaps more challenge is in order for such things)
That being said perhaps the spell should work as suggested in today's patch notes, but in exchange mages do need some sort of ability to cure individuals and have that cure actually *work*. The "cure" spell as it stands now, which is the one meant to be cast on individuals, is relatively useless in most cases for PvP and things like the Dreadhorn peerless (ie: instances where cure should be cured by casting a non AoE spell).
I think, if player mages had a useful spell that cured one target more successfully this change to the AoE cure spell would not be an issue. (Or at least not so much of one)

Thank you for your attention to my opinion

Edit: I disagree with the post above mine saying it's a necessity for the Dreadhorn peerless. Rarely do we get more than one person poisoned at a time when my team does this peerless.

 

[Guest]

Even people that don't use LRC nowadays just stock up their 'blessed' cat statues with all 8 kinds of regs through exploits to max out other properties on their suits.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

your basicly making poison fencers, mage killers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this may or may not be a bad thing in the larger context of the game. Speaking in generalities, every template should have a counter - when they don't, everyone just plays that template. However, it may be that nox dexxers don't have a counter, or won't because of this change, and that IS a bad thing. Or it may be that there are so many other ways to counter poison (petals, pots, etc) that this isn't nearly as bad a change as it looks at first.
******************

Edited to add, the fact that mages AREN'T item-dependent still drives me batty, personally. The skill was designed to require (stealable, consumable) reagents for EVERYTHING it did.

*goes off and sulks in the corner with her bandages*

[/ QUOTE ]


Hahahha first off:

"Edited to add, the fact that mages AREN'T item-dependent still drives me batty, personally. The skill was designed to require (stealable, consumable) reagents for EVERYTHING it did."

I want to be polite, but it's hard when you are saying this kind of stuff. Yes, many mages dont use reagents anymore.. those are the ones with LRC. Thats a property on an ITEM. Most mage suits will include the following stats: 100 lrc, 40 lmc, 30+ dci, 70 resists (many have corpse immunity), hpi,some HCI....

You think these stats are so easy to achive? Do they just fall out of the sky?

Yes, many don't use regs. But they pay for that. Dexxers use bandages, those easy to get cheap things which they can SUMMON! Oh, they can also get extra strength bandages. I'm not bashing dexxers here or saying bandagaes need a nerf or anything, but please, how can you say mage sare not item dependant?


Re. The other stuff...

Petals dont work on infectious strike, the poison level is too high. I know, i have played a poisoner for years. Pots are generally the preferred method. While not 100% its easy to chug multiple pots (assuming you have a macro to do so). The most RELIABLE way is arch cure, but it's not the most used, because of the cast time. But in a situation where you are without pots, arch cure will be used.

UO is not a class based game like WoW. I love PVP. It's my favourite thing about online games. In WoW, pvp is the least interesting thing to me. Why? Because it's like playing rock paper scissors, but the difference is that you are always choosing the same thing every time you fight. It's possible to win but for the most part, if you are one class, you are doomed to loose vs a particular other one.

UO is not like this. Dexxers and mages are both powerful. Dexxers are generally considered easier to play, and the top mages are acknowledged to have a real skill level, where top dexxers are insulted and told to make mages. I'm not saying thats right, im saying thats usually how it is. But there is some sort of balance at least. There have been periods where certain classes have really outshone others (remember when the pvp aspect of the game was SAMURAIS ONLINE? ARCHERS ONLINE? TAMERS ONLINE?). At the moment it's tamers online, and theres a great fix on the way. So yay. Implementing this change would merely bring about the era of POISONERS ONLINE.

Yes, it's a shame when your 100 skillpoints in poisoning is neutralised easily. If you were worried about balance, then you would change the cure chance of POTIONS, something which ALL PLAYERS can use.

I'm not saying this is necessary, im saying that this would be a more logical change.

 

[imported_Lord GOD(GOD)]

rtffc

<blockquote><hr>

Arch Cure now cures poison at the same difficulty as the regular cure spell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this being put in?

This seems to push towards item use over skill, Arch Cure is heavily used in PvP both 1v1 &amp; AoE. In PvM it is used on every Paroxysmus' &amp; Dreadhorn.

This is a very bad idea. If Arch Cure MUST (by dev opinion) be dropped from 100% success than you should tone down the effectiveness/success of infectious strike.

<blockquote><hr>

Pet summoning ball changes:

Pet summoning balls unhide the summoner when attempting to summon their pet. Pet summoning balls have a disruptable casting animation like other spells Pet summoning balls have a reuse delay of 15 seconds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a reason 'no use in animal form' isn't in that list or has it just been overlooked on this news item?

<blockquote><hr>

Players can no longer place insured items on a player-run vendor. (Existing insured items on vendors will not be affected.)

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the purpose of this?

<blockquote><hr>

Quest items will now untoggle if the player dies while carrying them

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome, thanks.

<blockquote><hr>

Provoking onto a creature will no longer cause those in combat with that creature to stop fighting

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome, about time, thanks!

 

[imported_Wiseguy]

I only PVM, and I use arch cure all the time before of the nerf to cure which was silly in the first place. I don't carry potions because they require a free hand to drink and I think its really silly to create macros to disarm drink arm. I fight stuff with lev 5 poison and if i fail, chances are that i'm dead. Given how many of the monsters have that poison level, its just a poorly thought out change.

 

[imported_Sarphus]

Here's a thought...

Arch Cure Gets nerfed as per the patch notes.
Arch Protection gets replaced with a spell called "Greater Cure", which is a single-target high lvl poison cure spell.

This change effectively removes a virtually worthless spell and splits out the 2 aspects of greater cure into 2 different spells. I realize it would be a little annoying needing to adjust macros and whatnot, but at least we wouldn't have a situation where poison makes mages fold like 2 7 off suit.

I recognize arch cure as something of a balance for poison fields. I don't generally use it for that, but I have.

I recognize the need for mages to be able to cure high lvl poison reliably, but also recognize that the mage should pay a 4th circle cast cost to have that power.

Personally, I don't think arch cure is particularly broken as it is today, but if I had to choose I would choose this solution.

I see a lot of people suggesting nox dexers will become overpowered under the change in the patch notes. I agree, they will. Necro Nox Dexers will become INSANE (they're already crazy powerful, but this change effectively removes a counter).

I don't think it's every a good idea to make changes that move pvp into the realm of rock paper scissors. RPS is a boring game, and I don't think it's a step in the right direction to make UO into glorified RPS. Yes, some templates should have advantages over others, but it should never get so unbalanced that one template ALWAYS beats the other.

Does anyone use arch protection? As far as I know it's not a particularly useful spell, but it can be used to basically grief people by putting them in protection against their wishes. Arch protection in its current form is an artifact of pub 16 I believe...

 

[Guest]

Sarph you aren't completely off target with your idea.

It would certainly be preferable to how it is now, but actually:

In PvP, arch cure is not used so much to cure many people. Most people can cure themselves, and actually it is not effective if someone is criminally flagged or an agressor.

I really have no idea on the PVE point of view, so i won't comment (people, be more like this, if you don't know, don't comment!), but actually if you changed arch cure to simply be a single target spell instead of many people, it really wouldn't have a huge effect on how things are.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Noxin, by all means, go into more detail on the Arch Cure thing - and everyone else who's concerned about it. And please, TEST it too. I'm perfectly prepared to go to the table and tell the devs that this needs to be tweaked, but I need details.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeremy, its a bad idea to change cure succes % on arch cure, better remove AoE, og give us a new spell then! Because This will force everyone to carry lots and lots of pots, if they will survive vs a DP dexxer, because they wont be able to cure in another way before they die! trust me i play a nox fencer myself, and i also play mages!

even with arch cure now, if they dont carry pots, mages have a very hard time to survive vs my nox fencer. As i can chain poison moves at 3 mana, and 1,25 speed even at 0 stam with my wep, this means, even with 50 pots i will make them run out of pots at last! and they will die

This will ruin alot!

 

[4gregu]

<blockquote><hr>


As Winston Churchill once said - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a better quote

EA Dev - "If it isn't broke, fix it untill it is!"

 

[Guest]

The area effect nature of arch cure isn't the reason most of us are complaining. Removing area effect from the spell but retaining the ability to actually cure(as your suggestion or any other method) would be fine.

Moreso that actually needs to be added to this discussion is the proposed benefit of changing the archcure spell. It has been said over and over again why change what is not broken. Rather than say it in that manner let's just put in on the table flatly:

In what way does the proposed change benefit the game?

The area effect nature of the spell is in no way imbalanced as has been suggested. The forcing of players to adopt pot chugging or adding chivalry to templates doesn't seem to be of benefit. The question we keep seeing is why? Why do it? Who does it benefit.

The real question is:

Is this change subject to removal? We have heard time and time again test is to be used to the testing of changes. When this change is added and is deemed to be as obsurd as many of us believe will it be removed from the list of changes?

It's a simple question. Yes or no?

 

[Nixon[I-C]]

<blockquote><hr>

Edited to add, the fact that mages AREN'T item-dependent still drives me batty, personally. The skill was designed to require (stealable, consumable) reagents for EVERYTHING it did.

*goes off and sulks in the corner with her bandages*

[/ QUOTE ]


Oh my god, please tell me, you just didn't say that. That is probably the most clueless post I've ever read by anyone in any game development team. It actually has me fizzing with anger. The whole problem of it not consuming, is YOUR fault, a problem, we DIDNT want, and a problem we'd RATHER have, over this stupid item dependant game.

Do you really think pvpers wanted to spend hours in Doom? Do you really think we'd rather have LRC over regs in a decent system? Do you really think we like farming countless hours just to get good quality rings, just to pvp with?

The list goes on. You forced us into an item game, noone wanted. You also forced mages into a corner where items are dependant. It doesn't matter what shard you play, you require items just to cast

You forced us into a corner, and made this game more item based than ever, and come out with that crap?

The problem is, you don't know where to take PvP. You see theirs a problems, but you have no solutions. The problem then get's worse, by having no real clue how to communicate with the player base. I've seen you say over several times, use Feedback forms. Well, what freaking use are they, if you can't properly discuss the changes, and pros and cons. They are of 0 use, and I seriously doubt anyone who actually PvPs would waste their time with such a pointless option.

The only other option are these forums, and my god, it's horrific trying to get a point across sometimes. More often than not, people just feel drowned out in drival, flames and absolutely clueless idiots posting. It's just as frustrating for me as a player to see posts like NERF STRANGLE BECAUSE I ALWAYS DIE TO IT, without any sufficient backup to their point.

There has been countless people on these forums who have CLEARLY demonstrated they actually know what they are speaking about. It's also clear, you have no real direction with where your going, so please tell me, why you can't work together with these people? Get them together on test, work things out, suggest things, before it goes out and causes such major upset.

The last time this happened was publish 25, and the last time PvPers were happy, was p25. Doesn't that tell you something?

I'm begining to ramble because I cannot even begin to express my frustration.

 

[imported_Lord GOD(GOD)]

Arch Cure should be left alone.

 

[_Uriah Heep_]

She has a problem with mages not having to have regs...
Now then, here we go, Who invented LRC suits? and who put em into the game?
*laughs wickedly*

And ya know what? LRC is *another* example of fixin what aint broke!
We weren't spamming the boards with stuff like "Give us Lower Reagent Cost!!!"
or "make Some LRC!!!!!!11one11!" Nope, what we wanted was for regs to be more plentiful, up the spawn rate on the npc vendors, stuff like that...and once again, (yeah they did it even back then, they never learn) instead of listening to us they did LRC.

And for a while now, off and on, they talk about cutting it back, etc etc...Jeremy doesn't like it, blah blah blah

What they really need to do, is cut it back
back to the day before AoS was released!

 

[Guest]

Hey, now, I was running to the store to pick up my preorder box when they put LRC suits into the game - don't blame me for 'em!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Save yourself the headache Jeremy scrap the Arch Cure change now!

[/ QUOTE ]
Or at least admit it's a possiblity that it will be removed.

 

[Guest]

I have - this is why I'm asking questions. I don't do it for my health, trust me

 

[_Uriah Heep_]

Well, not you personally maybe...
But as always, when people don't learn from mistakes, history repeats itself, again and again and again and again...

Fix bugs, add content, fix housing server, ban cheaters, and leave the stuff no one is troubled with alone, fer cryin out loud!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I have - this is why I'm asking questions. I don't do it for my health, trust me

[/ QUOTE ]
Up until now that is not the impression I have recieved from your questions.

I'm satisfied with that answer.

I don't feel this is one of those cases where the ZOMG! thing is the case. I don't generally partake in those as I usually see the side of implimentation. Whether I agree with it or not. I see no merit in this change and only detriment.

 

[Guest]

Jeremy it's nice to see you are keeping an eye on the thread, any chance you could reply to some of the details you requested which have been provided? Doesn't have to be my post specifically, although i do think that it has everything thats needed (even some WOW bashing!)

From having another look at the patch notes, it seems there is a misunderstanding that arch cure is being used by mages to cure everyones high level poison in one swoop. This is not the case (in PVP). In PVP it is used to cure high level poison on a single target, as very rarely will it actually be castable on multiple targets due to the flagging nature of the spell. As such, changing it will not have a balancing effect, but the opposite.