Welcome to discussions

Quick Suggestions

  • xcel30
    Original poster 346 posts
    This post is deleted!
  • Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

    Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

    Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

  • WrecK3rr
    48 posts

    @xcel30 +1

  • CategoryTheory
    34 posts

    TLDR: @xcel30 has a basic misunderstanding of the set: bleed is not supposed to be a benefit, it's supposed to be a challenge offered in trade for other benefits.

    ─────────────────────────────────────────

    This post is apparently a copy of some of the discussion from a thread I started in the old forum, Thoughts on Ongoing Directive. I don't know why @xcel30 didn't link to that, but the effect is to hide a bunch of good arguments about the gear set he apparently disagrees with, not to mention what appears to be a basic misunderstanding about the set. (The design is clearly that of a weapon damage set, not a status effect damage set, so in such a design bleed's low damage bleed is about as harmful as it is that the tags on Negotiator's Dilemma also do no damage by themselves.)

    Ongoing Directive is weak in certain respects, and there are certainly several things that need to be fixed in it, but "make it into a different gear set much more similar to others, leaving a big hole where the current OD design used to be" is an approach that basically says, "this play style doesn't suit my preference, but rather than just avoiding it I want it removed from the game."

    If you want a status effect damage gear set, use Eclipse Protocol.

    @xcel30: tl;dr Bleed is bad, don't think it will ever be useful in this game


    The armour on Chungas is "bad" for players trying to do damage and not "useful" to them. But if you start removing things from the game that are designed to present a challenge to the player, pretty soon you have no game left.

  • xcel30
    Original poster 346 posts
    This post is deleted!
  • CategoryTheory
    34 posts

    No, I don't respect your opinion when it's, "Remove this idea that some people like from the game because I personally don't like it."

    I get that you hate the concept of a status effect as something that doesn't give you direct damage but as work you need to do to get a buff from elsewhere. (You're saying you dislike this idea every time you ask for bleed status effect damage to be buffed, or bleed time to be lengthened, or you talk about ".) But you either don't realize or don't care that you seem to be asking for this concept to be removed from the game completely, so that [i]nobody[/i] can play it.

    Many of your other ideas that would keep the general concept are great, such as swapping the Eclipse Protocol and Ongoing Directive backpack talents.

    You totally missed my meaning in the "armour on heavies" bit. Buffing crossbow against that did not change that armour on heavies is a problem to be solved; it just gave another solution to that problem. Equally, use of bleed in this set is a problem for the player to solve. Making it do damage does not give the player a solution he can use, it removes the problem entirely and thus removes the gameplay that's the point of the set. If you don't want gameplay, why are you playing a game? Or if you don't want that particular gameplay, why are you playing that set and not something else?

    TLDR: Bleed in this set is not supposed to help you (directly), it's supposed to hinder you. That's the core idea of the set.

  • xcel30
    Original poster 346 posts
    This post is deleted!
  • CategoryTheory
    34 posts

    Every gearset hinders the player by removing four gear attributes from your build, as well as by greatly restricting your brand buffs.

    The whole point of games is to present problems and hiderances to the player that he can enjoy in solving. In a game this big, nobody will enjoy solving every hinderance. But if we started removing hinderances that I personally don't like, SMGs would be removed from the game. Is that really a reasonable alternative to, "choose to use another weapon that doesn't have the problems SMGs have?"

    Edit: The message to which I was responding now appears to be deleted, but the question being asked was essentially, "What gear sets that people like hinder the player in some way?"

  • xcel30
    Original poster 346 posts
    This post is deleted!
  • CategoryTheory
    34 posts
    are you telling me now that gear sets are meant to nerf the player?

    Yes! Now you get it, at least partially. The most obvious nerf is the removal of four attributes.

    Every piece of gear in the game is designed to have both advantages and disadvantages so that you need to make a choice between them; that creates the "gear puzzle" that's a core part of this game. Sometimes the disadvantages are designed to push you towards a different (and hopefully interesting) style of gameplay, such as the Obliterate talent requiring you to get a critical hit within 5 seconds to keep it proc'd, or the Vigilance talent requiring you to avoid getting hit yourself to keep it proc'd.

    So when you're proposing removing or mitigating a major part of the challenge a gearset is presenting to the player, you need to explain with what other challenge you're replacing it, or why the gear set will still present an interesting challenge to the player. (You need not worry about players see the challenge and find it uninteresting; the game's solution to that is to give them lots of choice in challenges so that they can go find a different challenge to tackle.)

    You are also using " I like it so your opinion is wrong"

    When your opinion is, "remove this completely from the game," that is a wrong opinion when "this" fits with the game and is something that some people like. Removing it from the game has no effect on your choice not to play that thing, all it does is prevent all other players from playing that thing. That's not about your enjoyment of the game, but about your control over what other people are allowed to enjoy in the game.

    If you want another gear set that does the thing you want, that's fine. But just make it another gear set, rather than removing the current Ongoing Directive and replacing it with the different gear set you want.

  • xcel30
    Original poster 346 posts
    This post is deleted!
  • CategoryTheory
    34 posts
    The set has very very high disavantages, and very very low advantages i want to trim some of that to scale it better....

    Well, we're in agreement there. Our points of disagreement seem to be that:

    1. You want to remove much of the challenge of proc'ing the set.
    2. You want either to make status effect damage part of the set, rather than leave it as insignificant and rely entirely on weapon damage.


    I argue that both these things change the very character of the set, and that if you implement either to any great degree you are removing a particular specific play style from the game. If you avoid more than very minor changes to either of these, I think we won't be disagreeing any more.

    Go on read how the ORIGINAL ongoing directive gear set was and if it was any good

    I think I saw a description of it once, but I don't recall it well now, and I can't find one on the web. If you're going to bring it up, you should explain it.

    That said, it was a rather different gear set from the current one with a different overall intent, wasn't it? ISTR that it focused on damage from effects, which is completely different from the current OD. If you want to argue that the current OD set should have a different name to avoid confusion with the previous OD set, I'd agree with you.

    ...A LOT of your comments are coming from you assume i want to make this set deleted and magically turn it into true patriot or something like that

    That's very odd, since that's the exact opposite of what I want, and it's what I thought you wanted.

  • xcel30
    Original poster 346 posts
    This post is deleted!
  • CategoryTheory
    34 posts
    dude c'mon it's literally the first link in google

    Well, I missed it somehow. Was it really so hard just to post the link?

    Anyway, that set is clearly very different; it's entirely missing the "keep the kill chain going to keep the buff" mechanic that is the core of the current Ongoing Directive. That's to me the primary point of interest in this set, so going back to the old version, no matter how buffed, would also to me essentially be removing the current set.

    I think you mixed one of my ramblings as some crazy de facto truth i go around spelling....

    Possibly. But if you don't mean it, perhaps you shouldn't write it. You can expect things you do write in a public forum to get a response.

    ...if you go back to my first post you will see most of my reasonable suggestions are about tackling the ammo management being simpler. Here's an direct example....

    It's suggestions about simplifying ammo management that make me suspicious. Some of the ones you provide as an example immediately after this statement are not about this (faster reloads do not simplify ammo management), but let's start with the first thing on your list in the original post and then go on to your other suggestions from the post to which I'm replying.

    1. You need to kickstart to get set going

    Yes, that's a key point of the challenge the set sets for you. Starting the chain is part of the management process, and it removes a lot of the challenge if it's trivial to restart the chain if you break it. And there are a lot of options to help you with this. These include Trauma and Reassigned talents on chest gear, at least three different specialization grenades, by my count twelve different skill variants (including several that apply bleed directly), and of course status ammo you pick up.

    Experimenting with these options has been very enjoyable for me, and introduced me to things in the game I otherwise wouldn't have tried.

    3 piece bonus: 20-25% magazine size increase

    Well, I think we need to decouple the number of HP rounds you receive from magazine size first. But after that's done, this seems reasonable as providing a straight DPS increase, the same as the reload speed buff does. It might be more interesting to combine it with (or replace it with) a buff like, "Every time you receive status ammo, receive an additional 25%."

    ...another possible suggestion would be that your other two weapons also get 50% of their magazine as hollow point ( so you lose all your ammo in the main gun, both of your backpups can also be used to get more ammo back but less reliably)....

    I think that's better just done by the player; switching weapons to get a kill in order to put HP ammo on that weapon is part of the management challenge.

    ...if you are empty when you reload you get up 30% of your magazine as hollow point ammo (so let's use an AR again as example you would get 18 shoots to kill an enemy, enough to start and do some small extra damage, not enough to make an entire magazine look worthless).

    Yeah, again you're removing a large part of the management challenge that's supposed to be presented by the set. Basically, you're trying to help out users who didn't plan out their management at all and don't have any of the many, many ways of recovering from this available to them.

    Managing this stuff is not all that hard for some people. If it's hard for you, this isn't the set for you, just like certain sets aren't for me because I find difficult different things that they ask me to do. But why remove my ability to enjoy this kind of management problem because you don't like it?

  • Oatiecrumble
    300 posts

    Here we go 😲

  • xcel30
    Original poster 346 posts
    This post is deleted!
  • SevenNVD
    78 posts

    While the thread so far isn't crossing any boundaries, the discussion is quite heated.

    I'd like to point out this quote from the forum rules:

    There is no need to turn disagreements into heated arguments. Rather than letting these threads become flame wars please agree to disagree or the thread is likely to be locked.



    Edit:

    Since a few post are deleted and a new topic regarding the Ongoing Directive gearset is created, I've locked this thread and we can continue the discussion here.

Suggested Topics