Jump to content

gunnerq69

Junior Defender
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About gunnerq69

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 120 CV [4 single caps, 12 no-cap, 20 cubes]
  2. The Chevron and stars are classic military rankings. Originally on mobile, perhaps 2 stars was difficult to see. I don't think changing them or adding a new one would go anywhere. I'm all in support of having a method to compare a helmet to another, 1:1 without set bonus being displayed. Having to calculate your stats w/o bonus over and over is silly. To make it an option or a toggle somewhere or where to put it i don't know. Also, more specific context is needed. my initial reaction was to have only possible when you're look at gear on the floor. Well then, what about AFK shopping? toggling set bonus display in the hero info screen over and over seems least useful, so it is good to get an idea about this.
  3. I am strongly OPPOSED to giving ANY tower immunity to Sharken's push and/or Spider's webs and in another thread de-summoning of EV walls. They have an interested unique effect. Making towers immune to being immune to Sharken push and immune to spider webs all while adding proposed tower buffs will make the game much easier. The Sharken's and Spider's abilities have been around since before minions (which in most cases takes care or trivialize their effect). Back in Misty Mire days before Strength drain removed elemental infinity, spiders actually required players to change their builds. Aura stack/minions as in today, didn't nearly trivialize them. Making physical towers immune to these Shard abilities kills the whole purpose of introducing the new enemies as far as I'm concerned. Djinn's de-summoning: players can Jester wheel, hawk, and almost any Ability 2/and attacking will hit 7.5% of their HP. You can juggle djinn de-summoning by not upgrading certain defenses, say proximity mines. Djinn will fly right over those and go for upgraded defenses. A trick used on console was to have magic blockades upgraded fully to keep the Djinn busy and then beat them up with other towers. These changes would benefit the mostly people AFKing with Summoners. If you aren't AFK you can send your minion(s) over to Djinn/Sharken to deal with them (assuming your minion movement speed isn't zero, if so players can fix that) Today there is at least a chance of a Sharken/Spider/Djinn causing a game loss Why are these big changes/concerns coming up now. Before v8.2 when the proposed towers were all much wimpier, would have made more sense. Now, literally 2 years after players first had been testing in v8.2 beta with much stronger towers, seems odd. p.s. How many have EXTENSIVELY tested all these defenses specifically against Shard enemies since v8.2, where Fireball, Slice n' Dice, Magic Missle, and bouncer blockade had significant buffs? Shock beams also deal with Djinn/Sharken and DSTs prioritizes Djinn then Sharken (and beats them down).
  4. I strongly agree with leaving Sharkens alone. They have an interested unique effect. Making towers immune to being immune to Sharken push and immune to spider webs all while adding proposed tower buffs will make the game much easier. The Sharken's and Spider's abilities have been around since before minions (which in most cases take care or trivialize their effect). Back in Misty Mire days before Strength drain removed elemental infinity, spiders actually required players to change their builds. Aura stack/minions as in today, didn't trivialize them. Making physical towers immune to these Shard abilities kills the whole purpose of them as far as I'm concerned. I agree with this. I don't think changing Sharkens is the right way of buffing lesser used walls. By removing the push from Sharkens they just become another Orc/Ogre ripoff.
  5. I think we should leave this as is for right now. It is a larger change and requires more than time and discussion than 15hrs and 3 people. This is literally the first I've ever heard of this and have never seen anyone running around with a >= 37k mega chicken with less than 6 sps. Also, is it the range attack that is limited, the pecking, both? I'd be surprised to find out that they are exactly the same. Perhaps a better idea is to speed up the animations, then people who are basing their upgrading decisions based on this quick fix will be hosed. People who don't bother putting in (or can't, if this goes into several iterations) 6 sps, wouldn't be very happy if a different solution goes into effect that allows 6 actual shots per second.
  6. No to get side-tracked, but a "bug" or "glitch" can become an intention behavior or feature. Glitches have even defined whole genres of games. See Space Invaders/Street Fighter 2/etc http://www.cracked.com/article_19262_6-glitches-that-accidentally-invented-modern-gaming.html With that information and the Fact that I had verbal/written confirmation from 2 Trendy employees that players enjoyed the genie glitch such that it was intentionally included in DDE with the same behavior... it is not a bug. The bug remark is to avoid things such as "There is a bug with Harbinger's ranged attack it shoots through reflects". Then this is an easy reason/excuse to make game-play changes. I personally don't like the reflect ignoring, but that is how it was designed.
  7. I'm with Alhanalem on this. We cannot just assume that Trendy's previous work is a "bug" if we don't agree with it. A mislabeling is much more likely. Assuming this sort of thing is a "bug" is the same attitude that brought us the genie mana "fix" that was only backed by a few people in CDT (definitely not me) . That was a large waste of the communities time and good will. As a note, chaining between enemies through walls and without line-of-sight check is an atypical behavior for these attacks in games, movies, etc. The game doesn't specify anywhere that it should chain through walls, it just does. The DST description specifically states traveling through walls. The only place I've seen a reference to LTs going through walls is on wikia. I'm one of the last people who wants to change an existing behavior or functionality, restricting it to chains to require line of sight however would nerf it. Very lengthy play testing would be required and effectiveness would vary a lot between levels. MB would suffer much more than say ToL.
  8. The Temple of Polybius DSTs are now set to use previous DST projectile speed (current v8.2 projectile speed). It probably isn't that clear, however this line in the release notes under "Current Known Issues" is trying to warn players of that issue. "Temple of Polybius enemy DSTs erroneously affected by the player DST buff (faster projectiles)" Until the next build, I would recommend using a fairy ;) (that's what I've been doing)
  9. Tiny spoiler the new Tavern map's size will be accompanied by a doubled floor size. I've thoroughly tested the size increase and its effect on the save file size and it is negligible.
  10. FYI: I posted a reply on the referenced post by "Carnage-" https://dungeondefenders.com/1/topic/141362/item-upgrade-levels-rollover-problem https://dungeondefenders.com/1/topic/141362/?scrollTo=1252817&page=1#1252817 Its a long one, but I did spend a decent amount of time writing it, reading it will be much quicker. Carnage-, I apologize in advance that I most likely obliterated your thread with my long response and Wdaled its possible that this thread will die as well :(
  11. While changing that line of code is trivial, the testing RNG() changes is anything but trivial, especially without any automated testing and just relying on volunteer beta testers. FYI the code still the same however you've put incorrect values in your post. The modulo (modulus) is on 255 not 256 as below MaxEquipmentLevel = MaxEquipmentLevel%255 + 1 Aside from the above statement, my views on this are not representative of the CDT Firstly, this code has been in the game since the beginning, now over 5 years ago. I'm of the opinion the NONE of the RNG() code should be touched at all period (including changes already made). Changing the RNG() will just lead to problems at best. Let's say that we make a change similar to your suggestion, guaranteeing that trans+ drops stay that way (i.e. not rolling over). I can't help but see that as a slap in the face to all players who've spent hundreds if not thousands of hours farming. IMO essentially saying "Thanks for all your time, but really you should have just waited, saved yourself hundreds of hours, to do your farming now." For argument's sake lets pretend that no one would feel this way. There are always players who say "it seems like" or "feels like" there has been some sort of RNG() change, I'm guilty of this myself. By leaving the RNG() completely alone, we don't have to spend hours and hours of discussion pinning down if or what changed, unforeseen consequences, etc, etc. That's even the community could come anywhere near a consensus on how the RNG() should behave in the first place. If we simply look at any previous discussions regarding balance issues, from Moonbase rewards to tower re-balancing, you'll see that consensus is almost impossible to achieve. I don't consider this to be a flaw with the community or game, but a situation to learn from and to realize that some things should just be left alone and have everyone spend their time related to DD1 enjoying themselves and focuses on new content. Even now with minor RNG() changes (aside from unintended armor buffing in 8.1) there are either complaints or praises about the RNG(), though mostly complaints from what I've seen. In previous CDT meetings some members are convinced that there is absolutely no difference in how armor is generated from v8.0 (Moonbase and QoL changes directly from Trendy) to v8.2.1. Having no RNG() changes would result in quicker turn around times and more content. Looking at the 8.2 releases cycle with its long delays there were still changes that the community and CDT were unable to test effectively and had to be reverted, the golden enemies. All of the people who are still playing the game have lived with the RNG() for up to 5 years, i don't think the risk/reward of changing it now is worth it. How many retired players would be more likely to get back in the game if they were told the RNG() has been updated(changed, fixed, w/e wording) would come back to the game vs. players who would come back to play new content?
  12. I don't agree with items being removed from AFK Shop entering Item Box locked. Coming in unlocked is a simple way to see which items are from the AFK shop. Any a simple "Lock All" performed afterwards would alleviate any issue.
  13. FYI: I've updated the cardboard tube issue in a different thread (though, this is the correct place for it to live). Anyways here it is https://dungeondefenders.com/1/topic/139128/?scrollTo=1241147&page=1#1241147
  14. Hey guys. This cardboard tube issue has already been discussed in a previous thread. I see that this discussion is in "General" while the original was in "Community Development => CDT Update 2 - Reported Issues" https://dungeondefenders.com/1/topic/137398/?scrollTo=1238587&page=5#1238587 For clarity, I'll put a more detailed explanation here. The re-indexing of item quality (to bring particle beam) has thrown off the cardboard tube and a few other weapons that were pinned to level 70. Previous to v8.2 a cardboard tube up to and including Ult quality could be used by a level 70 hero. However, an Ult93, Ult+, Ult++ couldn't. In v8.2 the bug was introduced that allows Ult93 and above to be used. So, this will be fixed such that it works as in v8.1.
×
×
  • Create New...