**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
Furthermore, if the modified value is “of base value” ie. 65% reduction of a 30% chance. It should be stated in the kit plainly. Simply “65% reduction of base value.” This would solve a lot of issues and misunderstandings.
Just $.02
The Slow description in-game was partially corrected to address this. It now says that Unstoppable champs that are slowed will behave as if not unstoppable. So something with increased ability accuracy can still trigger unstoppable effects, they just won't actually be unstoppable in practice (this can still be a meaningful distinction, as there are consequences for something having an unstoppable buff regardless of whether they behave unstoppable or not). It doesn't say anything about Evade yet though.
The "modifier" part of slow is accurate. It does modify ability accuracy the way it describes it. The problem with Slow is that it has other effects besides ability accuracy reduction, and those effects are not stated explicitly in its description.
Also, I love that you’re doing this. Will definitely take a lot of work, but it’s one of those things that would’ve been way easier to implement earlier in the game when the overall number of interactions and abilities was far smaller. Doing it sooner is always better than later.
Definitely wish we could access code on most of this and see how the specific debuffs and abilities are applied. There are ways to test but that would be so much simpler in most cases.
To add to the list of interesting modifier interactions when testing:
I also have always assume that you could double or triple this synergy up with different rarities of the champ, but I’ve never tested it.
Edit: I can’t type.
Here are my thoughts:
- this issue of documentation is critically important for the MCOC;
- while grassroots movement aimed at improving documentation is helpful, ultimately there should be a mandate at the executive level of the company (Mr. Seungwon Lee: please take a note, if you read this) and allocation of adequate resources to resolve this issue;
- development team should not be in charge of how the game mechanics is chosen, development team should be in charge of executing designer's vision in an efficient, secure, reliable, testable, portable, and maintainable way;
- a special "designer" team that includes game architect(s), technical writer(s), software consultant(s), project manager(s), and such should be created to address this issue using top down approach and to develop comprehensive game specifications;
- realistic goals and expectations should be developed, e.g., between design and implementation to complete this project within two years;
- codebase should be cleaned up, optimized, and rewritten where necessary to conform with the above detailed game specifications
(the fact that the game code is being currently refactored is another argument why this project is urgently needed to be started if not yet);
And, I anticipate your response to the tune of "that just isn't going to happen." This is why this argument should be made at the executive level and that's why I am calling Mr. Lee's attention to this mater. Allocate ten million bucks a year for two years, hire good brains like yourself, fire any non-cooperating turf-protecting incompetent corporate bureaucrats, cut through corporate silos using the power of an executive mandate and get some tangible results. How to make this happen? I suspect that if player community starts reaching out to parent company's executive and investor relations offices somebody in charge will take notice. Just my two cents...