It’s not how you described it just a week ago
I guess you just forgot to add at the end “… which would be interesting, absolutely amazing!” 
Yeah, seems rather like a ‘panic mode’ implementation then from EHG in that case.
Unless they follow along with the things I mentioned to ensure perception is detached from other implementations. The double opt-in, with warning on top optimally. To ensure that the player gets to know ‘this will be jank af’.
Otherwise I’ll see it as a net-negative at the moment, but I’ll hold back until I personally see and experience the WASD implementation. I know I’ll use it with guarantee (RSI is a lot less severe with WASD) but it’ll likely make me stop playing if it’s too jank as it might make me tired or give me a headache.
Actually it is. I always said WASD needs the appropriate implementation to be showcased as functioning. And I am all for WASD coming if you re-read my posts. But it has to be respective quality or behind a very very clear-cut ‘This stuff is highly experimental and doesn’t remotely represent our usual quality’ wall of opt-ins.
As for my quote: ‘While being easily visible’. That’s the primary aspect why I’m saying ‘interesting’ still as I don’t know how easy it will be to access for ‘Casual Bob’ when opening the Options. Will it be the uppermost options? Will it be a specific tab for ‘experimental’? Will it be a sort of option that only pops up visible after agreeing to look at experimental stuff? We don’t know yet how EHG will showcase it to us.
If it’s simply ‘on the nose’ then EHG will have a hard standing from my side at least. I was majorly disappointed at release with the Faction System and MG basically being a broken afterthought… and still being handled like it has no value ‘here you go, have the least functioning but still barely functioning thing available. Aren’t you glad we did it?’ is what I get as the vibe from that Faction implementation as a player.
Now we got mastery re-spec, which causes the game to become a lot more casual for character progression. Given the build variety in each Mastery wasn’t all too great it’s enough to cause basically 2/3rd of the replay value to be gone.
If they now also start to implement mechanics in a half-finished state and shove it easily into the face of players without proper warnings to use it then they’ll loose most of my trust ‘that it was big but solvable’ problems… because let’s be clear. Pre Legendary Potential the game had been in a more concruent state then it is now. Sure, we got more content, but all the content fits together in a worse way then back then.
I tend to like my games getting better over time, not see them dismantling themselves gradually.
So you don’t see any difference in two citates I posted, from here and from there. I didn’t think you will.
So you don’t have the full story presented of what I tried to bring into words there + you’re actively including the stipulation I’ve mentioned for it to be implemented in a decent way. And now you’re saying that I’m actually saying something different?
I would rather sit back and think loooong and hard about what you’re telling me here right now. Just saying. Out of two possible situations - You understanding me wrongly vs. Me actively meaning entirely different things - the chances are kinda on the first option. And it’s once more the friggin damn same thing I’ve tried over several posts to explain to you in the other topic.
So kindly said in that case… piss off with that argument there
You was actively against releasing it without remaking all animations, and now you are saying it’s absolutely amazing that they did it — it’s two absolutely contradicting opinions. My point is that your opinion about the same thing entirely depends on the environment and who you are talking with. Not like I’m judging, most people’s opinion are like that, just funny how it looks like.
I don’t always agree with Kulze (we’ve actually had quite a few long-winded “battles”), but you forgot to mention the part where he said, in the other thread:
which does support his argument here.
1 Like
DJ already answered mostly.
Secondly I didn’t say it’s ‘fantastic’ here. Not even remotely.
Is ‘interesting’ and ‘fantastic’ the same thing?
No?
Good that we understand each other…
Lol you are seriously thinking there will be those checkboxes? You can’t be serious.
I personally don’t think there will be those checkboxes. I’m just saying that that was Kulze’s expectation for accepting an experimental feature like this.
We don’t know yet how they will place that option, so for now, his stance regarding this is still true.
1 Like
Already forgot previous massage?
But he was against adding it without those checkboxes.
If ti at least comes close to being ‘out of the way’ then I’m still ‘ok’ with it to a degree. Not what I would like to see but an acceptable range to deal with it.
But I don’t know how the exact implementation is. I was hyped extremely about content in the past and got majorly disappointed. I also was disappointed by promised content in the past and it instead turned out to be a game-changer. I’m hence heavily on the ‘wait and see’ position.
You’re really… really bad with context…
Ok, Kulze, just write one more message about how absolutely right you are and I promise I will not respond to it So you could feel good.
PS, you already did while I wrote this one. Good point, you are totally right!
And he still is.
What I read from his statement, after having read the other thread, is that if they add the proper double opt-in option for WASD, then it’s an interesting choice to add. If they don’t, it’s a disaster.
Since we don’t know which it is, though I personally don’t think they will do this (although they could easily read this and implement it like that, we’re still a month away from release after all and changes are still possible), for now his statements stand.
When we get the details on how it’s implemented I expect he’ll react positively if there’s a double opt-in (or proper steps taken for the same effect) and react negatively if it’s just an option with the same weight as the rest.
As I said, I have often had long arguments with him and we disagree on several things, but I don’t think he was being inconsistent here within the full context of the other discussion.
Then he forgot to add here, after “Absolutely amazing!”, that it’s good only with those 2 checkboxes, otherwise it’s disaster and not amazing.
Errr, if that’s the case then that’s a bug. All flat damage, regardless of the source, should be affected by the added damage effectiveness of the skill (ignoring the base damage, obviously).
Thank you for your enthusiasm and dedication! I’ll try building it and hopefully get to see your showcase soon.
Pretty sure it is intentional, otherwise the mod will be OP for Torment with its 200% dmg effectiveness and useless for other curses like Anguish and Penance that have no base dmg effectiveness and are already underpowered.
If they have no stated damage effectiveness, it’s 100%.
All that affix/mod does is just add flat damage to anything that has the curse tag, after that it’s treated as any other flat damage.
Oooooh boy I’m going to start needing Sentinel rework info sir…please!