AoJ change (first of several) (in Changelog)

To start off, taking user suggestion, the AoJ will soon max at junctioning 90%. Naming it will boost that by 10%.

Wow, all two of them.

NOOOOOO

BOOOOO HISS BOOOOO

ewww...why not make naming give an extra 10% boost to items effect on the minion instead of further nerfing junction?

several AoJ changes? or several changes across multiple items?

Ranger, this was your idea :)

On the positive side,
We now have someone who is actively taking a part in upgrading/dating the game.

Several aoj changes... I'm on to make it actually work.

It was my idea when we had a random + on the AoJ's.

Now I would have preferred a bonus to the normal AoJ for naming. Like someone mentioned a few posts above.

Don't get me involved in this decision :)

But since your taking my ideas, what about the exbow? or ......

My comment is this: you CANNOT nerf the exbow without also including a ranged salvage yard (keeping in mind that NS has the biggest exbows is also pretty telling)

Why can't he nerf exbows without a range salvage yard? IMO I don't think a range salvage yard is possible without paying at the same time.

Off topic already? Wow....

alright back on topic. Make AoJ's +10 again and boost the affect that junctioned items and skills have on a familiar by 4% if named...

makes sense to me.

Awwww :( As stated by other already AOJ should stay +10 and naming should be give a bonus like the RoE.

Thanks for working on things btw

I think this is a good change. :)

at least it won't be an anomaly and mine is already named! ; )

now for the bug fixes!

woohoo!

I don't remember how 90% junction affects items, can some explain?

Also, NS while you're at it fixing AoJ, could you make sure that when evasion is transferred via AoJ that it transfers the levels rather than the effect? For example if you train 1 million Evasion onto a Hal, it'll transfer the evasion then calculate the effect based on the dex of the Hal rather than the user.

Oh yeah, and UC working on Hal would be great! :D

I've lived through many changes which have been bearable such as the VB reduction but why should an AoJ "have" to be named just to work properly?
My AoJ was expensive enough to begin with but another 2mill just to make sure I don't have 10% of my fights without the bonuses I've worked towards for my JKF?
There might be a problem with HF's but the JKF doesn't need to suffer, I suggest the bonus to bonuses for naming as above.

as Zog states a +9 AoJ means that 10% of fights are fought where the AoJ doesn't junction items. So it will likely mean you'll lose up to 10% of the fights you up till now always won (if you use an AoJ of course)

If I'm not wrong, 90% Junction would work just like the skill did at 90% - the effect would transfer over at 90% (+10 TGs would only act like +9s on the junctioned familiar.)

And by "if I'm not wrong," I mean "I'm almost 100% certain I'm right."

If you are correct OB then this is ok, if not this change is icky

you may be right OB, i'm not sure but things like the HoC are a on/off item so 10% of the time you lose the effect.

Junction also used to lower stats on physical familiars if it was lower than 1.0

I know the HoC was an item that worked (and didn't) depending on your level.

This change blows, teaching us what happens when we make suggestions.

My HoC has worked 100% during about 40 fights

My evasion (combined from skill and dbs) hasn't dropped below 207 in any fights I saw before the server started throwing errors

Somehow I feel that this change was made out of spite xD. To punish the bickering.

NS doesn't strike me as the spiteful type.

According to past posts, Junction below 1.00 either didn't junction or gave a negative effect, nowhere near 90% of the apparent positive effect.
If this has been fixed then it's not as bad but I still don't see why I should have my Junction untrained, have to pay a large sum to get Junction back and then an extra 2mill just to get back to what I once had with it.
I very rarely disagree with a change whether it affects my strategy or not but I feel I have to speak up on this one. It's not just the 2mill, I need someone who is willing to do a single naming which is hassle that just wasn't necessary.

This one is still +10:
http://www.carnageblender.com/gc/view-one.tcl?classified_ad_id=125059

Not sure if this was reported or not, and I'm not reading the whole thread.

"I know the HoC was an item that worked (and didn't) depending on your level."

It never worked that way.

Existing +10's are still +10. Until I change those, it's kind of like an early bird special.

i dont think the admin should take suggestions from USD users about changing an item most of us just dumped our money on to not get totally nerfed and force us to spend an additional 5$ to get the full benefit?

i dont like the idea that i have a 10% chance to fail a junction and im practically forced to name it otherwise i face losing opponents to randomness.

whose fight lists have been hurt because of this change? I can't tell the difference.

An Amulet of Junction [0] (+9)

Mine sure isn't +10

Steve, it wasn't originally suggested that way (or at all?) :P when all the AoJs had randome +'s, Ranger was one of the people pointing out that a named +9 was also useful. Far as USD users giving that opinion, I'm fairly certain I said the same thing in chat just a little earlier than Ranger did (Only cuz i was there first) :P

Oh, but on the subject of the original post, even as someone with no interest in junction, I'm not a fan of the change, as is. If it had been this way since the AoJ came out that may have been different (coulda just looked at the $CB cost of $5 as part of the AoJ purchase price...), but suddenly telling everyone with a familiar thy need to pony up $5, retrain, or lose battles due to randomness seems kinda off...

On the other hand, you could just look at it as another nerf that you have the option to buy back... I wish $5 made my AC work the way it used to :P

I have my doubt that 90% of effects will change many of the battles.

Perhaps the most significant will be the HoC if it really will only work 9/10 times.

Sigh...

Hoc and Aoi will be hit or miss, 9/10 of the time.

You could also look at it like the Junction skill maxes at 90%, much like how bloodlust went from 120% down to 60%.

would using item boosts bring up the Junction from 90 to 100%?

Can you boost bloodlust past its max?

Jon reacted to the communities opinion that Junction at less than 1.0 was a non-starter by eliminating the less than +10 AoJ. What is the motivation for this? It strongly suggests that the longstanding tradition of a lack of blatant pay to play items and abilities is going away, and this worries me a lot. I buy supporterships for random NUBs, so it's not a matter of not wanting to support the game, I'm just afraid we're taking a first step down a slope that leads to being every other "free" web game.

Naming should (and always has been) a bonus, not a lack of negative.
Users suggestions should almost never be implemented without a sanity check, and this one fails hard in my opinion.

the easiest solution in my mind has always been to have a named aoj grant an ac bonus. a bonus of five percent to the junctioned skills would be great, but probably would require too much work coding and such.

This thread should be called "AoJ change (worst of several)."

Sorry, NS, but I don't think this change makes sense. Junction was never designed to max at .90, and it is also rather unfair to force the naming of an item for it to give full effect.

Does this mean that you only get the so called 50% boost to str and dex if the AoJ is named?

This would be fine if you gave people who don't have cash to spend an option to reach 100% in game. I know people can get namings done by other people, and it's good to put money in; but it still involves spending real money.

I'm not completely comfortable with being able to buy an advantage as an official part of the game to this degree. There are a lot of people who are here, and have been for a very long time, because it is completely possible to play and be competitive without spending real money. You might just see a decrease in the player base if you go down this route.

Eek I'm with Novice here. 100% :|

I'm in agreement here. We shouldn't need to spend cash to get the full effect of what was once a skill, and is still an integral part of a specific Strategy.

"It strongly suggests that the longstanding tradition of a lack of blatant pay to play items and abilities is going away, and this worries me a lot.... Naming should (and always has been) a bonus, not a lack of negative."

If ever I was in agreement with any statement on Carnage Blender, this would be it.

If AoJ+9 means 90% of a stat is junctioned (and admittedly, I don't know if it currently does) then that's fine.

If it means that 90% percent of the time, a stat is 100% junctioned, that's a random win. Random wins are 100% bad, period.

I'm also an amateur game programmer, and gaming student. A random 100% win is simply BAD DESIGN. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

If this means nothing else, it's from someone (me) who doesn't use, nor has any use for Junction. If Junction is nerfed, in any form, then that is "good" for me. But not so for the game. I hope for game balance above all. And that means a balanced Junction.

I don't use an AoJ and i HATE this change. This does NOT help game play and only really empties peoples pockets of spare change. Jon made the AoJ +10 because he very wisely realized it wouldn't work properly otherwise. Leave the AoJ as Jon left, he knows best.

"Jon made the AoJ +10 because he very wisely realized it wouldn't work properly otherwise."

With no disrespect toward Nightstrike, I agree.

And for the record:
ANYTHING that equates to "Jon (and Nightstrike) gets more money" is generally a good thing...

...EXCEPT when it interferes with the very principles of game balance.

I believe this change does exactly that.

"Jon made the AoJ +10 because he very wisely realized it wouldn't work properly otherwise."

You sure? Maybe he just didn't want to hear our whining.

As far as i know Elite it did do that.
But now that NS has changed the AoJ, and the whining has restarted.
Leave it as it was.

"You sure? Maybe he just didn't want to hear our whining."

Yeah, cuz' that has made a difference any other time, ever.

I'd roll my eyes, but I hate emoticons.

"If AoJ+9 means 90% of a stat is junctioned (and admittedly, I don't know if it currently does) then that's fine. "

The above is correct.

NS, it's the on/off items that eveyone's complaining about. Now that Junction is an Amulet, having an on/off AoI isn't an issue.

But the HoC being on/off could lead to you losing fights 10% of the time only from not getting the extra ranged round.

Nothing to do with Strategy, just a 10% chance per battle your HoC just doesn't work.

"Can you boost bloodlust past its max?"

No. It sits at Max effect (is that 0.75 now or something). As Junction is transfered over after minion stats are taken into account, that means a +9 AoJ will never be able to junction a full BL (or AP, etc) over.

Conversly, I've a sneaking suspicion that you can train a base BL on a 20 STR minion and get the max effect transfered over to your familiar, but that's a seperate issue. ;)

I haven't yet fixed the fact that effects transfer instead of levels :)

it isn't that bad even with HoC being on/off. That extra round matters, but there isn't a lot of time when that is the difference between winning and losing. When you can have one extra round being the determinant of the result, sometimes random damage would do it anyway (say hit for max = win, hit for min = lose).

Keep trying NS, you will get it eventually

A better point is who is going to spend money on an item that keeps getting changed anyways?

Sure I could go drop the money to get my AoJ named now, but why? In a week or so it will undoubtedly be changed again (c'mon this change sucks and the overall whining will eventually get through, it seems inevitable) Then what? It gets changed and I've wasted USD.

Pass.

Good to know this game is becoming every other game though. Will make it easier to leave when the time comes.

All of us have felt that way at one time or another.

However, we do have changemonths and as such, some strategies/items get nerfed and others get a boost.

90% vs 100% junction is not a radical game changer. IMO at least.

Hardly a game changer. And seriously folks, you're starting to sound like my little sister.

Did I just say "folks"?

I'm not saying it is a game changer at all. I'm saying what incentive does anyone have to upgrade it knowing full well it's just going to get changed again...

This change is butt because it goes against what CB is all about.

Coupled with the fact that junction has been changed so frequently recently that how can you expect this change to stick? Maybe Jon logs in tomorrow and says "uhh no." and changes it back the way it was.

Like I said. Pass.

I'm nothing short of shocked at all the complaining, myself...You initially had a broken amulet, now you have an amulet that works and junctions over 90% of item effects AND skills. That's a freaking awesome amulet, and you have the ability to turn it to 100% if you pay USD / pay someone else CBD to get it named.

I truly hope everyone whining in this thread is giving out an equivalent amount of praise in the other threads where very large numbers of bugs are being fixed.

*shakes head*

Agreed 100%

90% vs 100% might not be a game changer, but the part of the change where you need to name the item to get full effect sets a precedent that personally I hope we don't see appear elsewhere in the game.

Essentially without spending real money you have a number of strats that will never work at full effect. If that becomes the case with other items - for instance a HAL that only trains full archery or a Morg with VA working only when named - then CB becomes a very different place.

Making it work properly is great and thanks for that, but the other change feels like a seriously large change to the game as a whole.

"now you have an amulet that works and junctions over 90% of item effects AND skills."

Actually, I just did a quick test with a rented AoJ +9 unnamed and a Jiggy. Remember how a 1.00 Junction actually gives 150% of the regular item effects (like a junctioned +20 pair of TGs actually boost the familiar's ST by 30%)? Well, it looks like skills junction over at 150%, too. Of course, it's 90% of 150%, so really 135%, but still. That's why the familiar acts as the minion with the highest PL, and why junctioning a Jiggy to a UC minion results in a huge UC level.

So, really, all junctioned items and skills (as far as I've tested, and I haven't tested with every item in the game) grant 135% of their original effect to the minion, rather than 90%. Also, I seem to remember an issue with a .9 Junction actually lowering a familiar's base stats. As far as I can tell, the +9 AoJ does not cause this lowering, but rather does truly grant a boost of 90% of what 1.00 Junction previously gave.

In other words, don't despair.

Actually, leaving them all at +9 doesn't seem too bad. It's still 35% better than if Jon had said "Actually, Junction doesn't give you 1.5x the boost from your items anymore." That is, of course, excluding the HoC and such items.

Just to be clear, I still agree that this change goes counter to the ideals of the game and that Jon probably had a good reason for making them all +10. I just think this possibly-indefinite/temporary situation isn't all that bad.

Not that I even use Junction, mostly.

I think your numbers are wrong, considering that I didn't set it to .9 yet.

I see no boost to skills.

Sorry Warfish, that's wrong. It's easy to see PL doesn't get the 150% increase (shameless plug of other thread I've posted info in! :P).

That only applies to the intrinsics, STR and DEX. Not to any other stat.

I am also in agreement that forcing a person to spend USD/CBD to get an itme to work 100% of the time seems to go against the theme of the game.

I am STILL unsure why everbody doesn't just agree with me that the item if named should boost the items effect on the minion by a further 4%. Seems logical, ideal, and in line with past changes.

"90% vs 100% might not be a game changer, but the part of the change where you need to name the item to get full effect sets a precedent that personally I hope we don't see appear elsewhere in the game.

Essentially without spending real money you have a number of strats that will never work at full effect. If that becomes the case with other items - for instance a HAL that only trains full archery or a Morg with VA working only when named - then CB becomes a very different place.

Making it work properly is great and thanks for that, but the other change feels like a seriously large change to the game as a whole."


What is a full effect in the abstract? Fights are decided simply on what the numbers interact, with some numbers have a cap imposed on it by Jon. Archery is capped at 1.0, and say if Jon raised that cap to 1.5 which give 150 BTH (can you say broken?) without changing the Hal, so it is still at 1.0. Does the Hal still give "full effect" without being changed? Morg give a 20% VA, if that number is raised to 25% or dropped to 15%, would you say that is not "full effect"? Naming an item essentially a bonus to what you already get from the item, I would hardly say an unnamed armor not giving a full effect because you can get extra AC from it.

I see exactly what you're saying. But it's missing the point somewhat. If other things follow this change then people who spend will have an advantage over people who don't.

Admittedly we've always had that going on, but not really as part of standard game mechanics.

It's not about what is 'full effect'. That in itself is secondary. It's about whether or not paying for basic effects to be unlocked is a good thing.

It really is a matter of semantics.

This is not unlocking any secret power of the amulet.

It is just giving another 10%.

True, I would have liked to see it give 100% and 110% or 104% with naming.

However, this is what NS and Jon chose.

And there is no real money if you really do not want to spend it as there is a CB/USD conversion rate that one can almost always find someone to name it for them.

Just like getting any supporter item.

I know what you're saying, and I've no problem with putting money back into the game. But where supporter items are concerned you buy it and then it's down to internal game money to boost it.

Buying CB$ with USD isn't a game mechanic. If I buy some and you don't it's kind of outside of the game giving me an advantage. But with the AoJ's it's different. If I buy one and name it and you buy one and can't name it I've and advantage that the game gives me. It's that I've a problem with.

If junction never existed until AoJ in its current form, would anyone think 100% is the full effect? I have a feeling that most would be satisfied that you can only transfer 90%, with a bonus for naming. The only reason you would think that the full effect for junction is 100% is because of its previous incarnation.

Well JW,

Is it not like me naming my familiar getting 4% more effect vs you not?

Or me naming my BGs getting more damage?

etc.....

It is not like naming unlocks this special ability of the AoJ. It gives 10% more item effects.

As PK put it.. If Jon made it 90% to start and naming gave it 100%, would anyone have a problem with it? I think not.

Just like naming a TSA gives additional AC and strength. It is a benefit of the naming. Just like any other item.

Ok, so since some folks continue to argue this, I'll use a personal example.

My NSC are stupidly large, specifically so I can use a familiar as a main damage dealer in spite of it's cripplingly low HP. This change gives me a choice of losing 33m in NW effect, or paying $5 a year.

That's pay for play, and right or wrong it's a deviation from how things have been done. I realize NightStrike isn't going to come out and say he did this to encourage naming, but that's honestly what I'd like to see. If the current CB population isn't doing enough to pay for the sites costs, I'd like to know about it.

So much has been said about appearing to be welcoming to new users, it's cause an enormous amount of strife and lost us some of the very best people we had here. I think this sort of forced donation is much worse for the image of CB.

Ok,

Fair enough.

My bow is stupidly large. If I do not name my BGs I lose 1.5% of the damage it could do. Would you consider that pay to play?

I do not.

"I am also in agreement that forcing a person to spend USD/CBD to get an itme to work 100% of the time seems to go against the theme of the game."

Fatal1ty, you may have simply missed the post, but that is NOT what it does. It works at 90% of the effect, 100% of the time without naming; 100% of the effect 100% of the time with. Makes sense?

On a side note: Jeez, everyone acts like a loss of 10% is the end of the world. What if Junction had originally been released as transferring 50% of an item's effect over? Not to mention that since it was turned into an amulet, it now junctions over SKILLS, too...Junction has undergone nothing but improvements since its release, and when one minor (yeah, I said MINOR) change occurs that makes it less powerful the world is at its end.

Take a step back and look at your post, people. It's been IMPROVED in every changelog thread but this one, but all I see is whining about this one.

Actually, it is definitely a nerf, but I wouldn't consider it essential to name it.

while i am not sure exactly how i feel about it, mine was already named, it has not been implemented as of yet and that may mean something.

Having HoC junctioned 9/10 fights just doesn't seem viable for many familiar strats .. maybe I am wrong

I still say naming it should give a bonus and the amulet should stay +10.

So if you want your BL, UC, etc. junctioned you can get a bonus to boost your skill past its trained lev, such as elven gloves/boots, Corn, etc work with dex and such.
Makes naming it more enticing to do so then too IMO.

"Makes naming it more enticing to do so then too IMO. "

from a marketing standpoint it would be much more appealing to have namings always give extra rather than be a requirement to fully use.

I am planning an NCB with a Hal and I don't intend to name it. QFT.

If we can upgrade them, bring back the +1 to +10.

But *only* if we get rid of the stupid on/off. Have anything like that junctioned fully at +1. With things like AC, STR%, DEX%, Stats, etc.

Having something not work for 1 in 10 fights purely due to a random number isn't strategy, and is getting back into the Realms of FoD. As posted above, it's not good gameplay, and in essence forces anyone who wan't sto use an on/off item to spend the cash to name thier Amulet.

It would be simpler, and easier to just get rid of the on/off nature, leave all AoJ at +10 and let Naming give a 4% bonus to AC, STR%, DEX%, etc that's junctioned over.

As said by JW, naming is and should remain, a bonus, a perk. Something fun to change the name of your items to personalise them, and give you a little boost. It shouldn't become the route taken to make an item work at maximum potential. (This is different to naming an item that gives damage to get it to give more, that's a bonus, which is fine).

Painkiller seems to understand this very well. Many others do not.

The "full effect" is whatever Junction maxes at. Currently, it maxes at 1.0 so that it's easier to make sure all the code is right. Soon, that will be cut to .9. Looking at how insanely powerful the AoJ is right now, do any of you honestly see that staying even at .9?

Further, the AoJ junctions over a *LOT* of stuff. The HoC is the only outlier item that is binary in nature (the code accounts for the AoI, but I'm sure you can guess why that doesn't matter). A REAL easy fix is just to exclude that from junction entirely, considering that so much other stuff gets tossed over on the corresponding familiar.

What's messed up about this thread is the psychology of it all. If Junction were first introduced as an amulet, and it worked at, say, 10%, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's a lot like the boiling frog metaphor. I find that kind of odd that so many people miss that. How do you know if you're missing it? Easy... you keep talking about the "full effect".

News flash -- naming does not give the "full effect". It gives a bonus. The "full effect" is not always 100%. Heck, it's not even 100% currently, as certain intrinsics have their "full effect" set to 150%. I tried to explain this with bloodlust, as that started with a "full effect" of 120%, went as low as 60%, then back up to 75%, or whatever the heck it's at now. That skill has had its "full effect" changed more times than I can count. Does anyone claim that it's not operating at its "full effect"?

Here's why you guys are missing it. What if I set the junction "full effect" to 100%, and naming gives it 104%? How is that ANY different than setting it to 90% and naming gives it 100% (don't quibble about the 6% difference...)? It's simply because a lot of you have this idea in your heads that the "full effect" of Junction is 100%. That's an absurd idea, since it's not even static across all the various things it affects currently.

How about I change the AoJ to operate at 90%, and naming does nothing? Then are you getting your "full effect"? What if I set the intrinsics to junction at 100% instead of 150%? Are you no longer getting your "full effect"? Who determines what a "full effect" is? Novice? JohnnyWas? My trusty d20?

----

I listen to a lot of arguments about things, and I press a lot of them with Jon. This, however, is by far the most absurd argument I've heard yet, and I'm really rather shocked by it.

NS, if the arguement is that Junction is too powerful at 100% and ok at 90%, then why Does Junction increase STR/DEX Transfers by an additional 50%?

I understand that the current working application of some skills, on one of the Familiars is quite powerful (Due to that Familiars innate abilities), but apart from that (And maybe Junctioning Evasion over to a Hal, as the DD famailiars don't have enough Dex to make Evasion worth Junctioning now, and AP, BL, UC or Archery doesn't help any of the familiars) what's really so powerful that a 10% reduction is really going to make an impact?

If the answer is to stop the Binary items junctioning over, that's going to be a massive nerf to the Hal, FF and SF.

I've got no problem with the idea of a +1 to +9 Junctioning over 10% to 90% of the intrinsics. Just the binary items. OK, we've only got one at the moment, but that's not to say there won't be more in the future (or the TSA changed to an Amulet or being allowed to be worn with a Tattoo for an extreme exmaple).

Having them remain on/off isn't good. And just removing them from Junction takes away potentailly the best reason (unless we get a Mage Skill we can Junction to the Mage Familiars) to use an AoJ.

If Junction and the Jig get changed. :P

"If the answer is to stop the Binary items junctioning over, that's going to be a massive nerf to the Hal, FF and SF."

Actually the other two Mage Familiars as well, as they'll lose the Melee attack in the last round of Ranged.

OK. I personally don't see how this is such an issue. I have looked thru my fightlist and maybe one or two of my opponents would i actually lose to if my HoC didn't work. So out of that 10% chance for the on/off feature of the new AoJ it would have to be during a fight vs one of those opponents. The likelyhood that this really hurts a lot of fights is so small that I doubt it will make much a difference at all. Just my opinion on this. I am just happy to see changes being made. Good or bad for my strat or not! :)

GL, that's a totally separate issue that has nothing to do with naming/full effect/killing CB

I'd lump it in with the Full Effect though. At full effect, binary items work all the time, every fight.

Below that they don't.

I don't fall on the side that dropping the Intrinsicts from 100% transfer to 90% is a problem. But if that was the case for the change, leave the AoJ at +10 for the binaries and lower the Intrinsicts from 150%.

It seems to me the only reason for the change (bar the Jig problems, which I know you're on the case! :P) is to make Binaries unreliable, unless you pay for it. Which is I think what people have thier back up against.

I'd hate to see the binaries removed form Junction, as it does take away a major reason to use the AoJ.

Making Skills work is a bonus, but really only for the Jig. He gets use from BL, UC and Evasion, with the Hal getting use from Evasion. With the exception of trying something funky with PL, the rest of the skills, especially archery (or BL, UC and Evasion on the Mages) aren't really worth Junctioning currently. There really isn't anything for the Mages, as with no Dex, it's better to Junction a pair of DBs over than train Evasion.

Still whatever happens I don't tihnk it will kill CB. ;)

(And I hope I don't come across as whinging, I'm over the moon - as I'm sure everyone is - that changes are being made!)

"It seems to me the only reason for the change"

>_<

Gah, the reason for the change was Naming didn't do anything. But couldn't we have the naming increase the instrincs instead (even if they themselves are reduced from 150%), instead of brekaing junction for binaries just to make Naming work?

consider naming AoJ with respect to binary that they only work on defense? losing 10% of offensive fight will not be a good target, but defending 90% of attacks would be good enough. Just slap it on for defense and forget about it on offense. DONE.

We *really* don't want to get back to offensive/defensive gear set up do we?

"It seems to me the only reason for the change (bar the Jig problems, which I know you're on the case! :P) is to make Binaries unreliable"

If you'll note, in his posted wall of text above, he DID offer to make those items that would become unreliable not work with Junction at all. :P

That way, nobody can complain, right?

Oh wait, this is CB. :P

Can I just say, before I get way too negative for my liking, that the reason I was so fixated on 'full effect' is that the OP reads as follows:

"To start off, taking user suggestion, I've made the AoJ +9 by default. Naming it now gives it a bonus of +10 for full effect. "

I know OB, it's why I've mentioned twice that doing that would be (to me) a bad idea. ;)

/me applauds NS.

Discounting the HoC and the AoI - there's nothing wrong with this change. I'd rather this than bumping Named AoJs up to +11.

^Speaking of which, I doubt this is how it'd work but... 10% chance for double HoC effect? =P

I like the change, but perhaps thinking overnight, with 1 change.

I would like to see all the unnamed AoJ's transfer over the HoC ability to the familiar 100%.

Let the items transfer 90% of 150%, fine. But let the HoC always work on an unnamed AoJ.

That may satisfy almost everyone.

And Cube,

One cannot use an AoI and AoJ together. So transferring the AoI ability to the familiar is moot.

Was one of the few benefits one achieved using junction as a skill.

"What's messed up about this thread is the psychology of it all."

it is all psychology and while all your points are correct, the psychology of customer service can be quite complex.

as an example, imagine if a car dealer advertised a lower price on a car. when you got there though and decided on the one you wanted they informed you that it doesn't come with tires. if you want those then the price will actually be the same as it was before this discount. logically, everything they have said was accurate, especially if in their ad they had small print explaining the tire issue. the question is though would you feel cheated or manipulated?

it is pretty much always better to make people think they are getting extra rather than thinking they are being limited or slighted. namings have always been seen as voluntary and many of us that do them think of them as donating to a game we love. is it really worth it to chance tainting that relationship to be right?

Wait... All the +9s are still working as +10s right now?

I dunno. It looked like the difference between my unJunctioned Jig's UC and a Junctioned Jig's UC was 135% of the equipping minion's UC. Maybe 100% was transferred over, and then the "double-dipping" of the HGs gave it an extra amount that just happened to be 35% or something.

It was the HG. ;)

As Ranger and I have mentioned, isn't the best solution to let binaries Junction over fully (But unmodified), then let the Junction of AC, Intrinsics, Skills, etc be subject to a reduced effect. And also allow that to be increased by naming.

It would reach the desired effect (give naming a reason, and maybe tone down sme of Junctions new power), while not making the existing Binary item (and ant new ones!) subject to a RNG fail.

And also releive the pressure of people thinking they have to name the item just to make sure Junction does what it says on the tin.

Win all round.

Anyone see a problem with that?

Sure, I do. If NightStrike goes with the majority, it would give us the semblance of not playing in a game controlled by autocrats. :p

Your first balance related change and you're already becoming combative and threatening the user base when they dislike it...

Jon would be so proud.

Having an item that people feel they have to name to use properly is a negative. It drains out the goodwill created by having a game with virtually no pay for play items. It's not huge, it's not terrible, heck it's pretty good business practice from a number of perspectives.
It's not CB.

I think it's a good change. The full effect of the amulet has been lowered to 0.9. If you then name the item you get a bonus of 0.1.

It's the same as getting more AC when you name a piece of body armour. Can we then say that we aren't getting the full effect of AC?? Is this now killing the game as we all have to spend money naming our armour to get a slight increase?

Wasp, it's not the same for the binary items.

Your Body Armour doesn't have a randomly generated chance to just not work each battle (Which you can utterly eradicate by paying for it not to happen).

I don't think anyone is really complaining about the nerf from 100% to 90% of stats with amounts. Just the Binary on/off stuff.

So they are complaining about what? This binary thing that could make them lose 1 round of ranged? Or the fact that they could just pay 1.5 million more? Big deal. There's a lot of chance in this game. From fight rewards to forging efficiency. Even DD spells are chance related; And all other damage too. So this .9 equates to a ten percent chance that you could do less damage.

"The "full effect" is whatever Junction maxes at. Currently, it maxes at 1.0 so that it's easier to make sure all the code is right. Soon, that will be cut to .9. Looking at how insanely powerful the AoJ is right now, do any of you honestly see that staying even at .9?"

So whilst fixing the insane power of the AoF + junction by removing the skill junction and putting it on an amulet Jon has created a new imbalance for JKF/Hal? Seems about right as new imbalance has to be built into every change otherwise the game dies ;)


"Further, the AoJ junctions over a *LOT* of stuff. The HoC is the only outlier item that is binary in nature (the code accounts for the AoI, but I'm sure you can guess why that doesn't matter). A REAL easy fix is just to exclude that from junction entirely, considering that so much other stuff gets tossed over on the corresponding familiar."

Here is the nub of it, if the AoJ is going to junction the HoC and you want to use one you are left with almost no choice but to name it if you are interested in keeping 90%+ win ratio versus your targets. This is what the apologists seem to be ignoring. Your proposed fix does indeed remove this problem.



"What's messed up about this thread is the psychology of it all. If Junction were first introduced as an amulet, and it worked at, say, 10%, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's a lot like the boiling frog metaphor. I find that kind of odd that so many people miss that. How do you know if you're missing it? Easy... you keep talking about the "full effect".

News flash -- naming does not give the "full effect". It gives a bonus. The "full effect" is not always 100%. Heck, it's not even 100% currently, as certain intrinsics have their "full effect" set to 150%. I tried to explain this with bloodlust, as that started with a "full effect" of 120%, went as low as 60%, then back up to 75%, or whatever the heck it's at now. That skill has had its "full effect" changed more times than I can count. Does anyone claim that it's not operating at its "full effect"?

Here's why you guys are missing it. What if I set the junction "full effect" to 100%, and naming gives it 104%? How is that ANY different than setting it to 90% and naming gives it 100% (don't quibble about the 6% difference...)? It's simply because a lot of you have this idea in your heads that the "full effect" of Junction is 100%. That's an absurd idea, since it's not even static across all the various things it affects currently."

It is different in the case of the HoC... as you seemed to understand in your earlier point and then you post all this ignoring the HoC aspect???

"How about I change the AoJ to operate at 90%, and naming does nothing? Then are you getting your "full effect"? What if I set the intrinsics to junction at 100% instead of 150%? Are you no longer getting your "full effect"? Who determines what a "full effect" is? Novice? JohnnyWas? My trusty d20"

Using the words full effect are misleading, the only problem is the HoC and the proposed change is it works 9/10 times without naming 10/10 with, making naming mandatory for some, it is quite simple.


----

"I listen to a lot of arguments about things, and I press a lot of them with Jon. This, however, is by far the most absurd argument I've heard yet, and I'm really rather shocked by it."

I'm shocked you are shocked, it leads me to think you are either naive about the community or don't understand the game dynamics.

JohnnyWas:
>Can I just say, before I get way too negative for my liking, that
>the reason I was so fixated on 'full effect' is that the OP reads as
>follows:

>"To start off, taking user suggestion, I've made the AoJ +9 by
>default. Naming it now gives it a bonus of +10 for full effect. "


Point taken.

JW - fixed.

"So they are complaining about what? This binary thing that could make them lose 1 round of ranged? Or the fact that they could just pay 1.5 million more? Big deal. There's a lot of chance in this game. From fight rewards to forging efficiency. Even DD spells are chance related; And all other damage too. So this .9 equates to a ten percent chance that you could do less damage."

While it might only seem not a big deal now, as there's only one binary item Junction now effects, I'd hate for it to be ignored, then a new item introduced with a binary effect that would *really* make a difference (as if losing a whole round of attacking isn't enough anyway!).

Or say the effect of DBs or the SoC was binary. And for no reason other than RNG fail you had no PTH reduction or Physical damage reduction and returned damage.

It's a lot more impact to the outcome of a fight than the innate damage varience.

GL,

I have no idea really what your saying in the post, however it if is to get the HoC to work 100% if wearing an AoJ, I am all for it.

Other items, fine 90% of the effects without naming.

:)

LoL! That's what I'm saying Big R. ;)

And :P at JW!

Well all binary items, present and future. ;)

Well,

If GL, JW and the big R all agree, it must be a suggestion enacted ASAP.

Quick, before the moment passes!

I passed it. :(

OUch.

All we need now is a QB clan!

We wouldn't be able to agree on a name.

LoL!

:D

?