So it's a marker that you can place on a skill bar where you want points to stop being added, points accrued will be placed in that stat automatically until it reaches the marker.
Edited by Fumanchuchu on Dec 15, 2013 10:20:43
Forum > Suggestions > Sliding auto-train marker.
Myd
offline
offline
Useful I'd agree. Also humorous in that its been about a week and people are already trying to reduce the amount of time in this game.
underdog13
offline
offline
Originally posted by Myd
Useful I'd agree. Also humorous in that its been about a week and people are already trying to reduce the amount of time in this game.
this
Useful I'd agree. Also humorous in that its been about a week and people are already trying to reduce the amount of time in this game.
this
NiborRis
offline
offline
I dislike this idea, actually.
It would encourage a behavior from GLB1 that we're trying to discourage here - just building a single attribute up to the level you want it, then moving to the next attribute. Instead, we want people to allocate points across the build as they go until they reach final levels desired of each attribute. If you put in a set-and-forget it, people will be heavily inclined to just, say, set it to "dump speed up to 83" and then the dot will be garbage until they start spreading points into other places.
People can do that by choice if they want now, but at least it's just as easy to build in a balanced way as it is to build in an absurd way and so you're more likely to build your dots to be functional at all levels as it is.
It would encourage a behavior from GLB1 that we're trying to discourage here - just building a single attribute up to the level you want it, then moving to the next attribute. Instead, we want people to allocate points across the build as they go until they reach final levels desired of each attribute. If you put in a set-and-forget it, people will be heavily inclined to just, say, set it to "dump speed up to 83" and then the dot will be garbage until they start spreading points into other places.
People can do that by choice if they want now, but at least it's just as easy to build in a balanced way as it is to build in an absurd way and so you're more likely to build your dots to be functional at all levels as it is.
I like the concept
I wonder if it would be awkward to code it in a way that looks appealing and is intuitive though.
I see nibors point.
But easier for player is a plus IMO if the alternative is dreary tedium.
And hi Myd! Good point.
As for me, I am still into the slow way.
But with 40 ish dots, I can see it getting annoying.
BUT - its like the only thing to do in the game, so.... I dunno.
I wonder if it would be awkward to code it in a way that looks appealing and is intuitive though.
I see nibors point.
But easier for player is a plus IMO if the alternative is dreary tedium.
And hi Myd! Good point.
As for me, I am still into the slow way.
But with 40 ish dots, I can see it getting annoying.
BUT - its like the only thing to do in the game, so.... I dunno.
Edited by yello1 on Dec 15, 2013 21:18:08
Originally posted by NiborRis
I dislike this idea, actually.
It would encourage a behavior from GLB1 that we're trying to discourage here - just building a single attribute up to the level you want it, then moving to the next attribute. Instead, we want people to allocate points across the build as they go until they reach final levels desired of each attribute. If you put in a set-and-forget it, people will be heavily inclined to just, say, set it to "dump speed up to 83" and then the dot will be garbage until they start spreading points into other places.
People can do that by choice if they want now, but at least it's just as easy to build in a balanced way as it is to build in an absurd way and so you're more likely to build your dots to be functional at all levels as it is.
In GLB1 there is a competitive advantage to jacking 1 attribute, in GLB2 there isn't. This would be more useful in the mid to late build when all your cheap stuff is filled up and you're just waiting around to buy one point pass accuracy once every 3 days.
I dislike this idea, actually.
It would encourage a behavior from GLB1 that we're trying to discourage here - just building a single attribute up to the level you want it, then moving to the next attribute. Instead, we want people to allocate points across the build as they go until they reach final levels desired of each attribute. If you put in a set-and-forget it, people will be heavily inclined to just, say, set it to "dump speed up to 83" and then the dot will be garbage until they start spreading points into other places.
People can do that by choice if they want now, but at least it's just as easy to build in a balanced way as it is to build in an absurd way and so you're more likely to build your dots to be functional at all levels as it is.
In GLB1 there is a competitive advantage to jacking 1 attribute, in GLB2 there isn't. This would be more useful in the mid to late build when all your cheap stuff is filled up and you're just waiting around to buy one point pass accuracy once every 3 days.
Time Trial
offline
offline
I would support the suggestion if, and only if, you could add the slider to multiple stats and your SPs would be spread amongst all of those stats equally.
Originally posted by Time Trial
I would support the suggestion if, and only if, you could add the slider to multiple stats and your SPs would be spread amongst all of those stats equally.
I actually thought of that but didn't want to complicate the concept, but yeah no reason that couldn't be a thing although it would be kinda weird to work out what "equally" means when one stat costs 1000 while another costs 100.
I would support the suggestion if, and only if, you could add the slider to multiple stats and your SPs would be spread amongst all of those stats equally.
I actually thought of that but didn't want to complicate the concept, but yeah no reason that couldn't be a thing although it would be kinda weird to work out what "equally" means when one stat costs 1000 while another costs 100.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
