Spiral Knights - Give back the old Shard Bombs!

Give back the old Shard Bombs!

70 replies [Last post]

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 17:58

#51

Addisond

Da heck? They deleted it? The thread wasn't violating any of the forum rules to the point that they should do that, and even if it was (I didn't read every post), why now? I really hope I'm missing something here, but this seems a tad Orwellian. Do allusive (though it's not an insult if you answer the question right) insults get the same pass as <69 does?

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 18:08

#52

Byas

- Fair enough. I did say

- Fair enough. I did say keeping one "official" thread made sense, and I have no problem with it being this one over any others. I just think more and more duplicate threads are pointless when you have a main one to use.
Heh, the problem was just a misunderstanding then. One side defending the official thread and the other defending the need of only one official and no copies.

- The fact that they've already changed it once only serves to show that they won't be willing to change it again for some time. Who wants to sit and make a whole new bomb only for it to change within a month? Year down the line maybe, but it's still too soon for them to be even likely to considering it seriously.
It could even come as a different line instead of deleting it, as had been said on the old thread. They have pretty different mechanics for one to replace the other, although the new ones still needing tweaks/buffs.

- Because there were fifty of these threads all saying the same thing, while there's only one thread of each suggestion. The purpose of the thread itself isn't pointless; I believe heavily on making oneself heard as a community, but once there's already a main discussion, making seven new threads saying exactly the same thing is pointless. Refer to my first comment~
Thinking about it again, I was being pretty dumb, it does have a difference in the content :X Sorry about it.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 20:34

#53

Eurydice

Community Manager

Folks. I am not sure how that

Folks. I am not sure how that thread got unpublished, but it is not a desirable practice to "disappear" threads like that. I've republished it. Instead of jumping to conclusions, please just ask about these things. Thanks.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 20:53

#54

Oatmonster

Lick Number 58425

Hotly debated thread on a recently reintroduced topic that has been shown to have administrative objection randomly disappears a few days after the topic is reintroduced as the first known topic to un-publish its self? Seems legit.

@Darkbrady/Byas, Thread 58425 was the first thread, created before shards were added, and it got locked. This is the next best thing. The fact that they changed it once doesn't show that they don't want to change it again. It shows that they don't listen to player feedback, not even to the feed back of testers who paid to test the bombs.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:23

#55

Addisond

The manner in which OOO communicates lends itself to assumption. Nick posts in a vague but somewhat entertaining to think about way, and OOO is not fully open about what they're doing; I don't think much of anyone believes that the change to the toothpick hitbox was unintentional (whether they plan to keep this change I don't know, I think they're just testing it). OOO has by no means been a clear communicator, so don't say we should just ask you and everything will always be cleared up. The fact is, this sort of thing hasn't happened before (or at least not to most people's knowledge), and since this is a controversial thread, it's very suspicious. I'm not accusing you since reverting it cleared up all doubt, but don't be surprised when players draw conclusions at the drop of a hat.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:21

#56

Byas

58425 LIVES

Probably was the same "problem" that made this thread not have a shadow copy at general, huh.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:24

#57

Eltia

Cooperstown, ND

Well, I am glad to hear Eury clearly stated it is not a desirable practice to "disappear" threads.

I was worried today: when evidences start to get destroyed, the witnesses would naturally be worried.

But that's not the point.

I'm worried that Three Rings has sunk to a new low that instead of working towards solving an engineering problem, the engineers spent their time to figure out how to make their problems "go away". If that is true, I do not think anyone should invest their money in such a company.

Well, I'm glad to see the old thread is back. There is also this thread full of suggestion in the General Discussion area, in which I believe should belong to the Suggestion section as well. Eury you may want to take a look.

Be very cautious about this kind of thread disappearance. It could be a glitch in the system (in this case, someone would need to look into the bug), or it could be a malicious attempt from an unknown party (which means this could be a security breach). Either way, please take a more serious look at the problem, before things get worse.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:15

#58

Oatmonster

Lick Number 58425

@Eltia, Your link seems to be broken. Also, Pretty much every way to "buff" the shard bombs in a way that would keep the functionality the same has been suggested, and ignored. Things include; charge time decreases, fuse time decreases, fuse time increases, addition of extra normal damage, removal of 3 hit limit, letting shards become "mines," allowing shards to stack on monsters, removing knockback, adding knockback, increased number of shards, increased radius of explosions, and even something as simple as a general damage increase. As far as I know, they've made even less progress fixing the disappearing shards than they have buffing the iron slug.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:47

#59

Byas

I thought they had said the

I thought they had said the disappearing shards was a "feature" and not a bug, although I don't have a link so it could be just my memory playing tricks on me.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:09

#60

Dead-Bard

Lamest. Feature. Ever.

Lamest.
Feature.
Ever.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:17

#61

Darkbrady

I thought they had said the

I thought they had said the disappearing shards was a "feature" and not a bug

Ahahaha, really? They should put a wee feature notice on the weapon (akin to the "slight chance of poison") underneath the damage.

"Fair chance to become completely useless".

Then we'd have warning, at least o:

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:55

#62

Kazujaxyz

"Fair chance to become useless"?

More like "Guaranteed chance to be useless".
Right under that we have "Fair chance to do absolute-lay no frikkin' damage at all." Literally. Like in, the text between those quotes is the exact same like the one I wrote here. Complete with the slang, just to emphasize on how much they trolled us with this "nerf". That's how much it sucks.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:46

#63

Eltia

Cooperstown, ND

Link has been fixed. See here. Eury please take a look.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 17:06

#64

Doctorspacebar

Forum Nodes 58425 and 67992

Thank you for clarifying, Eury. I'll reference both of these from now on.

Sat, 08/16/2014 - 15:33

#65

Vaked

2 years later...

...and we have a new "guns" with a charge that can one hit a target. Maybe even multiple targets.
Hmmm... lets see
1) these "guns" aren't very gun-like
2) the charge can one hit monsters (come to think of it many gun charges can)
These were the main arguments for changing shard bombs. Maybe the devs can now look back and see how they didn't balance the shard bombs at all. They just made them underpowered as opposed to overpowered.

They wanted to make them unable to kill a specific target in one hit, correct? Why don't they go back to the old shard bomb style and simply add a larger knockback to the bomb? Maybe even reduce the damage a bit.

It's been over 2 years, but I still miss my RSS :( It just seemed to cross my mind again since it is August.

Perhaps the devs learned from their mistake and that is why the gunner update is taking so long. Maybe they are actually listening to feedback now instead of releasing broken gear like they did with the shard bombs. I'm bumping this thread in the hope that they don't leave shard bombs broken forever.

08/08/2012 NEVER FORGET

Sat, 08/16/2014 - 23:15

#66

Xxpapaya

The papaya sighs

Don't necro old threads please >.< If they've been dead for years it probably means that the conversation is over.

Sun, 08/17/2014 - 08:15

#67

Mtax-Forum

But he is right;

OOO in 2012: "Lets nerf shard bombs, because they're not bomb-like enough."
OOO in 2014: "Announcing Swordbomb: The gun!"

Sun, 08/17/2014 - 22:39

#68

Vaked

My other point is...

My other point is...
OOO in 2012 "Lets nerf shard bombs, but not listen to any feedback"
OOO in 2014 "Lets update guns, but listen to feedback and tweak where needed"
Maybe OOO will now listen to the feedback on the shard bombs? We can only hope.

@Xxpapaya - Don't post irrelevant comments please >.< If your post doesn't contribute to the thread, it probably means you shouldn't join the conversation.

Sun, 08/17/2014 - 23:28

#69

Abelisk

Mon, 08/18/2014 - 06:03

#70

Xxpapaya

The papaya frowns

@Tactle-Neck
Well, my previous post was relevant to the thread. Since my point was "conversation is over in this thread, please don't constantly drag it back from the depths of forums". I doubt anyone would be happy if I revived a thread on dual-wielding, or 5* spurs. Whilst I strongly agree with the thread (I used to use the old shard bombs as well <3) somethings leave the first page of the suggestions forum for a reason.

On a side note, I took your previous post quite personally, I genuinely didn't mean any harm in my post commenting about the necro'ing, but maybe I did make it sound too harsh. In that case, I'll be sure to watch the way I phrase my sentences from now on! :)

@Mtax-Forum
I know he is right, and I agree, but [read the above :P]

Search

Give back the old Shard Bombs!