"BobcatSkywalker;c-2172839" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2172769" wrote:
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2172756" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2172753" wrote:
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2172748" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2172673" wrote:
"Bulldog1205;c-2172660" wrote:
Things still aren’t working correctly with bonus turns. Speed isn’t acting as the tiebreaker. For example, Yoda will (or at least can) trigger a bonus turn from GG who will jump Yoda’s bonus turn despite being slower, but if Anakin’s bonus turn is triggered the same way it won’t (or doesn’t always) jump Yoda. I’ve also had Malak continue to jump in between Anakin and Padme bonus turns even if Padme is faster.
when Yoda takes his turn he goes to 0 TM and gains a bonus turn, which gives him 0 overflow. any toon who has a bonus turn triggered by the first attack will have X TM except in specific situations where they have 0 TM. that toon gains a bonus turn due to GMY and now has 100% TM and X overshoot. that toon wins step one, which will not cause it to step into the measure of speed (step 2)
the first check is TM overflow, second is speed. if the decision is made based on overflow, then yes speed will not be the contributing factor to the decision.
Kyno if what u say is true it seems giving Yoda 200% or 1000% turn meter would fix the issue of his ability not working as written — Yoda not taking an immediate turn.
Of course that would require an update to make the game function as described (immediate bonus turn) but making Yoda gain 200% turn meter can't be that much more complicated than opening a ticket with EA to rewrite Yoda's ability since the devs broke his bonus turn and don't want to fix it.
Instead of nerfing Yoda and rewriting the description why don't they just make his ability gain 200% or 1000% turn meter so Yoda gets his bonus turn since that's what his ability clearly states will happen. Seems simple, is it not?
If we start rewriting kits because devs broke something that used to work and they are too lazy to fix the error they made... Well that can't be good for player morale. Why invest in something if it's just gonna get rewritten when the ability you invested into is broken by a future update.
I don't get why they take the easy way out. This isn't even that hard to fix.
he was never intended to take anything other than the bonus turn we have all come to know and love. the wording was just used "at the time" because this was a new thing and thats how it was worded.
the intent was for it to be a bonus turn, there is no "fix" for this. I understand where you are coming from and if they wanted to give him the "thrawn treatment", they could, but that was not the design intent, despite the wording.
this is not broken, nor has it ever been.
Why did they call it an immediate bonus turn then? Many characters get bonus turns I don't think Yoda was the first, wasn't b2 before Yoda?
The reality is they described the ability as an immediate bonus turn which is different than just bonus turn description used on all other bonus turns.
I understand your claiming devs never meant for Yoda to take an immediate turn, but they wrote immediate bonus turn into the kit so it looks like they did in fact mean for the bonus turn to happen immediately. Plus look at his kit if he gets dispelled before spreading buffs that destroys his value. The whole benefit of Yoda is that he steals buffs and spreads them. In order for that to happen he takes an immediate bonus turn. Seems clearly intentional and it was wai for years and years.
Do you have any evidence that the devs did not intend immediate to mean immediate and they accidentally added an extra word in the description?
Seems like your just making things up as you go along justifying cg failures.
B2 gets 100% TM. the only bonus turn at that time was Han at the beginning of the battle, there was no one else that did it in the middle of a battle.
I'm not going to argue with you, you dont have to believe what they told me and i'm not going to convince you otherwise.
I never said accidental.
the fact that the only other example at the time said bonus turn at the beginning of the battle, they wanted to make it clear that it was happening right then, and since there was no system in place to allow someone to get in the way of that the verbiage made sense, and no one questioned it.
I'm not trying to argue but I will correct you when you make a false claim.
You say devs wanted to make it clear the bonus turn was happening right then, okay.
but then you say there was no system in place to allow someone to get in the way of that. Which is not true.
The old system was a system where b2 or Rex or many other characters could gain turn meter reaching 100% and interrupting the immediate bonus turn of Yoda. This is why all the posts were raised about Yoda not taking immediate bonus turn years ago and why devs changed thrawn and Yoda so Yoda and thrawn always took immediate turns.
Regardless of the past...
Now Yoda taking immediate turn again isn't working in game and instead of fixing the ability devs have decided to rewrite the description to match the game play. Imo that's lazy.
Why would devs decide to rewrite an ability over fixing it. They could easily make Yodas ability gain 1000% tm to ensure Yoda takes his bonus turn immediately as described in his ability?
Again I'm not trying to argue just trying to understand why they choose to rewrite the ability rather than make it immediate as written in the kit.
Well before you try to argue and call em out for making a false claim, you may want to clarify what you think I'm saying.
There was no system to plan for someone to get in the way, not there is. Better?
Most likely because in the past, they set it up this way as it was the only way to make it work in the random system we had. Now that we have a system where they can plan this, they can set it up the way it was intended.
In the random system there was no difference between 100% TM and a bonus turn, so if you wanted GMY to go ahead of 100%TM, they would have to set it up to go before either one. Even if the intent was only to go before someone at 100% TM. Now they have the ability to have it be the way they intended.
I am not trying to talk them out of a hole or reason why I think they intended for it to be one way or the other. I am explaining what I think based on my knowledge of how things worked and the intent I was told.
You want it to be different I get that, but that doesnt mean they didnt intend for it to be this way, and that certainly doesnt mean it's broken and needs to be fixed.
