About the Carbuncles ...

[dday3six]

Not really sure why I'm even arguing with people about this. It has zero effect on gameplay. It's fairly easy to implemented. It doesn't affect them the slightest.

For Carbuncles to be viable they would need a potency increase, and you think that has zero effect on gameplay? So would any other potency increase also have zero effect on gameplay as well?

The only reason I can see why they should not be given to SMN is if SE has some other plans for them - once they are given to SMN they can't just take it back.

This is your mental gymnastics trying to workout why you cannot have what you want right now, while still leaving room for the future of getting it. You hate arguing with "fans", well I greatly disapprove of the "I want it, I want it, I want it now!" M.O. of the "entitled".

[Bishop81]

You have access to the assets and code of the game? Really?

Simple logic really.

What kind of an idiot of a programmer would write the engine such that it's hard to change/add/remove spell abilities?

You ever written a program in a modern language before?

[Bishop81]

lol your actually a pretty successful troll i didn't even realize until now.

To be blunt, I think I'm the one that is being trolled here.

Most of the posts in this thread are from "regulars" who somehow have an opinion on everything, even when it doesn't affect them in anyway.

[Delily]

Simple logic really.

What kind of an idiot of a programmer would write the engine such that it's hard to change/add/remove spell abilities?

You ever written a program in a modern language before?

Have you ever worked on any software project before?
Just because something seems easy, doesn't mean it is, nor does it mean the developers should spend the time on it. Ever heard the term scope creep? You yourself said this will have no impact on gameplay. Why should they do it? Because a few forums posts?

[dday3six]

To be blunt, I think I'm the one that is being trolled here.

Most of the posts in this thread are from "regulars" who somehow have an opinion on everything, even when it doesn't affect them in anyway.

That is a rather bold statement considering for the Carbuncles to be viable they would need a potency increase, which would make tanking more difficult >50 when Arcanist or Summoner is involved.

Also welcome to the internet, people here will often have a different opinion than you.

[NorthernLadMSP]

That is a rather bold statement considering for the Carbuncles to be viable they would need a potency increase, which would make tanking more difficult >50 when Arcanist or Summoner is involved.

Also welcome to the internet, people here will often have a different opinion than you.

Oh, I had no idea that tanks had such problems in below level 50 dungeons with all the SMN's that are using their Garuda's (with higher potency might I add).

#sarcasm

[Squintina]

I support this. Carbuncles are cuter.

I would, however, prefer they wait until 3.0

(and that's regardless of the whole "new skill" debate, and how easily/difficult it would be to implement. My experience as a programmer would also lead me to think it would just be a function with a parameter, just as you thought, so it would probably be an easy change, but I don't want to assume that just because I'd do it that way, that they would do. Architectural differences in software design can lead to some very different coding practices).

The reason I'd want them to wait is I wouldn't want them to just up the potency of carbuncles for SMN, then it'd be like having another Egis. I'd rather they try to figure out at least one pet skill each would have that is different - AND raid viable - from each other. So that way the SMN carbuncles and egis are both viable, but still a little different from each other.

[ChazNatlo]

Oh I'd love to be able to summon Carbie as a Smn. I actually do drop down to ACN when I'm material farming sometimes, let him stretch his legs. But they don't need to.

Honestly, I could go either way. If an SE rep shows up and says yes they could or no they couldn't split carbie and the egis (which I will now name my non existant band) I'll shrug and move on, and if they don't I'll assume they had better things to do with thier time.

Two thinngs though. One: Where in the lore does it say a SMN is no longer able to summon Carbie? I should think that Being able to summon the radioactive rabbit till you beat Titan and Garuda Egis should sortof prove they infact can, tbey just don't cause why summon a weaker pet for combat.

Two: You can't use "common sense" as an argument relating to a skilled feild. There is a reason we aren't all programmers. It might be that easy, it might not, and the programmers in the audience have and may weigh in on the difficulty.

[Clarkamite]

If it would mean adding a skill to their repetoire to allow them just to summon a carbuncle, I would think this would cause more problems than it would solve. Not saying I'm against you wanting to summon a carbuncle at all. I'm just saying lets say SE came out and said everyone gets a new skill or trait and this was SMN's. You know how many SMN's would be angry that their new skill was not new at all? It wasn't even anything useful? It's purely a cosmetic change.

If you're not asking for a new skill or trait just somehow to option of summoning them (w/o a new skill not sure how that would work) then fine. Most SMN's probably wouldn't care. Actually they might still be mad that SE spent time on that but chose to ignore other things that the job could actually use work on. Just my two cents. Not disagreeing with you just trying to offer some perspective.

[Bishop81]

Have you ever worked on any software project before?
Just because something seems easy, doesn't mean it is, nor does it mean the developers should spend the time on it. Ever heard the term scope creep? You yourself said this will have no impact on gameplay. Why should they do it? Because a few forums posts?

...

I'm asking them to add a spell, that like changing a value in a DB, not re-architecture part of the game's code base.

Feature creep? Changing few configuration parameters is "feature creep"? Are you kidding me? Wait, don't answer that. Clearly you aren't. You know exactly what you are doing in this thread and I think I about had enough of you "regulars".