Aett_Thorn

If the Devs did this, wouldn't it give the players the ability to create, say, a custom mob, then port in the powersets of the Green Hami Mito, and recreate that farm with a custom mob instead?

I think if they did it right, they would limit the mobs that you could choose, and it would be okay. Just wanted to point out that they couldn't just allow you to bring in any mob, since you could create whole custom groups with no attacks again, just with 'standard' powersets used by mobs in-game.

This. Although, for most of the PvE game, I've found that I use Taunt more for the -Range aspect of it than for the actual taunt.

Which is because you need TWICE the threat of another player to pull aggro off of him.

Of course. What else would I be talking about?

Flight packs can't be enhanced for more speed, while Flight can.

Flight can make use out of the Zero-G pack, if it needs a burst of speed.


And while safety is certainly one of the eases of Flight, another is just straight ease of use. It's the only travel power in the game that you can set yourself to move forward at altitude, walk away from the computer to take a bio break/answer the door/make a sandwich, and come back and still be moving forward towards your goal.

No other travel power is that easy.

This. It's a balance issue. Flight allows for full 3-D movement, and suffers in brute speed for it.

I can lend you some of my Hell No, but I still don't think it'll be enough.

I always love the "though nobody knows why" part of that story. Croatan Island is an island south of Roanoke Island. It's a pretty big freakin' clue there, Sherlock, that maybe they went there.

But, they didn't go and check it out, left the post as abandoned, and sailed south for warmer climates. The blue-eyed Indians that were reported to have shown up in the area shortly thereafter? Coincidence, I'm sure.

Haha...nice typo there. I think you meant a level 50 can get 1 million that easily, not a level 5.

No, it does not download while you're playing. You will be kicked off of play if they need you to download a new version of the game.

Did this thread really need to be necro'd for that?

Yes, civility is good. But sometimes it's the original posters themselves that have a very thin skin, and start the flaming.

If you post an idea on these forums, it will not get 100% approval. Go in with that mindset, and it becomes a lot less painful when an idea doesn't get received well. Many times, people come here, post an idea, and then get really, really mad when somebody says that they don't like it.

And while it would be nice if we could always be constructive on these boards, we are under no compulsion to do so. There is also the idea of constructive criticism. There is a way to say that you don't like an idea, while pointing out specific examples of why the idea won't work or isn't that good. With those criticisms, you can either: a) choose to ignore them, b) take them, and fix your idea so that the criticism is no longer valid, or c) scream and ***** that the person is flaming you. Obviously, c) is not a good response that ends well for anybody.

I have, on many occasions, suggested things, either in this forum, or in other ones. Sometimes in my own threads, sometimes in other peoples'. So it's not like I think this game should stay exactly how it is. However, I do have the right to say that a certain suggestion would move this game in a direction that I disagree with.


Ice Armor/Ice Melee Brutes would be fine now. It was NOT only that the slows interfered with building Fury, although they certainly didn't help. Dark Armor was the same way, but Brutes got that. EA has no Taunt Aura, and until recent changes to the set, had a very hard time getting mobs to focus on them in battle. Well, they still do.

The main problem was that Ice Melee SUUUUUUUUCCCCCKKKKED back then for Tankers, and it was even worse for Brutes. No real AoE potential. Weak single-target attacks, and controls which further hindered fury generation. Low-damage attacks, combined with low fury is what really killed the set for Brutes. Now that the set is 'fixed,' it would be okay for Brutes to get.

Except that many of us "PhDs" HAVE seen the Devs say exactly what you want them to say. We very rarely say that the Devs have said something is too much work, unless we've actually seen them say that it's too much work.

For a long time, the last we had heard from the Devs was that Power Customization was going to take a long, long time, and a lot of work. When somebody came to the forums to suggest it, that is EXACTLY what we told them. Then, we get yelled at because we're apparently so knowledgeable about the code that we know this would be a lot of work. No, that's not the case. We've been told by the Devs, who do know the code, that this is too much work. The Rednames have a job to do. They can only peruse these forums so much per day to look for ideas. They're not going to comment in each and every thread to say whether or not it will be hard for them to do. However, when they do say it, we other forumites can repeat that to other people, on similar threads, can we not?

Just because WoW can do it, doesn't mean that it's not a lot of work. WoW was built with those skeletons in the game. CoX, did not. Now, it will take work to get them into the game, and more to get it done right (i.e., a dog would need a different skeleton and animations than a cat, which would need different animations and a skeleton of a bear, for example). And that comes straight from the animation Dev.

Can it be done? Yes. Are there higher priorities from the Devs? Also yes. The people who would make these new animals would be the same people who would be working on new set animations for us. So, they can either create new sets, or new skeletons, which might not get used a lot in the longer run anyways. Obviously, the Devs think that creating new sets that anyone can use is a better use of resources.

Many times, I want to poke holes in an argument to see how the OP wants to handle them. It's his/her idea, and I want to see how they would want to work around the problems. Hence, why I usually post specific examples of problems with the idea. If they can work around them, great. If not, maybe I'll post some ideas for them, or maybe it's just an idea that isn't really fully fleshed out yet. In either case, criticism of an idea is not a bad thing, if done right.

Yes, Boomtown is supposed to be that way, just like every other hazard zone. It's blacked out until you move over the area.

I appreciate the sarcasm there.

I know that that was the reason why Kheldians can't unlock those pools, and I think that it's fairly dumb to still have those restrictions (especially for Peacebringers and the TP pool, and Warshades and the Flight pool), when the tech should exist to lock out certain powers, instead of whole pools. However, on that, standard code rant does apply.

Yes, it's a fairly stupid reason to lock things out just because people might be stupid. But that's not the only reason not to do it. I feel like TFs should be team content. They should still have some minimum team size to them. But, if that does remain in place, then the TF should warrant the team size minimum. This should be along the lines of making the TFs harder, and more team dependent.

Would that stink for you by making you unable to solo the TFs? Yes, it most likely would. But I think that it's more in line with the intent behind TFs more than removing the teaming restriction would be. TFs were meant to be team content. Just because you can solo them now doesn't make that intent invalid.

There are two ways to fix it (probably more, but I think that these are the two main ones):

1) Remove the teaming restrictions, put in a little caption saying that it's very hard content to do solo or with small teams, and remove the intent of the TF as being team content. Or,

2) Keep the intent, and make the TFs worthy of being team content.


Between those two choices, I side with choice #2. It's fine if you want to put your hat in the ring for choice #1. It's perfectly fine. You're entitled to your opinion. And you're welcome to voice it. However, belittling those who disagree with you isn't the way to win a fight. I was actually pretty ambivalent on the issue until I saw your posts in this thread, which made me really want to side against you. But instead of just doing that, I decided that I'd rather be constructive, and throw my hat into the ring for option b, rather than just have to side with you, or risk being considered an idiot.

For you. Just because it's not team worthy for you doesn't make it not team-worthy for everyone. I'd be willing to bet that the number of people that routinely solo TFs, or even CAN solo TFs is about the same, if not smaller, than the population that PvPs.

For me, these are definitely team-worthy events. I'm willing to bet that they are for a lot of other people, too. Do some need an update? Sure. Manticore and Positron definitely could use some help to stop them from being as boring as they are, and Manticore definitely doesn't need 7 people on it. But that doesn't mean that they should just remove the player number restriction.

In my opinion, the restriction forces players that know what they are doing to get around it, versus if it was removed, solo players could find themselves spending hours on something that they can't complete at all.

As is, the restriction is a fairly small hurdle for a small group of players. If removed, it could be a much larger headache for a larger portion of the playerbase. Removing the player restriction, to a lot of people, would be a sign that the content can be soloed by any decent build, when it really can't. Certain builds can, especially after heavy investment in IOs, but it's definitely not the norm.

Bill, despite what you may think, you do not have the right to tell people when they can and when they can't post, or where, for that matter. He has all the right in the world to say that he doesn't care a lot, but he's on the 'status quo' side of an argument. You bullying people into saying that they can't post just because you don't like what their saying doesn't help your arguments. Neither really does just saying that the other arguments against it are trash, when you have yet to demonstrate in this thread that they don't have any validity.

This isn't a common suggestion, and I've not seen a thread discussing this in a long time, especially not one where the arguments against have been trounced repeatedly. So can you leave the high horse at the door, please?

I'd like to know this, too. At least leveling up my Tanker, it was critical in allowing me to have some offense, in addition to being able to run all of my toggles.

Nobody is saying that you can't solo a TF now. A high-end IO build most certainly can. Some builds can do it without that many IOs. If you bring some Shivans along, it becomes even easier.

My problem with it is that they SHOULD be team content. Now, BillZ brings up the point that if you're going to say that, that they should be mechanically impossible to solo. I'd honestly be okay with that. However, how do you go about doing that?

You can't do it by enforcing that so many people stay on the TF, because people do still run these over multiple play sessions, and if people log off one night, to find that they can't finish it the next, then you've got a problem. Even if you set a limit to the number of people still on a TF that didn't quit the TF, what limit do you set for the minimum number? 2? 3? At what point does the challenge at the end then start to matter more than minimum number?

And along those lines, instead of the team size requirement, do you just scale up the big bad guy at the end of the TF to accommodate high-end IO builds, and say that those builds shouldn't be able to solo those AVs?

If you do that, there are a couple of problems there. One is that the Devs specifically said that current content would not be rebalanced around IOs, and you'd be changing that design philosophy that I happen to think was a good one.

The second is that at what point do you scale the AV up to? Do you find people that have a 1 billion-influence build? A 2 billion one? 5? Do you, at some point, reach a place where the high-end IO build can defeat the AV better or faster than small teams can? Do you reach a point where even some teams can't compete with the IO'd build that you're balancing on? Is that a problem?


Do I think that some of the TF team-size requirements are well higher than they need to be? Yes. Do I think that getting rid of them outright is a good idea? Not really.

I also don't think it's a good idea to rebalance existing content around high-end IO builds that can solo AVs (without Shivans). Creating new content that challenges these players would be a good thing, but I think that there are other ways to do that.