Zubenelgenubi

[ QUOTE ]
This stinks. Guess I picked the wrong day to take off...sigh...

[/ QUOTE ]

"Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffin' glue."

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think we're wasting our time even bothering to post in these threads. I mean, how many years have the devs just ignored bases? For how many years did they just pretend that bases didn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... this was because of the 15 people. We've been promiced base lovin' with the new folks in the house. If we don't tell them what we want, then we'll have no cause to complain later if we don't get it.

[ QUOTE ]
How about this suggestion that I made months ago: If it exists in the game then I should be able to put one in my base. Everything. Every single thing that appears in missions every thing that appears outside in the zones, if it will fit in a room that is. Ok, no skyscrapers in my base, fine. But everything that exists in game that can fit in a base room should be in the base editor.

Everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

lag. lag. lag. lag. lag. lag. lag. lag.

You want a database of thousands of items to choose from. You want to screw around with that while editing bases? You want to click to place an item and wait 4 minutes while the base is updated? Then click to place another item and wait another 4 minutes? You want to stop, get up, make a sandwitch, and drink a beer every time you zone into your SG base while waiting for it all to load?

In this thread we discuss some of my ideas about removing plots for bases altogether. This is not yet another whining call to "make bases cheaper! Make bases cheaper!" The cost of placing rooms would have to go up (substantially in some cases) so that an old-style base built on a 12x12 plot (for example) would cost roughly the same as a new-style base built on a free, open plot (assuming that both bases have the same number, size, and types of rooms).

The advantages include allowing more creative room layouts (like a long linear base intended to be a cave or sewer, or a big ring representing a space station). Currently, such creativity comes at the enormous cost of paid-for but wasted plot squares. Also, this could really help smooth out the large "steps" that exist in the progression from small to large bases.

The disadvantages include how to make new-style bases backward-compatible with those on plots that have already been paid for. Also, tweaking costs so that the change over is roughly prestige-neutral will be a challenge. One idea is a sliding-scale cost increase for new rooms as the number of squares already used increases.

Rent could still be free if the base contains 36 or fewer squares (the current max possible using a grid of nine 2x2 rooms on the 8x8 plot). As the number of squares used goes beyond 36, rent begins to accrue. Again, the idea here is not a back-door way to make bases cheaper or to eliminate rent completely.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Several issues ago, Zube had a kora fruit mission in the shard waiting in his que when a game patch was applied. An odd bug moved the mission's door from the shard to Atlas Park. I have never completed it. Sometimes, when they're particularly annoying, I will respond to PL beggars by saying, "SURE you can join me in a mission! In fact, I have one right over heeeere...!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Nifty. If I make a char on Champion, will you let me tag along for a look-see?

[/ QUOTE ]

I always make sure the noobs take the alpha, but sure!

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to see the Rualuu have a greater presense in the game other than just for lvl 40+ content, they are very cool looking and so seldom seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're on Champion and begging for a PL in Atlas as I'm passing through, you might get to see them sooner than you think.

Several issues ago, Zube had a kora fruit mission in the shard waiting in his que when a game patch was applied. An odd bug moved the mission's door from the shard to Atlas Park. I have never completed it. Sometimes, when they're particularly annoying, I will respond to PL beggars by saying, "SURE you can join me in a mission! In fact, I have one right over heeeere...!"

[ QUOTE ]
The video says they locked up Rularuu but in fact shows video of Ruladak the Strong, one of the 7 split up components of Rularuu.



http://cityofheroes.wikia.com/wiki/Soldiers_of_Rularuu

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to know... but where is this info in-game? Is this just information "leaked" from the CoX Story Bible by a dev? And where are these "factory cubes" that are talked about?

[ QUOTE ]
Click here to listen to the sound of the video while staring at a mmorpg logo.

[/ QUOTE ]

fix'd

[ QUOTE ]
We need to that brings us together more..

Suggestion: World Event "The 60's/70's Hippie Movement"
Camp fires, tye dyed clothing, kumbaya, smily faces, etc
Good Music implemented into the game..
General Happiness minus all the war and stuff...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hippies suck.

[ QUOTE ]
My hubby doesn't like it when I chat with teenage boys. Go figger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Odd. My wife feels the same way...

[ QUOTE ]
If i was to be forced to join a voice channel to play a game then that means that you would have to listen to my french all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

*em tiltheadbackanddrool*

[ QUOTE ]
Froderick?

god young frankenstein was a good movie

[/ QUOTE ]

Several years back I attended a 24-hour horror movie marathon in my home town. Amoung the 13 films they showed were the original 1931 Frankenstein, followed by the 1935 Bride of Frankenstein, followed by Young Frankenstein.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be there but I'm not wearing bells this time. Fool me once...

[/ QUOTE ]

Awwww.... you're just mad that I posted the video on YouTube...

[ QUOTE ]
SG Kill badges

10000 (random number folks dont panic) of X type mob generates a badge for the SG that provides a trophy for that mob type.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking "Severed Head Floating in a Jar of Formaldehyde.”

Yes? YESSS…??
It’s all severed heads, isn’t it? Isn’t it? That’s what your thinking, right? Row upon row of severed heads…

floating in…

err…

floating….






…



…it’s not gonna be severed heads, is it?

[ QUOTE ]
so this isn't really about the flexibility of the plots, it's really all about the prestige costs of the entire base system?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was talking about the restrictive nature of base plots, and what might be done to open up more creativity.

Predictably, someone just jumped in and started whining about costs.

[ QUOTE ]
It just makes sense to get rid of the base plot size altogether and charge rent based on the total number of squares used. This has the added advantage that no other price changes would really be necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more to this than just rent. What about the cost of building the base in the first place?

There would be, of course, a real problem with deciding how to deal with existing bases. How do you give a refund to an SG that bought larger secure plots already? You could just credit everyone with the prestige that their plot size cost. But what if room costs were ramped up to balance the now free plot upgrades? Do you go through and examine each base, adding prestige for certain things and subtracting for others? Do you just eliminate every base in existance, refund all the prestige spent, and require everyone to start from scratch? (THAT would go over well!! )

Perhaps existing bases can be "grandfathered" in somehow, but any changes to layout (i.e. plot upgrades or room purchases) would require clicking on a dialog box button that says something like "Do you want your base to be upgraded to version 2.0?" If you click "no" then no changes can be made to the layout. If you check "yes" then a re-calculation of costs occours before editing can proceed.

Perhaps new bases would have to confirm to the new plot-free system, but old bases could still exist and be used. But if you want to use the new system, the old base would need to be deleted (at the SG Leaders' option).

Honestly, I know I'm trying to open a Can O' Worms here... but I've approached this from the perspective that if the devs are going to assign the resources for major work on bases, why not ask for a change in the most basic area? A change to something that never made any sense in the first place?

The thing I’d most like to see changed about bases is the thing that would probably be the most difficult to implement. Oh well…

I would seriously like to see the base plots done away with. They are very restrictive to creativity.


Trying to be creative is hideously expensive. The cost of the unused squares on any of the plots is generally much larger than the cost of all the actual rooms combined. (Take the cost of the plot and divide it by the total number of squares on the plot. This is the cost-per-empty-square. Now, after you’ve designed your base, count up all the empty, unused squares on the plot. Multiply this number by the per-square cost and you’ll see just how much is being paid for unused space.) Thus, it is in the best interest of the SG for as many squares to be used as possible. But a layout that is the most efficient at using up the plot squares is usually not very creative at all.

For example, I would like to make a “space station” base laid out in a ring shape (or as close to a ring as can be done using square rooms). Picture four 3x3 rooms connected to four 2x2 rooms, arranged like a square with nothing in the center. Like a square doughnut. The 2x2 rooms are at the corners of the layout and the 3x3 rooms are at the sides. The 3x3 rooms “stick out” in the middle a bit.

(If that doesn’t make sense, think of it this way: Picture a layout of nine 3x3 rooms arranged in a grid pattern. Remove the room in the center. Now replace the rooms on each corner with 2x2 rooms. Now imagine jogging around the base in circles while the music from 2001 plays in the background and the base computer gives you the evil red eye.)

For this room layout to work, I’d need to use the 12x12 plot size (the actual footprint is 11x11). But the base rooms would only use 52 squares out of the 144 total for the 12x12 plot. Almost 2/3 of the plot squares would be wasted! And the rent for such a plot, of course, is a gift that would keep on giving…

That’s a lot of expense for a concept.

Another example would be a serpentine, wandering layout (like one of the long warehouses we often have missions in). This would be a good starting point for a cave-like or sewer-tunnel-like base. But the plot layouts are all either squares or as nearly square as possible. Thus a layout like this one would require the largest plot size and tens of millions of prestige expense before ever laying down a single room. And the vast majority of the squares would be very, very expensive empty space.



Just have one standard very large plot for us to build on, without us having to pay for it. In order for costs to even out in the end, the cost of the rooms in the base would have to increase.

I also find the difference between “secret” and “secure” plots to be weird. I just cannot imagine what anyone was thinking when this idea was approved, unless it was to act as a prestige sink... If you want a base to pay much, much more for that second functioning computer or generator, just make the second power or control room cost a lot more to place than the first. Or perhaps an SG could pay an up-front fee to upgrade the free plot from “secret” to “secure” status. Or better yet, re-think the whole concept.

Rent could be charged on a per-square used basis, with the first 36 squares free (36 being the maximum useful space possible on a current 8x8 plot size).

We’ve seen a lot of creativity on the boards recently that came about by the simple use of floating objects. Just imagine the sort of cool things the players could come up with if they were no longer cramped into tiny, tiny little plots and forced to use each and every square to its most efficient (rather than most creative) advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this question has been asked before but I can't seem to find it in all this mess. :X


Idea:
Is there a (possible) way to make your own Arch Villains/Elite Bosses to stick in the maps as well? It would be really neat. Since we can put in our own dialogue, map, etc.
So, why not unique villains?

It would make having Arch Nemesis much more real. I think it would be a plus for alot of players and add a real nice touch to the missions!

I would love for someone to play one of my missions and say: Wow, their Arch Villain is...sweet!


Anyways.

Just throwing that out there.
Would love to see it in-game!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...

If you read what Positron said, then you know exactly as much as everyone else at this point.

All else is speculation and/or wishful thinking at this point.

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people are asking for the ability to put in custom created AV's or EB's for their missions. I really doubt this is a possibility, because that would take more data storage on NCSoft's end than is really feasible. Every created enemy would be like an additional character slot they're giving us on their server.

So that got me thinking; why not allow this and tie it -to- our character slots? Let us create a character using the character creator, pick their power sets, appearance, and everything like usual, and allow that character to take up one of our character slots. This character could then be used in our custom created missions, at the cost of one of our regularly allotted slots.

Or one step further: allow the custom mission creator to use any character existing in our slots on a given server in our mishes. The game already has many eloquent systems in place to allow this to happen. If I place my level 30 brute as a villain in a level 50 arc? He gets sked up to 50 to fight. If I place him as a villain in a level 10 arc, he gets exemped down to level 10 to fight.

This would allow us to make whatever we want for custom bosses, whether heroic or villainous, and at the same time require that we give up something in return, character slots. So there'd be a hard cap on how many we could have, and it wouldn't require any additional data storage on NC's end: just code the mission to call up that character's stored information.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the minute you deleted a character from the slot, your map would break. Can o' worms, I'm afraid.

[ QUOTE ]
292 Centuries?

I think we all need to get a life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I live for 292 centuries in my new life?

[ QUOTE ]
Now wait a second. Positron, I chatted with you during the I10 closed beta and suggested user-created content then. You said it "opens too many wormy cans." What happened that you changed your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had to guess, I'd say this had something to do with it...

[ QUOTE ]
As I believe the article alludes, the tech for this is only now coming to fruition, so it use in Issue 12 content is not likely to be heavy, nor, as I understand it, will Issue 12 involve heavy revamp of existing content making use of the new tech. So, from an Issue 12 perspective, it's a minor addition. It is pretty big for what we can do going forward, but that will most likely be a big bullet point for a future Issue when that work is undertaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sure. I get it. You're saying that there will be a few missions and/or story arcs in i12 that use this technology. But where it will really get the most use in in the upcoming Moon Zone, yes? Right? You know... the MOON ZONE!!!

<.<.

.>.>

As for reworking older content, I could really see this for some of the CoV missions and arcs. I have found some of them to be way, way too evil for a particular character concept. Others, not evil enough. Then there's that whole "You're just a stooge of Arachnos whether you like it or NOT"aspect of CoV that really, really turns me off to red side.

What I'd really like to see is side-switching. I'd really love bringing Zube to the Rogue Islands to run through the content there. But if he ever went bad, I'd really, in my mind, only be pretending that he's evil. Actually, he'd be just a mole. With this technology, he really could be a mole! He'd get to say, "Oops, I let the radio station broadcast the truth about Dr. Aeon. My bad! (heh heh heh)" Or rescue the Freak school teacher rather than turn her over for torture. etc.

Similarly, a villain who "switched sides" to blue could really be just planning (and secretly causing) more mayhem, death, and destruction.

Probably not gonna happen... but it's a nice dream...

[ QUOTE ]
You KNOW that just means bunnies everywhere!

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought "hand grenade down a rabbit hole" = "bunnies everywhere."

[ QUOTE ]
im happy 99.9% of the time, people just read and interpret what i say to be negative.

its one of the perks with working from home.. i dont have any real stress.. so why would i ever be unhappy..


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently 99.9% of the time I read your posts I'm seeing your 0.1%

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you live in space man, Dragon_King you probally have 12 level 70 characters on Victory right now. And you have all the items in your base. Raise the level cap to 100? NEED more POWER!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone get this boy a sedative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Won't work.

We already used up all the elephant tranqs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps that's the problem...?

[ QUOTE ]
My scrappers barely do any damage when compared to blasters, we're talking like... with the same buffs and everything, a good 200 damage less on an attack chain. Factor in that I rolled EM, so I have access to two excellent melee attacks in Bonesmasher and Total Focus...

Excuse for "damage is less" is that they can't be mezzed as easily. Which is true. It's still pretty sad to find out that, the undisputed "king" of melee damage Hero-side gets outdamaged by Blasters who pick EM.

Kinda understand why I feel gimped whenever I play my Scrappers now, and probably why I've pretty much given up on bothering to IO out my MA. Especially since I primarily play in teams, where a Tanker would take damage better than I would, and a Blaster outdamages me like hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such absurd exaggeration doesn’t help your point. “Barely do any damage?” feh.

FYI, tanks are supposed to take damage better than anyone else. And blasters are supposed to do more damage than anyone else. Scrappers are supposed to fall in the middle. Working as intended. Except that often it doesn’t, and well-built scrapper at the hands of a good player will become Death, Destroyer of Mobs.

Sure, a good blaster player who knows how to manage their own agro and pick which targets to kill first is going to do just fine and not die a lot. I know, because I’m a good blaster player. But so what? A good scrapper player is still going to be much more effective in melee than a blapper. Unless maybe you’re comparing the best melee blaster AT played by a good blaster player to the worst melee scrapper AT played by a poor scrapper player. And even then I’m going to call “shenanigan” on “barely do any damage.” Feh again I say.

And for crying out loud, if you haven’t IO’d out a scrapper and you compare him to a fully IO’d blaster… well now seriously…

I’m not trying to be snarky here, but really… maybe it’s just you? Maybe you just don’t know how to run the scrapper AT? How to build them, what primaries and secondaries go well together. How to slot them, what enhancements to use. Etc. Honestly, I’m no scrapper expert. I don’t know how to build them or run them. I tried one once and didn’t like it. So by saying “you might not know how to run a scrapper” I’m not attacking you personally, because that statement applies to me too. But there is one thing I do know… and that is that a well-run scrapper can be a screaming, whirling dervish of hot flying death. Because I’ve played with many over the years.