Arcanaville

Maybe he realized that such reactors would have the small deficit that someone could take control of them and irradiate all of Paragon City while tapping into the power of the cosmos and destroy all who oppose him.

Besides, Antimatter built them, but Positron nerfed them. I call that one a win for Positron.

I call them by name. I call the IAU a bunch of yutzes.

Its so easy to shoot down the current IAU definition of planet that its practically kindergarden. Just the fact that the definition of "planet" for the solar system and the definition of "planet" for the whole rest of the universe are different, and obviously different to allow astronomers to continue to make the news would be bad enough. But the fact that they are actually contradictory makes the whole thing embarrassing.

(The extrasolar definition states anything smaller than the minimum size necessary to initiate thermonuclear reactions at its core and larger than the minimum size for a planet in the solar system that orbits a star is a planet. But there is no minimum size for a planet in the solar system in the current definition. If Pluto orbited Alpha Centauri instead of the Sun, it would be a planet by definition. It just had the bad luck to form here.)

1. Cloak of Darkness grants immobilize protection. No melee secondary fails to grant immobilize protection. Willpower did in early beta for that set, and I pointed out then that while lack of KB protection might be annoying, and even fatal under certain circumstances, lack of immobilize protection kills a melee defensive secondary in the womb because most of the NPCs with immobilize can permanently stack it. Once permanently immobilized, a melee character with no ranged attacks is essentially stuck until they either die (often extremely slowly), log out (literally), or have someone come along to bail them out.

2. If all comparisons are apples and oranges, there's no comparison that would justify a change to Dark Armor either.

3. Ninjitsu is, or would be competitive with Dark Armor on brutes and tankers. Things are a little different on stalkers for archetype-specific reasons. But I would still give the edge to Dark Armor in most situations outside of those where defense has a qualitative advantage all its own. That's neither here nor there until the devs invent a game mechanic that affects resistance the way tohit buffs affect defense. Especially since we're talking about SO non-invention builds. SR with only SOs is not a particularly strong set: both Dark Armor *and* Ninjitsu probably beat it on SOs.


When people think SR, they usually think soft-cap. But unless you're talking about SR tankers, soft capped SR scrappers and brutes using nothing but SOs are extremely endurance costly, on top of being power choice costly. Its hard to do without weave *and* other power pools, and just FF, FS, Evasion, dodge, agile, lucky, weave, and combat jumping combined slotted with SOs ends up at only 39.2% defense and you're burning 0.88 eps already. Toss in maneuvers and you're up to 42.7% defense and 1.17 eps. Toss in Practiced Brawler even slotted with one endurance reduction and only used as often as necessary (once every 120 seconds) and you are up to 1.24 eps.

That's a gigantic amount of endurance burn. For reference, Dark Armor burns 0.72 eps running Dark Embrace, Murky Cloud, Obsidian Shield, Cloak of Darkness, and Oppressive Gloom. The difference is 0.52 eps. If you have Dark regen slotted 1acc/3end/2rech, a budget of 0.52 eps would allow you to uses Dark Regen once every 33.3 seconds. If you choose to run Acrobatics, one-slotted for end you'd burn an additional 0.2 eps and that budget drops to 0.32 eps: one use every 54 seconds. If instead you decide to mitigate with hover, you'll add 0.15 eps and your budget would be one DR use every 47 seconds.

So, fully slotted Dark Armor plus Oppressive Gloom plus Dark Regen every 47 to 54 seconds compared to an SR scrapper with 42.7% defense. Both burn about the same amount of endurance. Dark Armor is using seven powers and at least 14 discretionary slots, more if you slot up OG beyond one end red. Acrobatics has two prerequisites while hover has none. SR is using ten powers and 25 discretionary slots, not counting the two prerequisites for weave which would bring the actual power requirements to 12, and three separate power pool choices.

In all respects, the 42.7% SR build is far more expensive to build in terms of power choices, and it burns the same amount of endurance as a Dark Armor build with acrobatics and that uses Dark Regen once a minute. Its debatable which one is stronger, but there's no debate that if the Dark Armor build decided to burn more end, it would be able to surpass the 42.7% SR scrapper on defense, and alternatively it could choose to not use Dark Regen at all and have far more endurance to power offense. The SR scrapper would be nearly crippled unless it slotted HOs, which are available to freemiums (I believe) but mostly out of the question until higher levels regardless. I know, because I built one of these back in I7 just to see if it would work. It doesn't, for the most part.

That's not really an answer.

Since the primary strength of Dark Armor is "arguably one of the strongest mitigation sets in existence" that largely negates the issue of "low resistance" and "nearly zero defense." Most people consider the tier 9 to be a bonus: its not a disadvantage you need to die to use it, when its a rez you can skip and still have the same extremely powerful mitigation set.

Its endurance costs are not massive either: if you run DE, Murky Cloud, OS, and Oppressive Gloom you burn less endurance than if you run Temporary Invuln, Unyielding, and Invincibility. Its only Dark Regen that puts Dark Armor over the top, and I've already established that the endurance costs for Dark Regen's heal are more than reasonable.

Factored into what?

If you are attempting to claim that there is a problem with Dark Regeneration holistically compared to every single powerset that has a heal good luck with that. Most of them have different maximum mitigation limits, different secondary features, and different design intents. Dark Armor, for example, has far more mitigation potential than Regen. So while Regen has lower damage mitigation, it has far higher endurance management control (by virtue of higher recovery). If you have a case to make to claim that Dark Armor pays too much for its much higher mitigation, I haven't seen it yet.

And the reason I picked Reconstruction to compare to is because you did:

Of the two, reconstruction is the better candidate because Healing Flames used to be identical to recon until it was boosted explicitly because Fiery Aura was seen to slightly underperform defensively. You can't buff HF and then demand everything else be balanced against HF for that reason.

In any case, Dark Regen is still by many measures the strongest heal in the game, which means as a heal its fine. Dark Armor as a whole is considered a very strong set, so the set as a whole is fine. The little problems in the set are just that: little problems in the set just like all sets have little problems. Part of playing sets is to leverage the strengths and handle the weaknesses. Of all the mitigation sets, Dark Armor has among the least significant sets of weaknesses out there, which means I see no explicit balance problem which would then propagate down to needing to adjust Dark Regeneration to address such a problem.

Lets compare Dark Regeneration to Reconstruction. Reconstruction offers a 25% heal for 10.4 end. That is 2.4% heal per endurance point of cost. Dark Regen offers 30% heal per target for 33.8 end. That is 0.89% heal per endurance point per target. For Dark Regen to have approximately the same heal per end as Reconstruction requires hitting on average approximately 2.7 targets for an average heal of 81%. That is doable.

Dark Regeneration also has half the recharge of Reconstruction. Reconstruction offers 0.42% heal per second unslotted. Dark Regen offers 1% heal per second per target. Its superior to reconstruction in heal per second even if it only averages hitting one target.

So its hpe is better than reconstruction if it hits more than 2.7 targets on average. Its hps is far better than reconstruction if it hits anything at all.

So lets look at slotting. Suppose we slot both with SOs, and we ignore other outside bonuses. We would likely slot reconstruction 3heal/3rech, and end up with about 50% heal every 30 seconds (for our purposes, I think this approximation is good enough). Dark Regen would likely be slotted something like 1acc/3end/2rech, and that would give us 30% heal every 22.5 seconds, with reasonable accuracy in most situations. Recon's end cost would still be 10.4, Dark Regen's cost would be closer to 17. That's not a huge difference. Lets assume DR hits two targets on average under this slotting. That would make Dark Regen heal for 60% every 22.5 seconds and cost 17 end. That's a stronger heal than Reconstruction as slotted above, and its hpe would be 3.5%/end compared to Reconstruction's 4.8%/end.

That's better than Reconstruction's heal over time *and* its heal per endurance point. And that's using the heal assuming it will only average hitting two targets, and assuming no more than 60% heal per use, which does not require doing anything weird to "bottom out" health to maximize the return of Dark Regen.


But is there any downside to cutting the heal in half, the endurance cost in half, and the recharge in half? Yes: there are two deficits. The first is that you'd need to use it twice as often to get the same result. And that means more activations, and more time spend rooted in the heal. It seems to be common knowledge that regen is the most "clicky" secondary in terms of time spend executing clicks. That common knowledge is wrong. Suppose we take the case of two scrappers, one with Regen and one with Dark Armor, both using their clicks as fast as possible, and slotted with SOs. We imagine the Regen 3-slotting Dull Pain, Reconstruction, Instant Healing, and MoG all with three recharges. That's going to be a lot of rooted time. In arcanatime terms, that will be 0.924s for recon and Dull Pain, 1.32s for Instant Healing, and 2.772s for MoG. Three slotted with recharge the cycle times for those powers are 31.5s recon, 185.3s dull pain, 334.5s instant healing, and 125.6s MoG. The total percentage time spent in those clicks if they are cycled as fast as possible is 0.06, or 6%.

The time spent in Dark Regeneration with its current numbers slotted with just two recharge (as the example above) would be 1.32s root over 19.2s cycle time, or 0.069. 6.9%. Dark Regeneration with just one click spends more time rooted than a regen scrapper would if it 3-slotted every click for recharge and used them all constantly as fast as possible. Its actually more "clicky." Cutting everything in half would mean Dark Armor would be spending even more time casting Dark Regen than it does now to get the same result - a whopping 12.9% in fact. You could mitigate that by making sure to hit more targets and saturate the heal even at lower numbers, but not all players will be able to do that consistently, and especially at lower levels which are more problematic for Dark Armor. It would be a penalty on the players that have the most likely chance of having problems playing Dark Armor, while benefiting only the advanced players that already have no problems, and would now have an alternate way to optimize Dark Regeneration.

The second deficit is a little more subtle. Because recharge begins when cast time ends, recharge isn't a linear benefit: you can speed up recharge but not cast time, so you cannot reduce total cycle time proportionate to your recharge.

To wit: using the same slotting pattern of 1acc/3end/2rech, the current Dark Regeneration has a recharge of 30/1.666 = 18.0s and a total cycle time of about 19.2 seconds. Its heal per target is thus 30%/19.2s = 1.56%/s.

A variation with half the heal and half the recharge would have a recharge time of 15/1.666 = 9.0s and a total cycle time of 10.2 seconds. Its heal per target is thus 15%/10.2s = 1.47%/s. The current DR is 6% better per target.

As you stack recharge, the discrepancy only gets worse. Suppose we look at the case of having total slotted and global recharge of about 150% (Hasten, some bonuses, and slotting combined). The current DR would have a cycle time of 13.2s and a heal over time per target of 2.27%. A theoretical half-value DR would have a cycle time of 7.2s and a heal over time per target of 2.08%. The current DR is 9% better per target.

Or rather, its close: I don't have the Glad proc slotted yet, and nova's slotting isn't finished yet. But even though technically it just has "defense and recharge" I think its fair to say that a) its not a common build and b) its unlikely to be reproducible with other powersets, and c) it doesn't suffer poor performance for its conceptual choices. That's actually something the invention system (and to a lesser extent the incarnate system) have done for diversity: its reduced the penalty for concepts. It doesn't do that by homogenizing powersets: if you want to copy someone else's build, that's your choice. But if you pick a concept and push the system to its limits to achieve it, you're likely to come up with something that isn't just following the herd. I'd actually bet that *no one* was playing exactly my build, and few people are willing to sell out to speed to that degree on an energy blaster. As you can see, I could have afforded a range-capped blaster. Wasn't interested at the time.

Now, if *players* don't take advantage of the system, that's a separate thing. In the old days, a lot of players swore by 1/5 slotting for all attacks. You're actually more likely to see different slotting now. A lot of players swore by perma-hasten back then, and while recharge is still highly valued there are now at least three different viewpoints on hasten: one says recharge itself is not a big deal given the other alternative bonuses available, a different one says getting the equivalent to perma-hasten is fine since it replicates what we used to have (i.e. drop Hasten itself and go for +70% or more global recharge) and another says go for broke and get both Hasten and enough recharge to make it perma or near-perma itself. That is a genuine difference of opinion that is reflected in actual builds.

On the whole, I think there's more diversity not less these days when it comes to builds. And because of that, there's also a wider range of supported playstyle. What might be true is that for some min/maxers, the system can appear to funnel them into the same choices again and again. But I think, based on my own experience, that tends to be the fault of the player and not the system, because people tend to get tunnel-visioned. The *system* I believe always offers alternatives, if what you want are alternatives.

I rarely respec. Prior to I9, however, it was easy to get bored at level 50 and I would occasionally burn freespecs before the next one came out so I wouldn't lose them, mostly on my mains. But once I9 came out, I stopped doing even that. In fact, my three main characters were last respeced in I9 prior to incarnates, and all three were next respeced in I19 to take into account a better understanding of the invention system, inherent fitness, and incarnate abilities.

Also, with multiple builds I actually didn't respec them in i19, I created new builds. Their I9 builds are still in there, inventions and all. Multiple builds meant I could make the new build in there, and then slowly slot them up. When they had enough enhancements to be functional enough, I then permanently switched to that build. The build switch timer is a bit annoying, but that's not a problem: you switch to the alt build as the last thing you do before logging out, slot some stuff, then log out. When you log back in, just remember to switch back. That actually took almost all the pain out of making my I19 builds.

Back in the old days, the problem was defense and tohit buffs were both so high there wasn't any moderate middle. There were winners and losers: if you weren't a winner, it didn't matter how much defense you had. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that if you had a lot more defense than the opponent had tohit buffs, you won. If not, you might as well not have any defense at all. Perma-Elude tended to be a winner. FF defenders in the old days were usually winners. Invincibility was a winner most of the time. But quartz eminators were the ultimate winner - on the critter side.

While you're calculating the potential of FF defenders and SR scrappers, consider this: in a full team invincible set mission, the critters were +5. A turret dropped from a Malta engineer would have had a base tohit of about 140% back then. The critters in the Eden trial would often be buffed to the tohit cap of around 200% once two eminators were placed. It was a back and forth struggle.

Also, the term "cascade failure" is a term I invented in I3, to explain what happened when a perma-eluded scrapper something around 100% defense jumped into a large group of Council (when large groups of Council and 5th were duking it out in the zones) and one or two of them landed lucky shots that debuffed defense. You'd literally melt.

It was great when it worked, but there were lots of places it didn't work.

I've run a couple different builds, some of them embarrassingly weird just to experiment. In fact, prior to I9 I made it a point to respec every time a freespec came out just so I could take a different epic pool and try it out.

Most of the blapper builds did not have power bolt or explosive blast. Some had power push, some did not. Some had aid self, some did not. Some had fighting, some did not. None of them had both.

I'm not sure what "all" the other characters take, but I suspect my builds were nominally different from them, mostly because they were different from each other.


Just because my SR scrapper got scrappier and my Invuln scrapper got scrappier and my regen scrapper got scrappier and my DA scrapper got scrappier doesn't mean they did so in the same ways. They all still play significantly different from each other. They still have radically different strengths and weaknesses.


Because they can't, not in all areas. My MA/SR plays a whole lot differently than my Claws/Regen in something like the ITF, say. My Ill/Rad plays nothing like my Earth/Storm, and I doubt any amount of inventions and build crafting would make that remotely similar.


I just don't have that problem. My current MA/SR build sacrifices Elude in order to get all the numbers I want, including soft capping but also high regen and recovery. I wish I didn't have to sacrifice Elude: Elude's a power I've had from I2 to I19, and it would still help in high tohit buff situations. I agonized over that one for weeks before deciding it wasn't possible to fit in. But I did put a lot of thought into it. And as it turns out, I'm also not perfect when it comes to Mids: Iggy posted a build that stuck in Elude and still replicated virtually everything I wanted, which means I still have tricks to learn. When that stops happening, I'll start considering building high end builds boring.

Perhaps the biggest difference between me and you might be in how we build. I don't know how you do it, but I don't look at Mids when I first roll a character. I play it totally by ear and pick powers and slots as I go along. I think that's the best way to get a feel for what the strengths and weaknesses of a powerset combination are. When I hit 50, I respec into a different build based on what I think that powerset combination's strengths are, and then and only then do I consult Mids. Because I've seen 50 levels of an unoptimized version of that powerset combination, how I think it should be built isn't based on reproducing something I've seen elsewhere, but based on amplifying what I believe the most interesting aspects of the combination are from playing it. I'm predisposed to look for differences and then *amplify* them in building, rather than trying to make each thing look like what I played last.

That's probably also why I don't think the game has gotten substantially easier. You can *make* it easier if you want: you can play at -1 with bosses off all the time if you want, and you can optimize your build at every level of play. But the standard difficulty mission hasn't gotten all that much easier or harder, and even with inherent fitness players haven't gotten all that much stronger prior to slotting inventions. They've only gotten moderately faster, not stronger.

1. Until around I5ish, the number of people who actually knew exactly how tohit worked outside the devs was probably less than a handful.

2. Prior to I7, most players didn't know how strong lucks were.

The rule back then was actually "pop three lucks and you should be fine" thinking that was +75% defense, but also that "pop two lucks and you should be fine" didn't seem to always work, even in situations where +50% defense should have been more than enough. By habit, I used to pop *four* lucks on my blaster entering tough fights, knowing it seemed to work but not knowing exactly why until I got around to testing them.

I *used* to have power burst and sniper blast back when fitness was not inherent. Now that it is inherent, I don't. Fancy that.

What happened was that the +recharge available in the invention pool combined with the +recharge proc allowed me to build enough recharge to be able to make full or near full attack chains without burst, which while it does more damage than bolt and blast it also has shorter range. My attack chain is now comprised of powers that all have eighty feet of base range: power bolt, power blast, and explosive blast. At shorter range I can make chains that include both torrent and EB and have way more AoE than Energy blasters are really supposed to have. So while burst has a *tiny* bit higher DPA than power blast, my recharge allows me to kiss that power goodbye without any significant loss of offensive firepower, and I don't need a short range attack that won't work at the longer ranges the rest of my attacks will.

And I lost sniper blast because with a lot more power choices available to me and inherent stamina to power them, it was now viable to consider a build that took fighting and force mastery, and run tough, weave, and temporary invulnerability. That was not practical pre-I9. But to really fit everything in the way I wanted, I had to sacrifice Sniper Blast: I had neither the power choices nor more importantly the slots to really have that power effective. I had the choice to keep it by trading PFF, TI, and FoN for Snow Storm and Frozen Armor (which actually were the epic powers I had in my pre-I19 build). I wasn't locked in: I could go either way.

But this build still had a small problem: the defense wasn't astounding and I built for speed not range-capping, so stuff was still going to get through. Not a lot, but I would need an occasional heal. I not only sacrificed Sniper Blast, I also sacrificed aid self in my pursuit of speed and defense (mostly speed). I could keep greens handy, and I did, but the incarnate powers offered an alternative. I could buy into Destiny Rebirth. From tier 1 I had a very strong heal that I could use every two minutes and it also had a significant regeneration boost past the heal: it helped a lot more than a two minute heal sounds like it would. And at tier 4, I have a powerful heal I can use every two minutes *plus* I have continuous regeneration entering the range of a regen scrapper: the *lowest* my regeneration is if I cycle Destiny is 560%, between inherent Health and invention bonuses and the lowest Rebirth buff (+200%) boosted by Spiritual Alpha.

Was I forced into this build? Heck: its possible I'm the only person playing it. But do I suffer for not being range capped? In some sense yes, but in another sense no. I can do what other blasters can't with my build, and I can always gain temporary range capping with lucks: a range capped blaster cannot stock inspirations to temporarily get to +160% recharge or higher. But the most important thing about the build is that its fun to play, its not gimped, and in fact it can readily participate in any content just fine. Its different, and its interesting in a way no other blaster primary/secondary combination can replicate.

I hear how inventions and incarnates ruined the diversity of the game, and then I look at my main's build. While I think certain things like Judgment are more homogenizing than they should be, I think anyone who thinks it doesn't matter what powersets you have or thinks everyone is forced into the same builds just isn't creative enough.

Name one example of old school content that by your standards of strategy allowed alternate strategies for victory that doesn't still offer them or have a newer analog with the exact same options.

I am one of the the most strategic thinking players that likely plays this game. I've been examining the strategic and tactical options of the game since about the very beginning. I was involved in inventing tactics for Hamidon (both versions), LRSF (in beta) and I still find myself helping leaders devise strategies for newer advanced content (like the incarnate trials). To the extent the game has no strategic options, it never had them. To the extent it had them, it still has them now. If you believe the game no longer supports tactical thinking, its because your standards have changed, not the game's standards.

Incidentally, while its easy to get jaded and think its the game that has deteriorated, the fact of the matter is most players do not know all the tricks an experienced player knows. A couple months ago I was on an LRSF that had inexperienced players on it, and they didn't know how to deal with Ghost Widow's PBAoE heal. That problem always had a trivial solution to it: if you're melee, pop lucks. Problem solved. Yeah, when you think up something like that yourself the first time, its easy to believe in your own tactical genius and appreciate the game commensurately for engaging it. But that's a tactic I've been using since 2004; it isn't hard or complex or even especially interesting. Unless you personally struggle to come up with it yourself.

Same with Nosferatu, and same with figuring out to immobilize Nightstar or surround her to minimize her ability to pick directions to run in. What people will *claim* is trivial or not is one thing. But whether the game has deteriorated in the options it provides is another, and it hasn't.


Now as to things like blappers no longer being viable options because of inherent stamina and inventions, I'm not even sure where to begin contradicting that one. But I can say I was a blapper from I3 to I19, and only switched to a ranged build recently for variety. I was otherwise functioning perfectly fine as a blapper: in fact my first experiences with the newest advanced content: Tin Mage, Apex, BAF, and Lambda, were all as a blapper. I have in fact been thinking about making a new alternate blapper build that I could switch back and forth to. I should say *newer* blapper build because I still have the older original one in Build slot 1, and I pop into it occasionally to remind myself how it played (and to think about how to improve it).

In many ways, my Scrapper just became increasingly scrappier, and my Tankers just became more indestructible with inventions and then incarnate powers. But both inventions and incarnate abilities opened a lot of new avenues for my controllers, my blasters, my corruptors, my defenders. There is some unfortunate homogenization inherent in the incarnate powers themselves, but otherwise on the whole I have a lot more options than I did in the past. I have more ways to differentiate characters and builds in useful ways.

And I don't have anything particular to say about the notion that all powersets now basically perform and play the same, except to say that's totally false.

Hruuuk, hggguh, hhhacktph.

From what I've seen, the problem isn't the popularity of PvP, the problem is that I've not seen any MMO balance the concerns of PvE and the concerns of PvP, because they appear to be incompatible. You can make a successful MMO that focuses on PvE with a marginal PvP environment. You can make a successful MMO that focuses on PvP with a marginal PvE environment. I don't think you can make a successful MMO that balances the two, or at least the recipe for doing so hasn't been invented yet.

I think at least one fundamental difference that is inconceivable how to bridge is that a good PvE game tries to create an attachment between players and characters. The tools for doing this tend to make characters immutable in many ways, and have a certain permanence to their strengths and weaknesses. They try to be representative avatars for the player's desires and personality.

In PvP, the avatar is more of a projection of the player's aggression. Its the tool by which the player expresses his combat ability. By its very nature, it needs to be flexible to reflect the changing skills and knowledge and tactical acumen of the player. There's no connection between player and character (or at least character properties) that isn't transitory by the very nature of the transitory nature of a player's combat requirements. The character can have a face and a backstory that is permanent, but the way he fights and with what he fights with must be mutable to serve properly as a reflection of the tactical desires of the player.

This one difference radically alters how a game treats content, powers, respecification, alts, progression. It changes everything. And the game can only serve one master, and it will tend to attract players based on which one it chooses.

This seems to be an intractable problematic difference. I think many of the other differences trace their lineage back to this one.

To be fair, I didn't find the OPs original post offensive, just a little naive. While I myself had a small amount of fun at his post's expense, I don't think there's any reason to manufacture more controversy than actually exists. We shouldn't beat up people for a lack of eloquence, and the basic opinion that the game's reward systems should be more of a meritocracy isn't absurd, just generally incompatible with the majority viewpoint of the community, or at least the forum community.

In the same way I'm not offended when the devs reduce Zookeeper to three monkeys and an organ grinder, I'm also not offended by someone that says the badge isn't as impressive to them now that its three monkeys and an organ grinder. I did them the old fashion way, by yelling "die monkeys" at my monitor for four hours straight, but I neither hold a grudge that its a lot easier now, nor do I hold a grudge that some people wish everyone had to experience the same hell. In the grand scheme of things, the statement "I wish you had to earn your way onto Exalted" is not worth making enemies over in either direction.

I mean, its Exalted. They still eat babies over there, right?

I'm not arguing semantics, I'm arguing perspective. If you judge progress based on what *new* things the game throws at you, rather than you getting more powerful than a *fixed* target, you won't feel progress in this or any other MMO. If you judge progress based on getting more powerful than the same thing in an apples to apples comparison, you will.

I do the latter, so I experience progress just fine. Others don't, and they don't. But the game isn't ever going to address that alternate perspective, so insofar as I'm arguing semantics, I'm arguing semantics that dictate reality. The devs are never going to hand you easier and easier things to defeat as you level higher. They will always throw *at least* as difficult things commensurate with your level. You yourself will have to go out of your way to find the old things that used to give you trouble and demonstrate to yourself that you are indeed more powerful.

If it was only a question of semantics, the only difference between you and me would be the way we describe the situation. Clearly that's not true, because I'm not experiencing the same problem as you are.

All MMOs at their heart have treadmills for progressional systems. That's totally unavoidable. You have a choice. You can judge progress by looking at the odometer of the treadmill. Or you can judge progress by the fact you yourself can run faster and stronger. Or you can judge progress by noting you're still in your living room. Its entirely your choice. And that choice is independent of the words I choose to describe that choice.

You're just not likely to get a different choice in the foreseeable future, because there isn't one that would universally be *considered* a different choice. For each individual person, I'm sure there's a way to change the game so that person specifically would perceive progress better. But only at the expense of taking it away from at least an equal number of people.

I think having a server you have to earn access to doesn't go far enough. I think there should be a server you are exiled to if you do enough stupid things to earn deportation. And every zone on this server is the Shadow Shard and everyone's travel power becomes superspeed.

Oh wait, was that my inside voice or my outside voice?

Actually, parts of it remind me more of the opening theme to the 2009 Star Trek.

That's not a trivially simple solution: I don't know if it still happens on older systems, but in the old days skirts would sometimes disappear at certain distances and under certain load conditions, and while that is a computationally satisfactory solution to a rendering problem, there are non-computational issues with that solution that make it not a good idea to implement deliberately.

It is an entitlement issue if you don't just want more, but believe you deserve more.

I always want more. But to complain about getting less than before when City of Heroes Freedom is actually giving more than before requires a very specific mindset that is not at all about simply wanting as much value as can be achieved.