BBhumeBB

First time someone insists on walking everywhere in a mission, the inherent Kick power (and I don't mean the one from the Fighting pool) gets deployed.

"I'm walkin' heah!" is only a good battle cry for Dustin Hoffman.

Ah - from the anonymous peanut gallery:

"there's a difference between "motivate" and "deliberatly ticking off" This suggestion falls on the side of "deliberatly ticking off""

I have always been fascinated by the customers of this product who are so terrified of, or solicitous for, the vendor that they will vigorously oppose other customers who have a more adversarial relationship with the vendor.

As far as different evaluations of the worth of this (or any) suggestion, we all bring those judgements to the table. I gather that supporting a suggestion, or even the customer's right to make a suggestion, is "ticking off the vendor" in my anonymous correspondent's opinion. I may oppose some suggestions myself, some nearly reflexively - server merges come to mind. But one opposes a position, not the right of the poster to even state that position, because it has been "dealt with" before. Or because it might tick off the vendor.

My apologies for getting involved enough to threadjack the actual discussion by going meta on it. I've said my say, this time anyway :-)

Vehicles are certainly one of the holy grails for the game, though I would strongly resist making them vet rewards. Their appeal is far too widespread to limit them to those of us with umpty months of subscription time.

If they ever resolve the engine issues that, for now, seem to preclude vehicles, a more accessible form of the feature would seem far better advised. A micropay package would not dismay me, a function on maintaining vehicles (especially those like a carrier for the whole team, which I think is a super idea) like base rental would not horrify me either. Vehicles that take a power choice (as "built in" travel powers do) would be fine by me as well.

Nope, not missing it, that's the rule. Prevents botting.

It is a pity that the placement points are as inaccessible as they are. My only scenario to date has a "this maguffin appers when you free hostage X who tells you about it" stage. Due to the vagaries of the placement system that could be in space the players have already explored. I kludged around it with some text, but that assumes the players read the text :-)

Sorry Cross, but...
- I don't find it difficult to find teams
- Combining servers invokes a number of issues: contention for names, problems with groups, pushing players onto servers too loaded for their PCs (or tastes).
- And frankly, requests to combine servers because a given player finds it difficult to team as easily as he might like can be parsed as "Please inconvenience all the players to make more of them available to play with me when I feel like it."

So no, disagree. Bad idea.

Nope. Hip deep in invitations (Libery and Champion).

Breaking up is hard to do. Many people leaving something they used to think was cool must, for a wide variety of reasons, make it about some terrible failing on the part of the person, relationship, pastime, group, or other entity that they are leaving.

Any expression of admiration or pleasant feeling towards this entity is a personal attack on them, since it challenges their narrative of the utter baseness of the former object of affection.

Essentially no. There are some things conditioned by Origin, but they are, by and large, trivial.

When I wanted to just finish off a 49 quietly and quickly, I used Shadow Shard missions.

My first 50, I believe, dinged that way. I had cleared the cave, on a "find monuments" mission for Dr. Boyd. Needed about 5000 points (which would happen on Mission Complete). Walked up to the last monument glowie. Reached out...ding. Enjoyed the quiet moment.

Took a 48.8 on an Imperious TF...got clear to 50 on that run. As a soft spoken samurai my comment on team was "My goodness...I appear to be level 50."

I haven't bothered with the new options. Overall spam rates seem lower (less waxy yellow build up from day to day).

Fighting solely from range is fine, if the enemies agree not to close on you. However, they don't. Or I may be facing a spawn I can take faster with close combat. One could build the blaster by ignoring/avoiding close combat powers that don't fit your concept, of course. But I know it wouldn't work for my tastes.

Some caps (like movement speed) are for technical reasons, i that instance the problems with rendering things if a character is moving faster.

I am not sure about the 95% thing - if you mean that we always miss on a "20" that isn't a cap. Higher to-hit (or accuracy, or whatever) is still useful in overcoming high dfefenses, but even if you have a 20 godzillion percent chance to hit, you will "miss on a 20." But if you face an opponent with 19 godzillion defense, you still only miss on a 20.

If they have Willingham writing some, if you see the name Dr. Apocalypse...RUN!

I have to admit, with my Archery/Devices blaster, laying down trip mines, loosing Rain of Arrows from around the corner, and waiting for the survivors to blow themselves up,winning the bout without ever coming into line of sight of an opponent, feels like pretty dirty fighting to me.

One point I find important in maintaining civil discourse on boards is ignoring all aspects of rating systems. I don't care how I am rated, I don't rate others. Discussion proceeds via discussion, not inane point systems.

Tone does matter, certainly. But there are times when the gloves tend to come off. They come off faster on the internet because the fists inside the gloves are on the other side of a comm interface, to be sure.

All in favor of adding more attachment points to skeletons for bling. Rings, bracers, etc. no problem.

But not costume bits that look the same and add to scores. Doesn't go with the concept of the gamem which has always been that we design our powers and modify them with enhancements, and choose costume look to suit ourselves, whether that costume matches our powers in some visual way or not.