Bill Z Bubba

Originally Posted by Nihilii

Holy ****. Now I understand why you're saying running trials is a stupid idea.

As for following your strategy... I'm already sitting on ~100 billion liquid influence and I don't know what to do with it. I resubbed 15 days ago partly because I didn't want those market bids storing the money to vanish, as at that point it was 59 days since I stopped paying. Yep, I guess I value pretendy pixel money I don't even have an use for in a game I don't even play anymore, because omgz there's a lot of zeroes in 100B. That's sad enough, and you want me to earn *more*?...

Originally Posted by EnigmaBlack

The only thing I read that comes even close was that they wanted to "look" at defense again.

Originally Posted by Blue_Centurion

I am unsure how you load 8 instances of the game. Do you peeps have space command centers for desktops? lolololol

Originally Posted by ironblade

fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by Seldom

I know the devs may be hesitant as lowering the minimum team size might be skewed as playing to power creep, after all they say they don't balance around IO's, and I doubt they would ever say they balance high level sf's/tf's around incarnate abilities. With that said, people already are accomplishing these tasks just using bypasses to the team minimum. Rather than using a bypass, there should be a big red:
This Task is designed for a larger team than you have, do you still wish to proceed? Yes/No
This way you allow people to give it a try, and if they fail, they were warned. If the limit is to keep them from succeeding at what they can succeed at but you do not wish them to accomplish with a small team because small teams can't handle it, that's another matter entirely. I hope that isn't it because that's a logical fallacy right thar.

The warning method allows people to try and fail. If they fail, it proves its necessity, but allows people to access content they want to try in a way they wish to try it. The minimum bypass, using fillers and such, proves the lack of necessity for the minimum size limit and undermines the whole reason for a team minimum. ("Four people could never do this 8 person task! So have four people afk/quit while 4 do it!")

Originally Posted by Gemini_2099

Well said.

How can you call it a roman costume bundle when the roman swords and axes are not part of it?

Originally Posted by houtex

Did anyone say 'brawl?' If not, then let it be me who speaks up:

Brawl.

Originally Posted by mauk2

If all you care about are the numbers, brutes are better. Brutes have the largest melee performance envelope by a considerable margin. But I find brutes to have very little grace, or style. Simple SMASH is not very satisfying after a while.

But scrappers? Scrappers have style, baby. It's not called 'brutelock' after all. Going all wild-eyed, dodging defeat with every second of the fight, chugging your whole inspiration tray, WINNING....then diving straight into the next spawn without pausing? That's scrapperlock, and it's awesome.

And Tankers.... Well-played, tanks are the strategic masters of the battlefield. Tankers at the top end run fast but smoooth, baby. You're always on the go, but never in a rush, you're never frantic. It's all about calm maneuver, assessment of the situation, and driving the pace of conflict. Nirvana in combat, man.

Originally Posted by Stormbird

While FF can use some looking at, I can't agree with this reasoning.

Yes, some people can soft-cap blasters, etc, etc. But not everyone can - or is even going to bother trying, since they'll have no interest in it (or no access to IOs.) For those people, FF adding Defense and then more Defense is a good thing (not to mention some degree of crowd control in Force Bubble, Repulsion Bomb, Repulsion Field, etc.)