Chase_Arcanum

Eh, there are other meanings of the word, too.

: waves at the OP
so, umm.... Pope Benedict.... do you play redside at all?


Seriously, though, your thoughts parallel many others I've spoken to. The customization is a big one for me-- there have been many times when I've been very interested in a game and its art style just to learn that it'll do the same old annoyance of tying appearance to power (you can't wear these pants till level 22, then they'll be useless by level 25! ha hahaha). That's always been a big annoyance for me.

There are a billion good ideas submitted hourly online (ok, slight exaggeration). The one you suggested has been bandied around for over three years, at least, and while it sounds simple to implement, there are several other handles that need to be put in place, and some of them will run into existing code.

Take, for example, invitation validation- does the character you're inviting qualify for supergroup participation (on the same server, of the same side, etc)? Right now, there's no need to really check "on the same server" as all invites work that way. There will be once you have global SG invites. Since the invitation is immediate, it checks for whether you qualify or not when the invite is sent... but since there's a time delay in global self-invites, it would have to change this to check when the invitation is received (or you could have vigilantes get the invite, go villain, then accept it). Heck, the entire thing would need a queued-prompt system done so it doesn't waste system resources the whole time its pending! ...AND let's not forget that supergroup tech predates global chat, and that global chat originated as effectively a separate chat server that was tacked onto existing chat, so there's no reason to expect that ANY of that global handle tech will really mesh with SG management at all. All that's in code that originated over a half-decade ago, and old code being modified by someone other than the original author has a much bigger chance of unintended errors, so more development time, more qa time, and more peer review time is necessary to make the changes safely and confidently. *

Making "brilliant" ideas is rather typical on the net. Don't pat yourself on the back for being better than the devs because of them. Implementing and prioritizing those ideas on a schedule and making the tough triage choices-- that's where the challenge lies. When you can't comprehend how the devs could be listening and NOT implementing your ideas, you conclude that the devs can't be listening. More likely, particularly as evidenced by your post style, you're just not looking at enough of the picture to make a good judgement.

As a player, though, It would be ridiculous to expect you to see the big picture. (Despite how I sometimes arrogantly sound, I don't see any more of the picture than you- I only work tangentially to this field, so I just have a different viewing angle to that same big picture). What you CAN do, though, is something a lot more rare on the web- make suggestions in a tone that doesn't suggest you know everything when its clear that you don't and that demeans the people that are in a position to make them happen.



*Still, I'd LOVE that feature.

Ok, you answered your question yourself. You did qualify as a participant on all but your disconnect. The devs have noted that hospital runs themselves don't disqualify you, so I'm betting that going to the hospital (as opposed to sitting dead for minutes on end, hoping for a rez and chatting with your sg).

Lambda IS a big squishie nightmare, but not because of the devs- because of the fire drill idiocy that's infected players there. I've run Lambda mishes where my scrapper gathers 2-3 squishies together and-- despite being poorly equipped to tank-- we all steamroll through all foes in the halls and rooms, clearing away everyone so any other stragglers don't get ganked just trying to navigate the halls. Its very effective, great iXP, and helps your teammates. I just wish more capable tanks did that more frequently so it would catch on.

Ah, so that's what's trigging it....


I noticed it most often when i click a power that's marked as "recharged" on my screen, but when I click on it, it doesn't just say "recharging" now, it resizes to the approximate state of recharge. Prior to the last patch, when I'd click it, it'd still appear fully charged, even when getting the 'recharge' notification. Never saw that behavior before the last patch

I'd assumed that it was just a 'little UI improvement to deal with an already-messy situation

This makes sense, as you could have a person leeching but spamming heals. It appears that powers that require a to-hit calculation (which means you're at least within range of a baddie) have the best results.

Also, we know that the participation threshold can't be "frontloaded or backloaded" meaning you can't just spam a bunch, qualify, then leech. This suggests some sort of staged-approach, with you needing to reach participation at each of the stages to qualify.

It was also said that team leaders giving instructions wouldn't be adversely penalized, suggesting that there are several considerations and mitigating factors involved.


Some people have been reporting being unfairly hit by this threshold quite a lot. others... not at all. I've been running quite a few buff-and-pet types-- the ones that anecdotal evidence suggests are the most impacted-- and haven't stumbled across it yet.

As has been stated previously by the devs-- more than a few times-- "participation" only determines your access to the reward table, not how well of a result you'll get from it.

If you don't hit the participation threshold, you get the 10 threads. If you do, then you get the same statistical chance as everyone else in your league to get a good reward.

Agreed, I think the BAF lag that most are remarking about is the server-side (or synchronization) lag. What OnyxPaladin is describing is a framerate/display issue that's much more user-specific. They're totally unrelated.

One is a result of server performance or (or bandwidth chokes) and the other is system/video card related. They're even encountered at different times of the trial (the server/bandwidth issue= when there are lots of moving, free-pathing system objects to track on the entire map; the framerate issue = when there are lots of attackers (and effects)clustered in tight quarters, usually fighting the AV's).

For the server/bandwidth issue, there's not much a user can do to mitigate it. The devs seem to have added code that will update your status bar so your power recharge tray more closely matches the server's, but there's nothing a user can do.

For the OnyxPaladin's framerate example, its tinker with the fx settings till things get under control.

Do it! I know I'd be absolutely crushed if I discovered my global had been changed to EITHER @golden girl or @golden-girl.

...you've been talking to my wife, haven't you?

Thinking as a sociopathic evil mastermind, there are many rational factors that encourage various bad guys to take up the fight against Tyrant.

• If Tyrant wants to destroy all primal earth supers, and I'm a primal earth super, I'm a potential target. That's risk to me with little gain.
• I know what I have from the local good guys- I've faced off on them before. That's no additional risk, no additional gain.
• If I do nothing and Tyrant wins, and he truly plans to kill all supers, I'll be standing alone while fighting him. He may or may not be weaker than the total might of all my former foes from the war. That's an all-or-nothing risk, but I'm betting a LOT on the actions of others (whether my now-defeated foes actually weaken him) rather than on my own... taking my destiny out of my hands. Loss of control = bad.
• If I help the heroes drive off Tyrant, and the heroes win, at the very least the status quo is returned. At best, I turn a tidy profit, earn a few favors, and see a few of my foes die.
• If I HELP Tyrant win, he could decide to pay off his loyal helpers with something like a nice little land grant, but he could also turn on me to finish his goal. He, after all, has no need for me and no reason to believe I'll be any more loyal than I was to my own dimension-denziens. That's uncertain reward and possible/probable risk.
• War brings chaos. Chaos spawns opportunity. Opportunity leads to profit. The best way to sustain the war, be closest to the chaos, and be prepared take advantage of the opportunity, is to be directly involved in it. Being directly involved with allies means there are others to distribute the risk onto, also. Downside: if I'm not careful, they can distribute the risk onto me.
• I might just get lucky and help some of my known foes fall as they rely on me guarding their flank. I mean, I can't be expected to be *everywhere* at once... and people do die in war...
• Double agency is very profitable, and can be used to sustain the fight and guarantee that each side is worn out against the other. Downside is the risk of being on the wrong side when things finally break. Other downside is ending up on Tyrant's side (see above)... thus, the best double-agent side profits against the primal allies, but never jeopardizes their likelihood of winning.

So, still... regardless of the bad guy's motives, he'll likely find several reasons to justify involvement over doing nothing or pledging allegiance to Tyrant. Of course, he doesn't HAVE TO be rational....

I think he was citing my example of it being better to fight on the underdog's side than wait to see how things pan out, but your example fits that too.


What would have been better for Russia?
- Waiting for Germany to finish the battles in the west, regroup, and turn its attention eastward
OR
- Fight Germany while its attention was still divided, while its resources were still tied up on the western coast, and while the allies could still help it.

Of course,
Knowing that Russia could be a threat after the war, Great Britain and the US could see a real advantage in letting them bear the brunt of the German war machine. Maybe delay opening a western front (which would have drawn resources off the eastern battles) as much as possible to let them get bloodied....

That's the advantage of being a participant-villain, though.

Keep it in the context of "what's best for a villain-- to do nothing and pick a fight with the victor or to help the underdog" (helping the big aggressor isn't really an option here).

Sure, if you think of this as a "man vs man boxing match" you'll inaccurately think that "sitting it out and beating up the worn-out victor" might be the way to go. The problem is that armies vs armies works very differently.

1) Seasoned troops have always been highly valued by military commanders over green soldiers. It doesn't take much to look at the difference in battlefield numbers to see green forces breaking more rapidly, taking more casualties, and generally executing orders less effectively, even if well-drilled.

2) Engaged armies are supported by a support structure that is very different from peacetime armies. The transition between the two is slow and very challenging, putting the "mobilizing" force at a disadvantage over the "already-mobilized."


So these mean that your untested and unmobilized force is going against a seasoned force with a mobilized support structure that has learned to operate in battle.

You could argue that you could somehow overcome these challenges and not have them as disadvantages, but the most effective method of this would be to learn off the other's lessons and begin mobilization by acting as an ally... at least temporarily.


---

So, look at the allies at the end of WWII- seasoned troops, well-mobilized support structure, much better equipped than prior to the war... many economically bankrupt but using economics that made it easy to shrug off the cost until after the fighting ended. They were a very potent force-- much more dangerous than the forces available prior to the fight.

Look at the US before the war, with barely a standing army. Pretend that it was truly neutral and not favorably supplying to either side, like it did. Is it hard to imagine that the US was in a better position for world domination by taking a side in WWII than it would have been by had it actually been a true neutral bystander?

...Now we need a version of a particular character in the closest facsimile to a ghostbusters jumpsuit we can get....

Right strategy, wrong tactic.

If you just sit back and let two foes duke it out, hoping that the victor will be so beat up that you'll easily beat them, history is well stacked against you. Battles rarely go that way and the victor's forces are likely to now be seasoned veterans that are tougher to take down.

If you back the more powerful side, he'll just win sooner with your support and be better off when it happens. You might get a "thank you" prize-- the Prefectureship of New Zealand, if you're lucky (New Jersey if you're not) or he might just decide you're irrelevant and take you out.

If you back the LESS powerful side, you're more likely "tips the battle" in their favor. As such, you can withhold that power to assure that your greatest threats in that organization get the most bloodied, and apply it strategically so you curry favor with the best assets. With a little luck many of the veteran soldiers will see you as their champion-leader and rally TO your call when you eventually turn on the others. Heck, you might even be able to play forces against one another and play on their fears until they eventually turn to you to assume the mantle of leadership....

-------------------------------

Or, at the very least, while all the heroes jump through the portal to "take the fight to Praetoria," they see you as an ally... not watching when you adjust the Portal Corps parameter to dump the heroes directly into the heart of Praetorian Hamidon before shutting the door back to Primal Earth behind them....

Hey, not here to defend the process, but some thoughts on some of the considerations for this challenging merger:

Generally speaking, changing account names is bad. I think we can all agree with this. Unfortunately, someone is going to take a hit here, and at first glance it makes more sense to let your loyal CURRENT customers get first dibs here. It seems kinda appropriate, no?


1) So what happens if we change the existing inactive/trial account names? These are the people that aren't currently really following what goes on at CoH, but they might come back. When they do, they'll try their old username and password, unaware of the rename change. They then find that their account doesn't work... and neither does the "forgot email" request... Incorrect "HEY! My account's been hacked!" calls don't need to take up much time to tie up your $15/month, so you try to avoid them... and avoid the potential of human error really botching up account ownership.

... and that's two calls to the CSR's if the person makes so many attempts that the game locks the account due to a potential hacking attempt...

2) So, instead you change the accounts of all EU personnel. Not entirely ideal-- expired accounts run into issue #1 above, but numerically, there are fewer of them. The rest of the accounts are active users that will be easier to contact regarding this change, more available to communicate with, and more likely to immediately bring up transition issues. This, as counterproductive as it is to "punish" the current customer (if you consider a login change punishment) makes this a much more operational issue. You simply have less risk of returning players interfering with migrated accounts that now have THEIR name.

so, in a nutshell:
- existing customers are more likely to get the message and less likely to mess things up if the change is applied to them.
- many returning customers will never hear about the change, so they'll mess this up and possibly even lock other users accounts accidentally, so you go with the option that has the least of these.
- (not mentioned above) you European types are so much more pleasant to deal with than us belligerent, obnoxious Americans, so if the customer support personnel are gonna have to deal with some irate customer, its much better to be you. Besides... many of us americans can just hop into a car and harass their offices- you guys have a long plane flight or a swim ahead of ya.

• I'm old. bad eyes ---> slow reader
• I'm hypercaffeinated. Caffeine --> Short attention span ---> skip over stuff while reading.
• I'm working. Interruptions in browsing ---> forgotten trains of thought.
• I'm old. bad memory. I forget excuses I used just three bullets beforehand, how can I be expected to remember something I read a few PAGES back.

10 stars

I'll concede that. There's a grandeur to century(ies)-old structures that isn't in newer construction that often keeps them up and renovated rather than torn down for something new, but the wealthier places often dress things up (and wash/sandblast the grime from the stone surface) when they do this.

I'd prefer if they did more to CoV to address that. Imagine the Family villa done up for a good Godfather-like wedding. Shiny classic cars, windows adorned with decorations and banners, etc. Stress the idea that money lives there.

Then have a multistage zone event around it where you can help the marcones "clear out the rifraff" on the streets leading up to there (with optional sidequests to perhaps profit more directly off their visitors)

Precisely one of the reasons why such a mechanic shouldn't be in City of Heroes. Such systems as I mentioned work best when death is a predictable and preventable outcome, where a user has a reasonable ability to assess a threat, predict the outcome, and take action that will mitigate that risk. None of that is part of CoH, so it would, indeed, fare poorly here.

A painful death penalty needs coupled with a whole set of mechanics that support the idea of avoiding death, both individually and in a team. If those aren't there, you have nothing but frustration.

I'll preface this with a "I AM NOT ADVOCATING A CHANGE TO THE DEATH PENALTY HERE" statement, even though it'll be ignored, taken out of any quotes, or even edited to remove the "not" in the grand tradition that is gaming forum debate.


A more daunting death penalty can add certain elements to play. When the death penalty is so trivial that a "reload, run back, keep fighting" zerg mentality presides, then the game loses many opportunities for play around the "desperate struggle to stay alive." When death is trivial, you fight until your health bar goes black and you die. If teammates (or yourself) can keep it from going black, all the better. If not... eh, no big deal.

When death has substantial penalty, then you have to start weighing your choices. How much damage can the enemy deliver before I can react? When I'm below that number, how do I disengage? CAN I disengage, or am I still the most survivable person in the team against this foe? What other mitigation techniques are at my disposal?

All that is on top of all the normal DPS and tanking considerations, and all that has the POTENTIAL for more varied gameplay... if the mechanics support it.

City of Heroes mechanics, particularly the large-team high-level play, does not, so a higher penalty should be avoided.

That struggle can be a fun adrenaline rush if the game's mechanics support it. CoH's mechanics do not, particularly in the large-group and high level game.

Generally disappointed in you, here, Sam.

Yes, The Rogue Isles has more than its share of blight. It also has mobster villas that are clean and well-cared-for, often directly adjacent to the blight... the symbolism being that the villains care very little for their neighbor, but aren't above carving something nice out for themselves.

The walled area in Mercy, the villa in Port Oakes, Aeon's monument to himself in Cap Au Diable, the Family's little island off of sharkhead, a good half of St. Martial, etc. Each area has its own cleaned-up, prettied up neighborhood that reflects a bit of the personality of the more well-off neighbors. Granted, many are older architecture... not the glass-and-steel of a 'modern city skyscape' and granted that it is under a perpetual cloudy haze, but these parts of the city are very nice, indeed.


Similarly, if you take the time to look at Praetoria, you find that it also fails to live up to your characterization. Sure, Nova Praetoria does... you start the game seeing the beautiful paradise surrounding the god-king Cole himself. As you stray farther from his gaze, though, and into Imperial City you start seeing the more cluttered alleyways, graffiti that isn't removed quite fast enough, and the perpetual construction and re-construction. You start to suspect that there might not be as much to the Utopic picture as originally thought. By the time you get to Neutropolis, the contrast between the "haves" in their nice, pretty, polished neighborhoods and some of the trashier industrial waste sites stands out.

Yes, each side gravitates toward the directions you mention, but the only way to put either place into simple-minded polar extremes is to ignore a great deal of what each city offers.