Doughboy
-
Posts
381 -
Joined
-
Quote:This would be very cool.Originally Posted by Ice_Wall
The Devs have been hinting that I20 is going to be the next BIG issue. I think that in I20, we will see the refit to new buildings, war walls coming down and it will be explained in game as resulting from the invasion. When Cole invades buildings will have to be rebuilt, remodeled etc and perhaps he will just knock down the War Walls himself, or we will have to do it to allow the Heroes of Paragon to respond to the incoming invasion faster...
Imagine seeing some of the zones destroyed in issue 20 (looking a bit like Boomtown), then seeing them rebuilt shiny and new for issues 20.5 or issue 21. -
Quote:Right. Because we all know that Nvidia has stopped making cards.Originally Posted by je_saist
then you pretty much don't have any options.
Actually, there are plenty of options and I'm sure one of the video card experts who post on this forum will be here soon to recommend a great Nvidia card. -
I hope the devs don't take seriously the "concerns" posted in this thread.
Where were these complaints when run speed and fly speed got buffed with Going Rogue? Getting inherent swift and hurdle is a nice boost. It's ridiculous to consider it to be a negative.
Complaints about not having slots for more powers? Silly. You will have MORE powers. If it means you have to be more judicious with slotting, so be it. You will still have MORE powers. Not all powers need extra slots to be effective. If that's not good enough, take a slot from your weakest attack and use it for one of your new powers. If you're still down because you can't six slot a power, here's another suggestion: take a power you don't want and never use it. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Knightfox
There's no way they'll actually have mailed in NDA signatures, that's just absurd on a colossal level. It will simply be an electronic signature rather than the normal "signing in means you agree to abide by the NDA" method. Electronic signature is much quicker and doesn't involve sorting masses of snail mail. I don't see how so many jumped to the conclusion that it would be an actual physical signature.For CoH's Beta 1 in December 2003, Cryptic required us to print out, sign and fax the NDA to them. I'd be surprised if this was required again, but it's certainly possible.Quote:Originally Posted by LISAR
They've done it before.
-
Quote:What happened to this? I guess I have to put you on ignore.Originally Posted by TamakiRevolution
I think I am the only one opposed to this, so I'll bow out.
As for inherent stamina: awesome. People have been asking for this since the game's release. It's about time.
More fighting, less waiting for endurance bars to refill, more powers to take. -
It's gotta be DragonCon. One of the biggest cons in the country.
-
I'm with Lothic.
I understand it, but still think the pre-order/pre-purchase situation is unnecessarily, and perhaps ridiculously, convoluted. I expect it will cause problems for some customers and headaches for customer service reps in the very near future. -
Quote:The point? To share why I just canceled my account and what might have prevented me from doing that. I went into much greater detail in NCSoft's exit survey I filled out after canceling. I'm not "holding anyone hostage". I'm simply not paying a recurring subscription fee.Originally Posted by je_saist
... And... the point of this was...
To make us feel bad for you?
To guilt trip the development team into talking?
To... what?
Well, whatever the point was, you failed. Please do not let the door hit you on the way out. Trying to hold a development team hostage for not talking works better when you just cancel your subscription and never come back.
I didn't post here to argue about it. -
My annual renewal is due to happen Tuesday. I canceled.
Regular info releases about GR probably would have kept me paying until beta. C'est la vie.
I'll be back. Eventually. -
Quote:Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. It's not my job to manage their production. I'm just telling it like I see it. Six or seven months between updates is too long.Originally Posted by Morac_Ex_Machina
And the devs obviously have extra content just sitting in a box somewhere that they can throw at us?
I am fairly sure that releasing i17 before GR would cause a delay in the release of GR, which would be bad. -
Quote:For time between updates. Six and half months is too long. That's less than two updates a year. I don't really care that one of the updates is a paid expansion. The game needs new content more often than that.Originally Posted by Zombie Man
For a major update? A true expansion and not just a "Issue" which are mini-updates?
Not really. Industry standard. -
Quote:Which was waaaay to long.Originally Posted by Zombie Man
In your opinion. I don't see it that way, so don't say it as if it were fact.
There was a 222 day wait for Issue 7.
Which would also be waaaaay to long.Quote:Originally Posted by Zombie Man
If Going Rogue comes out in the second quarter on the anniversary of CoH (a likely target date), then it will have been a 225 day wait, just three days longer than the previous longest wait time.
If GR would happen to come out the very first day of the second quarter, it will only have been a 198 day wait. -
"Damn AE babies."
I didn't expect to laugh quite that hard.
-
Quote:You should follow Wheaton's law.Originally Posted by DuceyKins
I don't feel bad about them at all, I knew exactly what I was getting into when I did it and was prepared for the punishment I knew I would get.
I put that in my letter to show that I play on both sides of the field, an avid player that loves teaming and taking on large groups AND a complete jerk that gets his lulz from watching a Giant Monster 2 shot people in portal corps or making toon names like "SGT. Titty Tassle". -
I would love to see character names connected to global chat names. I think it works well in that other game. Lord knows there are certainly a lot of heroes in comics named "Captain Marvel". I can tell you this, of all the names I'd like to have, I have never seen another player in-game with any of them.
Being an old-timer, I got to reserve a lot of names before the game was released (during the head start). I think I have some great names, but I wouldn't mind a bit if those names stopped being unique. People who know me in-game call me by my global handle anyway. -
Quote:Yeah. This is very cool.Originally Posted by Silver Gale
Massively interviews City of Heroes' newest architect
I wasn't aware the new Dr. Aeon was the "Joe the Longbow Eagle" guy! I need to work my way through his arcs one of these days.
Grats, Fearghas! -
The inspiration trading is news to me. Nice.
-
I have a 260 and CoH looks fantastic.
I buy all my computer parts from newegg.com. This is the 260 I picked up a few months ago. It's $199 and has a $10 mail-in rebate right now. Interestingly, it was $188 and had a $20 mail-in rebate when I bought it.
Anyway, newegg has a lot of customer reviews of the card. It would probably help to read at least a handful before deciding if you want the card.
Btw, ATI cards have had problems running CoH. I'm not trying to say anything bad about them, but look at the huge thread in the technical forum that's been running for the past two years. -
Quote:Yes. In the spec-ops world, unusual things happen. You could even include something in his backstory about him earning his promotions up to captain and leading troops, then becoming a special operative and his bosses making him a colonel so he'd have a little weight to throw around when necessary.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Put it like this - I have a special operative who generally has NO men under his command simply by virtue of the kind of work he does. I know "lone wolf" operatives who go out into the jungle on their own probably aren't common in real life military forces, but they're common in games and movies and that's sort of what I went with. However, because of the sensitive nature of his work and the great importance of his missions, he needs to be able to assume command when necessary, hence he is given a high rank (and in my case an equivalent rank, like what Red Alert's Tanya had).
From what I've read so far, the above doesn't seem at all likely to happen in a real-world army, but what I want to know is is it even POSSIBLE? -
Quote:He deserved that. He might have been top 10 at West Point, but I guess they didn't teach him how to use his compass.Originally Posted by Novastorm
The dumbest Lieutenant was the one who got our squad lost. He wouldn't listen to anyone. He would say "I'm a Top 10 West Point grad. I know what the hell I'm doing." All the while trying to read a compass that was sitting on the medal hood of a jeep." We were 10 miles away from our rendezvous point, at 0200 hrs (2:00am) with temperatures around 12F, and heading in the wrong direction. We finally got spotted by a heli and evac'd back to HQ. Don't think that LT sat down for a week after the ***-chewing he got from the CO.
-
There's a lot more info about U.S. Army officer jobs and responsibilities at the army recruiting site.
The page describing what an infantry officer does might also help. -
Quote:Maybe not miles from the front, but, yes, Majors and Colonels would probably be in the command tent, telling captains on the front line what to do. So, would a Colonel be out in the field shooting at people alongside his men? Not really. If his command post was getting overrun by the enemy, would he pick up a gun and shoot people? You bet.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
This is interesting, though, in that from what I've read so far, I was led to believe that a Major or a Colonel would spend all their time in a tent ten miles behind the front line doing clerical work and organising operations.
Basically, a Colonel (brigade commander) tells his Lt. Colonels (battalion commanders) "we will remove the enemy from this major city". The Lt. Colonels tell their Captains (company commanders) "you will remove the enemy from this section of the city". The Captains tell their Lieutenants (platoon leaders), "you will remove the enemy from these streets". As they go up in rank, each officer controls a slightly larger portion of the combat and their job becomes more and more about strategy and planning.
Doctors and Lawyers are two examples of officers who usually don't have a command function, but are still officers.Quote:Say, here's something interesting to ask. I keep hearing that rank may not always describe direct command of personnel, but may instead be given to a specialist in order to grant them the authority of this rank, even if they aren't assigned any troops to command. This is where my eye was all along, and I just wanted to ask how likely it is for a high rank to be given out like this. Say Major or Colonel. How likely would that be? And keep in mind, I can exaggerate even "somewhat" into "Positively will happen!" if need be
-
Quote:An "Army" is made up of two or more Corps. An Army is a "theater-level command". For example, "United States Army Europe". When I was stationed there, during the cold war, it was made up of V Corps and VII Corps. It also included a lot of units that were not part of V Corps or VII Corps. Things like support units and combat units not directly belonging to one of the Corps.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I have one question, though, that isn't directly related to the thread, but is sort of in the same vein - where does an army and an army group figure into this? I see you've listed things up to a corps, but I remember seeing a lot of WW2 documentaries which talked about army groups and the armies within them, and I sort of inferred they meant possibly into the millions of soldiers. Just curious where that stands.
-
Quote:It's very realistic. Lt's are in the field with their troops. They lead platoons, but because they're young, they also rely on their platoon sergeant to advise them.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
How likely is a lieutenant to see action intentionally? Movies seem to show them going into battle with their men (Starship Troopers as the example), but I don't know how realistic that is.
A major would typically lead from a command post, not alongside their soldiers like a lieutenant would.Quote:That's part of the reason I asked. In the info I found, the Major was described as essentially a paperwork rank, which wouldn't quite jive with what I had in mind. The amount of people under a Major's command feels about right, but if it's completely ludicrous that a Major would step out of the tent and, as you said "blow the smithereens out of something," then I may have to do some lateral thinking.
True.Quote:That's generally the problem with trying to give someone an important-sounding rank - the higher the rank is, the less action that person is likely to see. Gone are the days of king leading cavalry charges. -
Staff officer = not a rank, but a position. Usually an officer on a general's staff.
Commissioned officer = someone ranked Lt. or above. They are "commissioned" as opposed to the "non-commissioned officers" aka NCOs or enlisted personnel.
XO = executive officer. Assistant to the commanding officer.
CO = commanding officer. This officer commands a unit. Can be basically any commissioned officer rank.
To explain the ranks and their responsibilities, I need to explain how army units are organized. I hope this doesn't get too confusing. The troop numbers below are averages and can vary.
Units
- Squad - a group of about 10 soldiers.
- Platoon - four squads. a group of about 40 soldiers.
- Company - a group of four or five platoons. About 200 soldiers.
- Battalion - a group of four or five companies. About 1,000 soldiers.
- Brigade - a group of four or five battalions. About 5,000 soldiers.
- Division - a group of three or four brigades. About 20,000 soldiers.
- Corps - a group of two or more divisions. Size can vary greatly.
Ranks
- Sergeant - non-commissioned officer, aka enlisted. In charge of a squad or a platoon.
- Lieutenant - in charge of a platoon. Or XO for a company.
- Captain - in charge of a company.
- Major - XO for a battalion.
- Lieutenant Colonel - in charge of a battalion.
- Colonel - in charge of a brigade.
- Brigadier General - in charge of a brigade or a division.
- Major General - in charge of a division.
- Lieutenant General - in charge of a corps.
- General - in charge of a theater of operations or a major command.
More info on sergeants and lieutenants:
Sergeant = working man's boss. Think "foreman". It's an enlisted rank, not a commissioned officer rank. Sergeants are the backbone of the army. Sergeants get things done.
Lieutenant = junior officer. Second Lieutenant is the lowest officer rank. First lieutenant is the next next lowest. These are folks right out of college, officer candidate school or West Point (a university run by the army).
FYI: there are many enlisted ranks, including Private, Corporal, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, etc. "Sergeant" as a rank refers to what some call a "buck sergeant", the lowest rank of sergeant. But all ranks of Sergeant are addressed as "Sergeant", much like all officers are addressed as "Sir".
I'd be happy to answer any other questions you might have.