Eiko-chan

It would depend on whether I was still paying attention to the game or not. I have vague ideas what is going on in WoW despite it being five years since I walked away from it because I have friends that still play the game. I actually do not have friends outside this game that play it, so it's less likely I will be up-to-date on future developments.

Therefore, probably not.
Incidentally, the slap is because people that say "wait for Issue 20" are saying it with the implication that Black Scorpion has stated that Issue 20 will have solo Incarnate options. He has said nothing of the sort, and heavily implied the reverse (that solo options, if coming, shall come after Issue 20).

Issue 20 will offer non-Task Force options to gain Notices of the Well. We have no reason to believe, and a few reasons to disbelieve, that these options will be solo options.

I quoted the 25% in reply to a poster saying that we "cannot expect developers to cater to introverted interests". I did not quote it in reference to the game at all, but to the hypothetical version of the game White Hot Flash favours that does not consider introverted interests at all.

Have you left Task Force teams while the Task Force was uncompleted because you felt you needed to break (for whatever reason)?

I'm not judging; I'm asking. I couldn't bring myself to do that, and am curious if other people can.

No, what I said there (which is another thread, in case anyone is reading this and is confused) was that if the developers didn't design with introvert preferences in mind, they ran the risk of excluding 25% of the population, in response to someone else specifically saying "you can't expect the developers to design with introvert preferences in mind."

Do people just read my posts out of context looking for something to pick on? Do they ignore the things I quote to give them context?

I didn't add that last part. The only time I expressed a sentiment like that was in the face of someone telling me to (essentially) shut up; my response was "You want me to shut up, you pay me; otherwise, I shall exercise my rights as a customer in good standing, thankyouverymuch."

I still love the game. I want it to reform. I want better from it; heck, part of me still expects the devs to cave as quickly as development cycles allow and add in some solo stuff. I still have six months of game time already paid for (well, okay, at this point it's about four-and-a-half). That's about two development cycles of waiting, and I'm not going to pull any stupid human tricks (like disputing a credit card charge that I legitimately made) to make it end sooner.

If I just stop posting, no one - especially not the developers - will know that I still have a problem that needs to be addressed. No one can fix something you won't tell them is broken.

Nor did I say they were.

I'm not sure what it said before editing either (I'm not sure what of my point was edited out. I may have said something about another MMO explicitly - I do that a lot. That could be the only part of a longer post that survived an edit.)

Anyway, the point conveyed by what you quoted was simply that there is ample evidence that Arcanaville has provided input that has had direct and demonstrable effects on the game. She, possibly more than any other player that isn't also a member of the development team officially, has direct input on the direction the game takes.

At this moment in time, certainly not. I am, however, pessimistic about the possibility of the Incarnate system, and I've been anticipating the promised "end game" as much as anyone else, hoping and wishing for a system that did not exclude me because I dislike task forces and raids.

So far no MMO has delivered that promise. I actually had honestly believed that City of Heroes would, and am heartbroken that, as best I can see from here, it shall not.

The reason I'm reacting so strongly to this is because of how hopeful I had been. If I had not been given reason to hope, the disappointment would not sting as much as it does. Nothing hurts worse than being let down by something you love.

I am using brain chemistry to explain why some people might not like to team (in the face of a plethora of arguments from extroverts about how we just need to give it a chance, or get out of our shells, or suck it up and get over it).

I have NEVER claimed that introversion made it impossible to team. I really don't know why you think that's what I'm saying at all. It's not even close to a message I have ever tried to convey.

Deciding that certain rewards have to be awarded by teaming can be the result of either datamining showing a large portion of people teaming or datamining showing a large portion of people not teaming, depending on what the goal of the person looking at the data is.
I don't claim a 1:1 relation between the two groups.

Nor do I claim Myers Briggs to be the basis of my claims about Introversion. They didn't invent it (Jung is the first to really explore the idea of an introvert/extrovert divide.)

While I certainly will agree that the overlap between "introvert" and "doesn't like teaming" (or more specifically, "doesn't like Task Forces") is by no means complete, I was responding to someone attacking introversion specifically.
Now, I am not saying you specifically are saying otherwise, but lest someone take this the wrong way: introversion is real. People really are wired differently, respond differently to different hormones, and utilise different areas of their brain primarily.

That isn't to say that everyone wired for introversion likewise dislikes teaming, or that everyone that dislikes teaming is wired for introversion. I am merely saying that introversion is an actual, scientifically provable neurological predisposition.

Aww, did you have to bring back winky GG? I liked the other one.

A hypothetical game in which developers do not design to plan to account for introverted players. Approximately 25% of the population is introverted; this is just the aggregate number agreed upon by research. I spent a bit trying to find you a web page that says this explicitly, but couldn't (references I did find cited numbers such as "less than 30%".)

You may just have to take me on faith at this point that 25% of people are introverted (across all spectrums - not "of gamers" or "of Americans" - just 25% of all people.)

White Hot Flash makes the claim that the developers should not keep introversion in mind when they design their game, because introversion is an "excuse" (and he didn't state it here, but he has stated it elsewhere, is something you can "get over"; he claims to be a "reformed" introvert (as if one can "reform" their body chemistry)) for avoiding high stimulation activities like teaming and task forces. He suggests that the developers forget the preferences and comforts of their introverted players and just design the game for extroverts (which is all you can do if you decide to ignore introverts).

I was disagreeing with his suggestion, pointing out that excluding 25% of any potential player base (or existing player base) at the start is a bad idea.

I am not claiming they can increase their player base by offering legitimate options for introverts; I am claiming that they can potentially lose 25% of their player base by ignoring introverts.

Specifically, what I am saying is that if developers make a decision that the "end game" and top tiers of Incarnate abilities are only for people who team, who like teaming, and who like task forces - all inherently extroverted activities* - and decide that offering pathways to these that introverts would be more comfortable with - small teams and soloing - is a waste of their time and effort, they run the risk of alienating 25% (or possibly more, as I suspect introverts are a larger-than-normal part of the "video game player" population) of their current and potential future player base.

Um. Let me try that more simply.

Not offering solo options runs the risk of driving away introverted players, who are 25% of the population.

I hope that was clearer.

*Foot note! Introverts can and do engage in extroverted activities (all the time - we really have no choice, what with extroverts more-or-less calling the shots), they just feel differently about them. A typical extrovert, after finishing an exciting and action-packed task force, is likely feeling charged and peppy, ready to take on new challenges. A typical introvert, after the same task force, is likely feeling drained and ready for a break. Next week, that introvert might run the task force again - after they've had some time to recharge and prepare for it away from people and distractions.

Sub note: This took me half an hour to compose. The fact that I can take half an hour to write a post is a large part of why it's so easy for me to engage on the forums.

You can use any of them you like, but yes, some power sets will benefit more from certain boosts than from others.

Cardiac will lower your endurance costs and increase your resistance - Invulnerability benefits a lot from this one, as it has many resistance powers and is one of the more endurance-costly defence sets.

But you could slot the Nerve boost as well; it would boost your attacks' accuracy (possibly letting you move slots elsewhere, or slot something else in place of an accuracy) and those powers you have (such as Tough Hide and Invincibility) that provide defence.

Musculature will boost your attacks' damage, giving you the option to move enhancements like Nerve does.

Spiritual will boost your recharge - meaning more uptime for Dull Pain, as well as faster attacks. Since you're SS, the stun side could help out your attacks a bit, or you could slot the heal side to get a bigger boost out of Dull Pain as well as having it up more.

It's really about what you want to get out of the boost. Musculature is probably the least helpful, overall, for an Invuln/SS Tanker, but I've never heard anyone say no to doing a little more damage.

Do you think, maybe, it might be just a tad more reasonable to read, process, and try to understand what you are presented rather than resort to childish ridicule?

If you're confused about something I said, feel free to ask. I'll be glad to try to clarify anything I was unclear on.

I said want, not expect. It's reasonable to desire such a thing. It's reasonable to say you desire such a thing. Expecting such a thing, I agree, is unreasonable. At least until someone delivers - then it becomes a reasonable expectation for many future developments.

Maybe you can. Not everyone is capable of ignoring it that way, though. I don't think Sam RPs (at least not beyond the RP of "this is my concept, so I'm going to play it like this",) so he probably hasn't spent as much time trying to twist what the game gives us to be what he wants as we RPers do.

And even most of us recognise that we're ignoring the canon and pushing on when we do it; it's not unreasonable at all to want the choices offered to actually be the choices you want, rather than always having to pretend they are.

They're perfectly welcome to design their game to exclude 25% of their potential player base (probably more than 25%, because I suspect introverts are disproportionately gamers). I don't think it's a wise business decision, but they're perfectly free to make it.

And if they make it, I'll find somewhere else to spend my entertainment dollars. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp?

I don't like TFs. Never have. For me, the level shift is the entire point of the Alpha Slot.

I know you're just being cute and don't really think this is a "50/50 split", GG (or at least I hope you are; despite everything I still want to think you're not a horrible person), but even jokingly, how can you claim that "you get the bottom half, I get the top half" of a tiered system is remotely fair?