EvilGeko

QR

I don't think this is a bad idea. Statesman's idiotic reason for making you wait until 14 in the first place never made sense. However, it would basically eliminate many of the advantages of characters like Kheldian and Kinetics (which get an in set travel power). It would also lessen the value of rewards like the Mayhem/Safeguard temps.

Thus, while I don't disagree, I think OP you need to flesh out your idea a bit to consider the issues this would create. With DCUO at least giving travel at level 1 (I don't know if CO does too), I think this idea has some chance, but these issues are a major sticking point IMO.

QR

There's no downside to giving this as an option. This would allow an author to see how the mission plays at different difficulties, how the pacing works, and how a mob set as an AV works.

As an option, I really don't see why people think it's a bad idea and feel the need to down the OP. Oh wait...this is the suggestion forum, that's what they do here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think that some folks are even getting too worked up about the Going Rogue expansion, expecting it to be out around the same time or soon after Issue 15. I think that's not very likely, and the real time frame will be more along the lines of June or July 2010.

[/ QUOTE ]I think a release date in the Christmas/New Years time frame is more likely than a full year (and then some) from the announcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking Halloween release. What better reason to change costumes than flipping sides?

[/ QUOTE ]That's also a good candidate. I was thinking more towards Christmas time, since this will more than likely be another new box on the shelves, and that'll be a good time for sales.

Then again, a Halloween-ish release would mean it's still "New" for Black Friday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Halloween is the day before the real Christmas shopping season starts. Having it out then is a very good idea.

[ QUOTE ]
Things that are still on the "never going to happen" list:

* Raising the level cap
* Open PvP in all zones
* Merging servers
* 50-only content

Who knows, maybe all those S&I newbs will end up having the last laugh!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell, I think the 50-only content is coming as an alternative to raising the level cap. I don't know that that's on the list at all.

[ QUOTE ]
In your estimation, when will I be able to choose powers from any powerset in the game regardless of architype and without restriction as to the number I can dip into (a la Champions Online)? For an example less related to a rival franchise, when do you imagine the developers will cave in and admist that stamina is a requirement for 99% of player-characters and not an "option" and simply give it to us for free? Or on another tangent, when do you expect they will open a full, open-world PvP server?

[/ QUOTE ]

The first, a more freeform creation system, could happen in a new AT. Given what I've seen lately in the SoA and the changes to Doms that are coming, the devs don't seem to be as pathologically concerned about 'balance' anymore. So perhaps someday we'll see an AT or epic AT that allows freeform building. Do I think it's likely? Don't know honestly, but I'll never rule it out.

As for Stamina, depending on how Champions and DCUO handle power issues, that could happen sooner than we all expect. That's a much better example, because I could say that same thing about MoG back in the day. People, including me, had lost hope that that power would get changed. It did, it's glorious, and it proved to me yet again, "Never say never."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let this be another lesson to anyone that confidently posts "never going to happen" in response to a suggestion they don't like.

Add side-switching to the long list of things that were "never going to happen". I love this game....there is simply no such thing as "never going to happen".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your confusing or misremembering those threads. If I remember correctly the "never going to happen" was about allowing AT's on both sides [u]without anything to back it up.[u] And the devs have't just allowed that to happen. Instead they have created an entire new edition where players will go thru missions that move them along the path from good to evil and vice versa.

There's a huge difference between sideswitching or fallen/redemption and creating a brute and entering Atlas Park from the character creation screen.

[/ QUOTE ]


No he heard them right. That codicil you added there was never said implicitly or explicitly.

It's like I tell people over in the suggestions forum. Ignore all the trolls that scream, "Dead Horse", "Go search", blah blah. More times than I can count now, they have been proven wrong and the "dead horse" comes into the game.

Let's add this to the list, point and laugh at the naysayers and move on.

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

Really people. Do this and he goes away.

[/ QUOTE ]

People like arguing with Johnny. If they didn't, they wouldn't need to "Ignore this user," they would just stop responding to his threads.

The only problem I have with negligence is that it really doesn't give defenders what they need in the situations where it's working. It's a nice little boost and it means I don't have to worry about endurance ever on teams, but it also doesn't do jack to help me defend the team.

I have two defenders, a Cold/Ice and a Kin/Sonic. OK, yes, both have endurance tools and really don't have much of a concern on a team. But even if they didn't, negligence doesn't help them when things aren't going well.

My Cold defender already has bubbled the team and debuffed the mobs. If people are hurting, there's nothing I can do. The Kin can heal, but Transfusion isn't the biggest drain on the blue bar.

Negligence seems like it was built for Rads and Empaths.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When:
Soon

[/ QUOTE ]

Grrargh!

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't hate that word until the Dev's here used it way TOOO much. Come up with a different word at least, like Not-too-distant-can't-see-it-around-the-horizon-future

[/ QUOTE ]

Soon is a term of art in MMOs though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With side-switching actually on the way, how do you think this will impact tanks?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very much. Tankers are still the one-stop-shopping AT for tanking purposes. I'm honestly more concerned about Corruptor/Defender or Scrapper/Stalker balance. I also expect to see a lot of Masterminds blueside for soloing purposes.

Technically, Scrappers and Brutes have a lot of overlap (very similar survivability and damage output), but the playstyle is so different that it will probably come down to preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not much concerned about any AT. Seriously folks, we have two extremely popular Co-op zones and TFs. Some ATs can fill in for others. The only real outliers will be the STF and LRSF.

And Tankers will be very welcome on both. I fully expect them to supplant all brutes who are not */stone in tanking those.

[ QUOTE ]
Banes don't need a buff.

[/ QUOTE ]

This. Being the least overpowered of the SOA may not be fun, but it's not weak.

[ QUOTE ]
/signed. IMO it should be next on the list.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
One day they might do it, Geko, but every day they don't is another wonderful day where I get to watch a silly idea be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still think it's silly?

(Yes, I'm being juvenile beyond words, I'm sorry.)

Interested in both.

QR

Don't disagree with the idea, but also don't think it's worth the work to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Reged: 02/19/07

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you've been continuously subbed for two years, but if so, you have two respecs on every character. Post-24, you can run the respec trial and get another one.

Thus, you can already move over 30 enhancers. I've done this myself. I erased a character and removed EVERY enhancer from her via vet, free and earned respecs. All have since been transferred to newer characters.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AE in RWZ is probably the biggest "WTF!?" moment I've had in awhile...Dumb idea if you ask me, makes zero sense.

[/ QUOTE ] I just figured AE was giving Vangaurd money. Fighting a war is expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured it was there primarily for their own troops (Vanguard) to use for training.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured the devs wanted to have an AE in a co-op zone and Cimerora would have been even sillier than RWZ.

[ QUOTE ]
One day they might do it, Geko, but every day they don't is another wonderful day where I get to watch a silly idea be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Silly why?

I guess, I can sorta understand not agreeing with the idea. But silly? All we're asking them to do is to do what's makes sense. What both of their coming competitors are doing by default. There is no 'side', it's one game with an artificial barrier set up to keep people forced down one content stream. The only thing that I find silly is how many people defend it.

All ATs; both sides
All zones; all ATs

If villain content isn't compelling to people, there's little sense in bribing them to it. Powers don't have an ethos. You can have reformed thugs, or Corrupters that want to draw people away from evil.

[ QUOTE ]

Breaks:

<ul type="square">[*] Crey Hero Lab map has been removed[/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh joy! The final mission of the arc I planned out since I first heard about Architect is now invalidated. And said room has no problems as the mission has no glowies. This is wonderful.

Really, I mean that. Because there's now NO reason to go in MA again.

QR

/unsigned. Why not just let people play the way they want? But on second thought, let's do this. It will solidify my decision to stay out of AE.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can have more Epics when villains get a full set of thematically appropriate choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note, I play every AT and have four villains in epic range. So my question is: WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Obviously, it's easier to give Scrappers Fire Mastery than it is to create four-five new Brute choices in one fell swoop. It doesn't hurt Brutes for them not to have them right now.

There are no sides. This is one game. Asking for something for one AT doesn't hurt another.

my 2 inf.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why, but I find that very amusing coming from you, EG Probably from the "All ATs on all sides!" bit that we don't agree on. &gt;.&gt;

Honestly, though, if that ever happened, just due to parity (and as much as I dislike that, given it's the reason for VEATs unlocking at 50, I have to believe it IS a consideration with the devs,) villainside would *have* to get something - or at least an announcement of something.

Personal preference is what I stated before. Nice, big package deal - Heroes can choose a patron (or whatever they'd call it,) villains can choose "neutral" APPs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again if parity is the issue, then you must agree that Scrappers should get Pyre Mastery before ANYTHING else is done, simply to allow that AT to have four choices, no?

P.S. Like I've said in those arguments over merging the game fully, I really don't see sides or parity or any of that nonsense. It's one game to me. And it would be a better game if ethos was a choice not a destiny.

[ QUOTE ]
Or it's been around a very long time. Arcs will accumulate 1000 favorable ratings over time, even crappy ones. If they had your rating system, it would need to be "1000 favorable ratings during less than X amount of time", where "X amount of time" would be a reasonable timeframe, perhaps three months, maaaaaybe six months (but that's pushing it IMO). Which means the arc needs to continue to get favorable ratings in order to stay in HoF. Which is what the HoF is supposed to be doing anyway, and not reward old arcs that just got there by way of being really old.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that be so? There are people in the rock and roll HoF that got there because people started to appreciate them only long after they were on the charts.

And really. So what if an arc makes HoF after three years (or whatever). It really doesn't hurt anyone. It's not a contest.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like your suggested idea, Geko. It covers a nice area for ratings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Geko's suggestion.

And NO, for the last time, you should not be forced to play an entire arc to be able to rate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, if you dont like an arc DONT PLAY it. But don't 1 star someone who put EFFORT into their arc and its NOT on a damn BOAT, and its NOT a FARM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why my suggestion works as it does. In my suggestion, a "Do Not Recommend" is just information. It has no negative effect on the author, other than it might encourage people not to play your arc. But every person you get to "Recommend" your arc gets you one step closer to HoF status.

No more griefing, no quasi-objective, but not really numeric system. In such a situation, it no longer matters if you played the whole arc or not.

[/ QUOTE ] Your proposal seems like it would reward mediocrity. Why would we want to do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

How? Mediocre arcs would have a lot of neutrals, maybe a few recommends and a few do not recommends. The point of the rating system should be to provide information.

The way I would see it is every arc would have a report that looked like this:

(X) people recommended this arc
(X) people were neutral on this arc
(X) people did not recommend this arc

This is different than the rating system we have now in that it doesn't average the scores. In addition, it doesn't ask people to assign a numeral (i.e. 1 to 5) to a qualitative measure. For some people, a three is average. For some it's "pretty good". In the rating system I would create, that person has a better descriptor. Would they recommend it or not or are they on the fence. This provides more information than now. However since the scores aren't averaged, there's no other way to get you to HoF status than to only count the recommends. And really, if 1000 recommend your arc, then except in cases of extreme marketing, it probably deserves it.

[ QUOTE ]
It's just as easy to give FIre Mastery to Brutes, AND it increases equality between sides.

It's one game, but two sides and both sides should be treated fairly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but by that token, then we should only ever create a new set, when we have 9 others for each other AT. I don't think that makes much sense.

Personally, I don't have a problem giving Brutes Fire Mastery. So if that's all you care about, sure give each villain AT a theme choice for a non-patron epic. But that's not what you said. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
You can have more Epics when villains get a full set of thematically appropriate choices.


[/ QUOTE ]

And that's an unreasonable burden. It wouldn't even be fair. Because then you have to figure out some sort of patron system for heroes. The devs decided that it would be fair if villains got patron pools instead of epics. Typically, those patron pools get choices at level 41 that heroes don't get until 44 in their epics.

Is that fair? I don't know. I don't complain about it either. I think that it's a difference. I also don't think that it has any relevance to whether you should add more appropriate choices for the heroes now. I think an argument can be made that doing so now, makes things MORE fair. Why?

Scrappers still only have three epic choices. And they've been here long before any villain existed. Getting them to at least four should happen before villains get anything under your tortured logic. But then that's what is so silly and childish about trying to demand parity between the sides. It's not necessary for every change and the devs shouldn't have to consider that at every turn.