EvilGeko

Forum Cartel
  • Posts

    4227
  • Joined

  1. I'd pay up to $300 up front. That wouldn't be the worst idea for NCSoft either. As they move into a blended mini-transaction ($10 is not micro!) and sub model, this might be possible. So long as too many people didn't sign up, which would push them into charging for more things after awhile.
  2. [ QUOTE ]
    Seems simple enough to me...

    You allow players to use the D for cross-faction Teaming from level 1. Do you have any idea how much I'd LOVE to do that? Grind MA Arcs 'til I hit 35, then hit Cimerora or the RWZ... Yeah. That sounds like a heckuva lotts fun!

    Is it against the design document to have cross-faction teaming under 35?

    -Rachel-

    [/ QUOTE ]

    YES!

    The EvilGeko approves of this message, finds Rachel's ideas intriguing and is a long term subscriber to Rachel's newsletter.
  3. [ QUOTE ]
    I'm glad to see a positive response to the pack. The high collar cape & hood from the 2nd pic, is also available for the female. Enjoy!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Awesome work Jay. Very sexy!! (Literally in this case! )

    Will buy second it becomes available.
  4. [ QUOTE ]

    Some people want to be able to respec out of their powersets.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I don't post in those threads, if it happened I wouldn't use it much, it doesn't affect me either way.

    [ QUOTE ]
    Some people want to merge the servers.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    That would meaningfully affect many people's experience. It's not nearly comparable to this suggestion.

    [ QUOTE ]
    Some people want the company to sell influence.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    That would meaningfully affect many people's experience. It's not nearly comparable to this suggestion.

    [ QUOTE ]
    Some people want to eliminate PvP altogether.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Did you think about these things before you posted them. The last three are all suggestions that would GREATLY negatively impact other people's playstyle.

    [ QUOTE ]
    Some people want to get rid of co-op zones.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    See above.

    [ QUOTE ]
    None of those things will affect your game. They are all optional features you can choose not to use. So you have no legitimate reason to object, other than trolling.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    None of these things would be things that people who didn't like them could ignore. They are major changes that would impact a great many. The instant suggestion impacts no person who does not wish to use the service and I would challenge you to demonstrate how it's in any way comparable to these suggestions.
  5. [ QUOTE ]
    1) Just because a lot of people want it does not make it an important issue. a lot of people want Marijuana to be legal, but that doesn't make it an important issue, especially with everything else going on in this country.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Actually decriminalization of drugs is a major issue right now. The president of Mexico has come out in favor of it to stem the tide of violence on the on the border with the US and Mexico.

    [ QUOTE ]
    2) If it doesn't affect someone's game, then that is a decent reason to object. You act as if that would have no downside to their game, when in theory it would. However, it's not a tangible downside. Basically, if time is spent coding this into the game, that is time taken away from coding something else. If the something else would affect more people, then that should take precedence. If it doesn't, then coding for a mail system does still take away from other things that could be put into the game. If the Devs were to not do this, and just sit on their hands doing nothing, then you might have a point here, but trying to say that the coding time isn't something that could be spent on other things isn't a great case to be making either.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yes, by that selfish theory anything I personally don't want should never be done. That's not a standard that I think any reasonable person should wish for. The devs time is valuable, but we all want things for the game. If this is on the list of things to do, that it might take some time from whatever pet issue you have doesn't harm you. It helps you because the more gamers who are happy the longer the game exists.

    For instance, I don't particularly care about badges, but I understand that many people do. So time spent on badges doesn't affect me negatively even though I don't personally want them because others want them and they may not play if they weren't there.

    [ QUOTE ]
    3) People have different opinions on things. Get used to it. If I feel strongly about something, I'm going to say something. That might be in disagreement with you, even on a fundamental issue. Taking any disagreement, dismissing it, then calling the people disagreeing with you trolls isn't the way to case your argument and make it liked.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    It's alright to have a different opinion, but to down an idea that doesn't affect you in any meaningful way is trolling. This isn't a fundamental issue, it's a QoL change. It doesn't have any affect on balance, it doesn't change anyone's game who doesn't want to use the feature.

    Yeah disagreeing with an idea like that is trolling. If I were to disagree with the adding of a badge, when it wouldn't affect me in the slightest, I'm trolling.

    I don't care if people like the argument, because I'm tired of people on this board downing basically every idea on the most specious of reasons. It's what got this board banished to the dregs.
  6. [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    You can already fairly easily trade resources.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    If trading resources is already fairly easy, then there really isn't a need for the devs to waste time on this idea.

    They can use their resources on more important issues.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    If a number of people want it, then it's an important issue. All QoL features are low-priority. This one is no different. And this response is almost desperate. If it doesn't affect your game, you have no legitimate reason to object. Other than trolling, but then I think half the people who spend time on this board are here to down any idea for the fun of it.
  7. [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    OK, if that is true, what are the differences between an easy inheritance scheme system, and one with free (or near free) enhancements? What are the differences. I have proposed that easy inheritance and free enhancements are actually very close in performance, and thus, the arguement would not be specious. Indeed, I purport to have two advantages to a free system over a transfer one, thereby making free the superior system.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Somebody has to earn the inf. It's that simple.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    MunkiLord responsed
    [ QUOTE ]
    Because time spent playing is also a cost of enhancements. Your idea would eliminate that factor. While the idea of easier transfers would not. Somebody, at some point, had to go out and earn the influence and get the drop, and that took time. Your idea of just giving them away would eliminate the need to play the game at all.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Ok, You and Munki responsed similarly so I bunched his response here too.

    If we can agree that enhancement acquisition is rightly restricted based on time, instead of just wealth, then it begs the question:

    If acquiring enhancements over time is a valuable function in the game, why is collecting them over time for each character not valuable?

    Doesn't having all the enhancements you might ever want, but only if you have a high level or wealth lucky character still reduce the value the time requirement for enhancement acquisition provides? Doesn't it reduce it in equal portion to what is lost if you have free enhancements?

    If it is more fun to get the enhancements then to have them freely available, isn't it fair to ask, why it would not be fun to do that per character rather then per account?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    This horse left the barn. You already can provide alts with resources. So it doesn't matter whether it's more fun to earn them yourself or not. If it's more fun for YOU, great, more power to you. It still isn't a reasonable critique of this idea because as I said, this is a sunk cost. You can already fairly easily trade resources.
  8. [ QUOTE ]

    The statement "We can already do X, so doing X should be made (easier/quicker/etc.)",
    is logically unsound, and meaningless.



    [/ QUOTE ]

    Only if you don't understand logical reasoning. It's not unsound, it's incomplete. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise, but it isn't contradicted by the premise (i.e. logically unsound) either.

    It's not meaningless either. I don't even know what that means in this context.

    The argument is that since we can already share inf, enhancers, etc. with our alts that a person would prefer an easier way to do it. The addition of the word "prefer" is all that is required to make this idea logically sound. Because the unstated implication of saying that we can already do it is that there is no balance implications to it. Which there aren't. Any balance costs to sharing with your alts is a sunk cost.

    I have a one-man SG that I use for overflow from my main SG the Tempest Legion. I have absolutely no problems sharing money and gear between my characters. This idea provides another option to something that already exists.

    If you don't like the option, then that's cool. Don't use it. But it doesn't impact you anymore than any other feature the devs add that you don't want. It takes up some developer time that could be spent doing something you did want. If that's your objection, then I can understand that.

    But no other objection has any relevance to this discussion.
  9. [ QUOTE ]
    OK, if that is true, what are the differences between an easy inheritance scheme system, and one with free (or near free) enhancements? What are the differences. I have proposed that easy inheritance and free enhancements are actually very close in performance, and thus, the arguement would not be specious. Indeed, I purport to have two advantages to a free system over a transfer one, thereby making free the superior system.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Somebody has to earn the inf. It's that simple.
  10. [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    I skimmed 2 pages of whining "no" spam and only 1 person even bothered to explain. . . .

    [/ QUOTE ]

    1. You forgot the huge number who said "SEARCH".
    That would take you to where this question has been run into the ground over and over.
    [u]People get tired of explaining after a while[u]... referring to previous dead horse beating is just easier.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    They always have the STHeckU option! As in, just move on to another thread and leave this one alone. Because, you know, this idea doesn't in any way force anyone to use the option. It just gives the option. An option that already exists.

    [ QUOTE ]
    2. Perhaps they should do this...
    It WOULD make something you can already do, easier.

    But then, they could make it so Enhancements all cost 1 inf
    It WOULD make something you can already do, easier.

    Or maybe they should make it so you get so much XP, you can go from 1 to 50 in 1 day!
    It WOULD make something you can already do, easier.
    --

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Hyperbole doesn't make your point any less specious.

    [ QUOTE ]
    But I sorta think if they were going to do it, or thought it was a good idea, They already woulda done it!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Sigh... Do you know how many times I've heard that just to see the devs finally turn around after 2 years or so. Look up my long MoG fights since you love search so much.
  11. /signed to the OP's idea.

    Twinking is not now and would not if this idea were implemented be a problem. It would just make it easier.
  12. [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Just give the set some more damage, that's all it needs IMO.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    But how? The thing about changing powers to have greater recharge and greater damage is that it doesn't increase their DPS. That's how the whole thing is balanced. The Dominator attack chains aren't quite full enough to really take advantage of such a change. It does help in the case of large amounts of global recharge, but not by a truly significant factor. If you're curious try out the Attack Chain Generator linked in my sig, it can help shed light on the situation.

    My observation has been that by staying within the rules, Energy can't surpass /Fiery for single target damage because of Blaze and Fiery Embrace, and can't surpass /Electricity because of Havoc Punch and Build Up. Fiddling with recharge and damage on all the powers is just a dead-end.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah, but they're your rules. You said we couldn't break the rules and we couldn't replace powers. With those two limitations, */Energy can really only be given some better burst via increased DPA.
  13. [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    1) [u] Bone Smasher[u] - Replace melee AT version with Blaster version
    2.6 DS, 14 sec. recharge

    2)[u] Power Blast[u] - Replace Dom 6 sec version with Blaster/Defender 8 sec version with larger 1.64 DS

    3) [u]Power Push[u] - Increase DS to 2.4; increase recharge to 16 sec.


    [/ QUOTE ]
    These changes with Power Build Up seem reasonable, but do they really fix /Energy's woes? What they give is better burst damage, but I suspect that /Electricity and /Fiery will still be ahead.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Not much else you really can do if we're trying to be realistic. If I were really trying to fix */Energy I would remove the KB from everything but Power Push and add a chance to disorient instead.

    But then you have the KB lovers screaming that you nerfed their set.
  14. [ QUOTE ]
    Screw the cottage rule. It's not my fault the designers made bad set choices.

    Replace Whirling hands with torrent. Fire and Cold get cones, why not energy?

    Pushing the recharge and damage of power burst is definitely a strong move. Doms already have no problems filling an attack chain.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    If I were ignoring the cottage rule, beside the changes I posted before, I would remove the snipe and replace it with Energy Torrent. I would keep Whirling Hands. Nothing wrong with two AoEs.
  15. QR

    Without the running afoul of the cottage rule, fixing */energy assault is difficult. It's quite a bit of fail. But here goes:

    1) [u] Bone Smasher[u] - Replace melee AT version with Blaster version

    2.6 DS, 14 sec. recharge

    [u]Justification[u] - An early boom for the baby Dom.

    2)[u] Power Blast[u] - Replace Dom 6 sec version with Blaster/Defender 8 sec version with larger 1.64 DS

    [u]Justification[u] - At level 10, the Dom probably has at least one control and power bolt for filler damage, so the increased recharge is worth the increased damage.

    3) [u]Power Push[u] - Increase DS to 2.4; increase recharge to 16 sec.

    [u]Justification[u]: KB on a set that gets a lot of damage from melee better be worth using.
  16. [ QUOTE ]
    (c) the larger and more active heroside market would trump his graphs and equations.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    All jokes aside, Bill. Do you really believe that economics and business run this way? What Smurphy is saying would not be disputed by any reputable economist. It's just that fundamental.

    You're just guessing what would happen. Smurphy is applying a theory that has proven itself true for hundreds of years. You don't have to believe us, you simply have to go out there and learn a bit out simple economics.
  17. [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    You still have the issue of blue side constant buyers being fine with their prices and just eating red side's supply for a tasty snack before business as usual.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    ... which was what I was saying. He thinks it'll go *down.*

    I have no faith that people will be happy in making less INF than they did before.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    You're acting like people will have a choice. In a merged market, hero players will be competing with villain players as both buyers and sellers. Let's just say for a second that you're right and villain players now have to pay hero prices for things like salvage.

    Why exactly would that be a bad thing? Please note that I don't agree that would be the result, but let's go with it for now.

    Those luck charms and other salvage that go for good amounts hero side, make the lowbie hero game a joy. Hero players, JUST BY PLAYING THE GAME, can wind up with millions that make the early levels more reasonable.

    What you've just done is provide that earning potential to red side players. You've increased earnings for red players, while providing them access to a much larger supply with which to spend their new gains.

    What's the problem?
  18. [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Honest question to you Smurphy-

    Why do you think the Devs have NOT merged the markets yet?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Merging the market requires doing something. Not merging the market requires nothing. Also, a long time ago in a post long eaten by the forum monster Ex Libris stated that she enjoyed a "dynamic" market. I believe those were her words.

    That is a rational and logical opinion. A dynamic market where the prices change frequently can be more fun and more game like. A merged market would be more stable and less dynamic. A merged market would function more like a store than an flea market where bargains can be found. Perhaps the dev team has the "we like dynamic environment" attitude towards the markets.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Thanx for the answer.

    As usual, my answer to this suggestion is INCREASE the earning capability on redside to compete with blueside then merge the markets....

    We might be "almost" there with AE.

    Time will tell.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Why do you think earning potential is lower redside?

    The only reason I believe that the devs haven't merged the markets is what Smurphy (and I said earlier) said. The devs like the game. Interestingly enough, I wouldn't get so exasperated in these arguments if it were flippers I was arguing against.

    What's so silly to me is that the people who understand the least about the market and thus would benefit the most from a more stable market oppose this most vociferously.
  19. [ QUOTE ]
    How? Just because everyone uses the same sets, we know prices would rise.

    fixt for errors. it is because everyone uses the same stuff that prices would rise. [u]you dont pay attention to the markets very well do you geko. [u]you really cant see how there would be a lack of supply and a growth in demand? or higher prices because of more demand? seriously, stop thinking in dollar figures and think about the casual gamer. and then think about why only about 15% of the population of both games use the markets. it gets harder to make money when the only people using the markets are the "flippers".

    [/ QUOTE ]

    No. You're right. My main only has money and enhancers worth well over a billion inf.

    I was waiting for the casual gamer thing to come out. The flippers paradise we have redside is what hurts casual gamers. Why you and Bill think that economic theory that has proven itself for 200 years suddenly goes out the window when applied to this situation is beyond me.

    It's almost time for me to head out for the weekend so I'll leave you to your opinion. Bill, as always, fun tussling with you.
  20. [ QUOTE ]
    ^ points to bills post. that is the clearest explanation that can be made.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Except he's dead wrong.
  21. [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]

    i can only imagine how much the prices will inflate if this happens. reasoning behind this thought: everyone seems to think that there is way to much infl/inf floating around. this is not the case. while there are a few people who have billions that does not reflect on everyone else playing the game. especially the ones who can only play for a couple hrs a week.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    There would be no general inflation from a market merger. Some products, like salvage, would almost certainly deflate. Some products would receive welcome inflation, like hero side pet recipes (although it would be negligible). For villains, almost all prices, in all categories would drop. For heroes, any inflationary effect would be small.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    In theory, perhaps.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    And in practice, but OK.

    [ QUOTE ]
    Redside would most *certainly* see inflation. Barring pet recipes (more in demand redside,) they use the same sets - and the same salvage.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    How? Just because everyone uses the same sets, you somehow think prices would rise?

    Prices would fall because:

    1) Flipping DEPENDS on a smaller market. Manipulation is much harder when you can't control a product's supply. On red side, it is easier to make inf as a marketeer than blue side because of this. Add in the garguatuan supply blueside and many tricks go away.

    2) Very high demand items are more expensive or non-existent redside. Supply would go up, drifting prices between blue side and red side to the equillibrium point. Interestingly enough that point is not midway between blue side (cheaper) and red side. It's closer to blue side because blues population is larger.

    3) Trade raises the standard of living on both sides. Both sides would benefit from what the other makes too much of. Red side would be able to sell salvage for a more meaningful prices (i.e. not vendor trash), blue side would be able to move pet recipes and such. You don't have to believe me. Just study trade, study business.

    4) A larger market brings supply stability. A stable supply, even of an expensive product mitigates against price swings because people are more willing to bid for a reasonable price. Right now on red side, supply is so low that some people are willing to pay more just to be able to secure any product that comes on the market. That pressure lessens when there is ample supply.

    [ QUOTE ]
    And before anyone throws supply and demand at me - when there's a 2:1 ratio of supply TO demand, in theory, prices should drop, correct? Too much supply for the demand.

    With (heroside) 6500+ people bidding on 700 (roughly) Alchemical Silvers, I understand them going for 50k (last five sales.) or 3000 people bidding on 75 Ancient Artifacts - yes, that's going to be somewhat spendy, too. Or the infamous luck charm, 7000 some bidding, 1300 for sale - pricy.

    Ancient Bone. 680 bidding, 1689 for sale. 6-15k *each.* Better than 2:1 supply to demand. Shouldn't that be down near vendor level? Same with circuit boards (same ratio and 5-11k price range.)

    Brass doesn't even follow the "Low supply equals overly high price." 1200 bidding, just over 200 for sale. Nearly 6:1, and it's "only" 500-1000, with a 5000 at the bottom there.

    You REALLY think prices would deflate?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah I do, because I understand what "demand" means. If I put up a flipping bid of 10K for an Alchemical silver, that's not "demand". That's at best speculating. I'm hoping that I can catch people putting their stuff up for 5 inf or whatever at a time when there is no one willing to pay 50K. Then I'll resale for higher.
  22. [ QUOTE ]
    look, all your theory of economics classes from college taught you was theories. doesnt mean that is how it works. if you increase demand w/out increasing supply(if you look at the markets, they are basically mirror images of each other for supply/demand) prices do not go down, they go up. even if suplly goes up(which inthis case, supply for high demand items might jump a whooping 3%) the demand has increased by at least 2 fold causing prices to go up.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    What are you talking about? If you merge the markets, demand and supply go up proportionally. Demand and Supply are based on relative population. The market would grow. Both demand and supply.

    Seriously, what makes you believe that only one side of the ledger changes?
  23. [ QUOTE ]
    <QR>

    It's this time again?

    Adding more demand without adding proportionately more supply won't make anything better except maybe Masterminds at low levels. For a while.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Umm... that's exactly what a market merget does. It interjects increased demand and supply at the same time.

    [ QUOTE ]
    Haven't we been down this road enough times before to know that it's not a good idea? Even the majority of pro-merger folks have piped down about this, realizing that supply is sufficiently tanked on Heroes to no longer offer the appealing subsidy it once represented in their argument.

    Subsidies don't work if the subsidizer is also broke.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    While I think this is fair for villains, I think many people don't understand the many benefits to heroes. Heroes gain access to the surplus of salvage villains create which will have a small, but visible effect on hero prices to the benefit of the player.

    The reason that merging the markets isn't done is because it hurts the "gaming" aspect of the markets. Normally, I'm for the game, but I don't like to see supply hurt unnecessarily simply to maintain the ability of flippers to flip.
  24. [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Since you are aware that it has been suggested many times before, then you are obviously aware of the many reasons NOT to do it.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I am completely unaware of ANY reason not to do this.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    It's your own fault for not searching and reading the previous threads on this topic. It has been explained many times in the past. Do your homework.

    /unsigned for all the reasons posted in past threads.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    The reasons given in earlier posts against a market merger were given by people who do not understand business or economics. They were wrong each and every time. No one has explained to me how why they think general market theory would fail to produce the efficiencies that it always does when you increase trade.
  25. [ QUOTE ]
    until supply(drop rates) are increased, this is not a feasable thing. it is already hard enough to get what you want on either side and if you paid attentoin to what is available on both sides you would see that they are pretty much a mirror of each other. and with red side having the lower population, it would become even more unreasonable to get anything red side.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Do you understand how truly ludicrous what you just wrote was? Red side would see an enormous increase in supply from having access to blue markets. However, with their lower population, they would not be able to bid up blue prices much at all.