Frosticus
-
Posts
2597 -
Joined
-
I think they have 100 kb protection.
-
Quote:Various iterations of this idea have been presented before including such things as making rep mean something from a reward stand point. At the end of the day they are all ideas that have good intentions and pvp does indeed require some solid form of rewarding players.Originally Posted by Dizzy_Dazzler
Just wondering why don't use a merit system in PVP collect merits and buy recipes or Salvage from a NPC
Like:
1 merit for 1 Kill.
5 merits for killing the Most Wanted.
2 merits when Most Wanted is killing people.( some kills needed before you gain that title)
PvP IO's unfortunately fail because their drop rate is so low. If they introduced secondary tiers of PvP IO's that dropped much more frequently but weren't as powerful (ie didn't carry bonuses across all levels like purples) then this would become a viable reward system. Of course attach the same cool down as current pvp IO's have to prevent rapidly earning them from the same target(s).
I think your idea of merits earned via pvp is valid. I would however tie it to the rep system and allow cashing out of rep in exchange for merits.
As mentioned above though. We'd need a dev team that gave a flying **** about pvp for anything to happen. -
Quote:For nowOriginally Posted by Golden Girl
You're still going to need a copy of GR to use the Incarnate system
-
Quote:I thought "incarnates" was a working title?Originally Posted by Angelxman81
Well, I19 is named Incarnates, so if no Incarnate system along with the new Issue, we got a thing, lol.
Hope I19 bring us Incarnate system, more Praetoria content and pools revamp/customization. Last thing much needed, I think.
This delay has me more worried about an overall delay of i19 than just the specific delay of the first level of the system. Of course we have no expectation in place of when i19 will arrive so that is information we'd never know. Hopefully it doesn't come too long after GR though.
If they are using it as part of their promotion of the product (in the case of CoP iirc it was on the box even) then people have a legitimate complaint when it is pulled from the final product. Claiming false advertising is for most people the equivalent of claiming a "slap to the face". It's just a way of expressing dissatisfaction to a high degree. They usually don't mean it in the literal sense.Quote:Originally Posted by Nericus
Kind of reminds me of all the old complaints about CoP being a "selling point" to CoV and how some felt cheated at its sudden removal and some even tried claiming false advertising. -
Quote:Exactly. The only way the CoP will need 24 players is if it has 24 simultaneous glowies to click on the last mission.Originally Posted by Slax
Kinda like you need 8 to do an ITF...
-
Quote:There are plenty of examples where they listen to players and change things too (for better or worse).Originally Posted by Tokyo
Why do people blame other players for the i13 changes? I'm pretty sure the devs are capable of screwing things up all on their own. There are plenty of examples of that to pull from.
Think back to the last time in your life you had an idea that you felt was a winner, but none of your peers agreed. It only takes a few people whose opinion's matter to you to affirm your decision to go forth amongst a veritable sea of negativity.
That said, I don't blame players for i13 because they didn't design i13. I do blame players for encouraging the devs by supporting any of their terrible ideas. I hope Neeto hangs his head in shame when reading what he said back then. I know I feel shame because when they announced that pvp was going under the jackhammer (despite a knife being more suitable) I vouched for Castle as a designer and a person with enough insight to get the job done. I was wrong on both fronts and I now have almost no confidence in his ability to get any job done to my satisfaction. -
Quote:Does anyone other than the tank in that scenario enjoy themselves? Does the tank even?Originally Posted by Carnifax_NA
Sorry, should expand on that. No brute is going to enjoy a tank on a gr team running off to herd like you can still get blue side The Herding to Here on every single spawn type.
A brute would much prefer to do as you say, take the alpha themselves to angry up the blood. -
Quote:Definitely, but depending on how GR does or doesn't do, there is now x number of extra months to persuade the devs to open this system to non-GR owners. If that is something that is desired of course.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I don't think that this should be read as the Incarnate system now not requiring a copy of GR to work.
-
Quote:Definitely. I haven't seen anyone too up in arms yet (it will likely happen though). I know for me the Incarnate system and the 1 level of it attached to the GR release was the main reason I was thinking of picking up GR. I don't care about low levels anymore and side switching has recently lost its appeal to me as I now see it as unnecessary for anything I enjoy (had this come out a couple years ago different story).Originally Posted by Goliath Bird Eater
Remember, it was originally said that the first of ten "Incarnate Levels" would be included in Going Rogue as a preview for the rest of the system in Issue 19. Not that we'd be getting the entire Incarnate system in Going Rogue. If Issue 19 rolls around and there's still no Incarnate system, then it's a big deal. As it stands, all that's happening is that 1/10th of the system is being moved from Going Rogue to some date in the future because the devs didn't think it was good enough for us. Hardly worth getting too up in arms over.
I say meh, to this announcement as well and I say meh to GR at this point. It will need an epic feature list to get me excited about it again. -
Disappointing. I'm not really very excited about 1-20 content. For me it is the least exciting level range in the life of a character.
Oh well. -
Quote:I wasn't really disagreeing with you. More just giving an opinion of why some people might hold off buying GR despite many people around here buying it sight unseen. I think eventually almost anyone playing this game will have it, just like pretty much everyone had CoV before it was included.Originally Posted by PeerlessGirl
I guess as an RPer, switching sides is a huge deal for me (I have high levels on both sides also, but that's not really the point, all of my villains aren't really villains anyway, but Rogues or Vigilantes, so I'm really looking forward to that option personally. As for i19 and Incarnates, I would bet that'll be 6-8 months after i18 (if not faster). So that pretty much covers my whole "some people may wait 6-8 months" bit above, doesn't it? Something tells me Incarnate is going to be big, and I await it with baited breath. It's funny, between i14 and i16 I was really losing steam on CoH, but i17, i18, and i19 have really pushed me back into the "addicted" camp again. Now, someone just needs to announce Double XP (preferably before GR), and a "buy 12 get 14" deal again, so I can re-sub both my accounts for a year!
On wow, just read Posi's announcement. Unless some significant info is unknown to me about GR I'll be holding off on it until i19 more than likely. Nothing against GR, it just doesn't have anything (that I know of yet) that really interests me. Besides, the main TF's I play are co-op anyway, which further reduces any desire I might have had to side switch. -
Quote:What I'm saying is you could arbitrarily pick a set and you'll find that once you sink your teeth in there will be aspects that could be tweaked and possibly more importantly in many sets powers that are bugged and not working as they should. This is pretty common in the more complex AT's, but does spill over into these territories as recently as the examination of Shield Charge that I did.Originally Posted by Umbral
Actually, I'm developing a bit of a habit of doing that (ever since the DM changes, all of my major powerset tweak suggestions have involved sets I do not personally play), though I make sure to only do so with powersets that I have specifically seen have some imbalance and then had numbers to back them up with. I don't just arbitrarily pick sets and then start lobbying for change: I do it with purpose, which makes it a bit different than simply picking sets out of a hat and going from there. I'm more enamored with balance as a whole than I am with any single set's performance (though I readily admit to my prejudices, which can sometimes bleed over), and the closet I get to an emotional investment in any single set I make changes concerning is a desire to make me want to play that set at some point in the future (because, yes, I know the numbers and numbers are important to me when I pick a powerset combination to play and when I'm playing a set, my knowledge of those numbers is going to color my perceptions of my play experience). I don't want to play a set that I know, with very little doubt, underperforms on average compared to the other sets I could have taken, so, if a set is going to be an option that actually interests me, it needs to actually be a roughly equal numerical option compared to the other sets I could take (which I would argue MA really isn't, and, as such, should get some tweaking to bring it up to par).
Aside from that though, because the devs so greatly undervalue aoe attacks any single target focused set is already miles behind in the race. Unless you are seeking to balance it primarily as a singular hard target focused set? Which is where sustained single target dps is the most important metric. That however only constitutes one small aspect of the game. Even a set as dominant as a pimped out old EM couldn't hold a candle to an aoe focused set in terms of reward rate in most situations.
Single target dps is a metric we have great accuracy over measuring, but just because we have it so clearly dissected doesn't mean it is more important than any of the other aspects that are involved when we play.
In another direction, adding some additional aoe to MA so that more closely mimics other sets is certainly one way to resolve the perceived issue. If that is the way that is agreed upon then that is great, but that doesn't necessarily equate to it being the best way, or even the right way. It just means that the set was altered to more closely match other sets. -
Quote:The devs employed a balancing metric on ET that they never (or rarely, nothing else is jumping to mind. edit: outside of pvp of course where cast times are heavily considered) use. Even including cast time as an attack metric ET still operates outside of normal parameters. On some level or another the devs seem to agree that it was a unique attack and allowed it to keep most of its unique aspects. The of course sucked a lot of the fun out of the set though, but that is a different, but related, discussion.Originally Posted by William_Valence
This makes me wan't to argue soooo much, you have no idea.
I don't think anyone would mind a universal improvement to the set, but that isn't what most people are talking about and I've yet to see any consensus about what that improvement would look like.Quote:It could be, but (and it's my fault for not puting the phrase in proper context) it is more: MA could stay the same way it is now, but with the room it has for improvement, and the possibility for improvement without changing anything excluding performance, why not? Sorry, bit of a Durakken moment.
Needed changes are generally easier to get than wanted changes. Though I agree getting attention in the first place is a challenge.Quote:Not to harsh on the developers, but considering the history of needing to pester just to get significant intrest twards needed changes, I can't really see dev intrest as a stunning argument for keeping the status quo. Though player intrest is of course a very good argument, just one thats hard to really use with any kind of accuracy.
I agree. You'll notice I've been supportive of getting changes to MA for the most part. At this point in time I'm examining the perspective of not changing MA put forth by Donna. Since it is just a game designed around entertainment I feel her perspective has as much merit as anyone's. While I doubt people who feel the set should not be tweaked would object to something as simple as a flat damage increase and a flat increase to secondary effects that hasn't really been put on the table. For someone who enjoys the set as it is the proposition of significant mechanic changes to some of the powers will definitely throw up a flag. I'm not saying that position is right and I'm not saying it is wrong, but brushing it off is definitely wrong.Quote:My thought is, and this is not an accusation or directed comment, there are sets that need improvement first, (firey aura, trick arrow, EM 
) but if it is possible to get a set that could use improvement, that attention, do it. Discussion never hurts, theres plenty of space on the forums for threads on each set and potential buffs, but should the opportunity come for a set to be improved, even if its not the dog your backing, my opinion is to go with it. Don't say "**** no! do this one first!!!". Get the buffs through, get enough opinions and voices in there to ensure they're done right, then start lobying for your set again.
-
Quote:I think they kept will dom because it is a signature move in the Psi set. Making it of dubious value so that it can be checked off the list is a questionable action, but w/e.Originally Posted by DrMike2000
Psychic Scream was something of an odd choice to replace Aim with.
100ft base isn't the issue. The issue is pairing it with /em. Having a full attack chain with significant mez/mitigation that outranges mobs could spell trouble.Quote:Originally Posted by Rigel_Kent
This is the major reason psi blast is weak for blasters. I still think PvP may be a secondary reason, since the range decrease from 100' to 80' doesn't make sense as a pure PvE balance based change. If it did, we'd all be slotting our single target blasts for range. Or at least some of us would. In reality, hardly anyone does.
The only other set that can do that is archery with 2 ranges slotted AND boost range and it has no mitigation. -
I think we need a fourth melee AT. A Scruter.
edit: fifth. lol @ over-saturation. -
Quote:Do you think if you asked an NCSoft exec if the EU servers have a "healthy population" they would say yes?Originally Posted by Decorum
A healthy population is what we have. You see, that's not your call, that's NCSoft's, and they appear just fine with it.
Really?
They might say that the game has paid for itself multiple times over and lacks the current projected interest for them to invest in a reformatting of the servers. In other words, they are just going to let the game ride. But that is a very different statement than you or I are making.
A longer explanation to avoid further confusion: It would cost them money to merge the servers. It would cost marketing to put a positive spin on it. It would cost to merge the databases. It would cost developing ways to ensure we keep our names and sg's. etc. While none of these are particularly large hurdles on their own and every single one of them can be overcome it is far more likely that they just don't see them getting an acceptable return on that investment to proceed with it.
They could merge, but the game isn't generating new players and it already has a very low attrition rate. So there is no financial reason to proceed with it because the costs associated with it likely won't be made back. So they would be merging to satisfy people like me, but I've stayed for 4+years and haven't been happy with the population for much of that time, so if my own satisfaction in that area is not a determinant of why I keep playing why would NCsoft consider it important enough to do me that favor?
But Decorum, a "healthy population" is not what we have, but it isn't that important anymore. -
Quote:I have no plans of purchasing GR unless the feature list is as impressive as they have made it out to be.Originally Posted by PeerlessGirl
I can't frankly imagine why anyone playing CoX would choose willingly to be a "non-GR subscriber". It'll probably quickly be akin to not owning CoH AND CoV. I'd be curious to know, up until the point where they "merged" the games, how many people actually only owned one of the two?
For a few months, maybe even 3-6 sure, there may be people without GR, but after that point it'll be 20 bucks in the store for the Collection disc probably. It almost feels like someone wants to complain, doesn't it? Perish the thought, on these forums? Never
As it stands I don't really care about 1-20 content because I don't frequently roll new toons anymore and even when I do it takes a couple days to get past that point. I don't really care about switching sides because I have high level toons on both sides currently that I enjoy so if I want to run side exclusive content I just switch. None of the new powersets are really sparking that large of an interest for me (pun intended as elec control is the only one holding potential). The only new toons I'm interested in aren't available because of proliferation, but won't depend on GR when the time comes (ie illusion for doms, traps for trollers).
The only reason (that I know of so far) for me to pick up GR is the incarnate levels. And with the super amazing end game content that was promised only being delivered as a tiny piece of what it is supposed to be with GR's launch I'll likely be in a position where I can safely wait until i19 to pick up GR. Or never if the incarnate levels aren't as super amazing end game content as they were made out to be. -
If rage were changed to bu then SS would be a lot like stone melee, except no where near as good.
-
For anyone wondering how the defender version of Psi would look if it were ported directly to blasters here it is:
Mental Blast:
4 sec rech, 1.67 cast, 62.6 dam
Subdue:
6 sec rech, 1.67 cast, 82.6 dam
TK Blast:
8 sec rech, 1 sec cast, 102.6 dam
Will Dom:
14 sec rech, 1.1 sec cast, 122.6 dam
Here is what blasters got:
Psy Dart:
4 sec rech, 1 sec cast, 62.6 dam
Mental Blast:
8 sec rech, 1.67 sec cast, 102.6 dam
TK Blast:
10 sec rech, 1 sec cast, 122.6 dam
Will Dom:
20 sec rech, 1.1 sec cast, 77.6 dam
So essentially instead of a 14 second big hitter they got a 10 second big hitter. The new version is generally faster as its chain has two 1 sec cast times whereas the defender has two 1.67 cast times unless they have very high recharge to eliminate one of the slower blasts for will dom.
You get aim vs psy scream. I prefer aim and at the time people were being pretty loud about blaster sets that lacked aim. I think it is safe to put the pvp theory to bed though because if they wanted to hold Psi back they wouldn't have given it aim, which is a crucial pvp power. -
Quote:Hey if it resulted in a healthy population then I'm game. It wouldn't though, the non-populated servers would absorb the populations of freedom/virtue and you'd just have a bunch of thinly populated servers. Which is probably worse than it is now because at least right now you can find a couple servers that have a pulse.Originally Posted by Dementus
Well I don't usually post but this thread has some pretty entertaining posts in it. So here's mine.
I have seen a few people calling for merging the smaller servers into the larger ones.
But I have a suggestion I have not seen posted here before:
Instead of closing down multiple small servers and forcing all of their collective players into one, I suggest closing down just 2.
Freedom and Virtue.
Closing these two servers down would be the most cost effective. Take their populations and randomly distribute them across all the 'low' population servers. This would eliminate the more robust hardware needs and probably the most expensive servers.
Of course, all players moved would be given rename tokens for free if their current name was taken.
This would then bring the populations on the 'low' servers up to 'medium' across the board.
If this sounds a bit crazy... well now you are seeing what I see when you ask to merge smaller servers into larger ones.
Of course you present the same fear mongering as Memphis in that we simply don't know how names/sg and everything else that we currently view as server specific would be handled. There is no evidence that suggests your character name or sg would go bye bye Just as there is no evidence that suggests it wouldn't. Claiming it would definitely be one way like is often done in these discussions is a very weak tactic. It is also the strongest "argument" you guys tend to stand behind.
FWIW I don't really think there should be a merger and I've held (and stated) that opinion for a long time now. I mean why bother? The EU servers have clearly demonstrated they don't care how sparse things get. What there should be though is a much clearer system in place directing players to the server that will best provide them with the play experience they desire. If a player wants to play out in the boonies they can, just as if they want to play in a more typical MMO atmosphere they can, and just as if they want to play on an rp heavy server, that too should be available. It should be available because it is already available and it probably isn't worth changing at this stage of the game. But a player shouldn't have to come to the forums to find that stuff out.
If more info was available on the server page you'd have less people regretting their server selection decision. You'd have less people like me that originally chose a server because I liked the name (Infinity is one of my fav car brands) and fairly quickly realized I did not like teaming up with tumble weeds. You'd also have less people that picked freedom for w/e reason and realized they don't like MMO's and want a more private server experience. Less dissension is a good thing. -
Additionally, the damage was largely just shuffled around and the actual output of both versions of Psi are (or would be if available on the same AT) pretty similar in terms of single targets.
-
Quote:No one thinks you alone are responsible, but that kind of affirmation you displayed in that posts certainly encouraged them.Originally Posted by Neeto
if you're going to quote me, quote me with in context. It's always easy to edit anything a person is saying to mean something different. I said "certain OPness of the Dom AT," which was just one of the subjects our convo was on at the time. Yeah this is great that everyone thinks I'm responsible for i13 lol cuz ignorance is srsbizz.
-
Quote:EM imo was largely changed for the sake of change. Without a doubt ET was too strong of an attack, but it was also a very unique attack in very unique set. The argument to leave the set as it was was easily as compelling as the argument to change it. The decision to change it for the sake of change was made and it has largely been poorly received. As is usually the case for such events. I too am hopeful it will be revised again and I'd say it is in need before MA simply because the changes to EM took away the fun factor of the set, which MA still has in spades.Originally Posted by William_Valence
If you were to ask what powerset I play, even if I didn't have one at the time, would answer Energy melee. It's my favorite, I like the look, I like the feel, and I like the playstyle. I care very little about MA, my biggest hope is that EM gets fixed, and I fear the day another set is improved at the expense of its relationship with EM in the balance equation.
Maybe, but most of the changes being talked about aren't minor and I can guarantee that just increasing the secondary effects would not satisfy the movement.Quote:When I see MA, however, I see a set that can be improved without changing It's position in line. From it's history and design, it is easy to see it was supposed to be midline damage and high secondary. Buffing it to where it was supposed to be is not only acceptable, but probably a good idea. I'm just sad it will probably happen before EM gets looked at. Though I can still hope every patch and release with have the magic changes I want.
See that's just it. "Why not?" is the conversational reciprocal of "big whoop". It is the definition of change for the sake of change.Quote:Big whoop; fair enough, its probably true, but I would respond: "why not?". Powerset balance is an important part of a game, and why should a MA player have to know that most other scrapper primaries are either better in all situations or at least in most. Yes I can understand that it is still fun to play, but does the act of improving it's performance imply that what is fun about the set has to go?
The thing is MA players don't know that most other scrapper primaries are better in all/most situations because they aren't. And even if they were they would only know that by personally examining each set, or by listening to people who have conducted tests centered around very specific scenarios. That testing has show that MA isn't even that far off the mark. Not enough to spur developer involvement without significant pestering.
I know, I'm the one who told him that. The thing is though, that was largely a defection. A top tier DM can achieve that kind of performance quite easily on a spawn to spawn basis. Yes there is significant preparation to ensure you have solid enough SD fodder for taking down a sack of hp, but in the rest of the game they can jump from spawn to spawn without worry of their fuel dying and denying them the buff because there is always new fuel in the next spawn.Quote:I would like to point out that after castle made his comments, he was informed that the scenario was not a cross-section of normal DM performance but a highly structured and prepared senario showing the maximum possible level it could reach. A level that would not be attributible at all to general gameplay. Also it isn't that sky-high level of performance that MA is being compared to. Rather it is the average power level that anyone could expect to achieve when using the set.
I don't think you were one of the people advocating large changes to the set.Quote:I don't want to dynamite the mountain. Quite the opposite, I want to add a ski resort to one side. A nice improvement to the scenery, something that could entice newer people, improve whats already there, and not change what people currently enjoy about it. Of course you can't make everyone happy.
FWIW, I think MA could use improvement. I'm on the cusp of whether it is a want or a need though. If it is a need situation, it ranks far below numerous other sets that are in need of fixing. Unless people want to change it simply because we can. -
Quote:No. Most people want to play the game as they enjoy it and couldn't care less about the game's health short of it being up and running. The health of the game runs counter to what most people actually want. I'm certainly no different in that regard, I openly lobby for pvp. Of course what I want I can actually provide somewhat compelling reasons to support whereas people that harp about their right to play on a small server are just hilarious.Originally Posted by Smurch
So if you wanna just say "oh you don't know how cool our small server is" (despite the fact I did play on a small server and that's WHY I don't play on one anymore) then fine, but I'd rather we find a way to help the game thrive in a way that's best for everyone. Wouldn't you?
They of course want to enjoy all the benefits that the larger servers bring them like:
-making money for the game so they can play new content alone
-enjoying new tech upgrades that the larger populations have brought them
-using the market to buy IO's that are largely generated on the bigger servers
-and more that I don't care enough to think of
The really funny thing is that they could merge the entire population on to one server and you'd still be able to log in at any time and find entire zones empty or close to it where you could play alone to your heart's content. But those people (and they are up front about it) don't want to see anyone even when they travel in to the "city".
I don't personally care one way or the other if you like to play with no one around or 1000 people watching you constantly. What I'm bothered by is people acting (or even saying) it is their right in this game to play on a low population server. For those people I'd like them to think about just one thing. They haven't consolidated servers as a result of low numbers, this much is true. But they also wouldn't expand the number of servers if by some miracle numbers grew considerably. That should spell out exactly where those "rights" sit. -
Quote:I'll just take this opportunity to go after the only one that actually has merit.Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Practicing to be a politician trying to misattribute things? Let's see, where did my list REALLY stop... oh...
I would appreciate you NOT going through and altering things, attributing it to me without admitting you EDITED it (much like I did via altering the name in the nested quote, or will do with formatting or a "Fixed" comment, generally with explanation.)
My already low personal opinion of you has shot down even farther, for presenting that as dishonestly as you did. "My" last point as you put it there was certainly not mine, as anyone can see from the original quote, and yet you add it and then say it's mine? I'll not have someone skim through and see that misrepresentation as the fact of what I said.
Since you wish to be immature and call that my quote, let me put this a way you may be able to understand. "Liar, liar, pants on fire."
Now, as far as lowest subs - here, let me put it at your level again - "Duh." It's a six year old (and change) game. MMOs tend to go through a population bleed - either rapidly, a la Tabula Rasa, or slowly - like us. That said, I'm still running into new people with regularity (and they don't seem to be having all too many issues with "where is everyone," understanding instancing and getting teams,) on top of our various cycles and subscription rises and dips (time of year, resubbing for new features, playing, then going to another game.)
As far as your later, foolish "Force new players post-GR to start in Praetoria?" Yes, the zone shows off the latest tech, assuming the new player's system can handle ultra mode. But this is a game about choices. You can *choose* archetypes and a wide variety of powersets instead of being pigeonholed into narrow playstyles. You can choose to go nuts with costumes or stay in the first one. You can choose to PVP or ignore it completely. You can choose to IO out a character to the gills or run solely on SOs. Removing a choice - especially, by the way, when EATs must start in their "native" zones - goes against all that. If I *want* to start out as a villain, I should have that - here's that word again - choice. If I know my character's heroic from the top of his head to the tips of his pointy boots, I shouldn't have to start in a "grey" area. I should be able to head to Atlas or Galaxy - whether on my multi-year-old accounts or a brand new, five minute old one - and spout off heroic cliches and be an overgrown boy scout from XP 0 on up.
"by the way, when EATs must start in their "native" zones - goes against all that"
Take a moment and think about what you just said and weigh it against what I said. If you don't see the disconnect then feel free to ask me to point it out. I'll happily do it in a way that can further lower your opinion of me even more. Because your opinion Memphis, as well formed as it is on sound reasoning and intellectual decorum, is really important to me.
The funny thing is is that gating new players into GR isn't even a great idea, but the fact that the best you could come up with to counter is talking about AT's that you can't even unlock as the class of player I'm talking about is just rich. Well, I got a good laugh out of your post anyway. At least you didn't disappoint as your counter was about as good as your lists. Your are true to form.
At any rate, if no one comes up with a decent reason not to gate new players and if I remember to do it, I'll swing by this thread tomorrow and offer up an actual counter or two that would be worthy of consideration. But with the counters I have in mind it is still a more positive idea than not, so I'm hoping for someone to get their hamster spinning the wheel even if you didn't.