Hydrophidian

We need animal models!

The Rogue Islands Pet Shelter demands it!

[ QUOTE ]
Also, everything in the game (few exceptions) have to have a ranged attack. Wouldn't really fit the game theme to hunt deer, let alone ones that shoot back at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deer with frickin' LASERS!

Seriously, though, is there any other MMO that is this lacking in animal and monster type creatures?

We got spiders and... uhm. Well, we got spiders.

Could get a lot of mileage out of some sort of dog/wolf model, at least.

This is exactly the kind of thing the devs will crack down on if it gets out of hand.

If it does, then I'd very much prefer something like Fred's suggestion over some of the more ham-fisted "solutions" that could be devised.

The devs do like their fists o' ham, it seems.

This is a game.

MA is there to facilitate player created content for a game.

So, it's not just about story. The stories are set within the context of a game. Therefore, challenge level is very much a primary consideration in design.

As a MA author, story could be said to be my top priority. But tinkering with challenge level is always part of my development process, because that's a big part of what the experience is about. Missions aren't there just to be filler between blocks of text.

This is a game-driven, immersive environment. Building content around challenge is just as valid as building it around story. The best content will give attention to both.

Y'know, this doesn't seem so difficult to understand?

The developers apparently have some average rate of advancement that they consider acceptable.

If the average gets skewed by a particular practice, they take steps to address it, until everything falls back within acceptable parameters.

I really think that's all there is to it.

A secondary concern is QoL for the community as a whole. But, first and foremost, it's all about preserving the game system.

It looks to me like that's SOP for every MMO.

So, farming in and of itself is not an issue. PLing in and of itself is not an issue. There will always be outliers that advance at a freaky-fast rate. I don't think the developers care about that.

It's when that freaky-fast rate starts encroaching on the norm that they get twitchy.

[ QUOTE ]
It should only unlock if you have 1b inf or more on hand!

/signed! lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Better yet, make it so you have to spend inf to use them!

Inf sink, the game is saved!

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing in this game needs to be balanced around the ability for a lvl 4 to be able to easily team with his lvl 50 buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it needs to be balanced around your dislike of a particular type of broadcast spam in Atlas?

The game has been designed to accommodate people who want to play together, regardless of character level. First it was sidekicking, then came the exemplar system, the GM code, auto-exemping, and so on, right up to MA's level adjustments.

I really don't think the developers are going to do a complete 180 on that design philosophy, just because you can't find a "sewer team" in Atlas Park.

Do you remember a time when there wasn't any such thing as a sewer team? I do. There's nothing saying the practice can't vanish as quickly as it appeared. Given the purpose of sewer teams--to blow through those early levels as fast as possible--I wouldn't be surprised if MA makes the routine obsolete, with or without the involvement of 50s.

But, assuming sewer teams aren't going to go the way of street hunting in Brickstown, you have options, as a player, to deal with broadcast spam and find the kind of team you want. You can separate broadcast from other channels by putting it in its own tab. You can then filter it with /ignore. You can use /request for your sewer teams. You can even utilize server-focused globals for team building and the server forum for scheduling.

If you've done all that and still can't get that sewer team going? Well, maybe it's time to entertain the possibility that the practice is just on the way out. If that's what's happening, driving 50s out of the Atlas AE won't change it.

Ultimately, if you're expecting the developers to cater to your convenience and narrow play preference at the expense of the convenience of the broader player base, well... don't hold your breath.

[ QUOTE ]
Now I think the game is broken as you have lots of difficulties finding a group just wanting to play for fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually, I don't have any difficulty at all.

Look. The truth is, a lot of people have returned to playing the regular content. The incoming market supply of items that can only be obtained from drops shows this to be undeniably true.

The existing supply of those items dried up when MA was first introduced. Consequently, their prices skyrocketed.

But now supply is going back up and prices are coming back down. People playing regular content is the only way this could happen.

So, if you're having trouble finding teams, my advice to you would be:

* Join server-focused global channels.
* Post requests for particular TFs/Trials on the server's forum.
* Join an SG.
* Put together your own teams.

And please recognize that every time a new shiny is introduced, everyone is going to want to go and play with it.

Yes, getting a Numina TF going right on the heels of I14's release would've been difficult. But that wasn't MA's fault. You would've had the same problem right after I10, when everyone was flocking to the new and improved RWZ.

When there's new stuff to experience, the old stuff gets put aside for a while. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.

[ QUOTE ]
Another sad thing is that with the AE currency you can buy some Hamidon Goo or Mu vestment for 540 and sell them for 750000 influence easily, which totally unbalances the influence system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, no.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have an MMO run for 5 years by being stupid all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed.

[ QUOTE ]
Farmers don't affect the way we play.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a practice is common enough, it affects the play environment, which affects the way we all play.

But what's more important to the devs is if that practice is going to affect the bottom line.

Farming happens. It will always happen. If people want something, a lot of them will farm for it. That's just the way it is, and it's usually not a big deal.

But if it ever starts to negatively impact their model, the developers will step in. They've a business to protect.

[ QUOTE ]
We complained about farmers getting rewards too fast. And it resulted in everyone getting rewarded at HALF the rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of tickets flooding in was playing havoc with the system. Players were obtaining things far easier than they were ever meant to. If there hadn't been a single complaint about it, it still would've been nerfed.

I think your blame is misplaced, and I think you're failing to see the larger picture.

[ QUOTE ]
If some farmer wants to spend 2 hours killing the same boss over and over again, it will not affect you or me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yes it will. But, again, it's more about its potential impact on the bottom line.

[ QUOTE ]
But "fix" rezzors and destroy your ability to use them the way they were meant to be used is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure rezzors were never meant to be used that way.

[ QUOTE ]
We are shooting at vermin with elephant guns ... and all we are accomplishing is blowing giant holes in our own MA homes.

[/ QUOTE ]

The developers are going to maintain and preserve the game system they've designed, regardless of what players complain about. There is supposed to be a time investment in playing this game. On average, levels are supposed to come at a certain rate. On average, rewards are supposed to come at a certain rate.

If anything breaks that, it's gunna get smished, one way or the other. Nothing we say--or don't say--will change that.

[ QUOTE ]
But I would much prefer it if you used this thread to cite example after example of what has been lost to the everyday non-farming player because of "fixes" that were supposed to address the problem of farming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I've gained a few things over the years. But, again, "farming" isn't the problem. The problem is any behavior that breaks the system as it's been designed, or so negatively impacts the play environment, that enough people simply lose interest and stop playing.

In short: the problem is anything that hurts the bottom line.

[ QUOTE ]
You did? Let's rehash. You used the "phenomenon of internet behavior" as evidence when in fact, it isn't

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, it is. There are countless number of sites where significant numbers of amateurs are routinely making their works available to the public. That clearly demonstrates that a significant number of amateurs are routinely making their works available to the public.

I don't know what else to tell you. It's simply a reality, right there for you to see if you were to bother to look. I'm sorry, but you haven't refuted anything.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure Youtube is only one website out of many

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. And that's the end of that.

[ QUOTE ]
Until you provide some data that supports your opinion (as I have)...

[/ QUOTE ]

Your "data" has been completely unsupported, so, please, spare me.

[ QUOTE ]
...your point regarding sharing over the internet is irrelevent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh.

[ QUOTE ]
So you know these people by business association or is it some kind of social networking relationship? If so then this particular evidence isn't particularly compelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm. Is there something in particular particularly wrong with you?

No, seriously, are you just a troll? Is that what you're doing here? Trolling?

You asked: "How many people in your circle of family and friends actively publish their hobby for the public consumption?"

I answered. Almost all of them.

You then made some snarky remark, inserted "stage fright" (???) into the dialogue, and insinuated doubt about my statement. "What makes them so special when compared to everyone else I wonder," you said.

So I explained the situation in greater detail.

And now you're trying to turn that into a debate point to refute and discard, as if I presented it as "evidence"?

Excuse me?

You brought it up!

Y'know what? I'm done with this, and I'm sorry I wasted my time on it. You don't seem to be interested in a dialogue. It seems you just want to "win"... whatever it is you think you're winning. Sorry, but that's not why I participate on these forums. Find someone else to play these games with.

Frankly, I should've known better. Shame on me.

Oh, and you have the audacity to end your post with:

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of being more serious about the quality of their work and how it will reflect upon them, yes, that is what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

@.@

So, I was right the first time.

Un-frickin'-believable.

Keep your "statistics". I'll stick with reality.

Moving on now. Have a nice day.

[ QUOTE ]
because I'm afraid I have been complicit in the running of the OP's original topic totally off the rails.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I don't think you have. I think all of this is quite closely related to the subjects broached by the OP.

[ QUOTE ]
You know, you can say it's not true as many times as you like but you've yet to present a single piece of credible evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I did.


[ QUOTE ]
That's not what you said

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is.

[ QUOTE ]
It was *you* who lumped all of them into one huge demographic

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Hence: phenomenon of internet behavior.

Jeezus.

[ QUOTE ]
If that's not an acceptable sample group to base an argument on, I don't know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, quite clearly you don't.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess those people around you are just immune to stage fright which affects 40% of the American population. Nevermind the fear of failure. What makes them so special when compared to everyone else I wonder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but just what does stage fright have to do with making your work publicly available if you're an artist, writer or musician? Especially when it comes to the internet?

I'm a creator. Many of the people I interact with are creators. Some are professionals, others are amateurs. All of them are passionate about their art. Of the amateurs, almost all of them have made their work openly available to the public, usually via the internet, as do their fellow enthusiasts. It's become a commonplace practice.

Sorry if that's inconvenient to your worldview.

[ QUOTE ]
I said that if opening your work for the public consumption is your primary objective then it goes against the very definition of "hobby".

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. That's what I've been disagreeing with. But then you've turned around and claimed it's not what you meant.

[ QUOTE ]
As I've already said, a hobby is something that you do outside of your career and your own enjoyment is the primary motivation behind it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And as I have already said, that enjoyment can be derived, in part, from sharing that work publicly. And, in fact, depending on the work, sharing it in such a way is intrinsic to that kind of work. It doesn't make it any less a hobby.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said you couldn't have any secondary motivations, only that self gratification is the primary one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep trying to separate "personal gratification" from "gratification from your work being well received," as if that's relevant and as if one must be prioritized over the other.

You can be motivated by both or neither, and the latter most certainly does not disqualify the pursuit as a hobby, whether it's of lesser, greater, or equal importance to the personal satisfaction gleaned from the creation process itself. You're reading something into the concept of "hobby" that isn't there. Which is something I've pointed out before. Read your dictionary again.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't open for interpretation, it is how the word "hobby" is defined by any dictionary you look up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm sorry, it's not.

[ QUOTE ]
If publishing it for others to evaluate is your primary motive then it would seem to suggest that you are seeking public acceptance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could also suggest that your pleasure is derived, in whole or in part, by creating something that others enjoy and is well received.

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, the difference is in the degree and form of seriousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're referring to your dictionary again, please also look up "degree". The "difference in degree" you've cited more than once would seem to indicate that, yes, you do believe that a professional is, as a default, more serious about what they create than an amateur is.

If that's what you're saying, we disagree. If it's not what you're saying, then, again, why are you arguing?

Oh, and one last thing... as someone who no less than 3 times tried to debate a point with me that I wasn't talking about at all, and that I clearly stated I wasn't interested in, you're in no position to criticize anyone else's comprehension.

But thanks for the input. It's duly noted and filed accordingly.

[ QUOTE ]
Given that I never used an absolute in my statements, your argument holds no water no matter how many words you try to put into my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me, but I haven't put "words into your mouth". I used an exact quote. I'll do it again...

You stated, "Amateur hobbyists on the other hand do not publish their work for public evaluation very often."

Again, this simply is not true.

[ QUOTE ]
Sharing your work with friends, co-workers or family members doesn't really qualify as "public evaluation".

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Never said it did. Who's putting words in someone's mouth now?

[ QUOTE ]
I think I already explained quite clearly [snip]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, really, you haven't. In fact, it strikes me that you've been trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth during this whole interchange.

[ QUOTE ]
Someone who doesn't do something very often does not mean that person never does it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never said it did.

[ QUOTE ]
You used a bunch of websites to illustrate your point so I countered using the same reference source.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I used a phenomenon of internet behavior to prove my point. You singled out a single site. That's not "the same reference source" by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how much dancing you do to try to rationalize it.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you this. How many people in your circle of family and friends actively publish their hobby for the public consumption?

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost all of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, please quote me as stating that amateurs have *never* shared their work with the open public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, this is getting real tiring now.

First of all, let's carefully look at what I said...

"Nor does it preclude it, which was my point. You appear to think it does. It doesn't."

Note the use of appear. Note that it is there for a reason.

You appear to think that presenting work for public consumption indicates a motive other than personal enjoyment, and therefore, in such a case, the pursuit no longer qualifies as a hobby.

If that's not what you think, then I would suggest you go back and re-read some of your previous posts, because that is exactly what you seem to be implying on more than one occasion.

[ QUOTE ]
However, as an unpaid amateur performer of sorts, would you yell and scream at an audience because they're bored with your performance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, okay, I've told you a few times now that I'm not arguing about expectations, yet once again you address me as if I am. Ever hear of a Straw Man? If not, you should look it up, 'cuz you're real fond of using 'em.

Here's what I'm saying:

Amateur creators are fully capable of being as vested in their work as professional creators are. They can take it just as seriously, they can care about it just as much. Many can, and do, make their work publicly available.

That's what I'm saying.

So, if you're not disagreeing with that, then why are you arguing about it?

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetically speaking, do you take law advice from a buddy who read up on some law books instead of an actual lawyer? Do you take medical diagnosis from Yahoo! answers made by some pre-med student instead of an actual doctor? Do you take financial advise from a family member who dabbles in the stock market instead of a fully licensed Financial Advisor?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but these analogies are inane.

First of all, we're talking about creative works. Not law, not medicine, not finance.

Secondly, we're not comparing people who take X seriously and people who have only a passing interest, or limited experience, in it. We're talking about people who pursue X avidly for profit and those who pursue it avidly out of passion for it.

Thus, would I take the advice of a doctor who's been doing volunteer work for 30 years over one who's been getting paid for it for 2? Probably, yes.

But we're not talking about advice. We're talking about quality of work.

As I understand it, the implication of your assertions continues to be that professional work is inherently of a higher quality than amateur work... that an amateur can't possibly be as vested, or more vested, in their work than a professional is (I'm afraid your analogies betray this slanted view).

The problem is, this simply isn't the case.

And, frankly, you need look no further than MA for evidence of that. I've already played a handful of arcs that were simply better constructed than much of the regular content in the game, which someone was paid to write.

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair, I never claimed that hobby work shouldn't be shared.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you claimed that "Amateur hobbyists on the other hand do not publish their work for public evaluation very often," which, frankly, I find to be pretty absurd. They do it all the time. Especially now with the ability to utilize the internet to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
Amateurs being serious about their work is first and foremost, for their own enjoyment and then for public consumption should they choose to share it. If their personal enjoyment isn't their primary objective then it goes against the very definition of "hobby".

[/ QUOTE ]

If their personal enjoyment comes in part from the public consumption, then yes, it still qualifies as a "hobby". The very point of many creative pursuits is to present them to an audience. That's where a large part of the enjoyment can come from.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, the two types of seriousness aren't the same in terms of degree when you take into consideration that money is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, we're back to non-professionals not being as serious. Isn't that what you said you weren't saying earlier?

[ QUOTE ]
There are 305 million people in the United States and it is safe to assume that the vast majority of them have some form of hobby yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's also safe to assume that the vast majority of those people aren't pursuing video production (so much for your stats, sorry). It's also safe to assume that a significant number of people--perhaps the majority--who enjoy artistic pursuits, share their creations with others. Evidence of this includes--but is not limited to--the countless number of websites dedicated to that very thing, including--but not limited to--youtube.

[ QUOTE ]
On this forum alone, the sheer amount of complaints regarding how their arcs are not getting played enough or how their arc is rated unfairly seems to paint a different picture when it comes to expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that many people have gone so far as to try to block out any competing types of missions (i.e. farm) so their arcs can get a fair shake only further reinforces my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't really care about that point, not arguing that point, already stated my view on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Per Webster's definition of hobby:

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah, uhm... don't need dictionaries quoted at me, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
Says nothing about sharing their hobbies with others as a requirement for their relaxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor does it preclude it, which was my point. You appear to think it does. It doesn't.

For example, acting, theatre, performance art, slam poetry, all can be pursued as "hobbies", and public consumption is intrinsic to the personal enjoyment derived from pursuing them.

[ QUOTE ]
If that's not expectation at work then what is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not debating the existence of these expectations.

[ QUOTE ]
But you did not answer the questions I posed originially.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah, that doesn't really interest me. I'm replying to your (continued) implication that not getting paid for something means it's somehow less than and/or not made to share.

[ QUOTE ]
That's what seperate the professionals and amateurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

What separates professionals and "amateurs" is getting paid. That's it.

[ QUOTE ]
Amateur hobbyists on the other hand do not publish their work for public evaluation very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't cruise the web much, huh.

[ QUOTE ]
The relevent question here is how seriously should the creators expect *other* people to take their work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any creator, professional or otherwise, should have expectations about how their work is going to be received. Hope is fine. But expectation? I'd say that's gunna lead to disappointment, whether you're making an MA arc or publishing a novel.

This whole layer you've put on the subject about professional vs. non-professional is highly subjective, ultimately superfluous, and perhaps a touch derogatory to those who might consider sharing to be part of the pleasure of their "hobby".

Judging by the popularity of sites such as DeviantArt, youtube, and a countless slew of others, I'd say that's a perty big demographic.

Which should more than illustrate that, counter to your claim, 'keeping it to yourself' is not inherent in the concept of a "hobby". In fact, the opposite is probably more often the case.

[ QUOTE ]
To turn a hobby into a profession takes serious committment (time and monetary) from a person. If someone is only doing it as a hobby and is not serious enough to commit to it professionally, why should they expect their audience to take it seriously in return?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not pursuing a creative endeavor professionally does not automatically mean it's not being taken seriously by the creator.

This isn't a new debate. O'Keeffe used to berate Adams for giving his work away. Kurt Vonnegut had a eye-opening dialogue with his sister about this sort of thing as well, which is related in one of his books. Then, of course, you have the attitude that illustration and commercial art isn't really art at all, and so on down through the ages.

Point is, creators are individuals. Individuals have different views on their creations, the process of creating, and what pursuing it seriously entails. I've known many creators, a good number of them professionals. It's interesting to note that more than a few have viewed their commercial products and their work-for-hire as the less serious end of what they do. They pump out pap to make money in order to finance the "more serious" work that wouldn't sell.

It's all a matter of perspective, which means that you can't put too much stock in the idea that "hobby" = "not serious".

I don't use anything from Vidiot Map.

It looks like the Midnighter Club and possibly Cimerora are just crashed.

Has anyone actually made it into either of them successfully?

The Time Traveler's Wife was wonderful, in my opinion. I highly recommend it.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that if your going to use custom mobs, there will be some players that will use toons that have a weakness to whatever your using. There is really no way to prevent this from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we shouldn't be expected to prevent it. Just about any character type is going to have at least one weakness. Part of the challenge of the game (such as it is ) is to recognize those weaknesses, and find ways to overcome them.

[ QUOTE ]
...MA players should also bring toons that can handle a tougher playing environment. I suspect that I will only play MA story content with either a scrapper or tanker...

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of points about this:

While I agree, custom mobs should, as a rule, only be tackled with higher level characters, I'd disagree that Scrappers and Tankers are the end-all-be-all for MA soloing. There are several Defender, Controller, Blaster, and other squishy types able to solo just as well, if not better, than melee characters. They're just generally not as fast in doing so.

One example is my Scrapper hitting a brick wall with an end draining opponent that my Defender effortlessly squished. Then you have my Stalker who couldn't bring down an EB fast enough (kept healing), but my Controller defeated it with ease, due to holds and such.

It really comes down to sets and builds. My own preferred MA soloist is actually a Defender.

I mention this partially 'cuz I find that many "uber challenge missions" tend to be stuffed to the gills with melee customs. In truth, that's actually a very big and easily exploited weakness in mob design. Several of my squishies can waltz thru such "challenge" missions without any difficulty at all.

Just a note to keep in mind for those challenge builders out there.

[ QUOTE ]
I very much remember those statements in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember a lot of different statements.

What I don't recall is any "shouting down" with those statements.

I remember a lot of debate about what, precisely, "flipping" was.

I remember many of those debates getting heated.

I wouldn't say that any side of the argument was squelched by the other.

So, again, I find the above description of those past dialogues rather colored.

[ QUOTE ]
over . 6 months ago if you had of said flipping raises prices you would have been shouted down that you can't do that. Then it became you can't do that and make money, Now its you can't do it and make much money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to revisit our exchange earlier in this thread.

What you're describing bears no resemblance to anything I've read on this particular forum at any time since its inception. Your interpretation of past dialogues seems to be very colored by a negative predisposition.

[ QUOTE ]
Come on people give credit where its due.

[/ QUOTE ]

People will give credit where they think credit is due, not where you think credit is due.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe farms should be banned but rate them what they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is obligated to adopt your criteria for rating arcs. Everyone has their own criteria. Sure, sometimes that criteria is quite silly... but it's theirs and they're entitled to it.

[ QUOTE ]
A map full of nothing but minion only, Lt only or Boss only mobs with absolutely no story should not get a 4 star rating.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion. And that's about as far as that goes.

[ QUOTE ]
Thats all I really ask is people start voting for what the story is, not for if it levels you the fastest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I vote according to how much fun I had. I've given high votes to some real awful arcs. Because they were so bad, they were funny. I laughed. A lot. That gets stars from me. Even if the author didn't intend to make something comedic.

I'm sorry, but I'm not changing how I vote into how you vote. You can rate using whatever standards you want. So can I. So can everyone else. That's how it works.

Besides, the ratings system is pants... utterly useless. Better to just circumvent it by using tags. That way, even if you only get a handful of plays, at least you know that those people were looking for what you were offering, which makes their participation all the more meaningful, doesn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
The basic idea behind my suggestion is to no longer allow players to create custom minions, custom lieutenants or custom bosses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which would pretty much kill MA, I think.

When Positron went over some of the numbers early on, if I recall correctly, over 70% of the missions created featured custom critters?

That's a lot of users to tick off.

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest only being able to select primary and secondary power sets, designing costumes for minions, lts and bosses....then have the game generate the mobs within the map as the game normally does.

So no more Boss-only missions but instead mobs consisting of the power sets you've selected with the established minion-lt-boss per mob ratios as they normally occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forcing a custom group to be comprised of a minion, a lieutenant, and a boss is perhaps the least problematic aspect of your suggestion (if I understand it correctly). But it still would create issues.

Custom critters take up a lot of file space. Forcing people to add critters they don't need will negatively impact the story content of MA.

For example, I've an arc published now that'd be broken if I had to add two mobs (a lieutenant and a boss) to a group. By adding those mobs, not only would the concept of the group and the mission be undermined, the file size would go well over 100%. I wouldn't be able to make up the difference, without watering down the other group in the arc. Overall, the arc would be pretty much ruined.

Not to mention the fact that creating more challenging content should be an option for those who want to do it, right? I mean, that's part of the draw? If someone wants to make a group comprised solely of bosses to fight, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

If the devs have a problem with X behavior, they should police X behavior. Trying to fight it by hobbling the system itself isn't going to work, and it's just going to drive away the people who're using it legitimately.

You can do some tweaks to the system, to make it less attractive to those who'd abuse it, but when the tweaks start significantly restricting creativity, you're undermining the reason you introduced the system in the first place. At that point, you've gone too far.

I think your suggestion goes too far.