Hydrophidian

[ QUOTE ]
Gah! This seems like a serious bug.

*sigh* How do I know which ones convert? I don't think I've ever paid attention in-game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there's no way to know when you're playing.

But in MA, you can see the power list of the mobs. There'll be a minion Red Cap with the upgrade power (called "Transformation") and then several without it. Same with the Lieutenants.

As for transformed Red Caps spawning as rogue, given the nature of the group, I think it kinda fits.

[ QUOTE ]
I will try this even though I was hoping on limiting my custom groups so I can eventually make my ARC 3-5 missions long.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the custom group is comprised of standard mobs, it shouldn't be that much of a drain on the file size.

Custom critters are the real hogs.

...I suppose you want to know what that is...

Make a custom group called Red Caps. Put the Red Caps in it, excluding the ones that have the upgrade power. Don't put the randoms in there either.

And there you have it.

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know a way to fix this problem but still using Red Caps?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes!

[ QUOTE ]
Why should I invest my time doing tedious work that takes a long time, for which I will not be paid, only to create something that the Dev's probably already have done or was very similar?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, for me, it's not tedious work. It's creative work. Big difference.

Yes, it can become tedious due to limitations and bugs in the system... but, so far, the pay-off outweighs the headaches. And it's still fundamentally creative work.

Secondly, the devs cannot do what I (and others) have been doing with MA. And that is: create dynamic content tailored for specific characters.

The stories are new, the villains unique, actions have genuine consequences, and if the Big Bad is permanently dealt with, it stays permanently dealt with.

You can't get that in regular content. Defeat Countess Crey as many times as you like. She won't go anywhere, Crey Industries will continue to operate, the world will remain static.

Another strength of the MA is the ability to step outside setting limitations, which the devs also cannot do. We can make Space Operas and Westerns, Noir Mysteries and High Fantasy Epics.

Yet another thing we can do that the devs really can't do is: explore the various groups of the City game much more deeply.

For example, the Banished Pantheon have been in the game since the beginning. There's a lot of story potential there. But are the devs ever going to take advantage of that?

Given that it's been five years now without any embellishment at all... probably not. But even if they did build a future issue around Astoria and the Pantheon... that still leaves a host of other groups they'll never get to. There just isn't enough time.

But with MA, we can do our own development in that regard. If someone has a character that's directly opposed to a particular group, and they've done all the content involving that group, MA gives them a whole new avenue of potentially limitless playability.

So, there's just a few answers to your question. I'm sure other people will come up with more.

[ QUOTE ]
However, Prestige is very valuable to me, because I have barely any. If I could convert, say, 300 or 400M to have the base I want, I'd probably do it. But would I get the base I want for that?

[/ QUOTE ]

PM sent.

ohmygawdsoexcitedyay!

[ QUOTE ]
Hudson Hawk died at the box office, but it's one of my top favorite movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blade Runner.

Poor box office, disliked by the critics.

Now considered a visionary classic.

[ QUOTE ]
I've lost money on lots of "extra zero" bids, but fortunately for me, it wasn't *that* zero...

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough, most of my accidental losses have come from one too few zeroes, instead of one too many.

Oh my word, that must've been heartbreaking.

They really gotta add some sort of verification process for high bid/high list amounts.

[ QUOTE ]
<QR>

I'm curious as to why people are allowed to rate before spending, say, 5-10 minutes on a mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

I'm beginning to think we need a "The Ratings System Sucks Eggs" FAQ.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget the feather duster hand-crafted by seven Portugese virgins under a full moon on the island of Sri Lanka. It's critical for the ritual to succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also the most lovely part of the ritual experience--

I read that somewhere.

>.>

Personally, I'd say the loss of base salvage was, from a crafting and marketing perspective, as much of a drag as it was from a base building perspective.

It's my impression that the new system was designed without a knowledge of how bases or the market are generally used. Numbers were looked at, behavior wasn't. I'd call it a recurring oversight (the most recent example would be the MA badges).

While I certainly understand the desire for a streamlined system, wherein salvage is salvage, and I also understand the concern about hoarding, I think both issues could've been addressed in a much less disruptive way, with a much more elegant system.

<ul type="square">[*] Bring back Components[*] Have Components used exclusively for Empowerments and Base Item crafting. [*] Add some salvage pieces that're used exclusively, or almost exclusively, for crafting Components. This would help insulate base stuff from volatile market fluctuations.[*] Create a separate storage unit for Components that can hold a significant inventory. Supergroups that actually make use of Empowerments can blow thru huge numbers of Components. I know this, because not only do I have a group that made use of them (not so much now, because it's currently such a pain), I also used to craft and sell Components. It's really the only explanation for the volume I used to move. [*] Make multiple recipes for the Component pieces. Magic recipes should require magic salvage, tech recipes should require tech salvage. Get rid of the mixed-up jumble we have now, which is both nonsensical and unintuitive.[*] Add a Base Item through which Components can be purchased directly, with Prestige, by individuals with the permission to do so. Obviously, they should be more expensive this way.[/list]
The above would make me happy both as someone who uses the market and as a base architect (currently the builder of 6 different bases).

Also, while you're at it, gimme a blank SG emblem. &gt;.&lt;

[ QUOTE ]
1) Does anyone use the inf-to-prestige conversion these days?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah, I do. While the rate is horrible, I can still make it faster on the market than by running missions. I personally have over 5 million in Prestige contributed to my base. About 4 million of that was purchased.

I buy a chunk whenever I hit the inf cap.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Are any base builders also marketeers?

[/ QUOTE ]

I use the market, I collect badges, I roleplay, I build bases, I write MA stories. Sometimes I even PVP.

I'm just a player who tries to take advantage of every aspect of the game.

Which is why I've been here 5 years steady, I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
Hydro, could you please edit your post to mention who you're quoting? Since it's a reply to me, it makes it look like I said those things, and that's not how I feel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sure, sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even bother watching TV anymore. All crap. Hundreds of channels of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

This really isn't true anymore.

Because of the new options we have in consuming our media these days, the nature of television programming is rapidly changing.

Something like "Damages" couldn't have happened a few years ago, let alone be successful. But it has and it is.

Shows like Firefly were, sadly, a few years too early and were launched on the wrong kind of network. But shows like that are a lot more possible today, and have a much greater chance of success, because it's much easier for them to find their niche.

It's a good thing for folks who have tastes that run counter to the mainstream... which is probably true for most everyone who posts here.

Comicsluvr said:
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think most of the griefing could be cut out by simply not allowing anyone to 1-star an arc until they've finished it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not viable, for a handful of reasons that've been mentioned a number of times by a lot of people.

Comicsluvr said:
[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise the current system is ok for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's broken. It does not accomplish what it's supposed to accomplish. Many folks, myself included, would rather have something that works.

In order to have something that works, both griefing and voting rings need to be curtailed.

I also think there's a lot of underestimation on just how far griefers will go to grief.

---

Re: Death Count

Waaaaaaaay too many variables for this to be of any use. Solo or team? Played on what challenge level? What character level(s)? What AT(s)? Vet(s) or Newblet(s)?


EDIT: To properly identify quote source

[ QUOTE ]
How would "recommendation tickets" work? How would you get them, how many would you get?

[/ QUOTE ]

It'd work something like this:

You're given X amount of tickets per month, as a base. X should be a low enough number that most people will be careful with them.

You can recommend an arc by spending one of those tickets to do so.

You can earn additional tickets by spending time in the MA system, up to a certain number per month. Again, X should be low, so these tickets maintain their value to the player.

You wouldn't be able to recommend the same author more than once in a certain period of time.

Handing out a recommendation wouldn't be anonymous (no reason for it).

Every month, your base amount of tickets would reset.

Such a system wouldn't be immune to abuses, of course, but it'd be a lot harder to abuse overall. It'd put a significant dent in voting rings, which is an abuse most people seem to overlook.

I've seen a lot of ideas about how to prevent griefing, but not a lot to address the other side of the problem. The whole problem needs to be addressed in order to have a system that's of any worth. If a change isn't going to give us a system that works, there isn't any point in making the change.

Anywho, I've employed a similar system in the past and it worked out pretty well.

And this is all proposed under the assumption that it'd play second fiddle to much more nuanced search functionality: Search by author, genre, story or game focus, challenge, origin, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting thing though is CO has the feeling that it is the real COH II

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't feel that way to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not all that different from what I've suggested. I'd be okay with it. It'd certainly be a vast improvement over what we have.

Having recommendation tickets would be a better way, I think, of making the HoF concept still viable and establishing a "pretty decent" middle-of-the-road pool of arcs, which is really the best that can be hoped for with any ratings system.

But, to me, a ratings system is a distant second to search functionality. I'm only trying to accommodate the fundamental idea, because the devs seem to want it.

[ QUOTE ]
That is why I limited it to 0 and 1 star ratings. Let's be realistic here.. the only person likely to 0 star an arc is going to be a griefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't consider that to be realistic. The function is there, the developers have even pointed to it, so it's a valid way to rate. Is it a stupid idea? Yah, I'd say so. Should it be yanked? Yah, I'd say so. But as long as it's there, you can't automatically label anyone who uses it as a griefer.

Everyone has their own idea about what's absolutely horrible. If 0-star comes to represent the absolutely horrible, then arcs that people believe are absolutely horrible will get 0-star ratings. The scale, as the developers have presented it, is not 1 to 5. It's 0 to 5. 0 is a legitimate rating option.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see them fix it but in the absence of that I'll take a required comment. Might, at least, slow down the griefers a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't. Won't do a thing about real griefers, I promise you. Because real griefers 1. don't care if you know who they are, and 2. will go to great lengths to grief.

It would cut back on some of the down-voting out of spite... but so what? You'd still have griefers, you'd still have 5-star Cartels, you'd still have 0-raters who believe their rating is legit. In short, you'd still have a broken, useless system.

[ QUOTE ]

I really find that most people don't leave feedback at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

That should be expected.

<ul type="square">[*] Use standard mob types. Particularly those that are exclusive to a low level range.[*] If you use custom mobs, use them sparingly and don't make them necessary for mission completion. And don't give them mez/buff/debuff sets either.[*] Don't set a Detail spawn to hard if it's a mission objective.[*] Don't use AVs/EBs. Bosses are tough enough at low levels. If someone wants to fight a real tough boss, well that's what difficulty ratings are for. People who're running at CL1 are doing so for a reason. Don't undermine that.[*] Try not to make it a marathon (unless you're going for a Task Force type arc). Lowbies progress through missions more slowly, especially solo. If you do want to make a long arc, consider adding a buffer ally here and there to help move things along. But try to make the allies optional. Especially if you're writing for redside (Stalkers are particularly inclined to not like baggage).[/list]

[ QUOTE ]
No, under that system - with the '5 star cartels' - it just means the mediocre and what remains of the explotive farms will float to, and STAY at the top; and with just a 'thumbs up' to go by; yoiu'll sift through more pages than you do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why there should only be "thumbs up" and the number of "thumbs up" a single player can give should be very limited.

I really hate the star system. But if it's going to stay, I'd want to at least see the removal of the 0-Star, see arcs ranked by the total number of stars they've earned, and see a breakdown like Dark_Aspect has suggested.

But, really, I just want to see the star system removed entirely, and I want any ratings system used to play second fiddle to robust search functionality. Give us the means to find what we want, and there'll be much less concern over ratings.

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure about this.. I think it would be better to require a comment for 0 and 1 star ratings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem with this:

If someone's rated an arc 1 or 0 stars, I don't think they're going to want their time wasted any further by being forced to comment.

Thus, comments would commonly be things like "no comment", "it sucked", or "hurilvijdvlknjeu"... which aren't comments at all.

On a related note, there seems to be a growing perception that giving feedback is somehow an obligation. It's not. And I think it's unrealistic to expect anyone to make some sort of investment in the work of a total stranger. Especially if that work is considered bad or even mediocre by the person being asked to make the investment.

If you want feedback, actively solicit it. Ask friends to run through your arc with you and/or solo it, and do the same for them in return. You can actually gain insight about your own stuff in a dialogue about someone else's stuff. Get a little writer's circle going. I'm sure there are a lot of people around here that'd be into that. I'm not, but that's only because I already have one. If I didn't, I'd be real interested in the idea of some sort of "Test Night" with some other authors on my server.

Bottom line, feedback from random plays shouldn't be expected. People are in MA to play, and writing feedback--no matter how brief--is taking time out from that. If they're on a team, they're even less likely to stop and write, unless everyone they're with is doing it as well. Any player feedback you get should be gravy. It should not be depended upon for your arc's improvement.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Life-booo i liked it

[/ QUOTE ]

This.

...

Have heart. Somtimes competing networks will pick up a cancelled show.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it doesn't get picked up though, the season was wrapped up nicely. I'll miss Charlie, but I'm content with that ending.

[ QUOTE ]
That is the true reason why this game will die when Champions Online comes out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wanna bet?