Justaris

That's a fair stance. I'd just add that, in addition to providing "the most efficient methods", especially where Khelds are concerned, it behooves those in the know to give at least some sense of where the other options fall in relation to whatever's most efficient.

In other words, if we were talking about Masterminds, there's really no question of how well the "petless" variant compares to a variant that takes and uses the pet powers. Anyone who goes the petless route is challenging themselves and deliberately taking a significant and drastic hit to the power of the character. But there's not that clear of a disparity here. A human-former is not comparable to a petless MM. Unlike the majority of ATs, this AT has a number of popular variants that perform differently but perform well (anecdotally, at any rate).

To answer the question: what is the harm in providing the most efficient methods? Well, if it's presented in terms (stated or implied) of "this is what you should do if you want to really play your Warshade", I think that's irresponsible. The 'expert' has just told the neophyte player that his/her way is wrong in so many words. Now, if the neophyte is expressly looking for the most optimal build possible, fine. But in my experience that's the minority.

Most people say something to the effect of "I want to play a Human/Dwarf. Am I going to suck?" We should absolutely tell this person what the most efficient methods are - and we should also give a sense of where the build he/she wants to play stacks up in comparison. What (if any) advantages does the variant have over the optimal choice? What shortfalls should the player expect if he/she elects to play the variant rather than the optimal? Lay it out and let the player who came to us for information make the final determination. That's what we should be doing in this forum. We should be a resource.

If you ask me.

This is the sticking point, however. When we discuss builds there's two general ways to go: you can go for what is "optimal" by whatever margin that ends up being or you can go with what's "viable". Put another way, you can talk about what "works best" or how to "not suck". These are both approaches which are concerned with performance and are asking for build advice related to performance. They are, however, asking for very different things.

It's a given that, with sufficient number-crunching and given a certain level of basic familiarity with a given powerset and tactics that one build variant is going to emerge as "optimal", even if it's only by a slim margin. The only way to avoid this would be to make all powersets essentially reskinned clones of one another and I don't think anyone on any side of this issue wants that.

However, if other build variants can perform at a level approaching that of the "optimal" build, then these variants could be considered "good". Obviously this is where a lot of subjectivity comes into the equation - how far off of "optimal" is "good enough"? At what point does the variance become trivial (or to ask it another way, at what point is the variance significant? Or is any variance significant? 50.14 DPS > 50.1 DPS, damnit!).

If we adopt a purely numerical stance then yes, there's a 'best', though oftentimes arriving at that best is a nontrivial calculation that has to take into account a number of factors beyond power selection and slotting (the time consumed formshifting, for one, leaps to mind). But is everyone seeking build advice wanting a purely numerical answer? Do they want to be told how to build their character, or do they want to know if the way they are already building and playing their character is viable? Do they want to know if it's "good enough?" How do we make that determination? Is anything short of the optimal numbers "not good enough"? "Teh suck?"

In my opinion, any build that can be successful playing basic content in reasonable time, can contribute meaningfully to teams playing a variety of content and is enjoyable to the person playing it is a viable build. I for one prefer to find a way to optimize the build that the player has chosen rather than remake it into a 'perfect build'. I believe that Dev decisions should reinforce and expand this AT as one which supports multiple viable builds. I don't really want to see them all made perfectly, equally optimal - rather, I think there should be pros and cons to each. For example, a human-form variant gets significantly more utility from Inky Aspect and from Fitness than does a Tri-Former.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. I can't speak for other people who've advocated variety in Kheldian builds, but speaking for myself, I've always taken pains to talk about "viability" rather than what's "optimal". It is, naturally, subjective. YMMV.

On the one hand, especially since the changes to the inherent, I think it's probably fair to say that certain build variants (a tri-form Warshade, for instance) are probably superior in terms of power compared to other variants. Is this a desirable state of affairs? That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I say no. Based on the quoted portion above, it seems (and by all means, correct me if I'm mistaken in my presentation of your statemets) that you view the Kheldian AT having a clear 'focused' or 'best' build as a good thing. I don't.

In my opinion, part of the appeal of this AT is its versatility, the design that allows it (at least potentially) to be a number of different things and, depending on slotting and use of IOs/Sets, to have various degrees of power in various bailiwicks. To move the AT further towards a 'one clear way' or 'ideal build' would run counter to this. Of course, that's part of its appeal to me, and perhaps it's a source of frustration to other players. Fair enough. However, since a majority of other ATs in the game are relatively straightfoward to create builds for in comparison, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let Kheldians remain somewhat unique in this regard.

Now, a case can be made that by allowing the inherent to work in the forms and by making the changes to Dwarf and to BD Mire, the Devs have already taken steps in the direction of the 'one true build'. I'm hopeful that further tweaks down the line will make other variants more viable from a numbers perspective (e.g. a boost to human-form damage scalar would be welcome).

Until that time, while it may be true that certain build variants are more effective than others, it still remains true that the AT supports multiple and diverse viable builds. In the current environment some are suboptimal to others but all are playable without significant issue, at least in my view.

If anything, I'd like to see changes that reintroduce/reinforce the opportunity cost which has always been involved in building a Kheldian. I like the idea that I have to make choices and differentiate myself, that my Warshade may not be like another but can still be effective. The last thing I want is to see Kheldians become simplified to the point that one single build becomes the overriding best choice.

That's my 2 inf on the matter, anyway. YMMV.

A thousand times, this. Basically what I was trying to say above, but more succinct.

Seems like you're on the right track, and you've already had a number of good responses. As someone who (after months of careful trying to get her to play) now has a wife who plays more than I do, I'll say this:

Whatever you do, don't try to tell her how she should play or what she "needs to do". Instead, focus on making the play experience a fun one for her. Be there as a resource if she has a question, but keep it simple. Answer the question without going into unnecessary depth (unless she clearly wants you to, use your judgment).

Try to play something that will complement and support whatever character she makes. For instance, if she's playing a Blaster, you might play a Defender or Controller and run support. If she's playing a Stone tanker, you might consider playing Kinetics. And so on and so forth. Basically try to pick something that can support and empower whatever she's doing and give her center stage. Make new character to play with hers - this is more fun than playing with a high-level character, in my experience, because you're working together. I don't recommend dragging her along as an SK on higher level missions unless she brings up the idea.

Let her explore the game and find her own passions. You might like PvP and she might be more into badges. You might enjoy running characters quickly to 50 while she likes to fully explore contacts' arcs and is annoyed when she outlevels them. Don't assume your preferred way to play will be hers. Try to support whatever she's doing rather than trying to have her play your way. This isn't to say that you should completely abandon your own enjoyment (game needs to stay fun for you too), but let it take a backseat for now and maybe you'll find some points of intersection that you both enjoy a lot.

Also, don't try to plan her characters for her or tell her how to enhance, what powers to pick, etc. If she wants to pick Flurry, let her pick Flurry. Let her make her own mistakes and her own choices - more than likely some of the ones that you wouldn't have made may surprise you in how effective/fun they turn out to be.

My wife uses an entirely different interface from the way I like to play, from an inverted mouse to different movement keys to a completely different setup for her power trays, inspirations, etc. When she goes afk and I have to play her characters, I'm always baffled. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

No, you need two level 50s. One hero of any kind, on any server, and one villain of any kind, on any server. If you have that, then you have the Kheldians and the VEATs unlocked. Both PBs and WSs unlock with a single level 50 hero and both Soldiers and Widows unlock with a single level 50 villain.

For instance, if I have a level 50 Scrapper on Champion server, then I can make Peacebringers and/or Warshades on any server I like, as many as I like. If I have a level 50 Mastermind on Virute server, then I can make Soldiers and/or Widows on any server I like, as many as I like.

If at some point you choose to delete one of your 50s (not sure why you'd do so, but whatever), you can lose access to the epics at that point until you get another 50. This doesn't prevent you from playing Kheld/VEAT characters you've already made, just making new ones. So in the above example, if I deleted the Scrapper, I'd still be able to play my existing Warshades and PBs, but couldn't create new Peacebringers or Warshades until another hero (on any server) got to 50.

You do not need certain badges or to complete certain tasks or anything like that. The Devs have mentioned that they don't really like the level 50 requirement (since it somewhat encourages powerleveling of characters, among other things), so if they ever add a third epic AT to the game it's likely it'll be unlocked in a different way. That's probably fairly far off though.

Also, Vigilante.

I had to read this three times just to parse what he was trying to say. Clearly this is an expert whose word should be given the highest possible weight.

In other news, I've found PBs actually seem to be better on TFs than Warshades (though of course both are good), since the nature of Cosmic Balance makes them better able to stabilize and enhance the TF team than the WS. Which isn't to say that a higher damage scalar wouldn't be welcome - but I've already commented on that upthread.

As for having a 'clear role', to my mind that's precisely counter to the design of this AT. It's the very cookie-cutter mentality I mentioned earlier in the thread as something Kheldians are somewhat unique in managing not to do. And, while I'll grant that this probably causes the same teaming problems most generalist/hybrid classes get, I don't think it's a problem for the Devs to solve - it's par for the course for a generalist AT. Yes, many team leaders get tunnel vision and want "damage dealers", "tanks", "healers", or other such arbitrary labels to fill spots on their teams.

These roles are not without their own problems (especially that last one), but they do simplify matters for the person forming the team and while they're oftentimes overly simplistic or flat-out wrong they continue to be commonly employed in-game. A given Kheldian is more of an unknown quantity. Will this person have Dwarf? Will they be built to tank? How will their damage output be? Will they have Nova? How much control will they have to offer? The beauty of the AT is that a Kheldian invited to a team could be any or all of these things and more. Let's not "fix" that.

As for the teaming woes, well, I've never favored pandering to ignorance. There's a simple solution, too. If the pigeonholing team leaders aren't inviting you, then you become the team leader and form your own team. Hopefully as a Kheldian you have some experience with the game and can lead a team effectively (unless you just PL'd, but that's another can of worms entirely).

Merging servers might address this problem, assuming that the players from the two servers you mashed together all remained playing. That's somewhat unlikely given the numerous problems with merging servers - the copy/paste post for this extremely frequent bad idea exists so that these many reasons can be recounted quickly every time someone proposes this idea in ignorance.

In short, there's no guarantee the merger would in fact fix the 'problem' that supposedly necessitates the merger in the first place. Not a hallmark of a good solution. When the problems outweigh the benefits, you're getting into "don't fix what ain't broke" territory.


Again, this is an assumption - force the player populations of two (or more) servers together because more numbers resolves all these perceived problems. However, merging servers is likely to drive off many players if the numerous problems aren't addressed. Even if they are (and not all of them have evident solutions in the game as it exists today), chances are good that players will still be lost in large numbers over such a change. A change made to increase population that decreases population is a poor change. Just because Server X has 10 people and Server Y has 12 people doesn't mean that all 22 people will play on Server XY. To assume so is disingenuous at best.


Try. Assuming you really believe this poor notion is a good idea and aren't just trolling to pass time, that is. The onus is on the person suggesting change to make the case for why the game we all pay to play should be altered. If a convincing case for change cannot be made or if the negatives proceeding from the change are likely to be greater than the positives, no change should occur. That's the case with this issue, as I've yet to see anyone make a convincing server merge argument. About the best I've seen is the position that, at some undefined point in the future, NCSoft may need to merge servers if profit margins necessitate consolidating their maintenance costs - and there's nothing I'm aware of now that suggests that day is anywhere on the horizon.


Handwaving a point away doesn't invalidate it. Community is a key reason many people play and remain playing MMOs. There's a considerable social aspect to this type of game and I've met countless players who will attest to some variant of "I'd have quit long ago if it weren't for _______ SG/global channel/server community." Toss that out the window and you get some fallout, no way around it. Our servers have existed for over five years and each has its own standout well-known active players/personalities, its own general culture, its own set of global channels and of course its own gaggle of SGs. Even if the name issues were somehow resolved, there's an issue with taking away someone's server identity. Many players play exclusively on a single or on a very few servers, a "home". Demolishing one's home, even if it's to build a shiny new house, is not without consequence.

I invite you to provide this evidence. Aside from the caveat about a possible pipe-dream serverless system at the time that server transfers were introduced (more as a CYA than anything else), I'm aware of no such 'evidence' and find the claim dubious. So no, it shouldn't have been done a long time ago and it shouldn't be done now. Ignoring the problems with the idea doesn't make them any less problematic.

You can repeat that statement as much as you like, but if you can't put a rational argument behind it then you are unlikely to convince anyone that this idea is anything other than a terrible notion.