Liquid

I want to add something to this: for those lamenting extra work focused on female parts, please remember that males have two body types, so if there were an even number of parts for each gender, extra work would still be spent on males.

If females get a few extra typically-for-females parts like dresses, heels, and corsets, it helps keep the work spent on each gender to be somewhat equal, while minimizing the "I wish I had that part" reaction from the people who play male characters.

There is no option to make everyone happy. If we have 100% gender parity in parts, then males get more options (due to the second body type) and females don't get any "girly" (for lack of a better word) stuff, and if we have 100% gender parity in workload, males get significantly less parts (not necessarily half, but not a trivial amount less). If we have 100% parity in number of parts but give females more "girly" options, then we get situations like the Gunslinger pack (prior to this update). They're trying to find a compromise between those three options, and it means males have more work spent on them, and females get a few more parts.

I can't really see a more fair way to do it.

Just FYI for those who might be interested-- I totally believe this in many cases. But just because it makes more money doesn't mean it's good for the game.

I'm one of those people that, unlike Roger Ebert, thinks of video games as art. I want Paragon Studios to make as much money as they can without sacrificing their art or crossing ethical lines. Obviously art is highly subjective, and so "sacrificing art for money" is also going to be highly subjective. But if I were in a decision making position for a game whose major focuses are superheroes and customization, one of the reasons that I would not want to time-limit costume parts for the sake of making more money is that, in my opinion, the artistic value of having higher quality costume parts, or unique parts that enable specific concepts, available year-round is too high to give up for extra profit.

Now, if CoH is in danger of going under without these kinds of methods, then I understand and reluctantly support them, as sacrificing some of the art is better than losing all of it. But I'm operating under the assumption that they are in no such danger.

What would make the most sense would be to not include the Pocket D porter (edit: and emotes) for the rest of the year, like how other costume bundles are set up. That would still create a spike in sales now by people who missed the original Pocket D porter, and leave the costume parts available for purchase by new and returning players in the coming months.

Oh. Does this mean we aren't supposed to say what we voted? Ooops. I just got excited and wanted to share.

Maybe that's a start for them-- they'd need to make sure Blaster Defiance doesn't ignore it, and that Break Frees, Domination, or other use-while-disabled abilities don't work (as they all have animations) as well, leaving just the travel toggles as being able to be activated/deactivated.

I have no idea whether that helps them at all, but it's a good suggestion based on our limited knowledge. Thanks.

Hmm, actually I think you're right. I'm not 100% sure though, I think you may be able to activate the power, but it doesn't affect anyone else. I'll have to test it later to be sure.

How about Power Activation Disabling?

You can still activate toggles, PBAoE buffs/heals and self-targeted clicks (like Reconstruction, Unstoppable, SoW, and Dull Pain) while "only affecting self", and those all have animations, so unfortunately, it wouldn't resolve the issue. They need new tech.

If they don't feel it's worth the resources to create tech that allows toggles to remain on but not be activated, then I hope they'll consider modifying the current tech to at least not disable passive powers, as those do not have any animations attached to them.

I don't know why people are asking for suppression. That wouldn't solve the issue. The powers aren't detoggled because they want them shut off for balance reasons. They are detoggled because they need to be disabled to keep people from turning them on while on the hoverboard-- turning them on requires an animation, and allowing them to be turned on while on the hoverboard would mean new animations for all toggles.

What you should be asking for is new tech that allows toggles and passives to remain on when activating the hoverboard if the toggles are already on, but not to be activated if they're off. That would prevent people from using animations while on the board, but would still allow toggles and passives to remain on.

(link fixed)

He's also got a VirtueVerse profile if you want to read about the character (I don't feel his current profile pic really represents him well, though-- he looks very angry, and Big A is a pretty friendly guy). He's written some short stories as well, if you click his user page and scroll to the bottom.

Ascendant is also a really nice, humble guy. His CoH-fame hasn't gone to his head.

Yeah, if they do choose a player character to join the Phalanx, and he wants it (he may not, I don't know), I'd vote for Ascendant if it was open for voting.

Agreed. I now care and am happy about this feature being implemented.

I hope we'll have ways to see who isn't VIP for iTrials, as well as ways to see alignment for DFB and the like (let me know if there currently is a display for those, I haven't noticed one).

I personally don't care whether this feature goes live or not, but if it was of no consequence to anyone, why would they spend development time on it? Obviously it is of consequence to someone.