Lothic

Can you imagine how silly it would be if that -wasn't- going to be the case?

Although, if the Devs actually did decide to do something so epically stupid like not including new Incarnate content in an issue called "Incarnates" it would at least be worth a good laugh to see fringe lunacy like yours justified here.

I remember reading something here in the forums a couple of months ago that the Devs were "looking into" fixing these badges. That vague news alone kept me from "cheating" any of the 3 redside respec badges my main badging character still needs.

But until today it was hard to know WHEN they were going to fix them. For all we knew it was going to take another 6 months or longer. It's good to finally get some "ballpark" idea of when these will be sorted out.

Please don't go there.
There are clearly too many fragile egos around here as it is...

Maybe one day people won't let these things (or even me) bother them so much.

I have no problem with "people wanting improvement" in this game if they're reasonable about it.
I just have a problem with people who get whiny about it and become more of a annoyance than the "problem" itself ever was.
There is a definite difference between the two.

I agree wholeheartedly.

But like I said I'm sure there'll be plenty of over-reactive angst to comment on in the days to come.
I'll never underestimate peoples' ability to find -something- to whine about in this game.

Yeah but then again when have people *ever* remembered that?
Never underestimate peoples' desire want to over-react whether it's justified or not.

I was just on a thread a few days ago talking about, among other things, the lack of a level 30ish SF for the redside. I guess that'll be one less thing redsiders will have to whine about... whoops did I say that out loud?

Never fear, I'm sure despite this "slip-up" the Devs still hate villains just as much as ever.

The only real problem the Devs had with Kheldians was that they misjudged what players' expectations were going to be for them. Years ago the Devs thought giving us a "jack-of-all-trades" AT was a neat idea as a reward for reaching level 50.

But players automatically assumed that an "exclusive unlockable" AT had to be some kind of killer Tank-Mage. Ever since then most of the time when people say they dislike Kheldians it's usually based on the fact that they aren't super-uber better than any other AT. Those players feel let down because they wanted Kheldians to be Tank-Mages. In fact I'm pretty sure VEATs were made to be more Tank-Magey just as a way to give players what they wanted from Kheldians.

I have no problem with Kheldians because I understand both their strengths and limitations, just like any other AT. I never deluded myself into thinking Khelds were supposed to be hyper-powerful and thus was never "disappointed" with them when they weren't.

Yeah I kind of, vaguely, sort of remembered that this existed but I just didn't feel like searching for it.
I knew someone would eventually do it for me.

Yes but how can NCsoft subtly advertise the existence of their other games if they don't force us to use this new unified launcher?

In this case it really doesn't matter whether the Windows version of CoH is better or worse than the Mac version. When 90% or more of a playerbase runs a game on one platform everything related to that platform is going to get 90% or more of the attention of the Devs. I realize that concept may be annoying to some people, but is it really that hard to understand or accept?

Yes this game is technically "multi-platform". But it's really only multi-platform because the Devs tinkered with it just enough to make supporting a Mac baseline cost-effective enough for them to hassle with. Obviously I'm sure our Devs love to get the extra money they get from people who play their game exclusively on the Mac. But let's not fool ourselves here - the Devs could stop supporting the Mac baseline tomorrow and the overall impact to their subscription numbers might be statistically significant but hardly crippling.

Well to be fair the general concept that some "classes" work better at lower levels than other "classes" is a game mechanic that's been around for well over 30 years now. That was a core dynamic of Dungeons and Dragons back in the 70s and it's existed in some form in pretty much every other class-based RPG (table top or computer based) since.

Now obviously some games express that concept more strictly than others. But if your friend really finds the idea too "frustrating" in CoH then I'm not sure he's going to have much patience for any class-based MMO.

As I said before I wish him luck regardless. Since CoH was introduced 7 years ago the typical leveling speed in this game has become very quick relative to what it used to be. Not sure how anyone could ask for it to be any faster unless he just wants to PL an instant level 50, get instantly bored, and move on to something else. *shrugs*

A good way to do it as "cheaply" as possible? Well the "cheapest" way is to farm for purples. You get them for free as drops and just have to pay to craft them.

But I think what you may really be asking for is "what's the easiest way to buy the ones you need off the market". If that's the case there are plenty of player guides available to help you play the market.

Basically there are many way to get to that goal but basically time spent in this game is almost always equal to money. If you're willing to farm and/or play the market slow and conservatively you can eventually get any purple you want, but it might take weeks or even months. If you want those sets "TODAY" then you'll pay more INF for that privilege.

As always YMMV.

I must admit this was pretty much the very first thing I thought of when I saw this.
But I have faith in the Devs that whatever this turns out to be it'll lack any of the more extreme Costnerian influences.

Well for what's it worth there are lots of shows that "never get a chance" because the network involved seems to try to kill it before it even gets going. SG:U was certainly not the only victim of that.

I kind of wish everyone used DVRs to watch TV. We've had a TiVo for years and we never worry about schedule changes or split seasons on any shows we watch. Maybe they'll eventually base ratings systems on what people have set up for their season passes as opposed to who actually watches what at what time of the week. *shrugs*

But SG:U and ST:E do seem to be similar from the point of view that they were both the relatively short-lived and inglorious ends of their respective TV franchises. I'm sure you could find people who thought BOTH shows should have had more episodes. Likewise I'm sure you can find people who thought BOTH shows were horrible and doomed from day one. Or anything in-between...

I don't really care about their relative qualities and I'm not really trying to directly compare them against each other. I'm just pointing out a similarity based on the facts of the way both franchises basically "sputtered out" ratings-wise, not on any of the vague nerdrage involved.

I'm sure you could spend lots of money to generate spin for a character and keep pushing that character in every media direction possible for years. But even if that -succeeds- I still don't think you'd be guaranteed that you would have MADE an icon. Most people in business would just be happy to get a good return on their money regardless if they've made an icon in the process or not.

Somehow I don't think you can set out with the direct goal of creating an iconic character from scratch. I think that happens organically as a result of everything else (tangible and intangible) and history's fickle judgement.

A character like Doc Savage might be as old as Batman, be as well developed and even have a big fan base. But as you point out clearly Batman has "something extra" that Doc Savage doesn't. Whatever makes Batman "more remembered" than Doc is what makes him iconic.

Hellboy might become iconic in the long run. I don't have a crystal ball.

But I think part of the reason we generally agree characters like Superman and Batman are iconic is because they've been in our popular culture for well over 70 years now. They've been around so long that effectively -everyone- knows who they are. Thus the adjective "iconic".