Lothic

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't be much of a 'special' award if people could start taking advantage of it in under a week. *shrugs*

[/ QUOTE ]

If they knew about it. I could have had my first 50 in under a week... if I'd known how. But I didn't learn any of that stuff until later. To some extent, the reward here is about cresting the learning curve, which is appropriate.

Still... I'd prefer this option as an account-wide unlock gained with an accolade. Say, all exploration badges and a handful of others.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well let's just say if you want this to be a badge-based award then I'd suggest it should require Immortal, Leader, Empath, The Chosen One and Bug Hunter at the very least. That should keep most people from worrying about it. Or maybe they could require that you have a character with at least 700 badges.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather see the following 3 options available to you if you already have multiple 50's on your account (say 3-5 lvl 50's) -
1. start new character at lvl 1

2. start new character at lvl 14 (tvl power)

3. start new character at lvl 22 (SO's)

I'd rather see this implemented as a reward for accomplishment vice account length.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with gating any awards based on the "number of level 50 characters you have" is that even before MA made PLing a 50 only take a few -hours- a person, if they really wanted, could PL a 50 in "traditional" farms in just a few days. It wouldn't be much of a 'special' award if people could start taking advantage of it in under a week. *shrugs*

I don't like the OP's idea at all, but it would pretty much have to be a high month Vet award for it to make any reasonable sense game balance wise. And as I said before even -that- is a bad idea in and of itself.

I’ll give you another reason why this is a bad idea that hasn’t been brought up yet.

Ideally Vet awards should be things that provide benefits that cannot be obtained in any other way. Vet awards are supposed to be unique things like the Vet powers and costume items are. Having a character of level X is not a unique thing. I can get a character of level X just by playing the game normally.

There's also the point that all the Vet awards up through the 60th monther are already established. At best your idea might be a candidate for the future ones. But I'd feel absolutely cheated if the Devs decided that say the 63th month Vet award was something like you are suggesting. That would mean I've been a loyal subscriber for over 5 years and all I got for it is something that, if I really wanted, I could PL up in a matter of a few days?

This "non-award" would be like being a person who's plowed snow for a living for 20 years and as a reward for that being given a freshly made snowball. Uh, thanks but no thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear you do realize that SGs operated well enough for years -before- they added the super leader rank in I13 right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been familiar with SG's since early '08 around I11. What I meant was that the super leader rank is there whether we like it or not, and that it's still up to this leader to decide how the group is run, and that it's still possible to include members in a democratic process, but the final decision still rests on the super leader. That is the current reality of it.

[ QUOTE ]
If the super leader rank is ever allowed to change SG names they might as well be able to do that as many times as they want. Trying to control it with a "one time" token would complicate the issue. I've seen SGs change hands many times over the years. What happens if one token is used but another new super leader takes over and reasonably wants to change the name again? Besides the Devs have already allowed for the chaos of a single top leader to run amuck and screw everything up about an SG with impunity, why bother limiting how often they could rename it as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

All very valid arguments. I'm taking the limit stance because there must be some reason the devs haven't implemented this option into the game; some kind of potential abuse I'm guessing. So I say we can take small steps to improve the situation.

I agree though, unlimited will be much more convenient in the end, I'm just afraid of pushing it that far right away.

[/ QUOTE ]
Democratic Centralism for teh win!
It worked for the Soviets, I'm sure it'll work for this game too...

Anyway my take is that the Devs already made the mistake of slapping the super leader thing on us after 4+ years of things being cool enough without it. It's basically a little too late for them to be worried about the "potential abuse" from the genie they've already let out of the bottle so to speak.

I clearly don't like the super leader idea, but now that we have it we might as well -really- have it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BBQ_Pork had a good idea about how to include the rest of the SG into the rename process. My suggestion for it (which I cooked up several years ago predating the super leader rank) was that any rank 5 leader could propose a new name that would viewable by the SG but it'd be on "probation" for a one week. This would give the rest of the SG a chance to review the new name. Any other member could at any time during that week actively vote it down. If no one during that week voted the new name down then the new name would become the official public name of the SG. This scheme would mean that the entire SG would have to at least not object to the name change which makes it about the fairest method I've seen proposed so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes the assumption that SG's are meant to be run democratically, when in reality with the implementation of the super leader it's more easily a dictatorship. The only difference is the players still have the right of choice(EDIT: in terms of being able to stay or leave the group). A smart leader would probably wield their given power to satisfy the majority, but that's still up to the leader to make those kinds of decisions at this point. For the devs to enforce such rules would take a little away from the freedom of the players to form and run their groups how they see fit.

I do think, however, that there should be something that allows a group to rename itself, but with certain limitations... perhaps giving all new SG's a rename token, and once that token is used that's it, no more are given out. Just one and only one token.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly before the super leader rank came along I'd argue that we had the choice to run SGs democratically (with as many 'top' equally ranked leaders as we wanted) OR dictatorially (with only one level 5 leader). Now that the Devs forced the super leader rank on us it's clear they WANT us to be dictatorial about leadership whether we want that or not. The super leader rank effectively LIMITED our ability to run SGs any way we wanted and only really served to make the GMs lives easier, not ours. Just to be clear you do realize that SGs operated well enough for years -before- they added the super leader rank in I13 right?

I still favor my suggested voting approach because it gives everyone a say in the renaming process and it makes as much sense in the "pre super leader" world as it now does in the "post super leader" world. But again I will admit that since the Devs seem to be steering us towards the single Top Boss rank scheme that giving the super leader rank the ability to rename a SG is now probably a fairly expedient way to do it if not the most desirable from a fairness point of view.

If the super leader rank is ever allowed to change SG names they might as well be able to do that as many times as they want. Trying to control it with a "one time" token would complicate the issue. I've seen SGs change hands many times over the years. What happens if one token is used but another new super leader takes over and reasonably wants to change the name again? Besides the Devs have already allowed for the chaos of a single top leader to run amuck and screw everything up about an SG with impunity, why bother limiting how often they could rename it as well?

And obviously anyone can always "vote" their disapproval of a name change by quitting a SG, but hopefully that kind of thing should be done as a last resort in any event dictatorial or not.

Hard wiring a costume slot to a build is an interesting concept, but as you point out that would really only be a limitation on us if we were somehow forced to play that way.

As it is now we can have up to 5 costumes 'apply' to either build whenever. If you want to "roleplay" that you only use your "big burly armored" costume in slot #2 when you switch to your damage resistance oriented build you are free to do so. But as you say that should really be an RP thing, not a built-in mechanics thing.

Ideally I'd love to be able to have 5 costume slots for each build so that with our current two builds each character could potentially have access to up to 10 costume slots. Oh well...

The addition of the super leader rank has introduced a new set of considerations for this issue.

As Forbin_Project mentioned I am also currently a super leader of an old SG that I did not actually create myself. Because this is likely the case in many SGs it makes it questionable whether any current super leader really has the sole right to rename a SG someone else originally named.

On the other hand while I don't like the implications for abuse there really is a reasonable argument that the super leader SHOULD be allowed to do this. After all that person (whether we like it or not) now has the sole ability to affect pretty much everything else about a SG, why not its name as well?

BBQ_Pork had a good idea about how to include the rest of the SG into the rename process. My suggestion for it (which I cooked up several years ago predating the super leader rank) was that any rank 5 leader could propose a new name that would viewable by the SG but it'd be on "probation" for a one week. This would give the rest of the SG a chance to review the new name. Any other member could at any time during that week actively vote it down. If no one during that week voted the new name down then the new name would become the official public name of the SG. This scheme would mean that the entire SG would have to at least not object to the name change which makes it about the fairest method I've seen proposed so far.

But now that we have the super leader deal I reluctantly admit that letting the super leader be able to change it is probably a relatively simple way to accomplish it as well.

P.S. Thanks for the congrats on the 700 badges.
Maybe they should only let the people with the most badges be able to change SG names.

[ QUOTE ]
Y'know? You're right. I really shouldn't bother with the wheretofors or whyhows of her attempt at comedy, thus offering her more fuel to annoy people with. I'll just slot her on ignore for a while and be happier for it.

Thanks, Lothic! *huggles*

-Rachel-

[/ QUOTE ]
You're welcome... I guess.
Personally I've always followed Sun-Tzu's timeless adage: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Sticking my fingers in my ears (via Ignoring someone) is pretty much the opposite of that sage advice.
Whatever gets you through the day I suppose.
Take care.

That's why I implied you calling Frostweaver an "insult comic" was using your words, not mine. Basically I think you have your terms mixed up. The humor that was invoked here was far closer to Carlinesque that it ever was to Triumph the Insult Dog. Carlin mostly pointed out people who took things way too seriously. And those people (who deserved it) he -insulted- with a flourish.

Ultimately I appreciated Frostweaver's sarcasm here because it equally poked fun at badgers, narcs and the Devs, all groups who sometimes take themselves a bit too seriously in these matters.

The fact that you "objected" to this obvious humorous post shows us that you've taken it a bit too personally yourself. Seems to me Frostweaver struck a nerve you were probably better off not admitting for your own sake.

Insult comics (as you call them) observe and point out a person's or thing's own faults and mistakes.
If that person or thing was not flawed to begin with there would be nothing to point out.
I'm a serious badger and even I appreciated Frostweaver's sarcasm.

A practical joker is someone who sets up borderline malicious acts against typically innocent people.
Even if they aren't innocent victims, they are still the 'butt' of someone actively trying to humiliate them.

Between the two I find people who like to perpetrate practical jokes to be far more "sinister" and contemptible that an insult comic. Don’t get me wrong: The Three Stooges can be funny once in a while but George Carlin is still going to be the god of my kind of comedy. YMMV.

Unfortuantely despite anyone liking the idea or not I think (as Jade_Dragon pointed out) having characters realistically move and touch each other would not be supported by the game engine regardless.

I realize games like Second Life have kind of figured this out, but here if the two people's bodies clipped each other too much it'd just look too silly to be worthwhile. I’ve love to be able to hug people for instance, but not if our bodies looked like a bad transporter accident.

This is a truly impressive badge issues list.

While it might be a miracle to hope that everything on it gets fixed I'd say if the "most trivial" third of it gets addressed then we'd be doing pretty good all things considered.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure that remains the case? Sunstorm said this in the base builder forum just before I14 went live:

[ QUOTE ]
The super leader title does not have to denote actual leadership or rank within the SG, consider them mainly to be the key master or owner of the group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tho I could very easily be wrong, it sounds like they feel that SG's belong to a single individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I generally agree with Catwhoorg on this issue and still really hate the whole "super leader" idea it seems that they might as well give the super leader the ability to change the SG name whenever he/she wants.

I mean they've decided to give the person with this position the dictatorial ability to kick whoever they want from the SG with impunity so they might as well let this person also be able to rename the SG as well. What's the point of being the "key master" of the group without having that kind of complete control over it?

At this point this game is old enough that I don't really think they would ever bother to dedicate a new server for a different language. If anything, before the end of this game's lifetime, I'd expect to see them consolidate the number of servers, not increase them.

But clearly there's a growing number of people in the U.S. who are Spanish speaking, and I would expect that in the future of the MMO industry it would make sense that games would consider offering Spanish based servers to their players as a common practice.

Basically I think you have a good idea for future games.
I just don't see it happening for this game based on the current cost/need factors.

P.S. It's actually kind of ironic that you mentioned having players do the "grunt work" of translating the text of the game for the Devs. This game has so many English grammar and spelling errors that it's needed some proofreading work from English speaking players since Day One.

Beyond what others have said expanding the ignore list size at this point would be pointless. Even if they doubled the list size tomorrow folks like you who are bothering to waste time adding people to their lists would just come back some time in the future with their newly maxed out list asking for more room again. I believe the Devs have better things to work on than this.

Sure RMTers are vaguely annoying. But I have never once bothered to ignore any of them becuase I simply don't allow them to annoy me -that- much. YMMV.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with it is... that some people like it.

If they ever decide to do the huge rewrite that power customization would require, I'm sure this would be part of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's true the lingering FX doesn't "fit" with some of my character concepts.
But I actually like the current FX for my "fire" based characters.

I do know enough people have "hated on" Hasten’s FX over the years that some people have even suggested that the Devs make a new "non-FX" version of Hasten in a similar fashion to the way they made the Prestige Sprint powers. The net result would be two identical powers which only differed by whether they had FX or not. Naturally the Devs could limit it so a character could only ever have one version of this power per build.

The problem with that "solution" is that once the Devs went down the slippery slope of making multiple FX versions of one power then people would start requesting different versions of other powers. It would end up being a convoluted form of Power Customization via having multiple hardwired versions of every power in existence. It'd be an implementation nightmare for the Devs.

I think until the Devs ever give us "real" Power Customization we are going to have to be stuck with the one version of Hasten we have. *shrugs*

[ QUOTE ]
So people are using arc ratings as a new form of PvP? That's a little sad....

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly I started seeing the term "badge PvP" thrown around sometime back during the I14 beta.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has been driving the folks trying to get the "Evaluator/Reviewer/Critic/Judge/Two Thumbs Up" line of badges crazy because even if you manage to start a HoF arc if it gets downvoted before you finish it it doesn't count for the badges.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not true, but it does make it impossible to farm for the higher of those badges.

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't bothered to 'farm' for those yet so I was going on what I've been told about it second-hand.
Frankly I'm waiting for a "fix" to this before I beat my head against that wall.

My main point (as you yourself agreed with) was that the current way the system works is in fact making things difficult for badgers. Even if a started HoF arc DOES count for the badges it seems to be very difficult to find one to run in the first place.

Yeah as I understand it there have been HoF arcs bouncing in and out for many weeks now.

It has been driving the folks trying to get the "Evaluator/Reviewer/Critic/Judge/Two Thumbs Up" line of badges crazy because even if you manage to start a HoF arc if it gets downvoted before you finish it it doesn't count for the badges.

The system involved with HoF ranking definitely needs to be revised in some way. They probably ought to put a timer on when an arc makes it to the HoF so that regardless of voting it stays as a HoF arc for at least 24 hours or some such.

Well I guess my main point (and the one I think posters like Eisregen were alluding to as well) is that it doesn't really bother me that there are perhaps a few enemy types in this game that are relatively "annoying" or difficult for any given powerset/AT combo. If there was absolutely nothing in this game that made a given character of mine have to 'worry' about them then it would be a mighty boring game.

I think critter types like the Council Marksmen should only be changed if EVERYONE universally has a problem with them. I'm quite sure there are plenty of powerset/AT types out there who don't even consider them a mild annoyance much less one than needs to be nerfed.

As far as Khelds go you supposedly played this game long enough to get a level 50 character before you have a Kheld. If you can't figure out how to tactically handle a situation with a bunch of Quants and Voids then that's not really the Devs' fault. The relative difficultly Khelds have is supposed to be your "reward" for being an experienced player. So called "epic" ATs aren't meant to be easy, they are meant to provide an "epic" level challenge for their players. Frankly I thought it was sad when the Devs nerfed that challenge.

Remember even Superman has his Kryptonite.

Well honestly I've probably run 100s (if not 1000s) of Council missions both solo and on teams and these Marksmen have never bothered me enough (running all kinds of ATs) to even notice an undue annoyance from them in the slightest.

To compare Council Marksmen to Malta Sappers is like comparing the annoyance levels of a mosquito to an atom bomb. I suppose there are just maybe like 93 other things that annoy me more when I'm fighting them than these guys. *shrugs*

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like you found a piece of paper to your rock.

[/ QUOTE ]
A few years ago a "scrapper driver" suggested that Rularuu Overseers ought to be nerfed because they were apparently the only critters that actually gave him a challenge or some such. It was almost as if he was personally outraged that the Devs would put in an enemy that he'd actually have to "worry" about.

I personally don't think there are any challenges in this game that are "tough" enough to have to be limited any further than they already are. I didn't even think the original Quants and Voids were that hard against Khelds, but I suppose my definition of what's hard seems to be set at a higher standard than others...

While I like your suggestion it has not only been suggested before (in various other versions of the general idea) but I sadly think it would be a virtual miracle for the Devs to regear this game to allow for it. This is the kind of suggestion that makes more sense for a "CoH2" if that's ever going to happen.

As far as this game is concerned I'd be satisfied if the Devs allowed players to submit candidate artwork for the Rescuer, Clothes Horse, Fashionable and Ostentatious badges because those badges have lingered for YEARS without proper artwork. At this point it seems the only way those badges will be done is if eager players do the work for them ourselves. *shrugs*

[ QUOTE ]
I've actually never seen anyone on Virtue with more than 300. So, pardon me for thinking that these won't have a high collection rate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah where do they hide those silly badgers on Virtue *looks down at her own sig lines*

Anyway I've never really been a serious fan of those "badges for badges earned" type badges. They always seemed a little artificial/metagamey to me somehow even before things like Vet badges. Now-a-days there are a lot of reasons why they aren't all that significant anymore. For instance when I create new characters I get the first 2 automatically (for 10 and 25 badges respectively) and the 3rd one (for 50 badges) is only minutes away if I decide to collect a few Explore badges. *shrugs*

I could almost see a justification for maybe adding new ones at say the 500 and/or 1,000 badge marks. But to be perfectly honest if the Devs -never- add any new ones like that I wouldn't really mind all that much.

[ QUOTE ]
From PM from BABs awhile back:
[ QUOTE ]
I will ask about making a costume change emote that uses the same animation and FX as Dwarf and Nova form toggles.

[/ QUOTE ]

From I15 info:
[ QUOTE ]
New Costume Change Emotes*
Peacebringer Transform (Kheldian's only)
Warshade Transform (Kheldian's only)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wohooo! Thanks BABs!

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to be too picky but do we know these "Kheldian's only" costume change emotes are the exact same thing as what BAB was talking about yet? It's possible these CC emotes actually offer NEW animations, not just recycled ones. I'm sure they'll be cool either way, but until I see them I'm not going to assume anything about them. *shrugs*

Hopefully they will release vids of them soon like they did for the Magic Booster Pack CC emotes.