Memphis_Bill

Make alts anyway. Level one on Freedom. See if it's for you before spending the money. (Pinnacle's better, by the way. *cough.*)

Sort of "Try before you buy." (If you buy.)

ugh. I despise kaspersky. Such a PITA.

You do. For fighting the appropriate enemies, you get a chance at a purple recipe. "Feeling like" you should get something doesn't entitle you to it.

OK. You say you play rarely. (Weekends/evenings.) I don't know what it comes to in hours for you. IF we worked out the "drops/hours" for your 50s and mine, it's possible you - with those *two* recipes - are getting them more frequently than me.

The *time* you've played the game has nothing to do with "deserving" a purple recipe or PVP IO. If that were the case, I'd wait on leveling up my Spine/Inv Scrapper some more (made very early - Issue 3 - and still only in the mid 30s) until it took him long enough I'd be showered with purples on hitting 50.

Doesn't work that way.

Few if anybody does that. Go visit the market section. Learn to "casually make billions." (Note, I do not have "billions." If I combine all the INF on all 290-some characters, I have billions, yes. But I'm not speaking from a "rich character" standpoint. My 50s average under 100 million each, usually closer to 60m tops, when they hit 50.)

Which is why merits were introduced. To give you an alternate way of getting them - either directly (save up, or run multiple characters with multiple tips to get merits to buy multiple recipes at the same time) or indirectly (use fewer merits to buy high-priced recipes, put recipes on the market, use that INF to buy the recipe.)

One server. Used to be I could step into Bloody Bay or Siren's on most servers and at least run into another person - and quite often have a decent fight going within a few minutes.

I agree the *intent* was right (bring others into PVP, address some of the longer standing complaints.) The execution was horribly flawed.

If they're in the trial, they're not in the actual zone, so no. If you search without a zone, they'll be "On mission map."

I'm not big on having the raids - but I'll run them. They're fast.

I'll continue arguing for Incarnate level task forces and soloable content, as well. Supposedly they're looking into it, but - well, we'll see.

However, I disagree the solo/small group play has become an afterthought. We HAVE had missions and TFs added to the game - Sutter and Kai don't take long to do (or require a big group,) and we have had other content added. (After all, unlocking Incarnate abilities can be done solo - so can earning shards, though it's slow. Yes, I know about the conversion costs, and that's another thing I argue for changing.)

Ideally, by this time next year (yes, I know) we'll have:

- Multiple raids similar to what we have now (30 min. or so.) Enough to rotate and prevent burnout.
- Multiple TF (4-6 person) that are Incarnate-appropriate
- A fair number of Incarnate-appropriate story arcs that actually have, oh, storyline behind them (versus the "go hit stuff" raids,)
- New content that has absolutely nothing to do with Praetoria.

... and I'd like a pony.

(And if you've read any other recent posts of mine, you know how wary I am of the dev team actually *continuing* to pay attention to this. I've compared them to a dog in a room full of bouncing rubber balls, easily distracted from what they were just chasing. I still feel that way.)

Yep. And try to catch Duck when he's running the trials. They go smoothly.

Pinnacle - usually RWZ, though I have seen a few PD. Madame Pistachio is excellent at leading them. (Pretty sure she's Pinn... or vict.)

Victory seems to swing back and forth between RWZ and PD.

Generally, I just bring up the team search and look for the largest concentration of 50s.

Mine is!

You #&*#&^!!!





That said, no, I don't agree with it - and actually see the "Limited trial-like access to your old account" as more of a *dis*incentive to come back. ("What do you mean I can't play my 50/use the market/use my SG/etc?!")

Fortunately, they are not required. Some of the purple sets don't even have particularly useful bonuses - decent size, yes, but not useful.

Take the advice others have made time and time again - there are plenty of 1-2 A-merit recipes that sell quite nicely. Make some of those, and purchase what you want (note, not need) with the profits.

And there's your problem. You're not "entitled" to them. You have the same chance of them dropping as everyone else. After 5 years of playing, you're entitled to everything from the three month to the 5 year veteran rewards, and they are awarded automatically.


Again. They're not required. I've gone months at a time without them, and I've had three drop over the course of two missions. Random is random.

You're one of the very few. Most people feel it destroyed the small PVP community - and if they were actually good changes, others would have replaced those who left. Yet, I go into zones or the arena and it's as dead as Dark Astoria.

Agreed, the rewards need to be updated (an SO? An inspiration? Really?) But...
No. It'd be farmed so fast it'd make the AE 1-50 farms look ridiculous. 400 rep doesn't take that long.

If there was another "not as rare" set of PVP IOs, perhaps. Other rewards, sure. "Roll the dice" on an IO at 800 or higher where you MIGHT get one, maybe. But just "Turn in at 400 rep?" No. (Bounty also needs looking into in SC. And the SSK "+5 levels worth of powers" needs to be removed from PVP zones. And - well, see all the complaints since I13.)

Doesn't look "torn apart" to me.

... which puts you on a league so you can go onto the raid. You did not go in solo. You were automatically added to a league.

Go ahead. Try to enter the BAF without ever having to have anyone else doing so. Can you walk into the BAF like you can Faultline?

No?

Imagine that. Looks like you can't enter the trial solo. You MUST be attached, either beforehand or via the LFG tool, to a league - and can be kicked at the league leader's discretion.

You assume much. And are incorrect in the assumption.

I could, for instance, want to run an all-Controller BAF. We get 14 people. We go in and a scrapper joins. I, obviously kick him.

Yeah, that's OBVIOUSLY "because I don't want to team with outsiders or people I don't know."

Or, as I've seen quite a few of, maybe they're trying for a MOTrial and only want level-shifted characters. A non-level-shifted character comes in via queue. *kick*

OBVIOUSLY because they don't want outsiders or people they don't know - even though they may not know everyone else who is level shifted.

You try to assume, but all you do is make yourself look like you lost your "ume."


Perhaps you have trouble getting onto teams with the *sterling* personality you evidence here, but people do not kick people "because they are jerks." Are some people jerks? Sure. Is that what causes everyone who's ever kicked someone to do so? No.

That depends on the situation.

If my boss comes up to me and says "I have to fire one of two people. You're not one of them. Neither have done anything wrong, we just have to reduce headcount," I don't have a lot of choice (other than quitting myself.) But how often does that happen?

However, this is a game. Being kicked from a team you were dropped into with no real control of either yours or the team leader is not "punishment." Kicking someone from the team is not "punishing" them. (Barring, again, behavioural reasons.) It may be inconvenient for everyone involved, but it is not punishment.

Personally, I like Wikipedia's definition, specifically for the last sentence, for thoroughness:

See, I read no aggression in that post at all. I see it as being a deliberately absurd counterpoint - that if you're fine with it in game, how fine are you with it in real life? Nobody actually expects you to provide the information, any more than they expect me to show the benefits of the Fire Armor set by lighting myself on fire while other people shoot at me. (Edit: As much as I'm sure some people would want me to do so anyway. *shrug*)

You know - and coming from me, this is quite the statement, I know - I think you need to back off and cool down. You're reading a lot of aggression where there is none. Go relax. Have one of those beers. Take 30. No, can't force you to, not stating it like I have any authority. Just making the suggestion.

I'd also suggest, given this is a public forum, removing your private information. Should you care to PM it to them, go ahead, just don't leave it out publicly.

I'm not painting everyone who wants a private league option as a farmer. You are, with that statement.

And yet you still made an assumption that a "tantrum" (an uncontrolled emotional outburst) was involved, whether from me or "Generic player 9078340938." If that's your expectation of anybody's having to deal with an otherwise unplanned addition to a team, you (non generic you) need to team with better people and/or find better friends to give you better examples.

And for your further information, if I *do* kick someone from a team - even if it's for their own behaviour, such as being rude and obnoxious (say, asking someone if they kick their dog or beat their wife,) I'll do so politely. They'll know why they're getting kicked from a team. No emotion is involved.

What I'm saying is uncalled for is any implication that Flux_Vector (or anyone else) "Kicks their dog or beats their wife." It's rude and uncalled for, and does nothing whatsoever for the conversation.

Again. Be better than that. Be worth listening to. Things like that make you *not.*

If I were ignoring it, I wouldn't be arguing for it to change. I note, as well, that you clipped out the other examples of "Developer intent" that got changed, as well. Inconvenient for you so you ignored it?

Completely uncalled for. Be better than that.

No tantrums.


Perhaps YOU have them. I don't know you. I do not.

Again. Stop assuming. If you're talking wrong, you're doing it from vast experience at this time.

You assume much. And are wrong in doing so.

The quote was dealing with instanced vs non. You missed the point.

I disagree there's any malice whatsoever in most cases. (I can't obviously speak for all cases in which someone is kicked, and wouldn't claim to. People are people, some people are jerks.)

The league leader may, actually, be providing a more positive experience. If the LFG-PUGger wants a rush and the league leader's putting together an RP group, or a group going after some specific goal, or is just going to be engaged in private chatter, that PUGger is going to make *everyones* experience negative - including their own.

Taking a hypothetical but not unreasonable (or, I'd think, uncommon) situation -

There's a group of friends who decide, on Wednesday night, they're playing COH. They want to work on their 50s, so they've got enough people to run a BAF. Not a full 24, but enough to start.

Having an unknown person or three drop in is going to disrupt their conversations - or the unknown persons will be ignored as the group is on Ventrillo or Teamspeak. Or they'll be stuck hearing conversations about private matters, or RP that they have no clue about. (With my regular group, I'll routinely have conversations going that range from wedding plans to "guess what substance came out of the kid this time that I have to clean up, BRB" to - politely putting it - feminine biological matters to school/work... stuff that, no, we don't particularly want a stranger listening in on.)

Is it more acceptable to make *everyone* uncomfortable by keeping those PUGers around, or kick them?

Is there any malice whatsoever in kicking them?

Last but not least, why should there not be tools or settings in place to avoid the situation all together?

It's not, after all, just the league leader and the PUGGer's feelings and comfort zone to consider. It's the other people involved, as well.

And the argument presented is that the tools should be in place to prevent having to make that choice in the first place, by allowing a league to be created privately just as teams can be now.

Quite honestly, I'd completely support the mirror of that, as well - that the (standard) team window should have a choice to "Join any group" automatically with whatever parameters (level, etc.) the person looking to join wants.

The game, elsewhere, allows you to freely create teams, present yourself as available TO team, ignore them completely and/or remove yourself from consideration for teaming (via hide, LFT flags and the like.)

Consistency with this level of consideration and control over the player's teaming elsewhere suggests strongly that it should be in the league interface as well.

We do not have that level. We could avoid ANY suggestions of "malice," "Wasted time" and the like if we did.

You're looking at it from one side only - the side of the kick-ee. WHY should the PUGger's wishes override those of the others in the league? Everyone pays the same (well, the same range depending on price plan, region, etc, but that nitpick aside) for server access. Nobody's $15/mo is more important than anyone else's intrinsically. So why do the wants of that ONE pugger override the desires of my (hypothetical) 12 other people who want to play privately?

You can't tell me that that makes sense. Yet that's what I'm getting from your argument - that kicking that pugger is (your own words) an act of malice, that their "right" to be on that team (because they were placed in it - without any input other than "I'm going to click this button and see what I get") should override the desires of everyone else on the league.

Sorry, I don't buy that. Any more than I buy kicking someone is an act of malice - or that the random PUGger *wants* to be making the other people in the league uncomfortable.

My stance is this -

Adding the flexibility to create a private league would improve both the league and the turnstile system, as well as player experience. The only downside is going to be the time to create, test, and implement it. People that want a private league - for *whatever* reason - will get one, without having to turn anyone away. People who want to create a full league ahead of time and join can still do so, and I suspect this would be the regular case in most instances anyway - with the occasional PUGger added. People who don't care, who will accept teaming with anyone, will still be able to effectively use the turnstile system *just fine,* without getting kicked (short of personality conflicts.)

It would be a superior system to what it is now, and for the sake of player experience all around should be implemented. And yes, would be consistent with the freedom and flexibility elsewhere in the game.

Merely a thought (though it makes sense having just sold some for half price.)

Any word on running the name script? I know it hasn't been done for a while - at least not as of... hmm, when WAS the last time I checked?