Memphis_Bill

You mean other than, oh, having more added into the game itself (references from Bocor, the "eye of Horus" by the tanker,) and having a player bio from a contest changed to match as well?

See that "EAT at WW's" in the sig? I tend to try to keep track of what happens with Epics. What we DO have about them is in there, as well as the (very) little about Coralax, and the confirmed dead EATs.

And "Lore bible" does not mean "We have every bit written up as it's going to be unveiled from now to I50, every bit of dialog, every interrelationship." Manticore, I believe, gave us a "peek" at it for one of the existing groups - it's rather sparse, but just given the number of groups (and how they've developed the storyline - I'm sure they have items in there about the unused groups that were listed in the early promo vid, even if it's just an entry) it would have to be "thick" (as much as a computer file/s could be.)

Eh, I'd argue that. The Incarnate mission doesn't really deal with PI, the "Hero's Epic" (which, IMHO, is worse than what it replaced, as it DOES kind of kick you down to second-string status) is really the only thing in PI. 50s run around in the RWZ, they may pop into Atlas to get to RV... The WWs are in the actual hub zones.

Personally, I'd rather see a way to access them from the base, or even get a temp power at some ww-badge-level that lets you access it remotely.

/this.

The only thing it really had going for it before was Silver Mantis, and that was redside only. Now... is it needed for CoP? Still, making it usable overall instead of for one single mass raid type TF would be nice. (Never have done the CoP, don't really plan to.)

Maybe for mobs, but I wouldn't argue with seeing it as a TF reward if you've got the Alpha (and later) slot unlocked, regardless of TF - 1-4 depending, like other rewards, on how long the TF tends to take (and if it's farmed.)

Mostly this... I'm not too fond of the whole "fate of the jedi" bit. The series is just *weak,* though it does do some factional development. Then again, I'm at the point where (a) I want some of these writers to just go away, and (b) Luke, Han, leia, etc. need to just die off already. I'm expecting, 3-4 books from now, to hear "Luke got up from his hoverchair and slowly started chasing after Ben with his light-cane before going out to the balcony and yelling, at the top of his Force-enhanced voice, "Get off my lawn!" to the rest of Coruscant."

Death Star wasn't bad, I rather liked the trio of Bane novels, Millenium Falcon stank on ice.

Fortunately, we're getting more "very-pre-ANH" stuff coming out. I want them to go back farther with the novels (and not have to try to find the Dark Horse comics.) But then again, I like backstory. *shrug*

This is an (exceptionally annoying) bug that's been active for a bit. Don't dismiss them. Use /releasepets, then resummon/rebuff.

What gets me is you say this (rather snarkily) yet, you took a screenshot and highlighted it - and didn't bother looking at the little tab:

"Hide recipes missing ingredients." Highlight? Hell, the stuff you're missing things for *won't show up at all* with that selected.

So, "Wish granted," I suppose.

Only?

>.>

I haven't had one say they were in years. And the ones actually aware of that option and interested, for whatever reason, in doing so (given so many of the reasons - like debt payoff, with debt meaning nothing, or trying to get a low level mission, not needed now that we have Ouro are gone) tend to actually say that's what they're looking for.

I'd suggested doing something similar with the (generally dead) Arenas some time ago, as well. Keep everything internal to the avatar, perhaps giving that avatar extra choices on the reward menu because they can't go to wentworths/get vanguard merits/do holiday events (they'd be able to purchase specific IOs directly if they had enough tickets.)

There's prioritizing and - believe it or not - completely skipping buffs (depending on what they are) on some people. The people who complain about "having such a chore rebuffing" typically paint it like you have to give *everyone* every single buff every single time it comes up and that there's no time to do anything else. And that's just not true.

However, I'm backing off on this line of argument, as what I have in mind isn't something easily coded around (but see the "list" later.) Namely that some people are going to "have to" keep buffs up at full strength (duration) all the time, and enough potential teammates that are going to freak at them not being up - but that's player psychology more than code or power related. That will still be a minus for some, especially as they'll be burning the END more frequently (which likely won't endear them all that much more to the buffing sets.)

Right. You go on believing that. I don't defend the status quo just for the sake of doing so. I argue from the standpoint of it being known, and bring up the downsides (and, on occasion, reinforce the upsides or offer refinements) compared to *what we have now.* Those may *be* concerns related to how the devs have handled prior adjustments (again, "you don't get something for nothing" in most instances.) And I *am* going to bring those up, as a caution if nothing else.

Ahh. OK. Mea culpa there. Which eases a couple of concerns.

And with what you said earlier in this particular reply, that makes me lean a bit more toward the duration stacking - with "DR" in. I would, however, want to see two things (with a repeated call for a third: )

1. A warning as you get close to the DR limit. Let's call it, using FF, 3 bubbles, 10 minutes. I'd think of it with a color change on the buff icons, or a ring or something letting you know just where along the duration line you are.

2. Applying (for instance) a fourth bubble behaves just like trying to apply a second Mystic Fortune to someone - "Invalid," the power isn't fired off, END is not used until there's a "duration space" available. (This actually covers one of *my* concerns of END use, which is more a player psychology issue.)

3. Being able to see *only* the buffs you're giving - so you're not trying to reapply on someone else's buffs. That's been asked for for years.

Of course, all this brings another issue (at least if 3 isn't handled) of the UI clutter the game's had growing - but that's a whole other subject.

...

You're *not* seriously saying that. Yes, the overall goal was "revisit dominators" - specifically to remove the (again, Castle's description among others) "Jeckyll and Hyde" play of being in vs being out of Domination.

Without removing the damage buff from Domination, the powers that *did* get damage boosts would not have. Nor would the damage scales overall have been adjusted. Some powers (such as Psychic Shockwave) would have been looked at anyway - actually, the entire Psy set would have been due to be looked at, from the experience of "The set sucks until 38, then it's a monster" that it used to have.

They wouldn't have done all they did and left that damage boost in Domination, short of a massive bout of self-inflicted head trauma.

"A" change perhaps could. Your change and the OP's proposals, however, don't lead me to believe that they would. Something you seem to refuse to believe.

I've shown prior examples of changes impacting set popularity. You seem to think saying "Or it could go better!" is somehow an appropriate rebuttal while giving *nothing* to back that up. This change isn't even one needed by an underperforming set or AT (such as Blaster "Defiance 2.0," Electric and Energy auras getting a heal added, or Stalkers getting an END-cost-free Hide,) just one of *some* people not liking buffing.

Oh, and as for your "DR" answer - all that does is (a) put off rebuffing, and (b) exacerbate the problem for those that don't like the current buff mechanics, as now every 10 minutes they "have" to rebuff *even more,* burning *even more* END for less of a result (with your example numbers, 10 minutes at 3 stacked, versus 12 minutes applied currently, assuming they drop that way and don't require MORE buff "rounds" to get there - and with less END to attack/control immediately after a buffing "round.") Doesn't sound like an improvement. Given that the point of this is "Buffing less often," you end up buffing *even more often* instead, and if you want the team to wait for you, you slow everyone down as you apply these 3-4 times... increasing the mission length and possibly leading to *yet another* buffing round. And breaking it so pets can't get increased duration "breaks" that buffing cycle, as well as being unfair to Controllers and Masterminds (especially Masterminds, or have you forgotten them?)

I'm sure you'll put this off as another attack, or "jumping down your throat," but all the ideas you and Jordan have put out there have problems that make them *less* than optimal compared to the status quo.

With multiple statements like you've made, yes, I *do* question if you're reading this correctly, or if English isn't your first language. That isn't an insult. For instance, it isn't Samuel_Tow's, so if he seems to misunderstand something or phrase something oddly, I *know* that and will phrase it differently. There are some here who are dyslexic. They get cut some slack.

You're making weird statements, odd phrasing choices, and seem to be having issues with following what's being said. Therefore, yes, I *will* say that to bring up that you don't seem to be reading what's being said.

And no, "You're jumping down my throat" is not an insult. It does, however, imply I'm attacking you in some way, which I haven't been. You take quite a few things as attacks that aren't. Leading, again, to wondering if you're actually reading what's being read or if there's a language or cultural difference.

See above.

And those powers were brought down. Also, yes, damage was *generally* increased to change the "Jeckyl and Hyde" feeling of Domination being up or down. however, if you go back and read the patch notes, you'll see mulitple powers had recharge times and/or endurance cost INcreased to compensate. (I hardly think anyone will call Zapp overpowered, for instance, yet its recharge time and END cost were incrased.)

Thus, "You don't just get one thing without something else being affected."

You *don't* believe that - using your suggestion, stacking your buff (say) six times for twenty-four minutes of END FREE, MAINTENANCE FREE defense or resistance (most shielding sets) - which would last if the caster died, the target ran out of END, etc. - would NOT result in a reduction of buff strength?

It's things like that that make me ask if you've actually thought these through.

You're asking for something for nothing. A change of this nature would just flat out not happen that way. You're saying that makes "no sense?" Really? Go back, read patch notes, and take into consideration WHY certain changes were made.

Pointing out that, like above, you're NOT using common sense when you say "oh, there'd be no reason for a nerf to these powers with this change."
Perhaps you should look up what that means.
And yet you're saying "Don't take away my buffers." Which, given the status quo shows people willingly and happily PLAYING such characters, would not happen if no change were made. Making the changes suggested in this thread now presents the negatives brought up throughout the discussion. Do you *really* think that there'd suddenly be an *influx* of people wanting to play buffers, or that people would just ignore the nerf (which is what would be included for this change in ability) that gets applied to their characters?

Prior experience (see: EM characters getting shelved post-Energy Transfer change, PVP builds getting dropped, PVP based characters being rerolled/deleted after I13, just for a few references) tends to indicate there would be fewer buffers AFTERWARD, given commonsense expectations of what the devs would likely do to balance those changes, than there are now. Thus, the OP's changes or your changes would be the ones "taking away your buffers." (That, I can guarantee, as my *many* buffers would be shelved or moved to solo-only builds where I don't have to worry about it.)

How is that difficult to understand?

If the OP quit playing Kinetics, it would be under normal "try and liked/didn't like" circumstances, the same as has been true from the game's beginning. I've never said "Nobody who plays a buffer has ever quit because they didn't like/get the playstyle." Just like people try Blasters and don't like them, or play Stalkers and don't like them, or play Masterminds and don't like them, or don't like specific powersets after trying them. There's no great revelation that people quit playing some characters after some experience with them. Don't try to play that off like it's some new phenomenon, or even a semi-realistic counterpoint to what I said. Some people not liking it and quitting is *still* a part of the status quo. Making a change that nerfs characters and makes more people shelve them? That is NOT.

I'll reply with "You can limit your search to appropriate level ranges - which I'm not in - by..." and give them a quick rundown of what to do. Similar to seeing "Level 35 xyz lft" in Atlas - I'll quietly point them at the appropriate zones. A search 2-3 minutes later will tend to show them in the right place.

If they get snippy back, well, then things can get interesting. Or not, if I choose to just one-star them and throw them on ignore.

Brings up a whole *other* issue.

Either the current buffing sets would be changed (which I'm quite obviously against,) or you'd essentially have to create completely new sets that duplicate the *same* functionality (and are rebalanced however they'd need to be) just for the new buff styles.

Alternately, going through and creating an entirely new system - and I'd imagine it'd have to be even more in depth (not to mention complex) than just alternate animations - to allow alternate *powers* to be selected would have to be created. If such a system could even be supported by the game.

As far as your "multi-buff," it still has the issues involved with AOE buffs (catching people who don't want it, missing those who do, something I can take care of with single buffs,) and if I'm recalling discussions back when MM pets got THEIR buff changed to one, there's not a way of tracking how many pets/players/etc are getting the buff applied to them. If there were, I'd imagine it would have been applied to the MM AOE upgrades already (as it would make sense to - lower cost for low-level masterminds with only 1-3 pets, higher cost for those with six but who are better equipped, through powers, slotting, and larger enhancement trays, to deal with the END cost.)

When you don't seem to be comprehending what is being said, then no, it's a fair point to bring up.
Really... strange, as I'm not the one claiming anyone's "jumping down my throat."

And the idea in the OP and elsewhere in the thread is a bad one, and I'm going to point out why it's bad. Something I've done in a non-hostile way - at least, non-hostile seeming to everyone but you.
See, there you go again.

And again I have to question your own comprehension - this time of what you wrote - or wonder if English is perhaps not your first language, as *my* doing any jumping would hardly be exercise for *you.* The statement makes no sense.
There are *very* few times that one thing is given without another being rebalanced or taken away. Hide losing its END cost is a rarity in dev actions, for instance, and that was solely because that power is so *integral* to Stalkers, a cornerstone of the AT. Inherent fitness, in a way, is balanced by *not* giving in to requests for extra slots. When Dominators were buffed, some powers were brought *down* (and IIRC END cost was increased in general) as a point of balance.

All you need to do is pay the *slightest* bit of attention to prior dev actions, and apply a bit of common sense instead of "well, they'd just give me this."
Unless, oh, I have *most of the history of the game's various power changes* to back up that point.

Let's see. As suggested, it's a toggle. It's a toggle that brings benefit to the *entire team,* and removes the prior balance (have to track down that dev quote) of time and duration.

Now, do you *really* think that would cost no END? Or an unnoticable amount, when putting them on *now* can cost a chunk of END? Then just imagine putting it on a team of 8. 7 other people. Likely your own pet, if you're a controller. And maintaining that while trying to run OTHER toggles (Dispersion bubble, for instance) or apply other buffs, AND attack/use controls/etc.

Apply a little common sense.
You seem to be pushing your own by assuming hostility where there is none.
Your actions don't support this.
I replied to it. There was some back and forth. I'm not convinced there's a problem *now* that anyone else's solution wouldn't be *worse* than.

I'm "taking away your buffers?" What odd twist of pseudologic brought you to that conclusion? People play buffers now. People ENJOY playing buffers now. Maintaining the status quo, logically, would mean there would STILL be people playing and *enjoying* playing buffers. Making any of the changes mentioned here, with the issues brought up *against* them, WOULD reduce the number of buffers. I can say that by fact, because if (a) I'm unable to use my attacks/controls to the fullest because of the new END drain of maintaining 2-14 buffs (2 shields per teammate, 1-7 teammates,) or (b) I'm getting told not to play (given prior PUG experience, I'm HIGHLY confident this would not be an unusual occurence,) my buffers would be shelved, or reworked in some instances to solo-only builds.

/this.

And have them verify the email address while they're there. If your friend just stopped playing for a while (not "after arguing with someone," not "after running AE farms 50 times a day," but just "got bored and left for a while,") it's possible the account itself got hijacked and used for nefarious purposes.

And thank your friend. I don't get to use the word nefarious very often.

*nod*

I don't recall seeing any on Virtue even. I may have missed them, I'm completely open to that, but the only place I see them at all is on Freedom.

Given how rarely I play on Freedom (for multiple reasons,) I thought these guys were a COH urban legend.

Solution:

Don't play on Freedom.

No, I'm not joking (much.) That's the only place I've seen gold spammers in WW. Pinn, Vict, Guardian, everywhere else - not a single one in sight. Hop on Freedom to pay for that base's rent and check the market - Inf spammer.

Hmm. I seem to have done that earlier.

Again, perhaps you should take your own advice about just jumping in.

No, responding to you, who obviously has a problem comprehending things that are written, seems to be a waste of time. Counter points are given, I put my own counters to them. It's called a "Discussion."

No, you're just trying to tell me not to reply if I have no counter "suggestion." Again, mine is - leave it as is, and if the gameplay doesn't appeal to you, either make binds/arrange powers to speed the process or don't play that sort of character.

This is not "picking a fight." I'm counterarguing, and you're not reading or not comprehending.
What does this even mean? Or are you trying, in your own words, to pick a fight?

Especially if someone decides not to bother actually reading what's been said. Or just ignore it, as you did when I pointed out that your "stacking" duration - something that doesn't exist in game - would likely lead to a reduction in buff effectiveness, increased END cost, and/or some other adjustment to compensate.


Again, your lack of comprehension. That is not what was said. Nowhere was this referred to as a "waste of time" - except by you. It was said that (a) the implementation (at that point) sounded half finished and that (b) it would be like AE and PVP in that it did (and does) end up requiring more dev time. Nowhere in there was the phrase "waste of time" or anything similar used, nor was such an implication made.

If ANYONE is using that comparison to derail the thread, it's you by repeatedly bringing it up. Like in response to the series of quotes that had NOTHING to do with either subject.

Really shouldn't post while looking at a mirror, should you.