Memphis_Bill

I'd rather have the reminder system overhauled. I dont' care that it's paid and will be due - I don't have to budget for it. I want to know when the rent's finally due, sure. And when the lights will go out.

(Side note, I'd also like to see the infres conversion rate looked at. It's pitiful - then again, with people making "billions" on the market and via purple/PVP IOs, I'm sure some would consider it "just fine" since it can act as an INF sink - ignoring, of course, that it seems almost nobody uses it because the rate's so bad.)

Sounds interesting, and a better update than some.

Add the occasional "go inside and help" somehow, as well. *shrug*

The only thing I'm not particularly fond of is the AV and prisoners. I don't find Scrapyard *all* that fun - well, other than on my plant/thorn, from the masses of scrapyarders. Not all that sure about having EBs come along to help, either.

Wouldn't argue with having the flyer, and the occasional EB rampage. The AV, I think I'd go for some sort of trigger event - either that or have them exclusive. If an EB is still out causing trouble, the AV won't show. If the AV's out, no flyer. (Potentially.) Just to keep it somewhat mixed up (as opposed, again, to the "Eternally spawning Scrapyard.")

Generally, though, sure, sounds fun.

And why, precisely, does Teleport need an attack power, or TP foe need to be "an attack" - other than "everyone else has one?" (Which, IMHO isn't a very strong reason.)

Don't get me wrong, I think the disorient portion on a successful TP Foe makes sense - moreso than having them show up, weapon ready and firing at you. I just don't particularly see the need for it being an *attack* as well (when, likely, it would mean something else about the power being reduced.)

First 50, an elec/elec blaster, I'm pretty sure stayed on Heroic. Of course, that was also when we had big content gaps, no newspapers, no Croatoa... 500-some hours.

I tend to bump mine up these days.

First, OP, drop the attitude. Unless you *like* getting it back.

Second, I may be ignoring you because I'm logging out and have 5 seconds to go. I'm not stopping that to type a reply. I may be doing massive base editing. I may just not see your tell. I work from home, and sometimes have COH running for times there are long pauses with nothing to do - and sit inside a mission not seeing anything for an hour between those slow times.

And yes, I *am* one of those who ask for an invite first. If a polite refusal gets your panties in such a twist, too bad. Just because I ask for an invite first does not mean I'm under any obligation to accept said invitation. You don't pay my subscription, I don't have to sit for X hours a day waiting for you to show up for the "pleasure" of teaming with you. I don't have to tell my family "Sorry, can't go to dinner, just got an invite to team from someone I don't know." I may actually BE playing with my friends/SG mates - imagine that, actually telling the truth with one of the very lines you're whining about. Hell, I may just not want to team at that particular moment. I play with a variety of people - including one who has a four month old baby. Think she might, possibly, have to go AFK, log out, etc. suddenly? Oh, look, another reason to turn your invite down.

You want people to team with you? Make sure the attitude you show in game is NOT what you're showing here. Get a core group that plays at the same time, and add PUGers to that (or not.) But I'll tell ya, from what I'm reading from you right now? If I saw an invite pop up from you, it'd be a fast /ignore in return. I prefer *enjoying* my gaming time, and you're sure not sounding particularly enjoyable to team with.

Just a few points -

I wouldn't argue with this, in general. A few random meandering thoughts, however -

1. If this solves the "teleporter shuffle," I'm *all* for it. (By which I mean, you have the Prestige for the next highest room up, but not the space. You can delete the teleporter rooms, of course, but without someplace to put the porters - or any built, or in-use storage object, for something harder to replace - it's a bit frustrating since you have to rebuild them. (And for something like, oh, a salvage bin or enhancement bin, you can't "rebuild" what's in there.) Being able to put down a design and have it just *switch* to it would be nice.

2. There would have to be some indication of power/control, of course (given it's an offline version, it should be able to simulate and calculate the usage anyway) as well as pricing.

3. Using it online within the mission builder wouldn't be bad. Just call it a base editor upgrade.

4. I can, potentially, see it causing some angst in some groups - just like the superleader did, though that seemed to die off quickly. OTOH, there's been the occasional "Architect rank" (which would have to take your "Builder" title, or "Base architect" title) thrown around, which I wouldn't argue with seeing. It should also be able to be opened up to multiple people - if nothing else, for the sake of alts.

5. I don't really see a reason to restrict it to active accounts. It could be a sales "hook" - and unlike the costume editor, I can't see issues with copying "copyrighted bases."

6. <nitpick> The game can handle larger file extensions. (See .customvillaingroup, .storyarc.) For clarity, why not just use .baseblueprint or .blueprint or something similar? Less likely that it'll be hijacked by another program that way.

Not going to fiddle with numbers and percentages, as there are others far more mathematically inclined (to say that's too much or too little, too often or too rare.)

We know the devs have mentioned looking at ways of improving 50s without touching the level cap. These, in general, sound like they may be right in line with that sort of planning. The only one I'd be wary of at first read through is picking one of any power, even once, to have as an inherent. Just a sense that could be... troublesome.

First, dismissing any argument against your idea before it comes is a lazy, poor way to argue. If you don't believe your idea has any flaws that can be pointed out other than "it's always been that way, don't change," you haven't thought it through very well. There are solid reasons, in this case, for maintaining the status quo.

Second, for your example - and yes, this is nitpicky, but if you're going to use an example, use it properly. THe Wright Flyer - the actual name of the aircraft - had two, not three wings, one motor, two propellers, and just barely flew. We do not call aircraft "Wright Flyers." On the other side, we do not refer to all aircraft as "Jets," as that is incorrect. A jet is a subset of the vehicle type "Aircraft," as is "Glider," which has no propulsion of any sort, "Ultralight," "Propeller driven" (some of which use turbojets, some of which use radial or in line engines - or more esoteric solar or other power plants,) "Blimp" and such. All of these are variations of aircraft. Airplanes are subsets of aircraft, jets are subjets of airplanes, and you can get more picky such as ramjet, scramjet, turbojet, turboprop, axial or centrifugal flow, with or without afterburner, super, sub, or hypersonic, and so forth. However, they are all still "Aircraft."

On the flip side of that, Boeing just recently sold its 6000th 737 model airliner. It has had massive improvements throughout the years, but all civilian models carry the 737 moniker. THey have sub-versions (the 737-500, 600, and IIRC 700 all being considered "next generation" versions of the 737.) Why do they do this? Partially from brand recognition and model recognition - but partially to show improvement and variations.

I'll also point out that authors have done this in reverse - Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman - specifically to "break" his branding. Part of it was due to publisher limits, and part of it was to see how a non-"Stephen King" book would do ("talent or luck," as I recall.)

Similarly, we've had two "models" - City of Heroes, and City of Villains. These have ended up being combined into a ... let's call it "slashed" City of Heroes/City of Villains. All releases since COV have been "sub-versions," keeping the known, recognized branding - City of Heroes Good vs Evil edition, City of Heroes Mac Edition, City of Heroes Architect Edition, and coming up, City of Heroes: Going Rogue.

If you just saw a box on the shelf that said, say, "Architect," would you have ANY inkling - short of having visited the site - that that was a City of Heroes product at first glance? The City Of... branding ties the entire franchise together.

For that reason, no, the City Of franchise does not need renaming.

Directly against your proposals?
- Rogues. What about those not purchasing COH: Going Rogue? What about those whose heroes (or villains) cannot be classified as a "rogue?"

- City of Heroes and Villains. It's technically wrong, as there's no one city. In fact, with GR, there are three.

- City of Rogues. Again, it's technically incorrect, and doesn't really describe what GR is about - it's not a "city of rogues," but the process of "going rogue" - breaking out of the defined role to change (fall/redeem.)

- Heroes and Villains, and WOrld Of - This is just... eh.

I realize those were just thrown out there - but why break the brand and marketing when it's got five years of solid history behind it and is easily recognizable?