Munki

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any idea what the problem is?

[/ QUOTE ] Maybe she has a boyfriend and/or isn't interested in you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, spit my rockstar all over my monitor.

[/ QUOTE ] No problem, I'm useful every once in a while

[ QUOTE ]
Any idea what the problem is?

[/ QUOTE ] Maybe she has a boyfriend and/or isn't interested in you.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you consider a worthwhile flip? As in, for one recipe flipped, how much profit is considered worthwhile? 1 mil? 10? 50?

Just a noob starting to do this wondering. I've been doing about 25 mil per enhancement, selling one or two a day.

[/ QUOTE ] Recently I've been looking at Purple Enhancements that have zero for sale and I'll buy the recipe, craft it, and sell it at a new high price. Been working out for me. Anywhere from 20-80 million profit per enhancement depending how patient I wanna be when I buy the recipe.

[ QUOTE ]
This pretty much. Gamestop employees are judged not by their usefulness, but how many pre-orders, magazine subscriptions, and used titles they can sell. The first because if is effectively a scam, as many stores will not actually hold your copy, keep your pre-order bonuses to themselves unless you hound them (most people will not), and generally operate on the assumption that you will totally forget about your pre-order and give them $5 for effectively nothing.

[/ QUOTE ] So do you have any actual facts or information to back up this claim, or is it just some weird conspiracy theory? I would really like to know, because what you say makes no sense.

Congrats!!

I think something like that would be a good idea as long as there is strict enforcement of rules if a group of people use it to grief.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no draw for the zones other than PVP. The non-PVP content of the PVP zones consists of badges, BB & WB mini-games (which PVPers do not play), and zone missions which are uniform and boring. If the majority of casual-players in the game are going to consider participating, there needs to be more reason to enter the zones and be exposed to it. The monolithic single-purpose mentality of the zones has failed. The model needs to be more along the lines of a mall food store where in someone walks by with other errands in mind and spontaneously thinks "I'd like to have...a Cinnabon @.@". A high level of traffic is critical for that kind of model. Beyond limiting things that actively repel players (see previous points), there needs to be content in the PVP zones which appeals to a broad section of the playerbase for its own sake

[/ QUOTE ]

No.
Remove PvE content from PvP zones altogether. Don't add more, don't make the current options more appealing.

Remove them.

No more missions of any kind.
Remove the XP and drops from any NPC in the zones.
If you want to make a new zone with PvE content that both sides can access, make it a purely PvE zone.


You can't make both sides happy by forcing them to interact.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the nukes and Shivans were taken out of the PvP zones, then I feel they should just be completely removed from the game or made significantly harder to get. Like on the level of the STF or LRSF.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fess up; you made an assumption about the post before you even did more than glance at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. I read a well thought-out post, contianing a lot of creative ideas ... one of which is one I think should never, under any circumstances, happen: being PvP-immune in a PvP zone. In response to that - as I do any time the idea is brought up, no matter by who - I popped out that standard response.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you'd have been better off amending your 'standard response" so it actually makes sense in context.

You're usually a lot smarter about your posts, Pax. I mean that as a compliment, really, even though I disagree with you most of the time. However, I can't help but think you didn't fully comprehend the point and reason for the suggestion. Simply passing it off as a "STUPID IDEA" just makes you come off as a little kid with his fingers in his ears screaming "Can't hear you!!"

Your cut/paste standard response just isn't cutting it one this one. Not to mention the complete irrelevance most of it had.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Booked the day off work. Now who do I level?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them.

Personally, I plan on getting my PB up a few levels and my other goal is to make 250 million influence over the course of that weekend.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, what I find sad is that some people can't wrap their minds around the fact that CoV is a standalone game, because it's thinking that's outside their box.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the evidence for it being a stand alone game?

Even if you only ever bought COV you can still interact with players from COH in the 4 PVP zones, Pocket D and the Arena. That right there shoots any claim that the game is stand alone in the foot.

I'll grant you that it was a marketing goof to give any impression that the game was purely stand alone. It should always have been made clear that it was an expansion for COH that could be played with out buying COH.

But your are deluding yourself by clinging to the claim that COV is or ever has been a stand alone game.

[/ QUOTE ]

That marketing goof gave more than an impression. If I remember correctly it pretty much said it was a stand alone game. Which means the people that joined just because of villains were mislead. Now whether that misleading was intentional or not is completely irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
It was billed, and sold as, an independent game. But the devs now have come out and said it's not, it won't be treated as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a very good point.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let's try this again, while less tired, and after having been humbled on one key complaint that turned out to be false (Heroes and Villains apparently have the same amount of Trial Pool drop options (although I've still never seen villains run Hamidon on my server... very frustrating that)).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody wants to see Heroes get shafted. But a 60/40 balance, or a 75/25 balance, still gives heroes plenty new to do and helps fill the obvious, glaring gaps in CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen you bring up this point before(and I think I agreed with it too initially, I don't now that I've thought about it). Please explain to me how in the world giving about 1/3 of the game's population more content than the other 2/3? How would that make financial success? It seems to me that splitting the content 50/50(even if you don't like the content or how some of the missions are worded, it counts as content), like the have been doing recently, is the best course of action. Now if they do almost half and half then add a feature or two for villains each issue(Epic ATs, a new TF here or there, etc) that would be good for them as well.

But to even suggest that villains get 3 times the new content heroes do is absurd. Please explain to me how that could possibly be a good idea for NC Soft.

[/ QUOTE ]
Simple: More reason to play. Right now, there is half of the game that is being neglected. Even the supposed 50/50 splits really aren't when they are focused entirely on one side with the other side simply given access. Adding new content to CoV, especially now that everyone has access to it, makes CoV more attractive, and gives more reason to actually PLAY it. Plus, it makes those of us who DO favor that side a bit LESS likely to just say "[censored] it" and leave becuase of being neglected.

Villains need more content. Nobody can look at the two games and say otherwise. We have serious gaps in our TFs, we have no trials, we have *ONE* zone path, no options. We are locked into *ONE* story. Heroes have choices. Simply put: More attention NEEDS to be paid to City of Villains to bring it up to speed.

This does not mean making an issue totally dedicated to Villains. heroes should get something every time too. Ideally, EVERY SINGLE ISSUE should be dropping new contacts, new mission arcs etc., even into pre-existing zones. Even if that's not the focus of the issue, it helps everyone to add new content here and there.

But, up to this point, they haven't done that. The devs have a myopic focus every issue, they implement the new tricks and NOTHING ELSE. Hell, it's only been recently that we've been seeing even some new costume options since, HOW long? We could earn them via longevity in I8, we could build pieces in I9, and buy them in I10, but nothing for newly created characters.

These things, these small bits of "fluff" are what makes the games interesting. If I13 turned out to be a 3:1 ratio in the favor of villains, and added some basic fixes, or a new gameplay mechanic, or just simple additions (new missions, new costume pieces, new powersets, or new contacts) to Heroes, you're still getting plenty new to do, and Villains will finally be getting what they NEED.

But, for the last time, the insane notion that CoH needs to be *THE* focus becuase it has the most people only spells the death of CoV, and hurts CoX as a whole for it. Attention is needed most where the content is lacking, NOT where content is already abundant.

Think Field of Dreams. If you build it, they will come.

[/ QUOTE ]

You bring up good points. Upon looking back a few pages and rereading some things it appears that we are both thinking about the same thing. Both should get more content every issue. Villains needs more love and should get some extra attention.

Who knows, we may have been thinking somewhat alike the entire time, we just didn't communicate it well with each other, and for that I take at least half the blame.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody wants to see Heroes get shafted. But a 60/40 balance, or a 75/25 balance, still gives heroes plenty new to do and helps fill the obvious, glaring gaps in CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen you bring up this point before(and I think I agreed with it too initially, I don't now that I've thought about it). Please explain to me how in the world giving about 1/3 of the game's population more content than the other 2/3? How would that make financial success? It seems to me that splitting the content 50/50(even if you don't like the content or how some of the missions are worded, it counts as content), like the have been doing recently, is the best course of action. Now if they do almost half and half then add a feature or two for villains each issue(Epic ATs, a new TF here or there, etc) that would be good for them as well.

But to even suggest that villains get 3 times the new content heroes do is absurd. Please explain to me how that could possibly be a good idea for NC Soft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because everyone has access to both sides now?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but that doesn't mean people will start playing the other faction. Many people will stay with what they know and what's comfortable to them. Keep in mind, I am not saying now, nor have I ever, that heroes should get more content or that it has to be 50/50(I did comment that an even split may be best), I am simply saying that giving the faction that is played the least 3 times the amount of new content is a bad idea and shouldn't be done. What I think would be best is if the split was close to even with the villains side getting a little more new content every issue.

Also: I said the population is about 1/3 villains to 2/3 heroes. I just want to make clear I don't actually know that is the true numbers, just what I've heard estimated before. Looking back I should not have even used those numbers. But I think it is obvious that significantly more people play heroes compared to villains.

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh* That's the thing. You AREN'T making good points. You've demonstrated that you quite frankly don't know what you're talking about. Even if you have the evidence clearly pointed out to you about some major disparity in the game, you IGNORED IT.

So, we ignore you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were done with me.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, you have now entered levels of willful ignorance that makes you no longer worth talking to. Baibai.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice, I like how I bring up points and attempt to rationally discuss this(as have others), and you just to continue to ignore points made, misquote people, take stuff out of context, and then name calling.

This will be my last statement on the matter as I have given my views with very little reasonable discussion back.

They've got equal treatment this year. If all the content doesn't make you happy, sorry that is just the way it goes sometimes. A majority of the income from CoX comes from Hero side, so if one side gets more attention than the other, then it makes perfect business sense for it to be the side worth the most money. [censored] and moan all you want, but as long as you continue to be irrational and lie, then your voice will fall on deaf ears. As the people that matter have better things to do than read your made up accusations, half-truths, and outright lies.

Good job trolling.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i9 was inventions, both sides have access to that and the same chance of any recipe dropping.

[/ QUOTE ]
Villains have almost no access to Pool D (Trial) drops. We have *ONE* trial, and it is almost never run.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well it is there for you to run if you want to. So you do have equal chance at getting that drop.

[ QUOTE ]
Fixing the overwhelming gap of content CoH has over CoV does not mean abandoning CoH, as you seem to think it does.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to split it up 75/25 until villains catch up it would take more than one issue. Anywhere from 2-4 issues is my estimate, just depends how much the larger dev team can crank out. So if you're talking about that kind of split for anywhere from 6-12, then yeah that is a horrid idea. I don't see how that is good business.

[ QUOTE ]
If, by your reasoning, giving CoV extra content is "giving a minority of the game's players an overwhelming majority of new content", then the inverse must be true.


[/ QUOTE ]
I just caught this. You intentionally misquoted me. And you know it. I said, multiple times in fact, that splitting the content close to equally, with the villains getting a little bit more was ok, I even said it was probably a good idea.

I said splitting the content 75/25 was bad. A 3:1 ratio of villains to heroes getting new content is an overwhelming majority.

I'm actually disappointed in you man. You intentionally spun what I said and misquoted me to make it look like I was taking a position I wasn't. Try not making stuff up, people might take you more seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
3 times the content in one issue isn't going to make hero players quit in protest.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. But honestly, I think it would take more than one issue like that for villains to catch up total content wise.

That being said, they were to do one issue like that, then do the rest equal with a few extra things for villains I could see that being a good idea. I just feel it would be a mistake on their part if they went the 75/25 route until villains were completely caught up, as I think it would just take too many issues. Sure there would be [censored] from heroes if it happened the way I just suggested, but they would deal with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think the 75/25 is a bad example to go with. I would rather see 60/40 not as extreme and it would go along way towards evening things out. For example if the next 3 issues were a 60/40 split favoring villains we would see

issue 12 40 points to heroes 60 to villains
issue 13 80 120
issue 14 120 180

is this model were followed villains could easily catch up
heroes would still get a nice chunk of content
and then the 50/50 split could be resumed and most poeople would be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]
First keep in mind the coming up issues already have the major parts planned.

Now with the larger dev team a 60/40 or 55/45 split may be ok. We won't really know until we see how much stuff they can pump out in one issue.

[ QUOTE ]
everyone that plays this game pays the same 15$(not counting multiple accounts)no ones should be worth more than the others yet the past few issues have seemed hero oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

i9 was inventions, both sides have access to that and the same chance of any recipe dropping. Now heroes have more players so naturally their market is going to be bigger. I don't see that as being slanted towards heroes at all. Personally I think markets should've been merged from the beginning, but that's a subject for a different thread.

i10 was the Rikti trying to destroy us all. Destroy heroes and villains, so it was in everyone's best interest to stop them. Now if you don't like the content, I'm sorry, I really am. That means an entire issue went by that you didn't care for. But it gave the same amount of content to both sides. It's that simple. If the biggest complaint you have is the wording you get from contacts, consider it a good day and move on.

i11 was flashback and both sides got that content. Now the heroes having more arcs means that can flashback to more stuff. I realize some people use that as some sort of proof that villains are mistreated, but that argument is really grasping at straws. At least IMO, but I can see the other side to an extent.

[ QUOTE ]
everyone that plays this game pays the same 15$(not counting multiple accounts)no ones should be worth more than the others yet the past few issues have seemed hero oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]
While your 15 a month is worth as much as mine, the game's population isn't 1:1. I don't know for a fact that it's 2:1, but that is the estimate most used that I see. I think both sides should from this point forward get equal treatment, but if one side had to be picked over the other, why in the world wouldn't it be the side that brings in the most money?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody wants to see Heroes get shafted. But a 60/40 balance, or a 75/25 balance, still gives heroes plenty new to do and helps fill the obvious, glaring gaps in CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen you bring up this point before(and I think I agreed with it too initially, I don't now that I've thought about it). Please explain to me how in the world giving about 1/3 of the game's population more content than the other 2/3? How would that make financial success? It seems to me that splitting the content 50/50(even if you don't like the content or how some of the missions are worded, it counts as content), like the have been doing recently, is the best course of action. Now if they do almost half and half then add a feature or two for villains each issue(Epic ATs, a new TF here or there, etc) that would be good for them as well.

But to even suggest that villains get 3 times the new content heroes do is absurd. Please explain to me how that could possibly be a good idea for NC Soft.

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain to me how alienating, in your estimation, 1/3 of the game's population is a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice job avoiding my question. I like how when presented with a real question about your views you either ignore it or avoid answering it in your response.

Now to answer your question. I fail to see how splitting new content 50/50 or giving villains a few extras with every issue is alienating anybody. Or to put it more bluntly: It is not alienating 1/3 of the game's population.

So I ask again, how does giving a minority of the games players an overwhelming majority of new content a good idea? Try to answer this time.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody wants to see Heroes get shafted. But a 60/40 balance, or a 75/25 balance, still gives heroes plenty new to do and helps fill the obvious, glaring gaps in CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen you bring up this point before(and I think I agreed with it too initially, I don't now that I've thought about it). Please explain to me how in the world giving about 1/3 of the game's population more content than the other 2/3? How would that make financial success? It seems to me that splitting the content 50/50(even if you don't like the content or how some of the missions are worded, it counts as content), like the have been doing recently, is the best course of action. Now if they do almost half and half then add a feature or two for villains each issue(Epic ATs, a new TF here or there, etc) that would be good for them as well.

But to even suggest that villains get 3 times the new content heroes do is absurd. Please explain to me how that could possibly be a good idea for NC Soft.

[ QUOTE ]
If they added world PvP I'd either adapt or move on.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is too many people would move on.

[ QUOTE ]
And how CM's change got heroes whine, now its off the table to.

[/ QUOTE ] Damn, you are stupid.

For the life of me I don't see why yall are still trying to reason with that guy...

Perfect_Pain, my only suggestion is to post this info using Mid's Hero Designer. That would be helpful to me.

<QR>

Interesting thread...