MunkiLord

Studio B?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No way. In WoW, you can easily get kicked from a dungeon group because your "equipment sucks", and you just aren't "good enough" to be in their group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank god we havent gotten that bad in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes we have. I know folks that will not run STF, ITF, or KTF with ta/a fenders, anytype of stormies, or Fire armor tankers. That just a small list. This idea will make it worse. I build my guy the way I want to play and I do not want the build nazis as you call them telling how I did it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ] People like you mention are bad players IMO. They need what they perceive to be the best powersets on their team to make up for their lack of ability.

[ QUOTE ]
How about a flat fee for additional slots instead of a rental fee?
say, another 10% of the listing price for items that break your 'list cap', payable up front? or perhaps even a gradually-increasing fee scale for each 'extra' slot, starting at 5% fee and gradually incrementing upwards.

[/ QUOTE ] That seems more reasonable to me.

If comments were made anonymous I would like it optional. That way I could potentially have a discussion if I wanted.

I would think an option like the original suggestion wouldn't be implemented until server space issues were worked out. IMO it would be incredibly irresponsible to add something like this otherwise.

Having thought it out a little more, I agree. The best solution is just to get the City Vault up and running.

[ QUOTE ]
While you make a valid point, I am more concerned about "1-star bandits".

I think the rating system goes both ways. Both as feedback for the author and something to consider when you go to that arc to play it.

I think the rating system is being abused, players know it, the devs know it, and since we can't turn everyone who uses the system into mature people, we just have to find ways to lessen the problem.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree. But I don't think your suggestion is the best solution. I like the idea of splitting the ratings into categories. Like story, difficulty, fun, etc. and the option to leave anonymous comments. I realize that still leaves the possibility of rating griefing, but I don't really know what could be done about that. But I still think it is an improvement.

Good point. However, I'll go out on a limb and say the build nazis that wouldn't let you on their team because they couldn't see your build are the type of person you don't wanna team with anyways. In fact, I would say people like that are flat out bad teammates.

But I will say this, the best option is to get the City Vault up and running.

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard a lot of fear regarding people who have written an extremely good arc, and they have 20 or so ratings with 5 stars total, and then all of a sudden they have 21 ratings and 4 stars.

Yes, this is a topic/whine about people who 0-star arcs and don't leave comments.

I think the rating system compliments the comment system, so why not require one in order to use the other? If someone gives me 1 star, I'd certainly want to know why. The system was implemented for feedback, and feedback is how we make changes to improve our arcs. Likewise, I want to know why someone gave me 5 stars, so I know what I am doing well.

I just published an arc tonight, and I had a team of 5 (myself included) for its maiden voyage, and after all is said and done about half an hour later, I have 5 ratings. So, 4 people on my team, and I asked, and all of them gave me 5 stars and commented. So why do I have 4 stars? Who gave that mysterious rating, and why was it under 3 stars? What didn't they like? I'll never know, because they never commented.

So yeah, my only real complaint about MA is the ability to 0-star an arc for the sake of it. I'd love it if commenting were required for rating.

[/ QUOTE ] Hell no. First, comments aren't anonymous. That means if I leave a comment the creator can give me [censored]. I don't want to hear it.

Second, the consumer(player) is more important than the content creator.

Rating systems are made for the consumer. Rottentomatoes.com doesn't give their ratings so the movie studios can make better movies, they give their ratings so we can have an idea if a movie is worth seeing or not.

Finally, if I don't owe you(genral) a damn thing. If I think your arc sucks and I give it one star, then either make a better arc or realize you can't please everybody.

Those of yall that think the people that play your arcs somehow owe you something have it backwards. I'm the consumer, I'm the player. Make content I enjoy or suffer the consequences.

Stuff like this is all about the consumer. They are the only ones that matter. You know why? It's simple really, you need me more than I need you. Write mediocre or bad stories and we go away. But there will always be another wannabe author with a story to tell.

[ QUOTE ]
I have nothing to hide but why should anyone be allowed to just click on me and see every detail about me?

[/ QUOTE ] Because you allow them to see it. Seriously, did everybody in the thread decide to ignore the part where the OP said it was optional and turned off by default? I don't see the problem.

Luminara, jwbullfrog, Thirty7, Forbin_Project, did yall skip the last sentence when the OP said:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, some people will hate this so make it turned off by default(You can turn it on options).


[/ QUOTE ] Doesn't that solve yalls complaint? What is the harm in letting me decide if any random stranger can see my build? By not wanting an option like this, all you are really voting for is limiting the choices we can make.

[ QUOTE ]
That's basically the point - you don't get something for nothing. Instead, you get extra slots, but to be profitable, you need to be correct in the assumption that your wares will sell relatively quickly.

[/ QUOTE ] What's the point in making sure it sells quickly? What is wrong with somebody holding out to get a higher price?

It's ok...this time

In your search tips you forgot to mention looking on the front page.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea sounds good - as far as the "gaming the system" argument where players could put expensive items in available slots and cheap items in rented slots to minimize the expenses, simply cheat. The first rented slot would use the price of the highest-priced item in the queue, the second rented slot would use the price of the second-highest-priced item and so forth. Thus, you can rent the slots, but don't have a say in which item gets used as the cost criteria.


[/ QUOTE ] No thank you. I don't see a good reason why it should work that way. That is potentially eating up a good chunk of somebody's profits.

But I like the original suggestion.

That makes more sense. Just shows there are multiple potential explanations.

[ QUOTE ]
AE in RWZ is probably the biggest "WTF!?" moment I've had in awhile...Dumb idea if you ask me, makes zero sense.

[/ QUOTE ] I just figured AE was giving Vangaurd money. Fighting a war is expensive.

OP, you made me agree with Rachelthulu. You fail.

[ QUOTE ]
I was disappointed this morning to see 54 posts and all of them had answered the stupidity already

[/ QUOTE ] At what point do we cross the line from answering the stupidity being part of it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Con to your idea:

Players on servers who don't get the boosts get punished for playing their characters.

Players on servers who don't get the boosts must now pay money if they wish to play their characters on servers who do get boosts.

Markets are cross Server (all servers have access to the same market) so players who get more Influence / Infamy for playing on a low population server can out-bid people who are not. This can cause market prices to rise, as people are willing to spend more of what they have because they get more of it, or are more desperate to spend what they have to get something to "keep up with the Jones'".

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not punishing them. Nothing changes for them. If there server stay 3 bubs then they are getting able the same amount as we are.It ain't punishing them. Its rewarding us. You change nothing on a 3 bub server .If enough people leave there server and they drop to 2 bubs then they start getting double.

Markets would balance. If you are getting more drops you are less inclined to spending money for something.

[/ QUOTE ] What about the extra influence/infamy the lower pop servers would get? That would mean they have more spending power than other servers. How is that fair?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they ain't spending its a non-issue. But if they got to spend they can.

[/ QUOTE ] I like how you completely avoided the question and spouted out some random sentence. Well done, I guess

Sounds like a good improvement to me. /signed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Con to your idea:

Players on servers who don't get the boosts get punished for playing their characters.

Players on servers who don't get the boosts must now pay money if they wish to play their characters on servers who do get boosts.

Markets are cross Server (all servers have access to the same market) so players who get more Influence / Infamy for playing on a low population server can out-bid people who are not. This can cause market prices to rise, as people are willing to spend more of what they have because they get more of it, or are more desperate to spend what they have to get something to "keep up with the Jones'".

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not punishing them. Nothing changes for them. If there server stay 3 bubs then they are getting able the same amount as we are.It ain't punishing them. Its rewarding us. You change nothing on a 3 bub server .If enough people leave there server and they drop to 2 bubs then they start getting double.

Markets would balance. If you are getting more drops you are less inclined to spending money for something.

[/ QUOTE ] What about the extra influence/infamy the lower pop servers would get? That would mean they have more spending power than other servers. How is that fair?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why she said:

"Your RESISTANCE shortens the duration!"

So when you have a high resistance to Holds (through Mezz Protection), "Your RESISTANCE shortens the duration!"

This way, that ~11 second hold is reduced, because "Your RESISTANCE shortens the duration!"

So if you have a 65% resistance to Holds, and are hit by an 11 second hold, "Your RESISTANCE shortens the duration!" to 3.85 seconds.

This is because "Your RESISTANCE shortens the duration!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I use a Willpower and its one of the highest res's to mez you can get. And that Hold is still way to long. It needs to drop to at least 7 sec hold

[/ QUOTE ] You would think that after playing so much you would know what you're doing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I like that, bonus > nerf any day.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really.

Have you seen how the bonus of half debt in missions fairly quickly became a "nerf" of double debt outside (even though the amount outside didn't chnage).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I didn't.

[/ QUOTE ] I did.

[ QUOTE ]
This, and I don't see how it makes much sense,

[/ QUOTE ]

Possible reasons have been given. They are valid RP reasons even if you don't care for them. If you can't accept that, you are either being intentionally dense or are ideologically opposed to it for some reason. Either way people are completely wasting their time attempting to discuss this with you.