Next_Player

Man here. And my answer is "smaller, please."

Most of my female characters, I adjust the slider to the left... if the default is 50%, then I'm usually setting it at 25% to as low as 1%. I have made a couple characters intended to have the big bewbs, and I leave the slider at default for them... because that's plenty big already.

Anything over default looks hideously unrealistic. MAYBE... just maybe... if the devs did something to the character model so that the breasts look more realistic when they're bigger, then maybe I could see going bigger. But as it is right now, they just look like beach balls shoved under tights.

10 for me... and then some. I'm going to agree with others that Power Customization feels incomplete and unprofessional in that they only did part of the job by not only putting off Power Pools and Ancillaries, but also not making it a priority and leaving further work on it half-heartedly open-ended.

End game content is important to me, as is creating new mission/TF content and/or zones, but Power Customization really needs to be finished. Honestly, if they said definitively that revenue from the Party Pack and upcoming Origins booster would be dedicated to pushing to get Power Customization completed (meaning to definitively include pool powers, but not necessarily that they would stop adding future customization options)... well, I'd be all over those over-priced boosters.

Heck, I'd settle for an alternate Sprint that uses the lumbering run like the coralax.

What outrage? Leave the PVP zones alone on the existing servers. There are PVE players who venture into PVP zones occasionally... either for the rewards that can be found there or for the occasional PVP excursion or player- or SG-sponsored PVP event. And casual PVPers can enjoy a PVP-lite experience.

Meanwhile, there's a whole crowd of PVP gamers that want all kinds of things in PVP that would utterly wreck the experience for new gamers and casual gamers alike. What I'm saying is to create a server dedicated to this crowd and give those gamers the things they want... there.

Really? Its that difficult to add map symbols for things like Icon?


I'm all for this.

The internet... its like a magical wonderland where anything can happen. And then get pooped on.

Exactly. My idea isn't to gimp everyone, but to provide invention enhancements that allow players to gimp themselves up front with slightly better rewards later in the set bonuses than normally are given.


Also plenty of people have mentioned in this thread the idea that many AT/Powerset combos already have built-in vulnerabilities (i.e. stone/fire tanks have serious problems versus psi damage). That's all fine and well. But when people like Next_Player suggest Disadvantage systems they are usually asking for optional choices to allow them to CHOOSE which things they are going to be vulnerable to, not just let the game decide that for them.

People overreact to everything that doesn't offer pure benefit and win to them. And even in such cases, some still overreact and complain.

Nice attitude. I wish I knew what your kryptonite was... I'd have brought some with me.

How has that worked for me? Pretty much fine so far. I have a level 50 controller with a purple set and a couple other partial sets, and the rest are all basic IOs. And it doesn't hurt my gameplay at all. I also have a level 50 tanker who I wish had a little more recovery bonus, but I'm not overly concerned about it. I have exactly one special invention enhancement (the Gausian's chance of Build Up slotted in Invincibility, wheeee!) and I have have fun regardless. Actually, I end up trying to get more out of enhancements on my lower level characters... because they need the help. :P So, as far as I've experienced the game, if there's an obtainable benefit in the game, its up to you if you think you need it --and if there's suddenly new obtainable benefits that come with a disadvantage tacked on to it, I don't see how that would force anyone to choose it over the already established benefits of the existing IO enhancements.

Well, I specifically didn't want to get into numbers because I know no matter what I say, someone will find a better example to counter an argument. But the devs, knowing the game far better than we the players do, could take into account probabilities of certain damage types and which cause more damage and so on and adjust the penalties and benefits accordingly. So a set giving vulnerability to ice might offer less tangible reward later in the set bonuses than a set which gives vulnerability to fire which can be found in abundance and usually does more damage than ice.

Well, that's certainly an opinion. It doesn't mean you are right, though.

Right, so all invulnerability tankers are essentially vulnerable to psi damage... which doesn't actually make it a "kryptonite" since everyone has the same limitation. I mean, if kryptonite affected Captain Marvel, Atom Smasher, and Cyborg the same way, then I could see your point.

Okay, sure. Now how does that make my ice blaster weaker against fire? Everyone's argument against seems to based on the melee protection sets. But you don't have to be Superman to have a weakness.

I'm suggesting a benefit to go along with a voluntarily chosen limitation. Again, your example only works with the melee protection sets. Characters of a non-melee AT have no such choice. Thanks for trying, move along please.

See, that's just added extra effort to devise and implement a whole new system. That's why I recommended it as a new line of IO enhancements using the set bonus system. Its an established system that already works.

Yeah, as I said before, my OP was just generalizations to get the idea out there. I didn't say specifically that I wanted to be weak to ice to get some benefit... however, some people may want to. And any numbers I may offer as suggestions are just to illustrate a point, not what I think is appropriate benefit/penalty balance. Clearly, someone more knowledgeable than I --or you for that matter-- (namely the devs) should make decisions about how much reward a given penalty is worth, and just how much penalty should be allowed.

Substantial coding work is the whole reason I suggested the idea as a new line of invention enhancements. It would only require use of an established part of the game. And any benefits gained from taking any penalties would not be in addition to set bonuses, they would just be taking the place of other set bonuses you could choose from. I thought it a simple and elegant solution.


I'm actually in agreement that penalty for no added bonus would actually be used by very few. The game has always revolved around the risk vs. reward principle, so if you increase risk then you should get some sort of reward. How much risk and reward would be up to the devs to decide.

[QUOTE=newchemicals;3275178]If you want kryptonite just play a blaster and don't slot your attacks. Set mission to +4x8 and fight malta or KoA.
That's not kryptonite, that's insanity. You fail.

You know, anything (that isn't a farm) that gets players to actually use AE is a good thing, in my opinion. As for avoiding weaknesses, who says anyone needs AE for that. I avoid Malta because I hate sappers. I know people that refuse missions with Carnies. I'm sure most people try to avoid something in the game. But while some damage types (ice or psi, for example) are easier, others types are more prolific and can be found in a wide variety of enemy groups.

I hear you. However, that's not a character hindrance... that's a player hindrance. Its not the same thing. But if you don't like enhancement sets that give a penalty in addition to benefits, no one would force you to take them.

That's all well and good when you deal with something as specific as Superman's kryptonite, but as no one is 100% immune to any damage type in the game, it doesn't really compare to comic book storytelling.

Moderation is already possible within the enhancement system. You can only gain a given bonus up to 5 times, and you're assuming that limitations can be min/maxed away without actually seeing any hard numbers. So based on that, I could just as easily say its impossible to min/max away the penalty regardless that I don't have any numbers to back it up. When we both actually see numbers, THEN we can see which of us is actually right.

Penalties don't go away because you've accrued more bonuses. It just means your benefit in the area where your penalties are could have been higher. And again, unless we actually see a system implemented and actual numbers are given, any supposition of how min/maxing will be affected are just that: supposition. Anyway, right now we already have a system of benefits only. I fail to see how adding more enhancement sets (which they'll do anyway with or without my weakness suggestion), will make worse what's already in place. Its not like I'm trying to suggest "Hey, let us take a -10% ice resistance in exchange for making us invulnerable to everything else."

MMO players... exploiting EVERYTHING since... EVER.