Rylas

Legend
  • Posts

    1697
  • Joined

  1. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ironik View Post
    It gets even worse than that: the universe is infinite but information isn't. Which means that somewhere in the universe there is another Earth that looks exactly like this one with exact duplicates of everything and everyone playing out the exact same way. No need for parallel universes any more!
    Is that where the evil goatee-wearing doubles come from? What if I have a goatee already?
  2. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hyperstrike View Post
    No. My point has been made. It's simply not a point you wish to accept, so you are doing your best to ignore and trivialize it.

    That's okay though. Watching someone put their hands over their ears and shout "Not listening!" is always amusing.
    Systematically going through your "points" and explaining in detail how they are flawed, is not "putting hands over our ears." And making strawman arguments isn't making a point.

    The funny part is that our side of the argument would like to find a solution beneficial to all sides, while the other side just screams loudly, "YOU'RE SELFISH," and then accuses us of not listening.
  3. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hyperstrike View Post
    And I'd say that your insistence on only associating with those you want to is just as psychotic.

    Welcome to the real world. Shared by more than just you and your immediate clique of friends. Try to play nice.
    Wait, in the real world I can choose to do things with just my friends. Like playing sports at the park. Sure, other people could be at the park, but you're not forced to play sports with them. In fact, if you go to a place with soccer fields, and there's a group of people already playing a game on one of the fields and you try to insert yourself into that game, they'll kick you out. Funny that, right?

    You might as well say we're arguing only our friends should be allowed to play CoH. We're not. We're talking about teaming.

    *awaiting you're next strawman*
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill View Post
    Because people aren't interested in running them hourly?

    Amazing, that.

    I think, even when they were *new,* the most I saw were 2, MAYBE 3 ship raids in a row. And that hasn't been for years.

    Sounds like you're really reaching.

    The Mothership raid has a benefit in having Vanguard merits drop through the whole thing (assuming, of course, you've gone through the introductory arc.) Hamidon - you can go through 3/4 of it, get DCd and get nothing... while you can get the same reward (as far as the Hami-os) by running a STF or LRSF. Smaller, easier to organize, faster to get started, no massive 50-person lag.

    Now, are you going to try to link - oh, Lusca, perhaps - to this in some way? It's as irrelevant as what you brought up here.
    Oh Bill, you shouldn't have fallen for the unrelated argument in the first place. Tsk tsk.
  5. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    People will lock leagues even if they wouldn't normally kick someone that came in from the queue.
    I just wanted to take some time to point out the glaringly obvious flaws in this reasoning:

    1. Let's assume that you actually understand the player base as a whole, and everyone prefered locking leagues. If so, that means that right now, the majority of the player base is not happy with the Queue system as it is, which means it seriously needs to be looked at and changed to accomodate this majority you've asserted.

    2. You've already stated you think the amount of instances people have been kicked in the way the OP experienced are scattered and rare instances. If so, this implies the majority of the population is open to LFG players, and any changes to the gueue to allow controlled team size would hardly make all leagues locked.
  6. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
    Now I wonder if it can be done with more 'middle of the road' power sets. Fire Armor and Pyre Mastery are very slanted to damage. What about a WP and Stone Mastery or Invul and Energy Mastery.
    .
    Queue Johnny's never-satisfied complaint: But all tanker combos should be able to solo a GM.

    Not all Controller/Dominator/MM/Blaster/Defender/Corruptor/Scrapper/Brute/Stalker combos can solo a GM either. Get over it.
  7. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    Quote:
    The Trials are built on evolutionary tech and design philosophies that have influenced the last few issues and which come together as the foundation of the Incarnate System. I doubt any complex feature we add to City of... will be the perfect fit for every single player’s preference (even a feature as straightforward as Day Jobs had its detractors), but every player with a level 50 character and who has Going Rogue can get into this endgame and profit by it if they so choose.
    You don't like the LFG queue system. You've made that abundantly clear. That system is the only means we have to access the trials. I don't see that as changing any time soon.
    I tell you that the the turnstyle and the Trials are not the same thing, and you retort with a redname saying:

    Evolutionary Tech (turnstyle, of course) + Design Philosophies (not defined) = FOUNDATION.

    That doesn't come anywhere close to being a counterpoint. Just because something is only accessible by one tool, does not make it that tool. It's just as arguable that the tool was designed so that larger format leagues we're possible, and that they are a byproduct of the trials.

    Though, you did make a good point of how you certainly don't represent developer intent.

    Quote:
    Over the years there have been many suggestions for the player problem of Badging vs PVP zones.
    Cool, you're comparing badges to (simulated) level progression in the game. At least you took my suggestion in the most literal sense possible.

    Quote:
    That content is only accessible from that tool.
    Yes, I know you like to make obvious statements, sit back and fold your arms, and like to think you've made an irrefutable valid counterpoint. But you aren't making a point. The two things work together, but they are not the same. Until one of them is fixed, some people will have a harder time using the other. But people will continue to play the content while further negating the goal the devs had for the queue. Making it more suitable to all players is a healthier solution to its success.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    People will lock leagues even if they wouldn't normally kick someone that came in from the queue.
    You speak for the player base about as well as you speak for the devs.
  8. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    Guess what, if that is your attitude, then maybe the Trials are not for you. That isn't a bad thing. You don't like the queue system. Great, do other content. I don't like PVP so I don't tend to go into PVP zones except during off-peak times (well, since Issue 13 most of the time is "off peak"). I've not been in an arena match outside of a single match since early Issue 18 beta.
    So my attitude of asking for a way to control team size, is a bad one, and I shouldn't be playing iTrials. I know, those aren't your words verbatim, but you're not willing to just come out and say it.

    You're example of not liking PVP isn't even comparable to what's being discussed. Now, if you said, "I don't like this particular aspect of PVP that forces me to do something that isn't necessary for the game to function for everyone else" then made a suggestion for making a better implementation of said function, well then, you'd be making a more adequate analogy.

    Instead, you're acting like the trials and the turnstyle queue are one-and-the-same thing. They are not. One is content, one is a tool. They are meant to work together, yes, but not liking one does not mean that you should stop using the other. And until the devs come out and say it, any intent you'd like to hypothesize is conjecture at best.

    Quote:
    If players don't want to face what the queue might give them, those players are free to participate in the rest of the game.
    And those players are free to kick unwanted people who get queued in. I'm at least asking for a way to avoid that. You're just telling us to stop asking, and calling us irrational to do so.

    It's so irrational we would consider making a suggestion. Much the same way you did towards the participation and reward system of Trials.

    Quote:
    I sincerely hope that you are not calling me a facist. I'm not the one telling people that they should just stop the playing the way they've been accustomed to. The developers are. You are entering the queue and not expecting to get others from the queue is completely irrational.
    The devs have said nothing. They remain silent for now. You want to speak for them and demand we not play content or want to play content with select groups of people. You hide behind "speaking for the devs" and push what only comes across as what you would have us do. Sounds facist to me.

    I've never said I don't expect others to be queued in. You want to attribute this irrationality to me despite my repeated comments that I am making a suggestion, or that I don't like this set up. In the question forums I did ASK if it was possible, but never said I expect this is how they should work despite being informed it doesn't. Maybe calling others irrational makes it easier to ignore all the points people have made about how better control of the LFG Queue would be more beneficial to the game, but it's not going to make you right.
  9. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    If you (generic you) stop assuming a developer granted players a divine right to a private league and instead look at the system as a means to organize players while inside a trial, I'd think that you (again, generic) would see that the developers wanted to help players find a team doing the trials without knowing anyone. It really isn't that hard a concept to understand, certainly not as difficult as people in these threads are making it out to be. However instead of seeing the open invites as a good thing, the group-thought seems to be centred on how outside people are unwanted. To me that is putting the cart before the horse.
    If you (and we'll just call it generic you) stop and ask yourself, does the playerbase, on the whole, want to be forced to play content (new, old, high level, low level, whatever) with people they don't know, or would there be a considerable amount of the player base that wants to only play with just their [friends, SG, family, what-have-you] because of a number of reasons that don't even amount to being [jerks, *******, bullies, rude, selfish, or whatever words you've (specific you) decided to ascribe them because you don't like that they would want to do such a thing], you might be surprised that what people are asking for here isn't such a horrible thing.*

    If you want the turnstyle to be succesful, it's going to need to be a useful tool for all of the player base. Telling people they should just stop playing the way they've been accustomed to for 7 years, isn't making it useful to them. It's just a facist response when you say, "you need to play this way" as if the way we'd like to play is fundamentally wrong.

    *sorry for the incredibly long run-on sentence.
  10. I'm signing this with my Gold Pen. That doubles as a laser gun. With bee rockets.

    And I only bring that out for the good stuff.
  11. Skimmed through, so sorry if I missed someone saying this:

    Protector - Mostly RWZ, in front of Lady Grey. Occasionally in Pocket D. Best bet is to use the Protector Vigilance channel or the Protector TFs channel. They're good tools to make use of for forming any trial or TF.
  12. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus View Post
    And as I said, they have to be fit into your build. Pets do not need to be fit in, they fit on top of what you already have.


    I'll let you read it again so you can figure out where you went wrong.
    My apologies, you didn't specify which pets you were speaking of. Considering much of the conversation was about Controller/MM pets, I thought you were referring to those.

    Never-the-less, Lore Pets still are pets that are unlocked in a method too similar to leveling. Sure, they don't take up power selection, but it's your power regardless. It's as much a part of the character as Stamina is.
  13. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    The moment your group entered the turnstile it ceased to be "your" team. The trials don't start with a contact, so you have to use the turnstile. By entering the turnstile you are agreeing with the terms of the turnstile, just like going to a contact. It is just that the turnstile has a term that you may not like.
    The only thing you agree to is entering the trial. The only "terms" anyone is subject to are those of the EULA. And as far as I know, those don't have anything about not kicking people from a league if you prefer to keep it a certain size. Pressing "Enter" when entering a trial doesn't have anything in there that you HAVE TO ACCEPT ADD-ONS AND NOT KICK THEM. Please point it out with a screen cap if I've missed that.

    Now, if it's your preference that people should have their time wasted in the queue by entering a team that could potentially kick them, then fine. But avoiding that situation sounds more beneficial to everyone, IMO.

    For the sake of keeping a conversation in one place though, I suggest people start posting their responses in THIS THREAD. Just make sure you quote who you're responding to in order to avoid confusion.
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by The_Coming_Storm View Post
    Well said. I half-love you now!
    Yes, well said. Comparing jobs to entertainment is solid logic.

    /sarcasm
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan View Post
    Because honest to heaven you guys, any random assembly of 8+ level 50 characters in this game is going to be incredibly powerful...
    Assuming they get along and can get organized. All the people on a BAF could have all tier 4s and still bunt heads to the point of failure. Look at this thread alone. I'm sure everyone here can play the game just fine. In the way that they like. All together, I'm sure it would look more like this conversation.

    Here's another example of why having control over your league size would be helpful:

    Let's say you have a group of friends that wants to do a trial together. This group of friends, however, likes to keep a colorful conversation. Swearing, dirty jokes, crass comments, mutual insulting (in good nature). Then player X gets dropped in and they might be offended by this kind of behavior. Perhaps they (misguidedly) find the team to be harassing or griefing them. They might ask the team to cut it out.

    Now, who's in the wrong if:

    • Player X reports lewd comments, resulting in potential accounts being blocked for a few days, or at best, minor slaps on the hand.

    • The team tells them to get over it, and continues on their way interacting in the manner they've been accustomed to acting with one another.

    • The team says beat it, and they kick Player X because they feel he intrudes on the fun they were having as a group that enjoyed being able to talk freely without censoring themselves. This of course, wasted Player X's time that could have been spent queueing into a team that would welcome LFGers.

    • The team decides to allow the person to stay, but in his own team, so they can use team chat without offending him, and at the same time greatly increasing his odds at just getting 10 threads at the end.

    Honestly, they're all bad results, and the current set up is at fault for not making these situations avoidable. At this point, the turnstyle is set up in a way to make people avoid it. There should be better control for teams looking/not looking for members, and more options for single players entering the queue (such as desired team size, Master of, etc).
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill View Post
    (And I'll still argue it's not "both," but I have a feeling I'm reading the phrase "taking it out on" subjectively, adding a feeling of malice on the part of the person doing the kicking - which does not necessarily exist.
    That's the way I've been reading it, too. And if someone's incapable of understanding that you can kick someone for a reason other than malice, then they're not going to be moved to think outside the box.

    Personally, I believe this boils down to people's preferred levels of socializing.

    I prefer to play with people I know. I prefer to play with people I trust. It's why my global list has taking forever to get the number of friends it has. It's why when someone I just met throws me a global invite, I decline and offer them just a friend invite instead. I'm just that kind of person. When I get a blind invite, I decline because it makes me untrusting of the person instantly. And now I'm suppose to go the opposite way with a "blind join" and be okay with that? Sorry, I'm not. And telling me I'm being a jerk for it, isn't going to swing me over to the other side. Especially when the suggestion offers something for both parties to use.

    /stepping off that soapbox for now.
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    It is human nature. There will always be more excuses (and that is all that they are, excuses) to turn away people than reasons to team with people you don't know.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    I expect that the developers also expect that the majority of people will accept people from the queue as well.
    So which is it? More people will choose to have limited League sizes, or more people would openly welcome LFGers into their team at random?

    If it's the second, then adding a feature to allow for limiting team size wouldn't be a real issue for LFGers, would it?

    So far, the only real argument I've heard to not implement something like this is that it would make it easier for people to find teams for trials, despite the fact that people have formed random groups for TFs and Raids for years now without the LFG tool. It also ingores the fact that people form trials outside of the queue already.

    But I hear more reasons for allowing this:
    1. Less wasted time for LFGers kicked from a team that wants to remain a certain size.
    2. Less issues of lag for those teams looking to avoid it. I don't care what you say, some people's rigs won't play nice with 24 PC's running around, let along all the NPC's they'll spawn.
    3. People who enjoy only playing with select friends can enjoy incarnate content without being forced to play with people they don't know.
    4. Less people being called "*******" for enjoying the game the way they would like to enjoy it (it's not like it's creating any exploits).

    Quote:
    Exactly how often are people being kicked from a trial once it starts because they came in from the queue? Please be as accurate as possible.
    Do you ask because you think the numbers are low? If so, then adding the option we're asking for wouldn't be a big deal.
  18. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    You started a thread in the player questions section with that expectation.
    I started a thread asking if it was possible, but I suppose that means I expected to be able to do so. Perhaps I misread who you quoted. I do expect the devs to anticipate this would be a desired mechanic; controling the size of ones team/league.

    Quote:
    Less mobs, lower ranks.
    That doesn't necessarily mean it's easier than a full size league, and you know it.

    Quote:
    The trials are raids. It doesn't matter if one of them has a minimal size of 8, they are still raids. They are not strike forces, they are not task forces. They are new tech meant to open players to teaming with other people. If you have teamed with another player and dislike them to the point of ignoring them, then (and only then) should the game step in and prevent them from teaming with you.
    No, the trials are new tech for forming UP TO certain amounts of teams who want to acheive the same goal, and for gaining access to new rewards. The LFG is a tech made for grouping people, and that should be adjusted so that the OPs situation doesn't happen. Because regardless of your limited perspective, people will kick LFGers if they want to, and they suffer from that when they could have been placed in a team that was open to them.

    Quote:
    As far as I see, there really isn't any reason to have or expect a private league. All the expectations for limiting and locking leagues are, from my perspective, excuses for denying people access to the raids.
    So the game should be built around your limited perspective, and not to something that works for both sides? Man, and they say people looking to limit their league side are elitists.
  19. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    There should be no expectation of players wanting to form a private league in the current trials.
    Did someone say there should be an expectation?

    Quote:
    As for raising the difficulty, try unslotting incarnate abilities. There is also an indication that the raid leader's difficulty settings also affect mob size. The mere fact that you are running less than the maximum amount of players automatically reduces the difficult of the trials, in case you didn't know. The game automatically scales to league size on the trials.
    I thought scaling implied congruent reduction. Not just easier overall.

    Quote:
    Yes, because those wouldn't be multi-team raids.
    We're talking about "trials." And the minimum amount for one of them isn't even multi-team. It's cool if you don't agree that people should be able to control league size, everyone's entitled to disagree, but can't you at least make more reasoned agruments than smarmy remarks, word-play trickeries and obvious neglect of the other side's concerns.
  20. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    Assuming that there is another league forming at that time, and I can tell you that isn't always the case.
    But we're working on the assumption that if people had the option, they'd ALWAYS have locked leagues. Gotcha.

    I can understand the fear that people might find themselves unable to do content because they're incapable of finding teams without the queue. But take a strong stance like this, you'd think before the LFG tab people were unable to ever find ITF teams, or Rikti Raids, or STF/LRTFs. Just because Leagues might want a limited size doesn't mean LFGers would be incapable of forming their own trials.

    Quote:
    Actually it probably would have been better if they didn't allow premade leagues to enter the Queue at all. That way everyone would have to enter the queue and take what they get.
    I think you have a very limited definition of "better." It would be better if they made it so that people looking to form a Lambda or BAF who are just looking for more bodies could flag their league to auto-invite people sitting in the queue looking for the same trial. Be honest, in the majority of trials you've been on was the league leader cherry picking people or sending out global messages to build the team to the max size? A set up like this would have been much better, and it could have allowed for people to lock their league if they wanted to.

    The fear of people never finding leagues if this happened is baseless.
  21. I won't deny it was heavily reliant on pets, but then again, other ATs heavily rely on defensive bonuses to do the same. Again, we both agree it's still soloing.

    Quote:
    Pets are not like Toughness and Weave, or Hasten - those are things you have to fit into your build, you have to deal with their endurance costs, you have to dedicate slots to them.
    Last I checked you still have to fit Pool Powers into your build just like any other power selection. Hasten isn't exactly an inherent power.

    Quote:
    The pets are this gigantic amazing freebie that costs you nothing in terms of fitting them into your build and making them work. You don't even need to slot them for End Rdx or Damage.
    Cost free? Have you run the trials? Have you just been lucky with Rare and Very Rare drops? And you don't slot them for end or damage because THE GAME WON'T LET YOU!!

    I thought summoning the pets did cost endurance. Am I wrong? Besides, after summoning pets, a Mastermind isn't really hurting for end. It's only if he resummons any that he might.
  22. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    The leader was being unreasonable. The reason why the game doesn't give you any means to make a "private" league is that the developers didn't want private leagues.
    You said yourself in another thread that the developers have been silent on this. So don't start making your assumptions the rule.

    Quote:
    Actually the LFG system does exactly that. If you don't want extras, then fill up the league before entering the queue.
    Smarmy remark is smarmy.

    You're argument is: There is no option to lock your league, therefore, the devs want all leagues to run at max capacity. Get over it.

    So following your logic: There is no option to keep League Leaders from kicking add-ons, therefore, the devs are ok with people manually limiting their team size. Get over it.

    So based on your stubborn, callous response to people's concerns, there's no basis to say the League Leader was in the wrong.
  23. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    Except this content was designed specifically so that, according to the producer, a player didn't need to know anyone on the server to join one of these trials.
    And by allowing people to limit League size that negates this intent how? Are you saying every league would lock out people in the queue? If they did, well that would only mean no one likes random Leagues. I don't believe every league would pursue that option, though, so I don't see how the LFG Queue would be a lost function.

    Quote:
    They can learn to be disappointed. The trials are designed so that the challenge scales with the amount of players, so starting with fewer players automatically decreases the challenge. The theory that fewer players equals greater challenge is a false theory.
    So if you're on a team of 8 with no -res fighting against Marauder, you won't have a harder time? Granted, fewer players doesn't always mean greater challenge, but it can. Team build certainly can allow for greater challenge and people should be allowed to build for it.

    Quote:
    The team can adapt or not. That is isn't the game's problem or the queue's problem.
    No, the team doesn't have to adapt. They could just kick the players that filter in. How useful is the queue now if that's what happens? There's no reason a more versatile LFG Queue can't be built while still making it easy for people to find teams faster.

    Quote:
    It they screw it up, put them on ignore and try again another time. The league will try to prevent them from teaming with you in the future.
    Funny moderator, that word. "Try."

    But that's being callous, really. It's not like you can fault someone for screwing up something they may not have the skill set to pull off. But that just goes to show the short-sightedness of the LFG tool. Allowing players to be selective if they choose avoid these issues.

    Quote:
    Because those concerns were deemed less important than fulfilling the promise of allowing quick teaming. If you want to limit your team, then there is plenty of content that you can choose to do that will allow it.
    I don't see any reasoning here that negates implementing a tool that allows better control over league building. You either throw the word "intent" around, or you seem to assume if anyone could limit league size, they all would. When I try forming an 8 man league, many of the global channels I broadcast to have a "good luck" reaction. Many people are more comfortable with larger leagues, and the LFG tab will still be helpful for those leagues that do.

    Of course, they could leave it the way it is, and people could spend a lot of time in the queue only to have it wasted when they join a team that doesn't want them. If that sound good to you, then I'm not sure you're really considering the player experience very much.
  24. Quote:
    Originally Posted by _Pine_ View Post
    TL: DR

    Seeing a lot of comparisons to Illusion or Masterminds using pets to solo GMs. The fact of the matter is, that's their power set. Only they can have it. Lore pets and other incarnate powers are things that ANY one can get, which kind of nullifies the feat. It's the same with Shivans, Nukes and Inspirations. Give enough of those things to any toon, and they will be able to solo GMs. A Petless Force Field MM with the lore pets, shivans, nukes and insps could solo a GM. The more in common buffs you use, things that any toon can use, the less of a feat it becomes. (including IOs. Solo on SOs or IOs, the SO person has more respect from me.)

    Also, Paladin is a low level GM, an even less spectacular feat.

    I know, if I did that, I would be excited and thrilled, and prolly share it with people. But then I would go out and try to stretch myself even more. The special part about soloing GMs/AVs is not that you can do it, or even how easily you do it. It's how handicapped you are. The difficulty rises the more handicaps you put on yourself, as well as the respect gained.
    So, since anyone can get lore pets, does that mean that it's not soloing if anyone (regardless of AT) uses Hasten or Tough/Weave (or any other pool power)?