ScionofSatan

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

congratulations you just won an award for the most posts in a row by the same person!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Five? FIVE? Five in a row? That's...most?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I remember getting at least as high as 7 or 8 in another thread after responding to several posts at 5 in the morning when hardly anyone else was on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I've had Miss Kitty accuse me on multiple occasions of trying to get a whole page (10 posts) to myself, so technically, I think I'm still in the lead. Well, except for the "filling a whole page with quotes" thing.

And in self-defense, I post in the middle of the night CST here in America, so I can't help it if I have to post a bunch of replies to posters who had to wait all day for a response from me.

Which they did. Anxiously. With 'bated breath, even.

I'm just sure of it.

Plus, I'm bored.

As I told you before, I'm not going to pull my quotes out of a post you are making because you are too lazy to respond to my post, nor am I going to put in line markers to show where your quotes end and mine begin, or vice versa.

So...

Your response is, when stripped of its veneer, simply a matter of "This is what you are saying, because I SAY this is what you are saying. It doesn't matter that I have no support for this, or that you deny it, or that your posts show otherwise. I am right because I am me, and to doubt me is sheer folly."

Well, then I am a fool. I doubt you, I deny you, and I rebuke you. I never said, nor implied, that tanks should be able to provide as much damage as scrappers or blasters, nor do I believe that they should be able to handle entire (or half) maps. Your insistence that you know my opinion better than I do, or that I'm somehow backpeddalling from something I never said, simply makes you look like a megalomaniacal, self-important blowhard.

And when comments like those above get "purged" from the thread, it doesn't really prove that you were right, that I was wrong, or that my characterization of you was in error, only that the moderators prefer to keep this forum more civil than is generally possible when people like you insist on ignoring argument, and instead focus on spitting baseless insults at people like me.

That is to say, if you piss down my back, you're going to piss me off, and I'm going to tell you what I think of you as a result. And I don't care if that gets my post deleted, nor do I believe it impacts the meaningfulness of my general arguments.

Oh, and there IS no economy in CoH, your experience at level 50 isn't the "average", you still didn't define what "ended up with" means, I will talk to the fictitious blasters about my statement when they show up, I don't care if the boxes are ugly, they work to demarcate posts from replies, a three-man spawn is what you get when soloing, so there ARE no "2 other people, ...

Oh forget it. It's just not worth the effort. I'm putting you on ignore, because I just don't feel like dealing with your B.S.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

congratulations you just won an award for the most posts in a row by the same person!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Five? FIVE? Five in a row? That's...most?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey!! Shut up! I've never won anything before...

[ QUOTE ]
So is it your argument that all that "extra" inf. you get from defeating enemies and finishing missions is "gravy", and not necessary in order to be able to buy the needed enhancements for a character?

The average level 50 in CoH was ending up with somewhere around 20M extra influence. Can you honestly tell me that was necessary?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, where are you getting this info from? Who told you that the "average" level 50 "ended up" (whatever that means) with "about 20 million extra influence"? You are just making things up, and then asking me to justify these arbitrary numbers.

But even assuming you were right, which I don't, so what? What about at level 45? 40? 35?

A level 50 is at the end-game. It was fun "giving away" influence to people with cool character bios and great costumes, and I don't mean in Atlas Park. It was FUN being able to be a benefactor unexpectedly to some struggling lowbie. But I couldn't do it as soon as I hit 50. I had to play for a while, getting all my SO's to ++, then gaining enough extra to be able to be a philanthropic "hero of the city".

Sorry, but still not convincing.

[ QUOTE ]
I ran from level 30-40 in CoV in SGmode probably 95% of the time. I started with approximately 2M influence buying enhancements as they were needed and including a couple of costume changes which ate up around 200K. I ended up getting to level 40 with 2M infamy while my friend who was not in SGmode ended up with approximately 8M infamy. I continued gathering prestige and ended up garnering another 3M infamy from drops alone.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit, then, that you DIDN'T get 5 million infamy from drops alone.

[ QUOTE ]
Who in their right mind will constantly keep buying a new set of SOs every level just to keep them green? That's a massive waste of time and resources for a small bonus particularly with ED in place.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit, then, that you DIDN'T have money to waste in upgrading your enhancements.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said my cat could play on invincible now. But I could have probably given the cat (or at least my friend's kid) a level 50 regen scrapper and he could have completed an invincible mission and not died once. Hell I could've done it with a level 34 regen scrapper. That means that my capabilites as a player are irrelevant to the equation meaning the difficulty of the game isn't high enough to actually challenge my character, let alone me as a player. That defeats the purpose of having a difficulty slider for anything more than an xp farm.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you now claiming that, after hitting 50, you NEVER were defeated? You NEVER died? Really? There was no group, no AV, no giant monster, even excluding Hamidon, that could defeat you?

Wow. How uber you must be. I mean, I was playing THE uber tank, the inv/ tanker, and I still died from time to time, and I DIDN'T herd entire maps. Carnies gave me fits.

I guess your problem is that you are just too good for this game. You should find a different one.

I saw lvl 50's die all the time. You just have to push your limits. That's what makes the game "fun". And it was fully possible to do that pre-I5. To claim it wasn't is to be flatly dishonest.

[ QUOTE ]
Focus should be on the capabilites of the player not simply the character she built. Castle said back in CoV beta that most of the powergaming in this game was done on paper and they were trying to add an element of the player skill back into the game. I'd say they've accomplished this to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

see above.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A) eliminate xp reward for clicking glowies


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They did this.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, they didn't. I received XP for clicking a glowie in a mission just today. So you're wrong. Again.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B) reduce or eliminate the mission bonus for missions where no spawns are killed to reflect the reduced risk


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This requires altering missions in a very large way which would take much longer to implement and would eat up valuable dev time. Particularly since it would require the people who are working on whatever new zones will be upcoming as opposed to the powers (and probably some of the engineers) team.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is supposition on your part. It seems to me that, if they do a running tally of the number of enemies remaining or defeated in a mission (which they do, it's how they know when a "kill-all" has been completed, and how they know when you've defeated a "hunt X" mission), then it would be a fairly simple matter to create a class called at the end of a mission counting spawns remaining vs. spawns at the beginning, creating a percentage, comparing the percentage to a table (if this then this), then applying a formula to the xp bonus, altering it.

If you KNOW it's not that simple, then please explain how, and how it REALLY works. If you DON'T know, then don't pretend you do.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C) put +perception patrols and cameras in game to reduce the ease with which "glowie collecting" missions are accomplished


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This cannot be used because it is a combat nerf to stalkers and only a nuisance to anyone else.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's no more a combat nerf to stalkers than requiring them to "unhide" to click a glowie, or suppressing their stealth upon clicking a glowie, making them a target for every mob's alpha strike in the room. And the "stealth suppression" answer is also just a minor inconvenience to everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D) You could just leave it alone, and understand that the loss of all the xp, enhancements, prestige and inspirations dropped when mobs are defeated is punishment enough, and that the travel time to new missions without garnering every drop of xp available in a mission reduces the reward to less than that of street sweeping for the same amount of time


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You do realize this is a total load of crap?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't, and no, it's not. PL'ing is only PL'ing if it gets you levels faster than playing the game normally. Otherwise, it's almost ANTI- PL'ing. If you can gain experience/enhancements/inspirations (which, since they cost influence to buy are valuable if you ever plan to be in combat again) at a quicker rate by playing then by "exploiting", then you aren't really exploiting in a meaningful way. Your reward is less because your risk is less.

So, "it's a load of crap" right back atcha. Again. Xero, seriously, move along. You're not going to win this debate, you're not even going to TIE it.

[ QUOTE ]
So, technically speaking, a fully decked out hero with even-con SO's SHOULD be able to beat +2- +3 minions at the same risk level as a lvl 5 with TRAINING enhancements fighting those 3 even-cons.

Otherwise, all you've been doing for 50 levels is getting steadily wimpier, not to mention less useful in all ways to your SG.

Which is how MMOs work -- the mobs gain power faster than the players. The fac that this is a superhero game does not trump that principle.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) Again, you start your response with a conclusion: "this is how MMO's work". Care to support that?

2) Even if it IS how MOST MMO's work, this one was touted specifically as a solo-friendly MMO without the "grind" of the usual MMO. This means it's more fun, and less time is needed at the old grindstone to gain new levels, powers, etc. Hence, whether or not it's because it's a superhero game, the fact that it's THIS game DOES trump that principle, if it is in FACT a principle.

3) "This is how it's always been" is not a good reason for "this is how it must always be". This should be self-evident. If it's not, PM me and I'll explain, as it'll take this thread even FARTHER off-topic.

[ QUOTE ]
And at level 50 (level 47, really) you don't need inf any more, so at the end of your career there is nothing stopping you from going to SG mode full-time, even if you were right about it crippling your income, which you aren't. (Losing inf from mob defeats is a significant but not crippling loss. )


[/ QUOTE ]

I gave a great deal of support in my statement. You gave none in yours. I win.

[ QUOTE ]
The only real reason why a +2 Minion shouldn't be able to wench-slap a PC around is because of the way grouping works. In order to allow some wiggle room in terms of who can group with whom, level-wise, +2 mobs have to be defeatable with good play. That does not necessarily mean they have to represent as much threat to a post-SO player as a +0 represents to a newbie.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I knew what your point was here, I'm sure I'd have to rebut it. Since I don't, I can't. Sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
So, how much to you think you earn over three levels? Five? I don't buy new enhancements every level. I don't think anyone getting SOs does. You are just using one level's worth of earnings, when I don't think anyone plays that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. I did on my first four or five toons, trying to keep all enhancements green at all times. And even if you're suggesting that you should buy them at +3 levels at the earliest opportunity, then leave them alone until they are -2 levels and repeat the process, you have to recognize that that meanst you're getting an even SMALLER percentage of the buying price from selling, as your drops are that much lower in level than the next level you're looking to buy.

As to how much can be earned, my lvl 35 MM currently has all SO's, all white or green, and 1.5 million in the bank. He has only purchased for open slots (and one or two of those were filled by drops) since level 32, not to combine, and has not been in SG mode at all since lvl 27, nor has he purchased anything at Icon. To give you an idea of how frugal I'm being with him, he's been hoarding a lvl 39 damage SO since LAST level, to use NEXT level.

I think that, if I weren't getting inf rewards per kill I would be broke and poorly enhanced. I think I've shown this. I don't think, by level 37, that I will have 5 million in inf, but if I do, it will be because of the kill and mission rewards, not from selling enhancements alone, or even mostly.

[ QUOTE ]
You "should" read entire paragraphs, to give you the benefit of the doubt.
--------------------------------
I did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you purposely used my quote out of context, and are both dishonest and moronic, since everyone on the thread can go back and see that what you "quoted" isn't what I said.

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, then, I am referring to the balance within the game AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, not as you would have it be at some mythical, far off time and place.
----------------------------------
I am quite aware of that. I am merely pointing out that, your caterwauling notwithstanding, the game is still too easy.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) It's not caterwauling to defend oneself from people who, like you, can't argue effectively and use dishonest debating tactics to cover this.

2) Just because you SAY it's "too easy" doesn't make it so. There are various options with which you can make the game more difficult, even if the difficulty slider is already on the highest setting, such as not selecting the most effective powers, not slotting them, or slotting them with TO's or DO's instead of SO's, as well as going up against enemies best suited to kick your butt. PM me with your AT/build and I'll be happy to walk you through this, if you can't figure out how to do it on your own.

But stop nerfherding.

[ QUOTE ]
THis is the continuation of that thought. Quite clearly, I didn't say that a change was unnecessary, only that the change made was OVERKILL.
---------------------------------
But now you are being disingenuous, as you argued quite vociferously against both the I5 and I6 changes, and you've made it perfectly clear that you want the game to let you throw mobs around with no chance of defeat.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like you to quote the post where I said that. Or the post where i said that I made it to lvl 50 with either my tanker or controller without ever BEING defeated, which would of course be the case if there was "no chance of being defeated".

Please. You're rebuttals are pathetically transparent, and they're beginning to transfer that quality to you.

[ QUOTE ]
The tank is, as the name would suggest, supposed to be the heavy armor with impressive guns of the group.
--------------------------------
That is not what "tank" means in MMOs, including this one, and you know it.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) Words mean things.

2) This class is called "Tank". that means tank.

3) MMO's are not a monolithic structure, nor are their communities monolithic.

4) Don't presume to tell me what I know so that you don't have to give anything resembling a substantive reply.

[ QUOTE ]
Not the artillery with no defense (blaster), or the support team (defender), or intel (controller), or infantry (scrapper), but the TANK!
-----------------------------------
And who would play any of the other ATs, if Tankers were what you want them to be? The simple fact is that if you want Blaster or Scrapper offense, you'll have to live with the corresponding level of defense.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are different weapons and tactics that can be used to take out a tank, against which the tank has little or no defense. This is why there are support units, like mech infantry, air support, intell, supply, engineers, etc, that travel WITH a tank, so that these tactics cannot be used on them.

Note that infantry, air support, intell, and so forth can all be effective in their own element without tanks, as well, but when all are used together, the synergy makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. So it should be here. And it's not, because the tank has had it's armor stripped off, and it never DID have a "main gun".

Just as not every person wants to be stuck inside a tin can shooting loud shells at the enemy, and so chooses one of the OTHER jobs, so to it would be, and in fact WAS, in this game.

Or are you claiming that, before I5 and I6, there WERE no other AT's being played? Because, if that's what you are claiming, then you're a liar. And if it's NOT what you are claiming, then your argument is demonstrably false (by which I mean that you may be merely mistaken, instead of being an out-and-out liar).

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, each AT should be able to contribute to the group, but the tank shouldn't be one of the least dangerous, easiest to knock down classes.
------------------------------------
Which they are not. Even poor beleagured Invulnerabilty Tankers are more impressive, defensively, than Scrappers, never mind the squishies. (Invulnerability Scrappers on the other hand are now lagging that particular pack.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Written like someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Outgoing damage, which kills your enemy quickly, is the best way to mitigate INCOMING damage. That is, if your enemy is dead, they can't hurt you anymore. The tanker's problem is he can't kill ANYTHING quickly nor can he survive for long anymore.

I'm getting bored with you. You are showing yourself to be ignorant AND arrogant, and the two are a most unpleasant combination.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there's a happy medium in there somewhere where the tanks can't herd an entire map and survive, but can solo at least as well as a controller or a scraper or a blaster.
-------------------------------------
Of course. But your idea of that "happy medium" is to restrict the Tanker to herding only half the entire map instead of all of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, where did I say that? I want them to be able to withstand a +2 - +4 3-man spawn as well as the supposedly "squishie" classes can. That hardly translates to "herd half the map".

Seriously, you're pissing me off with all this straw man crap.

[ QUOTE ]
First you misquote me,or at least quote me out of context, then you agree with me, then you say I was wrong. For God's sake, man, pull it together. You just admitted I was right, then argued with yourself.
---------------------------------------
No, I merely conceded that Invulnerability was reduced too much, specifically in its resists to elemental and energy damage types. That is a far cry from agreeing that Tankers should be "the colossus of the game"...the game should not and must not have a "colossus".

[/ QUOTE ]

Says you. I say it should. Since you give no support to YOUR argument, or any of your OTHER arguments (and I'm being generous by calling them that), I won't give any support to MY statement, either.

[ QUOTE ]
What??!! How do you figure that? Because to change one's mind is to show weakness? The hyenas will pounce if they sense the pack leader wavering?
----------------------------------------
No, because once you've made a fundamental change to a complex system and proceeded from that point, reversing the change doesn't fix the problems it created: it compounds them. Rolling back ED would break all the changes made to the game since its introduction -- including all of CoV. It would be a disaster. Like it or not, ED was a committed move that can't be taken back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...there hasn't BEEN any progress since ED, and once again you've made a statement with no supporting arguments.

Here's a little hint for you: saying "nuh-uh", or simply throwing out a statement as if it is a God-ordained truth of the universe, with no support whatsoever, doesn't make it so. All it makes is you to look like an idiot.

So stop making yourself look like an idiot. I know what I said. YOU know what I said. And we BOTH know you have NO substantive response, which is why you buried your excuse for a response in a piecemeal post to someone else.

Oh, and while we're at it...that's just rude. If I take the time to respond to you, give me the same courtesy, or don't bother to respond at all. This is the last time I bother to pull out MY quotes and separate them from someone ELSE'S quotes because you were too lazy to post twice.

And for God's sake, learn to use the "quote" button in your posts. I'm sick of having to type in line separators so that a reader can see what you said vs. what I said in the post. Bolding doesn't carry over from post to post. That's why they included the quote button. Please learn to use it.

Good day...I SAID GOOD DAY!!!

[ QUOTE ]
And while you think I'm being selective, I think you are dismissing the idea Statesman could have been speaking to the current situation in reguard to the second post, or that he couldn't have changed his mind in the time since the second post. The time between the 2 posts is 7 months, and 9 since the second one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I know I'M certainly ignoring that idea, as it's woven out of whole cloth. It's never been said, nor suggested, by a redname poster, only made up by you five minutes ago, so I'm going to ignore it. Unless you will allow me to say that he may have changed his mind about ED and I5, and THOSE are likely to get rolled back in I7, because, y'know, it's been a long time since I5 went live, and in for a penny in for a pound.

And see my above posts, if you please. Refusing to allow heroes with FAR better enhancements to face FAR tougher enemies is to make them relatively WEAKER than they were BEFORE they had access to those enhancements/levels/powers.

Just makes no damned sense.

And I'm not calling you a nerfherder, but if you're herding nerfs, you should stop. It's bad, mmkay?

[ QUOTE ]
No, not "crazy talk." You're just trying to muddy the issue, not making any real points.

All of my 30+ characters can take on three +3 minions under I5 and I6 changes. If the devs are happy with balance as it stands, you're just blowing smoke.

Now, why would you want to blow smoke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he's on fire?

Kali, I think I love you.

MWAH!

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the 5M influence I gained from enhancement drops didn't really happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't say 5 million over how many levels, but let's say you're at lvl 40, where you're getting about 20k per accuracy enhancment sold. That's 20k x 5 for 100k, x 10 for a million, x 5 for five million. That's 250 Acc. SO's to get five million by selling enhancements. Not DO's. Not TO's. Not Sleep enhancements. The numbers change as you get to higher levels, but not so significantly that you can jimmy these numbers in any meaningful way.

So is it your argument that all that "extra" inf. you get from defeating enemies and finishing missions is "gravy", and not necessary in order to be able to buy the needed enhancements for a character? Because, if so, I'm calling you a liar, right here, right now. Hell, I don't even think I believe that you kept a running tally of all the inf you gained from selling enhancements apart from that gained by defeating enemies.

Maybe lvl 50 wasn't the best example. Maybe lvl 40 would've been better. But to argue that, throughout the late game, you don't need the inf. you gain from defeating missions and enemies to be able to afford to enhance your character is just ridiculous. Hence, here is me, ridiculing you. Again. Seriously, haven't we been around this merry-go-round often enough, Xero? You really want to go again?


Let me put it simply: You gain less than half the inf. needed to buy an enhancement of your origin type by selling it to the appropriate store IF it's an SO to begin with AND it's of a similar type to the kind of SO you wish to purchase. Since training enhancments and DO's also drop, which are worth about 1/45th and 1/8th of what you need for an SO, respectively, and since some of the SO's OF your origin will be unuseable by you, that means you have to sell a WHOLE lot of enhancements to deck out a character with all white, never mind green, useable SO's of their origin.

Now, in any given mission, I get between zero (that's right, ZERO) and 5 enhancement drops while soloing on invinc, which averages out to about 3, and since I can hold 10, that means that every three missions on average I HAVE to go sell. Further, if I'm in a mission and I'm full up, I either have to delete some training to hope for a better drop (which sometimes happens and sometimes results in me having empty slots in my tray at the end of the mission), which is money lost.


Since it only takes me two to three normal missions to get a bar of xp, and since I need 10 of those, or 25 (on average) missions soloing to get my next level, that means I can count on about 75 total sold enhancements for a level.


Since the drop ratio of SO's to DO's and TO's alters as you level up, it's tough to say EXACTLY how many SO's you would have sold in that time, but let's say they're ALL SO's, and you're level 50. From 1-30 you gain two slots every other level, and one with each new power, or 45 slots, minus one for the extra "power" level you get at level two, is 44 slots. You then get THREE every other level, plus one every power level, or an average of two per level the rest of the way, so around 84 slots by the time you are level 50. That means you would need to sell about 200 SO's (remember, they sell for LESS than half of what you need at the RIGHT stores) to pay for all SO's of even con, IF you were at, say, level 40, and not, lvl 41, where you would have to combine to get there, and could conceivably lose a significant number of "combines" due to failure.

And these are generous numbers, since the amount you get for, say, an immobilize enhancer is pitifully small compared to an accuracy, which is what I'm basing the numbers on. And don't say, "yeah, but it COSTS less for an immob. enhancer". Yes, it does, but far fewer players use them, and those who DO use them and others like them get drops of them far in excess of the number they NEED, hence the sale of such enhancements tends to vastly underwhelm the cost of the "big 10", i.e. acc, dam, recred, endred, and the like, which everyone needs considerably more often. Hence, I'm being generous. Even if we take into account the rare SO drop from the appropriate enemy that matches your origin and is needed by you, I'm being generous.

So if you're claiming that the money you earned from selling drops (whether or not it was five million) is sufficient to deck out your character? Sorry. No way. Uh-uh. Forget it. Buh-bye. See? Me ridiculing you.

[ QUOTE ]
Statesman did admit that a higher level hero would have an easier time of facing higher level foes but player skill has to factor in somewhere. If I can give a level 50 character to my cat and he can complete an invincible mission something is horribly wrong with the game. The baseline of the game is that a hero is equal to three white minions. If at any time this is not true then there is a potential problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a mighty big "if" you snuck in there, and such absurd commentary does your argument, which is weak to begin with, little credit. If you are actually suggesting that your cat CAN solo on invinc now, well, I think your cat is probably incapable of even logging in, so your comparison of a cat to someone, anyone, who has the experience you HAVE to gain while getting to lvl 50 as a player (assuming you don't power level), is nothing but hot air, and downright insulting to players who have difficulty playing on invincible with, say, their ice tankers or empathy defenders at the higher levels while soloing.

Further, as you yourself point out, States flat-out SAYS that players should be able to defeat higher-conning minions at higher levels, so who are you kidding here?

Seriously, why even take the time to type these kinds of posts, Xero?

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Otherwise, all you've been doing for 50 levels is getting steadily wimpier


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Or inversely the badguys have gotten a whole lot tougher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we are talking about relative power levels of a lvl 5 vs. 3 even-cons and a lvl 50 vs. 3 even-cons, I guess my response would be: and? You are just agreeing with me while trying to be disagreeable.

And that's not even taking into account that A) In many cases you're facing the same enemies (like freakshow) with the same names (like Metal Slashers) and the same powers as you faced 15 levels ago. If they are SO much tougher, then WHY are they so much tougher? If you are so much wimpier, then WHY are you so much wimpier? And if the villains are going to get more powerful, faster, and are more numerous, and as well-organized as their heroic counterparts, isn't the smart thing to say "well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? If nothing else, you could learn the secrets of their FABULOUS power gains, and bring it back to the heroes of Paragon.

Sorry, but your argument smacks of "I know it's arbitrary, but once upon a time States said it should be 3 even-cons vs. one hero, and States is never wrong, nor does he ever misspeak, and no statements by him or anyone else are going to convince me otherwise. So you're wrong. Plbbbt. "

Not convincing. Sorry again.

[ QUOTE ]
Or better yet the devs could close up the grief (like they did with TPing) so the GM staff won't be overworked.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assumes facts not in evidence. The GM's are not, to my knowledge, "overworked". If they are, there's another solution: Hire a few more GM's. There. Now no nerfs are needed, and no one is overworked, and the happier playerbase means longer subscription times, which will pay for the added GM's. At least, that's as likely as YOUR assertion.

[ QUOTE ]
Stealth suppression already exists in game. It is now being added to object interaction to alleviate a problem with getting a reward for nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you could A) eliminate xp reward for clicking glowies and B) reduce or eliminate the mission bonus for missions where no spawns are killed to reflect the reduced risk, or C) put +perception patrols and cameras in game to reduce the ease with which "glowie collecting" missions are accomplished, or D) You could just leave it alone, and understand that the loss of all the xp, enhancements, prestige and inspirations dropped when mobs are defeated is punishment enough, and that the travel time to new missions without garnering every drop of xp available in a mission reduces the reward to less than that of street sweeping for the same amount of time. In fact, even if someone chooses to "farm" a glowie mission, as with the example of the person who takes the mission, recruits a team, quits the team who then completes the mission, then rinses and repeats so that there's NO travel time, the length of time to find all the (often randomly placed) glowies in a multi-floor bldg or huge cavern is not completely negligible. So street-sweeping aggressively for the same length of time as it takes from start of mission to restart the mission is, if less rewarding in xp, only negligibly so, and garners you all the enhancement drops you can hold. And it's less boring. Is there more risk? Yeah, somewhat. But honestly, not so much moreso that a nerf is required as if the person were farming Dreck or Shadowhunter.

Not to mention the infrequency of missions where you can stealth to the end and click the glowie. There are almost ALWAYS other requirements, implicit or explicit in the mission, like rescuing a scientist, or defeating the boss.

Sorry, Xero, but as usual we disagree. Saying that one nerf is "better than" another doesn't change that fact that it's a nerf, and an unnecessary one at that. All it does is encourage the devs to take the most mundane, player-punishing alternative and tone it down a little so that people will say, "oh, well, that's MUCH better..". I would much rather the game reward people who chose the "road less taken" for using their noggins as something other than a hatrack.

[ QUOTE ]
personly i find it would b e depressing if after a YEAR he was still adheroing to

'no mater your level 3 white minnions hsoud be a challange'

which basicly says Relationally a lvl 50 shoud be /exactly/ as powerful as a lvl 5 hero

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it means they should be LESS powerful. The reason?

A level 5 can be fully tricked out in even-con enhancements with little effort, and while collecting prestige for his SG. He is equal to three even-con minions.

The level 50 fully decked out with even-con SO's, which conceivably double his damage, accuracy, etc, is then to be equal to three even-con minions? That would mean that, if he were instead decked out with even-con TRAINING enhancents, he would get his butt handed to him. Which would mean he's LESS powerful than the lvl 5, relatively speaking. And in order to be fully decked out with SO's at even-con level the moment he hits lvl 50, he CAN'T be gaining prestige, or he won't have any inf. to spend on SO's. So the choice is: Abandon the inf. to get the SO's you need to be equal to three even-con minions so as to be able to gain prestige for your SG (albeit more slowly, since you can't defeat enemies as quickly, being enhancement-gimped as you are), or forgo gaining prestige for your SG so as to be able to enhance up to the level you were at MONTHS ago when you first started your character, meaning at the end of your career you are worthless in terms of gaining prestige for your SG. Oh, how Thor must be ashamed.

So, technically speaking, a fully decked out hero with even-con SO's SHOULD be able to beat +2- +3 minions at the same risk level as a lvl 5 with TRAINING enhancements fighting those 3 even-cons.

Otherwise, all you've been doing for 50 levels is getting steadily wimpier, not to mention less useful in all ways to your SG.

Just doesn't make sense. And that's not even TALKING about heroes like my inv/ss tanker who CAN'T handle three red minions at lvl 50 with SO's AND 14 Hami's.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Grant invis - This does not require being teamed to use on someone. They could camp a glowie someone needs to finish the mission, and cast it on anyone who tries to get near.

3) Toggle Stealth - Things like Shadowfall and steamy mist a) don't require they be your teammates to be affected, b) are toggles, c) AoE. You can easily sit on top of the glowie and prevent it from being clicked.


[/ QUOTE ]

Understood. I guess my response to this would be to tell the victim to /petition and report the person to the GM's on at the time. This is a mechanism already provided for those who use griefing in the game (like those who tp someone in front of a giant monster for giggles).

That mechanism being available, the examples given seem pretty trivial, pretty temporary, and pretty self-destructive to the griefer. This includes the one I didn't mention, about casting group invis and logging. Pretty short duration, only one shot to do it, and reportable.

To put in a stealth suppression nerf to "solve" these problems seems like using a hammer to kill a fly, when you have a flyswatter sitting next to you on the table. Does more damage than necessary, particularly when the irritant is so small and can be eliminated by readily available means.

Also, I've NEVER run into this kind of behavior after a year in-game. But maybe I'm just lucky like that.

[ QUOTE ]
The invincible setting, while difficult for some (like my rad/rad defender), should still be do-able with smart play and smart builds for most, if not all, of the AT's and powersets in the game.

No, it shouldn't. It should completely and utterly kick your assets. Invincible missions should make people cry. A regular (not outlevelled) Invincible mission should only be completable by players (solo or grouped) with the best possible builds of the strongest ATs using perfect tactics, heavy inspiration usage and massive downtime. Every mistake, no matter how trivial, should be terminal. The downtime should be sufficient to make the rate of XP gain a total loss. The ability of a build to consistently solo an Invincible mission at an acceptable speed should be considered prima facie evidence that the build is overpowered and needs nerfing.

The setting should only exist for bragging rights and to pump up outlevelled missions.


[/ QUOTE ]

You "should" read entire paragraphs, to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you DID read the entire paragraph, then you SHOULD only quote someone in context, not take a portion of what they wrote to set up a straw man for you to knock down. Particularly when they expound specifically to prevent broad-stroke misquoting and misunderstanding as I did, to wit:

[ QUOTE ]
I say "should be" not referring to the "vision" of the game, but according to my experience playing every AT (except khelds, I avoid them like the plague) in CoH, and playing several so far in CoV, my highest being lvl 35.


[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, then, I am referring to the balance within the game AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, not as you would have it be at some mythical, far off time and place. RIGHT NOW, any AT and any powerset CAN, if built wisely and played to its own strengths, solo on invincible. Except for inv/ tanks, ice/tanks, and a few others that were hardest hit by I5 and ED. That means, rather than create balance, it created imbalance, which is the entire hijacked point of this far-off-the-topic, ought to be deleted sub-thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The tanker used to be solo-able on that difficulty level for the IN-experienced player, once he was slotted up and had a basic idea of how to use his powers, at least with MOST powersets.
------------------------------------
Don't you think there's something wrong when inexperienced players can solo on the game's highest difficulty setting?


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, READ!!

[ QUOTE ]
Now, while you are of course correct that some (Earth, especially) tankers were less affected than others by the changes, the fact is that the ones who USED to be the best at it, are now the worst.

I don't know what YOU call that, but I call it overkill.

[/ QUOTE ]

THis is the continuation of that thought. Quite clearly, I didn't say that a change was unnecessary, only that the change made was OVERKILL.

Seriously, this kind of knee-jerk, respond-to-what-you-want-him-to-be-saying-because-you-don't-have-a-response-to-what-he-IS-saying kind of post just wastes everyone's time, yours included.

[ QUOTE ]
You are supposed to be the damage soaker, the strongman, the colossus of the game.

You're not. Not even close. You're the meat shield, and then only if you have a good defender watching your back.
------------------------------------------------
Tankers are a group support class and should expect to require a group to function at peak efficiency.


[/ QUOTE ]

The tank is, as the name would suggest, supposed to be the heavy armor with impressive guns of the group. Not the artillery with no defense (blaster), or the support team (defender), or intel (controller), or infantry (scrapper), but the TANK! Yes, each AT should be able to contribute to the group, but the tank shouldn't be one of the least dangerous, easiest to knock down classes. Think about the Freakshow tanks. Why should YOUR tank be less imposing than THEIR tank? Don't know, but it is. Maybe the double-whammy of I5 and ED was OVERKILL. Maybe there's a happy medium in there somewhere where the tanks can't herd an entire map and survive, but can solo at least as well as a controller or a scraper or a blaster. Hmmm? Ya think?

[ QUOTE ]
At least, that's been my experience, with my inv/ss tank.
-------------------------------------------
I will concede that they went overboard with the Invul nerfs in I5, and that was compounded by ED. But where Invul needs to be is still nowhere near where it was and nowhere near where you want it to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

First you misquote me,or at least quote me out of context, then you agree with me, then you say I was wrong. For God's sake, man, pull it together. You just admitted I was right, then argued with yourself.

Sheesh.

[ QUOTE ]
ED, itself, was a bad idea; they used a Patriot missile to shoot down a mosquito. But now that it's done, the only thing that could possibly compound the error would be to reverse it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What??!! How do you figure that? Because to change one's mind is to show weakness? The hyenas will pounce if they sense the pack leader wavering?

For the love of all that is holy, just stop. Please.

[ QUOTE ]
And that is what I was pointing out. "I don't like such-n-such" is not a valid, or well reasoned, reason. "If such-n-such is put in the game I can do the greifing/exploit" is.


[/ QUOTE ]

You need to go back and review the first post in this thread. The one that talks about how they're going to make AV's into EB's for soloing players. This is a change that was not A) part of the original game design, nor B) used to "grief" anyone or anything. It's being changed because people said "I don't like it that I can't solo my missions when there's an AV. Can we make them EB's?" So your premise is faulty. Customers complaining about something and giving a good reason, however subjective, CAN give the developers pause. It's one of the reasons this change makes me so happy. It shows that they DO make changes from their "vision" to please their customers, and gives me hope that OTHER changes may, eventually, make it live.

Further, even if I agreed that it was possible to grief AI bots by clicking on glowies while invisible, which I don't. Not every mission should require combat. There are SO few that CAN be done that way, without at least clearing the final room, that it seems overblown to even refer to it as "risk != reward". You are losing the reward for each and every minion you bypass, and the mission bonus is SO low comparatively as to be not even worth mentioning.

But you're probably right. It probably won't be changed. And that's too bad. Because it was a lot more fun before.

In my opinion, of course.

[ QUOTE ]
Too late. Found one.

Okay, so I'm level 39.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a reason I said over level 40. The farther you go into the endgame, the more your enemies "level up" in terms of damage and accuracy, imitating (but not actually using slotting, and unaffected by ED), while most, if not all, tanks are fully capped in their defense and damres by then, at three slots per defensive power.

It makes a HUGE difference.

Add to that the fact that your main example deals with you on an "eight-man team", presumably with at least one defender to heal/buff you, and debuff the enemy, and you simply haven't seen what I'm talking about yet.

Let me put it this way: The invincible setting, while difficult for some (like my rad/rad defender), should still be do-able with smart play and smart builds for most, if not all, of the AT's and powersets in the game. Yes, you will get some debt. Yes, you will need help with the occasional EB/AV. But the minions, lt's and bosses SHOULD be, for the most part, solo-able by an experienced player. I say "should be" not referring to the "vision" of the game, but according to my experience playing every AT (except khelds, I avoid them like the plague) in CoH, and playing several so far in CoV, my highest being lvl 35.

The tanker used to be solo-able on that difficulty level for the IN-experienced player, once he was slotted up and had a basic idea of how to use his powers, at least with MOST powersets.

Now, while you are of course correct that some (Earth, especially) tankers were less affected than others by the changes, the fact is that the ones who USED to be the best at it, are now the worst.

I don't know what YOU call that, but I call it overkill. If you haven't noticed it yet, wait till about level 45, then try and solo, oh, anyone but Nemesis on Invincible difficulty level. Unless you enjoy life at the debt cap, you will come to see my point. You are supposed to be the damage soaker, the strongman, the colossus of the game.

You're not. Not even close. You're the meat shield, and then only if you have a good defender watching your back.

At least, that's been my experience, with my inv/ss tank. I haven't deleted him yet. Probably never will. But I resigned as my SG leader, and he sits unused, because I can't stand to watch him limp through the game, not after the way he used to be.

My controller is still good, though not like she was. My blaster is fine, although I sure wish I could slot some of her attacks with four or five damage effectively.

And some of my CoV characters are awesome to behold (although I don't want to say which, for fear they'll be next on the chopping block, how sad is that?).

Nevertheless, this is an EXTREME departure from the topic of the thread, which is:

Hey, good job on the changes, guys! I'm happier than I've been in many a month!

[ QUOTE ]
You seam to be discounting the "reason" in those "well reasoned posts" that got the Stealth Nerf changed.

It's Griefability.


[/ QUOTE ]

Either you're misusing that term (if it even IS a term...I think "griefing" is enough verbing of the noun for MMOG purposes...not sure we need "griefability"), which I've always understood to mean "causing grief to another player by spawn camping, body camping, item stealing and the like", of which there is blessedly little in this game, or by it you are referring to "griefing" players in PvP by assassinating them from invisibility (which I believe is the point, for a stalker), or you mean to suggest that going through missions invis. and completing them by "glowie clicking" is somehow griefing the bots, the devs, or is just a really huge exploit. Or that the "nerf" proposed would LEAD to that. Not sure. In any case, glad to see a nerf pulled back. Don't like nerfs. For any reason.

As for proving that ED is somehow "griefing" other players, it's not. It IS unnecessarily nerfing them, particularly those who have a large number of powers which only take one or two useful enhancements. I explained this in my last post. Would YOU care to address that, before you demand that I address whatever confusing point you're trying to make?



And let me be clear...the example I gave of the tanker and the controller whose pet summoning abilities have been nerfed was just the tip of the iceberg. ANY ability which accepts only recharge, endred and one other sort of enhancement has been nerfed, and their are lots of them. Teleport, for instance. Superjump, for another. Aid other, for a third. Six slots in such powers are no longer useful. For instance, in teleport, if you use all three range enhancers, there is no need for recharge, as it's an "instant" power, even though it still accepts them. So, unless you think 3 endred will somehow make up for the loss of added range on your teleport, it's a nerf. This is far-ranging, and would take more time than I have interest in spending to catalogue en toto . Besides, it's already been done. In the consolidated ED nerf thread, since locked and removed.

There are many, many logical reasons why ED is a bad idea. But, if the devs are set on it, so be it. All I'm asking is, can we please roll back the I5 nerfs which were sold to the players as being ok specifically because you could slot heavily to ameliorate them.

Probably not. And that's too bad. But it's most CERTAINLY not because there weren't REAMS of well-reasoned, detailed posts explaining why each was bad separately, and disastrous together. There were.

Just as the AV/EB issue as been discussed in ITS consolidated thread for over a year. In fact, I had just post a "oh, give up" entry in the "making the game more solo-friendly" thread a week before this came out. If you go to the thread, you'll see it, as well as me eating crow when this change was announced.

So there is hope, if we continue to ask, and explain, and grouse, and complain, that in a year or so they may implement some changes to make the combination of the two massive nerfs a little less crippling. Maybe.

And when they do, I'm sure you'll agree it was because of well-reasoned and cogent posts like this one.

[ QUOTE ]
And if ED was proving to be detremental to the game, they would remove it. Just like they did to the boss changes. Just like the toned down the "Purple Patch" when they realized that it was too harsh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that it IS too harsh. It IS possible that A) they haven't toned it down YET, B) They can't figure out HOW to tone it down without destroying it completely, C) they consider it the lesser of two evils.

For my part, I'd say they are wrong. And I CERTAINLY don't think you're going to find a tanker above lvl 40 who doesn't think that the I5 defense nerfs and ED, which affects all their "damres only" powers in a VERY bad way, is bad for the game.

Of course, lots of players (like me) have been playing CoV almost exclusively since it came out, with toons designed around ED. Brutes are the quintessential "Scranker"s, so they don't notice that being unable to six-slot damres or defense on a character which HAS no inherent rage but DOES have the uncanny ability to get attacked by everything in a 50' radius is BAD. And since those whose tankers were emasculated (like Cpl Punishment, who's retired from service) are now playing CoV and have given up on getting the change rolled back after reams of posts were summarily locked, deleted and otherwise censured, we can all now pretend that it wasn't THAT bad for them, and for the game if you happen to like playing tankers.

Just like controllers, who were told they would be unable to have multiples of, say, Phantom Army after I5, but that they could make up for it by dropping recharge enhancements in favor of 5 or 6 damage enhancements, and were then completely hosed when ED made THAT a bad choice as well.

You want to claim ED isn't a problem? Fine. Do so. But don't expect those of us playing characters who were negatively affected by it to nod and smile. If the stealth nerf was a bad idea, and the numerous posts against it were the reason it was rolled back, then ED should have been rolled back, chopped in pieces and used as confetti in the parade we would have thrown in celebration of its demise.

But still, all that is kind of a hijack of this thread. Which is about the proposed rollback to the stealth nerf, the AV/EB boss change (which to use your reasoning ought either to have happened long ago, or not at all, considering how long people have been lobbying for it, and the fact that it was never "game-breaking" to begin with, just not solo-friendly or particularly genre-loyal to have heroes unable to beat their prime villains solo) and costume options.

To all of which, i say again "huzzah"!

[ QUOTE ]
Owch theres a valid point... what if your the last soul left on a TF half way or more done and you actualy want to complete it?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that then, to quote the great philosopher and thinker Mickey Jagger, the phrase that applies is, "You can't always get what you want..."

I've done many TF's (although I must say, I've certainly never been able to go AFK), and have only failed on one respec (which was fun, I'd never seen the reactor go "boom" before), no matter how many left. Of course, I've never been ALONE at the end, either, I think the minimum I've had left at the end was three.

Oh, and I've had to quit once or twice, but I always told the team leader that was likely before we started.

Meh, I don't know...someone made the argument to me once that TF's SHOULD be the most difficult thing to complete, and though we argued back and forth about being able to recruit help, even if they couldn't get the badge/respec/reward, I do see his point. TF's are one of those "I'm doing a great undertaking" things, that you SHOULD be able to fail much more easily than normal missions, or even AV missions.

At least, that's how I see it.

[ QUOTE ]
This has gone way, way, way off topic and I have no interest in debating economics with someone who is stil referring to the "Invisible Hand of the Marketplace" that's been discreditted since John Nash.


[/ QUOTE ]

So which is it? Do you not want to debate me, or do you want to? You say you don't, then in the same sentence, you try to "one-shot" my commentary. Not successfully, mind you, but you try.

Oh, and if you're going to try to be dismissively superior, intellectually speaking, you might want to run your post through a spellchecker. I don't use one, but then I don't mis-spell "discredited". Makes it tough to take you seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
Players began opening their own websites for these virtual agencies and, despite implicit instruction in the game rules that all sites must clearly be labeled as part of a game one day the owner received a cease and desist order from a major talent agency. A Japanese compnay had contacted one of the virtual agencies believing it to be a real agency and had eceived, from a player a rude reply. When they did contact the real agency they found the site themselves, found the site it was connected to (i.e., Film Mogul) and threatened to sue. The owner, faced with either a major redeisgn of his game or a lawsuit (when he himself was just coming up before the bar) opted to simply shut the game down.

Now, by your own logic a game closing is bad, right?

So, I'd say players adding a change that caused the game to close under the threat of legal action would fall under the category of "hurting the game in the long run", wouldn't you?

Should you wish to verify the facts behind this story pm me and I can put you in touch with a relatively well known blogger who can verify the story.

Now that I have provided a substantive example would you care to retract your personal attack(s)?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I would suggest that you might have been better off making your instructions explicit instead of implicit, and that you put it in a user licensing agreement to give your game some sort of legal protection from people who are ignoring your instructions, much like CoH does in the EULA regarding people creating characters that are "homage" characters.

2) Failure to cover your butt legally does not mean the players ideas for "talent agency" game sites were bad ideas. Furthermore, players' failure to respond to people who misunderstand the nature of their websites in a mature and considerate manner does not mean the idea to have the websites was bad.

3) Finally, I've never heard of this game, and have no idea whether or not it was "for profit", whether or not it MADE a profit. You have a pattern of comparing apples and oranges in this arena, as re: your example of you paying "site fees" and having to charge to cover those, then claiming that your refusal to respond to player requests for a change in a not-for-profit situation somehow being parallel to the refusal of a company to respond to customer concerns in a "for-profit" situation. It's not the same. It's not even CLOSE to the same. In your example, you are charging people just enough to cover the site fees, while donating your time out of a love for the game. Anyone who wants to "run their own game" would have to invest considerably more than their portion of the site fee to do so, at least in terms of opportunity costs related to their own time invested, if not in materials, etc. Hence you, as the person DONATING those measurable assets to the other players, have a right to impose your own conditions on that donation. BUT...if you were charging them a fee to be their game master, and that was your sole source of income, and they demanded a certain change, and you didn't come through, they would stop paying you, you would be out of a job, and your "vision" would be lost.

So it is here: This "administrative board", whatever it was, was it for-profit? Did the game make a profit? Was it an ongoing subscription service? It's hard to know, and since you have shown a failure in past examples to understand the import of that (as I think I've shown above), I am loathe to simply trust that those things that are unspoken are as they would need to be for this to be a "substantive" proof. Further, an unknown game, with a vastly different model of useage, that went out of business not because of a change they made but because they failed to make it properly (insisting that players include an obvious screen tag that the site is part of a game, and that no one on the site ws actually a client, blahblahblah, or that the players would be sanctioned/banned/etc, failure to establish this in a EULA, etc, etc) hardly means the players' IDEA was bad, or that its proper implementation wouldn't have been perfectly harmless.

So sorry, but no, this is not substantive. As for apologizing for my personal attacks, I'm sorry if you felt bad about them, but look back at the beginning of the post to which I am responding. See how you insult me, then dismiss my arguments without dealing with them substantively? This tone is woven throughout your posts, and it is both intellectually dishonest/impoverished and antagonistic.

In other words, no, I will not apologize for calling you on your B.S., although I am sorry we have completely hijacked this thread. Bottom line: the AV/EB change is a great one, and the small inconvience you suffer is easily overcome. If you need me to send you a step-by-step guide on how to do it, PM me, and I will. As for your desire for a "flag" to notify players that a mission includes an AV/HERO, I've already said I support such an idea. And I have no desire to discuss any of these ideas, which I find to be perfectly self-evident to anyone approaching them with a modicum of objectivity, any further. You've made your opinion clear, and I trust I have as well. We can let the readers (as if anyone cares) judge for themselves which of us is correct.

Have a great day.

As I told Lothart in a private message, I would whole-heartedly support such a thing. On the other hand, it sort of eliminates the "holy crap, what's HE doing here!!" moment when you run into a group of enemies and suddenly realize you're in DEEP trouble. Which would still be there with an elite boss, but not if you were notified in advance that the big bad wolf was going to be in attendance.

pro's and con's, baby, pro's and con's. I'd be willing to sacrifice that, if people would stop talking like this change ruins the game for them.

And Lothart, in the PM you and I have had going back and forth, I noticed something...you said once that you group almost constantly with a set bunch of friends and sg-mates. But your main complaint about this seems to be that, if you were solo and on a low diff setting, you would get an elite boss...the thing is, if you upped your difficulty setting OR were with your friends, this wouldn't be an issue, so really aren't you making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill? I mean, the percentage of missions that HAVE AV's, the percentage of time that you would be alone, and the ability of MOST toons to solo successfully on the middle or higher diff settings would seem to almost guarantee that your liklelihood of having to repeat any given mission would be....well, pretty low.

And since your main concern, according to you, was that if you had to repeat a bunch of missions, you'd outlevel your contacts, but you can only GET a lot of AV/Hero missions (and by a lot I mean like an average of one every three missions) is in the late-game), it just doesn't seem like much of a problem.

Not to minimize your dissatisfaction. Just seems like you're expending more energy in fighting this than you would in just repeating a few missions. Hell, put yourself in debt if you have to repeat the mission, then you won't outlevel your contacts. I've done it. It works.

For what it's worth.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence, there is no objective definition of an improvement unless it is set by an arbitrary group designated to set it for a particular sphere of their influence. In this case, that group is Cryptic's development team led by Statesman/Jack.


[/ QUOTE ]

And, like it or not, they must serve their financial masters as well as their artistic vision. In fact, if they wish to continue to follow their vision, they had better make sure someone's footing the bill. Art does not exist in a vacuum, particularly not art that depends on millions of invested dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
So? A well designed game is not inherently a commercially successful game. The market does not define artisitic success, merely financial success.

Now, you mention that the reasons must "make sense". But to whom? The marketing department? Who are they to judge? The only people qualified to determine if a change "makes sense" are the developers.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's like saying a well-made movie isn't necessarily a financially successful movie. The very term "well-made" is dependent upon who is using it, and I guarantee you that the major studios define a "well-made" movie in financial terms, not artistic ones. Money talks, artistic vision walks, my friend.

As to the developers being the only ones who can decide if a change "makes sense", that's just naive. Ever heard the phrase "that just makes good business sense"? The developers DON'T have the last word on that, and when the time comes to answer to investors, or ask for more money for new games, expansions, etc, you better believe that the what the money men think makes sense matters a LOT more than what the developers think. A marriage of the two is what makes for a stellar game. Bad business and good art make for starving artists. Good business and bad art make for "Dude, where's my car".

[ QUOTE ]
If the game design is being defined by the marketing department please let me know so I can be sure to never resubscribe. I no more trust the marketing department of a game company to determine what is good for a game than I would trust the marketing department of a hospital to perform surgery.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But remember that the most financially successful hospital can pay the best doctors, buy the best equipment, and generally focus on patient satisfaction. So you might want to rethink that. It's not either/or, it's both. To call for "pure art", free of the constraints of economy, is to try to chop off Adam Smith's invisible hand. Good luck with that.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the players, most of them lack the overall knowledge to judge what will increase or decrease player subscriptions. I've seen many popular changes made in other games that, nonetheless, hurt those games in the long run.


[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously doubt you could prove that in any substantive way. More likely, your assumption that your tastes and ideas of what's "good" for a game, and its lack of popularity with the people on these boards, is leading you to defensively assume a posture of undeserved superiority, so that you can reassure yourself that all these plebes calling for this "stupid" change just don't know any better. I would beg to differ. But I don't think it would do any good.

[ QUOTE ]
And? You would prefer the GM to run a game he dislikes? To resent his own game? Would you expect that to be an enjoyable experience for the players?


[/ QUOTE ]

A good GM, like a good author, or a good filmmaker, tailors his product to the tastes of his target audience. If he bores them, or angers them, on a repeated basis, then he will receive no praise for his work, nor any financial rewards. While this may appeal to your vision of the "misunderstood genius" staying true to his vision in spite of the impoverished culture in which he is creating it, most humans prefer to bask in the praise of those who see what they've created, and then drive their ferrari home to their pools, where their hot girlfriends are waiting for them.

Might sound crass, but there it is. Again, this is market forces at work, combined with human nature. I didn't create the universe, but I DO try to understand it a little piece of it. To do otherwise is to court insanity.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, if Cryptic can't design games that work the way they intend them to and still find sufficent audience to remain in business they should not be in the game design business.


[/ QUOTE ]

So in your world, there is no room for "rethinking"? For learning from one's mistakes? For compromise? Such a black and white concept of existence might help you feel more comfortable in the face of failure, but in the end it will almost assuredly result in nothing but more failure.

Sorry, but yes, I think that, if you want to run a business for a living, you will have to accept that, at some level, your customers will dictate what you offer. If your dream is to run an auto parts store for lamborghini, and you open it in, say, Zaire, you may find your dream is very short-lived. You must either pander to your consumer base, or find a new one. The former is usually WORLDS easier than the latter.

[ QUOTE ]
Or doesn't work as the case may be. If you want to play a game run without a central design philosophy I'm certain there are still some out there that survive. I would prefer not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, black and white. You think that it MUST be either NO central design philosophy, or one set in stone, immutable, and unchanging. Again, sorry, but that's not the way the world works. I suggest you consider the century-old example of the buggy whip makers in Economics 101 courses around the world. There used to be buggy whip makers. The world demanded something else. Some adapted, and some went out of business.

Guess who was happier with their business in the end?

Here endeth the lesson.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

depends on whatthe defintion of wise is


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thank you, Mr. President.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I did not have nerf relations with that developer Jack Emerat

[/ QUOTE ]

<intercom crackles> "Ummm...Mr. President? There are some men here from the Forum cartel who have some questions about an oddly soiled spare costume found in Statesman's closet...shall I buzz them in?"

[ QUOTE ]
depends on whatthe defintion of wise is

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, Mr. President.