ScreamingMimi

Such a shame.

I am having a Dickens of a time finding actual information on the Kheldian War before it came to Earth.

My impression is this:

The Nictus become energy vampires and the war starts, with the Nictus clearly on top and multiplying in numbers rapidly. The Nictus develop their Great Weapon, some sort of collector that can harvest Kheldian life-energy from vast distances (in-game, we are told the collector could harvest Kheldians from light years away). The other Kheldians freak out, and learn to join with the Nova and Dwarf as a defense against the Great Weapon. Together with their new hosts, the Kheldians start taking ground from the Nictus, who in turn respond by learning to force the joining on Novas and Dwarfs. Then, the Nictus do SOMETHING TERRIBLE and the Nova and Dwarf homeworlds are destroyed, eradicating both species and relegating them to memory form. This event is so catastrophic that the first Warshades leave the Nictus, appalled at the genocides. The Kheldians, now properly called Peacebringers and Warshades, manage to destroy the Great Weapon, and the Nictus retreat into their Cysts and vanish into the galaxy. An uneasy truce between Peacebringers and Warshades is forged, but hostilities are still widespread and open. My impression is that it was not until the Kheldians started to merge with humans that they learned to tolerate each other (a positive human trait that Kheldians did not possess previously).

Now, that is my best guess. But I am having real trouble actually figuring out where I got that story from. Can someone cite a canon source on this for me?

Help?

Aha! Well, that explains that.

I'll just blame rock music or something on the fact I had no idea where I was.

Did we get teleported? We're in "City Life - CoH & CoV General Discussions" now?

This is hardly a general discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
However, no inf or enh could be retrieved from any PVP build respec; enh can go into the PVP build but they can never come out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here’s where I disagree strongly. If I read this right, you’re suggesting that influence spent on enhancements slotted into the PvP build is absolutely lost, because a PvP respec does not ever “free up” enhancements. Since PvP optimized builds are FAR more expensive, this could be seen as a ‘penalty’ to PvP.

Following the model you laid out, I would make the following change: instead of the player’s current PvE slotted enhancements being “available again” to be slotted into the PvP build, the PvP build should be a blank slate. Yes, this means a player will need to re-acquire an entirely new set of enhancements to slot, potentially slowing down their initial plunge into PvP. But if enhancements slotted into my PvP build were “lost” on a respec, I would not risk the investment of inf spent on IOs to build it. Let the new PvP build start unslotted; let players choose their PvP slotting under the same rules by which they slot their PvE build.

[ QUOTE ]
So unless Cryptic starts coding banana bombs then there is no reason to expect PvP to get out of the eternal cycle of misery which takes place in every PvP game and drives people who lose way from PvP . I am sure someone will happily come into the thread and lie about how PvP is not about winning but if you go read the Pvp forums in various online games PvPers obsess over winning and being a winner. Gracious losers are very few and far between.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe a loss in PvP should still earn “merit-alikes”? Certainly not as many as winning, but perhaps what we need to reward is participation and not just victory.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This mental segregation is foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. And I'd thank you not to so offhandedly dismiss my opinion with insults. It's not foolish. In fact, it's one of the major philosophies in this game when it comes to PvP. PvEers who don't like PvP at all should not ever even have to see it. They should be able to go about their business and not have to confront more than the most basic indications that it even exists in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, it's exactly these type of people that are a large part of the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

And? If someone doesn't want to PvP, that's their choice. Get over it. Let them do what they want and you do what you want. I have no interest in PvP. I don't need incentives dangled in front of me, it won't make any difference. I don't need it waved in front of my face, that will only annoy me. And I -DEFINITELY- don't need the hostility in /broadcast that is almost always present where PvP is present.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I’d suggest you continue to not go into PvP zones.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of aught else, I am and remain both steadfastly and vehemently opposed to any "FLAG" mechanic which would allow people in a putatively PvP zone, to be immune to each other's attacks simply by electing not to be "flagged" for PvP.

The flag exists in a form it should remain in: entering the zone in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
You’ve made this clear. This is the way it is now, and the question is, “is it working?” We’re talking about change, which, yes, is very scary. But sometimes necessary.

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

Remove them.

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


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

[/ QUOTE ]
I don’t see the “forcing” you’re referencing.

[ QUOTE ]
Cross-server PvP should be one of the main focus areas, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I wish I could find my thread about this from last year, but I think it got purged.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, Ex agreed to help us out by making a poll, however, I'm sure that's something she'd agree to do if there was a move to make a badging server or a fruitsalad server or whatever else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would hope so. But still, a redname (orangename, I guess) poll is still a level of involvement that makes a lot of people say to themselves, "oh, this must actually be happening, because a redname is involved."

Considering it is Ex Libris who asked that non-PvPers stay away from the poll, she is empowering the poll with her position. She may not be meaning to, or maybe she is: community coordinator is her job, and so maybe this is the kind of thing we'll expect to see in the future. But we haven't so far. So far, over the past few months, Ex Libris has come to be associated with the PvP community. She helped get the PvPEC off the ground because the PvP community couldn't get it off the ground themselves. She's in that community's corner, and a lot of people know it.

And I'm not saying that's bad. The PvP community needs someone in their corner. But I am saying this does not seem like a completely unofficial thing. You can say that this is unofficial all you want, but really, it seems like this is "unofficial" at best. The weight of having a redname be involved and make the poll should not be dismissed so lightly.

I'm just as interested in PvP as I have always been, which is to say I like it, I participate in it, and I do my best to try to ignore a lot of the ugliness that accompanies it.

That said, I still support the idea of cross-server PvP-- you can read my idea in my post.

At the same time, if my server were tapped to be the "unofficial" PvP server, I would want to know what, if anything, the devs would be willing to do to help Saint Joe's relocate to another server. If the answer to that question is "nothing," then I'd rather see another server get tapped.

Saying that a server is now the "unofficial PvP server" carries more complications than whether PvP'ers would pay to transfer to the new server. You need to consider the people who would want to leave that server as a result.

I'm totally going to gush for a sec. Pardon me.

As of this evening, both active supergroups comprising Saint Joseph School are in the Top 50. Combined, we'd be #12-- take THAT, #13 Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow!

I want to thank all the dedicated roleplayers who have made SJS a really great place for me and for so many others, going on two years in September. And I want to thank all my friends and associates on Infinity from whom I have learned so much about how to teach others to be better players, like Psoma, Jules, Mishmaster, OSHA, Obs, Bakka, Mis, Bane, Beeks, Lord Griffon, Rune and Q. I hate making lists like this cause I will always forget people, though.

Oh, and Donut Girl, who still does not play enough.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A camel is a horse designed by committee.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said. and where are the committees and red names for all the other broken stuff and interest groups here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, they're coming.

Ex Libris mentioned that she was taking what she had learned from the PVPEC when she begins forming committees for other player communities. I believe, however, that the thread where she said this has been deleted as it became a flame war.

Her post itself should still exist in the community digest somewhere, but I am too lazy to go look.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'll summerize what I said on page 4, of the 13 million plus people that were playing MMORPGs in July 06, less than 400,000 players were playing PVE only games. Of the PVE only games you can track, all but one, disney's toontown for kids (with 110,000 subscribers and meant for pre teens), has been dying.



[/ QUOTE ]

Have toyu tried ciomparing the figures for games that ONLY have PvP and games that do contain PvE as well? I don't know how many people play Counterstrike or Battlefield or all those other twicth games with no PvE content, but that would give another way of looking at your premise.

You say:
Games with PvE only = fail
Games with PvE+PvP = win
Therefore PvP = win.

Maybe we need a
Games with PvP only = ?
to fully compare?


[/ QUOTE ]

I did just that:

There are more people playing pure PvP games online today, (counting RTS and FPS games only) than are playing all MMO's combined.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, yes, but more copies of Monopoly have been sold than all MMO's combined. So obviously, we need Monopoly in this game.

Kidding aside, I think we really need to wait to see how an MMO like "Fury" does before we draw a real comparison. FPS and RTS and MMO are sortof apples and oranges. Well, maybe more like grapefruits and oranges.

[ QUOTE ]
4) with both parties being maxed out in tohit and defense, i would expect the same scenario as Question 1. 50-50 chance to hit/miss and be hit/evade.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm quoting this not to single out this post, but because I have seen a gahzillion posts that say this. This answer assumes that the maximum to-hit ceiling and the maximum defense ceiling are exactly the same, and should cancel each other out.

The maximum damage ceiling and resistance ceiling do not cancel each other out, if I have read other threads correctly. The edge is given to resistance over damage.

Why should accuracy and defense be a wash? It seems to me that defense should edge out accuracy at their respective ceilings.

I agree with the basic consensus on 1, 2, and 3 that I have read so far, being...

1. Base accuracy, zero defense = 50 - 66 % chance to hit.
2. Max accuracy, zero defense = 90 - 95% chance to hit.
3. Base accuracy, max defense = 5 - 10% chance to hit.

But I disagree very strongly with the general consensus that the values on #4 that this situation should balance it back to 50 - 66%.

We all play in a game where we know there are powersets that rely exclusively on Defense to survive. That being the case, the maximum accuracy versus maximum defense still needs to give the defensive powerset more of a chance to survive. I would give the advantage in the #4 scenario to the defense-based set by giving them an unresistable defense of some sort. So...

4. Max accuracy, max defense = 33 - 50% chance to hit.

Well, so, after many twists and turns, we come full circle.

Which is to say it seems we all agree.

The game needs both, and it sounds like everyone agreed on that from the beginning, we just didn't like the sources and sometimes we didn't like the tone.

The next question is still the big one, which is how to improve the crossover and make what are (in my mind, anyway) 2 different games come closer to being one game we can all enjoy in its full length and breadth. Well, not "all," that's overstating. There are 10% on either side of the PvE / PvP issue that will never enjoy the other. But we need to start playing to the 80% in the middle.

[ QUOTE ]
For example I kill a badger I get an ear full about how they're only there for badges and blah blah so I keep killing them then get petitioned.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hoj, this is the part I don't get. Why do you keep killing them until you get petitioned?

I mean, yes-- I agree-- a badger in a PvP zone needs to realize they're in a PvP zone. You kill them, they get upset, and you've proved your point: you have forced them to acknowledge they're in a PvP zone.

But killing them over and over until they petition you? Why? They're not a challenge to you, and probably not a threat to you, and so it's unlikely they're going to suddenly cut loose with their insane PvP skills and give you the good fight that I would imagine you want.

It's kinda like kicking a puppy, hoping it will turn into a werewolf, until the ASPCA shows up and hands you a summons.

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I keep reading is that 'PvPers are not loyal' and 'they end up going to other games.' This may be true however it is mainly due to the lack of support from the devs, I mean they haven't even fixed what we play this game for since i4? What if you couldn't get any badges since i4, would you still play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I would. Then again, I do not really badge.

I'm not sure why it always seems to become badges vs. PvP. Both sides tend to accuse someone who doesn't agree with them of being from the other group. Aren't there players out there besides just badgers and PvP'ers?

Not to attract the hate-- if you need someone to hate, keep on keeping on-- I'm just commenting that I find it curious.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Define "anguish."

Under your definition, attorney's, bill collectors, police officers and my ex-boyfriend all fit that description.

It's subjective. Which is why it's not a sound argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having a really, really hard time believing nobody knows what Jack's talking about. It's true that it's hard to define what level of [blank]holery is unacceptable without descending into suffocating legalese, and I agree that Jack has used some (shall we say) sweeping generalizations in his rhetoric, but is everyone really going to act like they don't know what kind of conduct he's talking about?

Really?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they will. It's about controlling the conversation. If the conversation becomes an argument about Jack defending his own conduct, then no one is talking about the problem that most people can easily acknowledge exists.

It's this tactic.

And it's a great way to win an argument without ever addressing the issue.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, since you want facts...here are some for ya.


1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.

2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.

3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you site the source of these 'facts'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, still no sources, but I can believe them though. The key word is "worldwide" The U.S. MMORPG market is very different than a lot of the asian markets in what sells. Just another reason like I said you need different "versions" to appeal to different markets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, of course those are facts.

1. WoW has non-consensual open PvP, and it's the giant.

2. We all are playing a game that allows PvP. So we're part of the 90%.

3. More people play non-MMORPGs than play MMORPGs, so this is hardly surprising.

So yeah-- facts. Not sure what those facts actually say, though. You could probably rewrite those three facts about a lot of things and it still might not mean anything.

Well, players in competition over something really isn't the same thing as PvP. Or at least not in my mind.

I mean, if it was, no one would say "stop killstealing", they'd say "gg".

[ QUOTE ]
Are you allowed to advertise for other games on the forums?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess not.

KA-BAM!

Are you allowed to advertise for other games on the forums?

Well, either way, it'll be an interesting experiment. I look forward to seeing what results it gets.

I vote for kiosks at Wentworth's now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again like you just said you CAN get away from the idiot in PVE and go PVE somewhere else. When you flee a pvp zone, you are fleeing an activity you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you get it. Yes, I CAN get away from the idiot in PVE by being forced to do something OTHER THAN I WANT and leave the zone where they were griefing me.

In PVP, I have that SAME choice....but I can also fight back because "griefing" is really just "Player versus Player" in those zones.

How can I fight back in PVE?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can also think of times when PvE behavior of this type happens. But I think there is a very serious difference in how it FEELS when you compare reactions in PvE and PvP.

Let's say some 'poo monkey' (sure, why not, I'll use the term) herds up a level 50 ambush to a store or a train in Steel Canyon or whatever. It usually only takes a few minutes for someone to notice, and broadcasts of "argh, some fool left his level 50 ambush at the train!" And just as often as not, other level 50s will respond to the situation and come clean it up. But even if no one comes to clean it up, I have never heard someone respond to a broadcast about a lingering ambush with "cry more n00b" or "lrn 2 play".

If someone is actively being a poo monkey PvE, you will tend to find the community-at-large hostile to the fact he's being a jerk. Part of that is that the PvE environment has actual rules. If a person herds level 50 mobs into players in a level 5 zone, that IS griefing-- you don't have to have a huge discussion about whether it was or not. In PvP, there is a significant population of players who believe NOTHING is griefing. Which of course means that a player who broadcasts with a complaint in a PvP zone will receive a reaction peppered with insults and very little support.

There may be nothing you can DO about griefing or poo monkeys in PvE or PvP, but I guess my point is, often in the PvE environment, the community often responds with "yeah, that guy is a tool, sorry that happened" where in PvP environments the sentiment can often be "sorry, but that's PvP, if you don't like it, get better or leave."

PvP pays the bills because PvP'ers are a player-driven community. In this way they are like roleplayers, because they make their own fun without much help from the game developers.

PvP hasn't really gotten a new, shiny toy in a while, but they are still playing their $15. The system is unbalanced, the zones are largely empty, and they have to deal with a small minority in their ranks polluting the way they are all perceived, but they pay their $15 because they are a community that drives itself forward.

PvE requires new stuff. It always has. It always will. And making the new stuff takes money. That's the tradeoff for retaining the PvE community and attracting new players to it.

PvE is like a risky investment. PvP is like printing money.

Cause honestly, you could have a PvP map that was blank with large polyhedrons to break up LoS. If skilled opponents were there, PvP would happen. The really good PvP'ers only need each other (and the occasional new recruit) to stay content and feel challenged. The nice textures and neat zones are a plus, but those are just icing on the PvP cake.

I do not think CoX would last long if PvE was abandoned, and I do not think CoX would remain profitable if PvP were abandoned. It's that what makes the two groups happy are very, very different. And speaking very strictly from a financial view, yes, PvP generates large amounts of money with a minimal investment.

If I cannot qualify it, I am forced to say No.

[ QUOTE ]
good idea but here's where you earn the thumbs down. i have a stalker and have a very tight build already. i can't get some of the powers i want (hasten or epic pool powers) much less these powers. the only way i would be able to get those is to sacrifice my fitness set (no) or my epic set (no).

[/ QUOTE ]
You say no to the idea because you have a character that would not choose to take them for a tight-build reason? Uhh, okay. My Defender simply cannot squeeze Boxing and Tough into her build-- perhaps these powers would be better removed from the game

On the subject, I think this is a very interesting idea. I'd love to see more things like this integrate into the game. Personally, I think the Invention system should have been done through a power pool.

/signed