Sir_Zane

I had mentioned something similar in another thread. Basically, if the devs want to leverage existing content then they need to have an Incarnate switch/setting (or some such mechanism) for Incarnate teams running plain ol tips, radio or arc missions. Some mechanism which will allow them to leverage all the existing content.

Otherwise, it will be a mess. If you "turn off" Incarnate powers for what might be large sections of the game then a lot of players won't bother getting on the Incarnate treadmill. If you leave the powers on, then as the players get further on the Incarnate path the rest of the game becomes obsolete. Not to mention that, if this is the case, they cannot create enough Incarnate rated content to keep the horde of new Incarnates satisfied.

THIS!!! Jab really sucks in the whole context of the SS Tanker for which the power was originally built. Additionally, being forced to pick the first power of the secondary, for me, is intensely irritating. I could see the point IF the first power was a set defining power ( like Hide for Stalkers) but it mostly is not.

So, if Taunt was the first power in the Tanker secondaries then I could understand being forced to take it. But, that does not happen for a whole host of reasons.

I personally would LOVE the option of taking Air Superiority at Level 0/1 instead of Jab. That option is nothing but WIN.

Which do you think was a bad idea?

Setting up an environment in which character names are not unique or using the account name as the unique tag?

I do not think that using the account name and displaying the account name was an option I would have chosen. Other options to accomplish the same thing exist though.

But, removing the restriction on unique names is a fantastic idea. I am very tired of not being able to use a name which fits a new character concept because "it is already taken" especially in a game which is 5 years old.

It is not very inviting for new players at all. If the in-game system for finding/creating teams needs to be supplemented by "global chat channels" then that system is lacking and needs to be fixed.

I do not have a particular opinion of whether or not servers should be merged; especially the whys or why nots. But a couple of issues being used as for reasons not to are really non-issues.

Names: CO has shown that you can create an environment in which any player can have any name. The uniqueness is based off the account name. The same can be done in COH.

Server Merging Means Death: If server merging occurred at the same time as a significant release then "the industry" or "people" would not be likely to think that the game is dying. For example, if NCSOFT choose to merge servers as part of the "Going Rogue" release. No one would think that the game was folding because of a server merge when a major new release was being delivered.

There are several "out of the box" concepts for increasing player density besides helping individuals find teams ( which I still believe a better Team interface would do more for resolving those complaints than server merging ). For example, lets say that starting with Going Rogue the devs begin playing with the concept of more "open world" missions similar to WAR and begin to lessen the amount of instancing in the game.

Perhaps, the devs have found out from data-mining and exit interviews that congregations of people lead to more people wanting to be around. What if the real benefit of the AE crowds were that it LET other people get to see each other instead of being spread out in instances. If the world "looks" empty to a newcomer than it IS empty in their minds and game experience.

Yep. I skipped Dull Pain completely because it was out of concept for my tank. I had to respec into it when GDN / ED hit. Gave up Punch to pick it up and have not had the attack since.