Stormfront_NA

Abuse, exploit, are all words which means something in a context based on an benchmark or assumption.

When it get to TFs and Merits, one must understand that there are two reason pplayers do the TFs to begin with. Either to Level or get Merits.

I find myself bouncing between both camps:

1. If I have a new alt, I purposely do TFs to level; they are fun and yield great amounts of exp, even when done rapidly, and I get sweet merits to boot at then end too. Another benefit of doing TFs to level, I learn how to better play that particular alt as well; TFs are excellent training grounds.

2. But once I made 50, experience is irrelevant, what is relevant is getting those IO sets needed for my alt to "be all it can be". Doing missions do get influence so I can buy those recipes, is simply madness for the recipes are way too over-priced to plainly purchase, and we all know, if you need the recipe; it will not drop. So what else could you do? That's right, get merits. How can you get merits? Do TFs. So now we want to do Tfs, but only as an instrument to get merits, thus going into TF missions to kill everything that moves or could move, is simply not practical. So when I form TFs, I make very sure to declare if it is a "slow" or "fast" TF. I would push for slow, if I am helping an SG member level; but if I am doing this for myself, it will be a quick one. Now what is my definition of a quick one? In short, I only fight what I must fight to achieve the mission goal; no thrills!

Now I am not comfortable making statements saying the Devs said this or that, ot thought this or that; I much rather let the Devs do their own talking.

But when I look at a TF mission composition, I am not really sure Devs are against TFs being done quickly, as many players seem to call it exploitation. Now why am I saying this? When I look at the various TFs, the first thing we should notice is that the nature of missions are different, we have kill alls, kill the boss, click the glowy, go speak to somebody, take something to somebody, go patrol, hunt for this, etc. I would dare say, that all possibilities save "kill all" are designed to allow for "short cuts". People doing Synapse, know after the hunt there is a go talk to Positron, so one player heads to Positron while the rest massacres clockwork; people know which phones are used for a patrol; players heads to different phones at the same time, in Numina we know what the sequence of the hunts are, and so we split to do those. The examples I mentioned are short cuts, can we claim they are exploits? If all we need to is to break into a data base to get a clue, what is wrong with stealthing to console and getting the data? I would think, if we were to stealth into an enemy base and get their decryptions codes, it would be a really good idea, if the enemy did know we have copied their encryption codes!

So the question to be addressed, what is a fair measure or value in merits for a given mission?

Do we assume the reward should be comensurate for a team that brute forced it all the way?

Do we assume the reward should be commensurate for a team that shorted everything?

Is there no value in merits for players who use cunning in a mission? What about good group tactics or leadership? Should there be value for that?

These are difficult considerations, and tough to answer when we have inherent biases to one process or the other. For instance, the exp miners would give a negative look to those sneaking to the computer for much exp is not being collected.

My take or sugggestion would be, base the merit rewards for a mission based on a kill all approach. If the players speeds it up, they still get the same merits as a reward for their collective good practices.

Hugs

Stormy

When I thought of elementals, I was thinking of D&D elementals and perhaps a sort of cross over could be made...

Stormy

I like the concept as a whole, especially as Penny indicated with having more things to do with vanguard merits, perhaps we could exchange vanguard merits for prestige as well, maybe a one for one...

Stormy

With so many different ways to achieve level progression, at times it is inconvenient to retro-grade to low level contacts in an effort to stumble in the proper sequence to get the contact you really want at your present level.

This situation has been partially solved through the use of radio or newspaper missions, but sadly not all of the contacts in the zone are available to be gained via this method.

It would be cool, if I could go to any contact at any zone I qualify to be at, and after talking to him or her, I get a "do 5 radio/newspaper missions to gain my confidence"; so you go about, do the 5 missions and upon compeltion your radio/newspaper zone contact gives you access to the contact you went to visit earlier.

It could also be ok, if you could simply walk to a contact beyond those in Atlas and King, and get them to give you missions; after all you should have a heroic reputation by then; same idea could be done at the villainside too. The reason I used beyond Atlas and King, say level 7, is that you need to earn a reputation.

what do you all think?

Stormy

Mmm...

Interesting concept, having most of my alts essentially magic based; I find your concept attractive.

But I would have thought elemental, to be more akin to Earth, Air, Water and Fire, the old Greek elements, I believe.

Perhaps the pets would somehow go along with the old Greek sense, for example:

You start with one minion and grow to three. Instead of having 3 of the same, I would suggest you get an earth imp, with essentially pummeling type attacks, when you go up in levels you get a Wind Pet which can fly and have lightning and knock-back attacks when upgraded, then when you build up to three you get a water elemental, which has water blast attacks and healing attributes.

When you get to the LTs, you would have fire imps, like the controllers have.

Finally your boss pet, would actually be a combination of elements with all of their properties available.

For yourself, you would have elemental powers. You have a mega punch from earth; lightning bolt from air, heal from water, fireblast from fire...

I could see deviations from the above, such as armor/resistances from earth, stealth from air, etc...

Hugs

Stormy

Love the concept, having theme based packs is actually a good idea. This way we can generate new alts and have access to new costumes, powers and what not with out being subject to unlock features based on level.

Stormy

Anyway much is to be said about anonimity, it makes it possible in many cases to say things you normally would not have the courage to say otherwise. This freedom does cut both ways, for those too timid to want to suggest something, it enables them to do so; opposite to that is for those jerks who derives joy from flaming others and don't want to receive what they dish out so readily.

Stormy

Mmm

Seems what I am asking for went quite missunderstood...

Yes I am still upset over the BoZ nurf, but not as much with the nurf itself, it did make sense; they were over-powered, but I am mainly upset at the way it was done.

Yes, I agree that developers can change the game in any way they need, to keep the game fun and challenging.

But the question I been making is, when a dev makes a change in the game are they responsible to some extent to the customer for their actions? Please note, I am not judging their activity as good, bad or indifferent.

In fact the developers when they do some activities have offered respecs in the past, I vaguely remember, I think, when they changed regen for the scrappers, the develoeprs gave them a free respec.

So the thought of some allowances for developer origininated changes is not allien to this game. In fact many of you will claim that the free respec given in I17 was just that in fact. I partially agree with most of you over it, but a free respec is standard with any release, so it was not much of a give way, when you really think about it. I will admit, for many of my builds, the single respec was in fact sufficient; but in many other cases it fell noticeably short and costed me nearly a billion in some of thsoe cases.

The IO extractor I suggested is a way to mitigate some of the experienced pain that goes with change, when change does occur it affects players in many ways, as some of you, it did not affect you at all, and others were heavely affected.

Stormy

Mmm...

The issue with merits and how one decides its good or bad is likely based at where you stand, its a perspective. If you are trying to level, you want long missions with losts of mobs to destroy, and the merits are simply gravy. If you are already 50 and trying to purchase via merits those way market over-priced recipes, then you want high yield merit wise per unit of time TFs. Because we have two dramatically positions, both reasonable, players both in game and in forums often collides over this.

I have argued, quite often, that the developer adopted metric of merits earned over time is essentially a poor way of doing business. Frankly such a metric encourages sloppy playing, meaningless leadershp, no creativity and discourages good leadership, good teaming practices, creative ways to solve problems, etc.

When you look at those who wants to maximise exp gain through TFs, any creative way to shorten the experience is quickly accused of being an exploit, etc. Those experienced players trying to get the merits for their recipe are consistently annoyed at lowbies going out of their way to gain un-needed aggroe.

Frankly, I don't believe merits should be based on time "sunk" in a mission, ifyou take the time to kill everything in the map, your reward is all those precious exp from all those mobs. I would suggest a game mechanic change, in behalf of the kill all players, let the end of mission exp bonus be a one to one match in exp as its similarly done in AE tickets. Don't limit this bonus to just TFs, should be for anything.

I would also encourage that merits should be paid off at the end of each mission, not as big nothing or all proposition. This way if a player is doing a thread, everyone who helps that player gets something for their effort as well; and perhaps increase thw willingness to help other players with their threads.

I would like to see the Oro merit penalty removed, if I do a Positron in a team of say 3, do we experience any less challenge than had it been a non-Ouro environment? So why get 40 merits for the 66 merit effort?

Now to the issue of how to assign merits for a TF or any mission, where its not time based but challenge based?

There are several ways to go about it, but the easiest is to do it based on the mobs you fought and the objective they were guarding or trying to keep you from.

I would say, first you award merits for each mission, and then a bonus merits for the completion for the set of missions. The bonus could be in fact 1 merit per mission completed in the set. So if you do a TF with 16 Missions, your TF completion bonus is 16. In the case of the Eden trial which is a huge one mission event, you can break down the effort into discreet portions, such the breaking of each wall, collecting EoEs, etc.

Now for the mission itself...

Each AV defeated is worth to each player that participated 2 merits
Each EV defeated is worth to each player that participated 1 merit
Each 4 x Bosses defeated is worth to each player that participated 1 merit
Each Mob Defended Glowy is worth to each player 1 merit
Each Mob Defended Destructible item destoryed is worth to each player 1 merit

This set up is actually beneficial for both the exp monger and the merit monger, because it provides and incentive to maximize your kills for mertis for the merit minded player, and it also satisfies the need for experience for those players trying to level. Thus ending the conflict between both attitudes.

Hugs

Stormy

Mmm...

I can agree with Penny's observation and suggestion, that there should be a cost to remove enhancements, after all in real life changing attachments to real things; does have a cost.

I do disagree at the referred cost to remove them, for the cost referred to is as high as buying and making many of the IO recipes already in the game. For instance 1M influence to remove a level 50 is really to high. Maybe because in real life I am experiencing a recession and I find myself appalled at throwing away millions of influence, I tend to be a bit reluctant at the throw away money concept.

I saw a poster, quoting developers, and appears to be a proponent of the influence sink dogma, and would like to point out, that like with many developer statements in the past have been reversed. For example, the idiotic need to have players travel across several zones for the heck of it; how often that has been asked to cease and desist by the players? And the developers response is always the same: Its too much fun to deprive you off, also players need to enjoy and learn the maps we worked so hard to craft. At first glance, the observation of a developer "dogma" sticking to it seems to be in favor of the "developers will never change it" Yet how can you explain the introduction of all those portals, "short cuts" such as Ouroboros, Vanguard, Mission Transporter, Base Teleporters, and so forth?

The point is that developers do change their positions, in some cases totally and in others partially.

I believe the developers will have to address at one time or the other, that players are being adverse affected by changes they make in the game. Do note I am not judging the changes as being good, bad or indifferent. But I will submit that those developer changes in general are motivated in improving the game. In the past respeccing and throwing away Singles was really never much of an issue, but with the IO architecture, the cost is significantly higher; and a reasonable person should realize that this aspect must be treated differently. Think of it like this, would you experience the same urgency when treating a scratch when compared to treating someone whose arm got blown off? I hope not.

I find the thought possibly disturbing with regards to influence sinks, and sincerely hope this will never be the case (as far as I can tell, that has not happened): Developers make game changes with the sole purpose to make players dump previous investments to replace with new investments, because the developers made the old powers useless. So far, this has not happened, the changes, solely, have been for game balance purposes and thus are bonafide changes.

Still there is a matter of justice or simply right or wrong...

If I design a build for my AT, and then respec to have the right power-slot structure, then buy IO sets to complete my AT; thus far it is I who is solely responsible if the AT build works as I intended or not. Fair enough?

If the design does not work as I intended, whose fault is this? I trust, you will think: Its the players and not the developers. As a result any cost or loses in repairing or correcting the build should fully be asessed against the player, there is no justification to blame it on the developers; especially with tools such as MIDS' being available.

With me thus far?

Now say you do build an AT architecture and it does work, you employed IO recipes which have been stable for over a year, perhaps even two. Then the developers decide to rebalance the game, or a specific IO set or sets, or even how a power will now work, etc. These changes will in general impact players with these IOs or power sets in a negative manner (I said in general because the great majority of the time the effect is a loss of capability as opposed to an improvement). So the player, if they desire to continue enjoying that ALT, is going to have to likely respec and replace IO sets; this process can be somewhat costly to extremely costly. The question to you all, is it fair to assess the cost to the player solely? If not, is it fair to assign any cost all to the player? If one is to assign a cost to the player, how much percentage of it would be fair? Do note, the player is suffering damages (in the legal term) from a developer initiated activity.

Some may argue, that the developer activity is done for the greater good, and likely that is the entire truth, but that should not forgive them from responsibility. Today a city planner decides a new street needs to be constructed to solve a traffic congestion issue. The city planner decides that a road needs to be constructed through your property, and has the right to do so under "Imminent Domain". So the devs have the rights to change the code, to make the game better under "Imminent Domain" clauses, which only makes good sense.

But Imminent Domain is not a do whatever you want clause, it has limitations which alllows for the citizens rights to be observed. The city planner, is responsible to buy your property at fair market value, the city planner can not just go knock down your fence and part of your house to build the road; the city planner has to pay reasonable reparations, they have a responsbility to the citizen; the tax payer.

So how does the above relates to the game?

Developers changes the game, how it works, to ensure the game is working as intended, to make sure its balanced, to maximize enjoyment, add more content, etc. They like the City Planner, have the right to make changes for the better good of society through Imminent Domain.

Developers should also experience similar responsibility for their actions just as City Planners do. That is a fair reparation to the ones negatively impacted by the City Planners activities must be done; same should be with our Developers.

Given that we can agree with very basic law principles; the next step is how to fairly decide how can developers make reparations to negatively impacted players by their actions?

I do note that with most developer initiated changes, a free respec is provided. That is a good move with regards to making up for how powers work changes, so a player may choose to drop the power or even begin to use it. I can see in the rare occassion a power is improved, that no need for a respec or any allowance may be needed, for no negative impacts is experienced by the player.

But lets address an IO bonus degradation, or power ability degradation; how can a developer make reparations for that?

My suggestion of a free IO extractor tool, was a suggestion on how to mitigate the damage a player experience from a developer initiated change; it matters not if the developer change was good, bad or indifferent. The City Planner decision to put a road through your property may actually solve the problem, make the problem worse, or do nothing.

My basic point is, players like tax payers have a reasonable expectation to be treated honestly and fairly. I do understand that because of that, players should not be able to profiteer from the developers; but its entirely wrong for a developer to do changes with out having a responsibility assessed with it.

Perhaps my socket extractor concept could be available on a time limit basis tied to a game change release, say it last for 2 weeks after the release. I have 34 level 50 ALTs fully IO slotted, if they were all impacted, it would take me quite a bit of time to fix them, I am sure there other players with far more ALTs than I do, perhaps a month might be fair...

Hugs

Stormy

Hi:

With the history amd potential for changes on how powers work, the effectiveness of IO sets, and the likelyhood that new IO recipe sets will be released; it would be nice to be able to remove enhancements of our powers as opposed to throw them away during a respec (if more than ten are impacted) or place a new enhancement over the existing one.

The overall concept is imagine you buy a rifle, thus your basic power. You can then add slots for enhancements to your power. Thus if you want to increase your accuracy you physically add a scope to your rifle, if you want to increase range, you change barrels and use a rifled one, if you want to increase damage you change the nature of the bullets you fire from it, etc. In all cases, you can physically add or detach and enhancement: I remove the old x25 Scope and place a x50 scope, etc. You just don't get a hammer and smash the old scope to pieces and then place the new scope!

So why not have a means to remove our enhancemets from our powers, and later be able to put another or the same enhancement if needed be?

perhaps we can have a fixed cost to remove the enhancement, it should not be expensive, its not in real life, so why should it be different in game?

Yet maybe we can say, well if the instrument is very precise, perhaps it cost more to remove because it takes greater care to do?

So maybe we can base cost on the nature of the enhancement, that is based on rarity perhaps?

White: 50 influence
Yellow: 100 influence
Orange: 200 Influence
Purple: 400 Influence

The values are simple suggestions, no analysis was done for them, they are simply a sample to illustrate a notion...

What do you all think?

Sue aka Stormfront


Ps: Another sample, I have a mixer at my Kitchen; my mixer has many attachments...dough mixer, meat grinder, etc. Note that when I attack something to it, I am not stuck for life with that set-up, I can detach one attachment and replace it with another.

[QUOTE=Aett_Thorn;2884525]

I'd much rather have more sets made for the current areas to increase flexibility than have to jury-rig a system together to add effects to powers that don't make sense.
QUOTE]

I think Aett truly has the best suggestion here, I was seeking more ways to get effects for the various ALTs, and frankly Aett is right, why not have more recipies with more different properties?

Thank you Aett, you hit the ball ouf of da park!

Stormy

Mmm

Flames aside, do find the suggestion intriguing to an extent; but I have problems with the concept from a role play perspective.

While I can see the convenience in taking your existing level 50 ALT, and mutate it into a different ALT while retaining badges, influence and what not. It does provide game issues to other players, for you did not experience the maturity in playing that alt from earning the various levels, so when you join a level 50 group, you have a level 1 mind hero trapped in a level 50 body; which is not fair to the team.

I find it difficult to justify how a character known through out Paragon City for their abilities used to fight crime suddenly became something else; its kinda like Batman one day, the Flash next day; and then Superman the next. I have a hard time with a known charcter known for their awesome buffs join my group and to my surprise is now a tanker!

I am also not sure if your respec concept is a total ALT change or just a change of powers within the same AT, can you clarify?

Hugs

Stormy

Ps: Despite that I am disagreeing with your suggestion, I want to encourage you to continue posting new ideas; one day you will hit the ball out-of-da-park!

Mmm...

I agree with the over all concern are the original power sets, say pre-I3, are balanced in effectiveness with the power sets as new as I17?

The first question to ponder is: What is balance?

That to me is really a very hard or nearly impossible question to answer, for performance effectiveness can be viewed from so many perspectives.

Frankly, I tend to believe that power versatility in the secondary effect department has not been a main consideration when releasing new power sets due to work loads on the developer side; in other words "I need to get this new wow-zhabang power out" and thus the new powers were built taking advantage of all the new effects, IOs structure, status effect and buff/debuff architecture with out consideration that senior citizen powers did not take advantage or as much of the new effects architecture. I concur that current power sets are really very nice, with many side effects built in to them, very flexible enhancement slotting wise, really well done.

The pre-I17 especially pre-I3 powers when built were not designed with all these great bells and whistles because when they were created these new game effect abilities simply did not exist, at least in an architecture as we have today. Thus Martial Arts stuck to the classic configuration of melee and Knock-back, because at the time Knock-back was your main side effect for melee and the other side effects were not as well structured as they are today, similar statement could easily apply to an energy blaster.

So I felt it would be nice to re-look at these classic power sets from the pre-I3 era specially, and kinda bring them up to date as needed, some powers were actually so well made they were ahead of their time, but others were not. So perphaps thunder kick, for instance, could be more than just melee and knock back, perhaps it could be upgraded so the main power instead of hitting you and knocking you, may have a tiny stun, or defense debuff, or what not; really it would be a power to power evaluation to what new abilities would make sense and then how effective. In the case of Thunder Kick, I would dare say, the victim had been kicked so hard they are stunned or numbed in such a way they loose defense (thus defense debuff) for a short period of time, if so then stun or defense debuff IOs could be utilized with Thunder Kick. Note that these durations does not need to be nearly as long as a power truly intended to stun by its use for instance.

This also may be an opportunity to re-tune some of the defensive sets, such as tanker fire aura, at the time they were designed the use of status effects, specifically immobilizations were not as rampant as they are today, tying the immobilization break free for fire tankers to burn was ok in an environment where status effects were not used as much; but now status effects are much more like spam, and the use of burn as a means to be protected against immobilizations is really not appropriate. This is a sample case where a power was very good at one time, but as the game architecture evolved, that power became increasibly less effective.

Hugs

Stormy

Hi:

I play a Storm/Dark Defender and would like to have the ability of having electical arcs flowing about me only when I am in flight or hover as opposed to all the time if done through the ICON's tailor.

There is in a way a precedent of sorts, look at the prestige sprints. So this suggestion is kinda like an enhancement to the prestige effects applied for the other travel powers such as flight, supper speed, teleport, jump etc.

In the case of the effects, perhaps the effects for the powers could be set kinda like it is done for the costume emotes.

Hugs

Stormy

Hi:

While struggling with the changes done to Blessing of the Zephyr, it occurred to me why not have a different set of IO bonus architecture available. I am not saying dump the existing ones, just have another bonus architecture style available.

Let me explain the difference...

Today you can pick any IO set and any particular bonus within that set is achieved depending on how many slots were dedicated to that particular IO recipe. For example, Obliteration gives you 3.75 melee defense at six slots, but other bonuses are given to us at 2,3,4,and 5 slots. The benefit of this architecture is that many different benefits can be given through the use of slot filling. The weakness is that you have to have the right amount of slots filled with the particular recipe to get the effect.

What I am suggesting:

Add another new set of recipes, that have all the benefits available right up front, just at 2 slots, but you get a percent of the full benefit. For example you would have 20% of the bonus at 2 slots, 40% at 3 slots, 60% at 4 slots, 80% at 5 slots and 100% at 6 slots.

Most current recipes tend to give you about 6 to 8 or more bonuses through out the slot evolution of that recipe, thus the new architecture recipes would have 3 to 4 scaled abilities all available at two slots and so forth.

The benefit of such an architecture is versatility, and a way to address the rule of 5 in a more direct and pratical manner. Not that it is likely to happen, but as an extreme, you could slot 5 of the same recipes at 6 slots; thus reaching the 100% bonus benefit cap; but one could use the same recipe another 5 times at 5 slots and not impact the 6 slot cap, but do achieve a 5 slot benefit cap; the process could be reproduced at 4,3, and 2 but frankly I can't see this actually happening in practice. The drawback to this architecture, is that when you get these recipes is that you don't get as many different bonuses.

What do you all think?


hugs

Stormy

Ps: Perhaps these new recipes could be introduced in say I18 or I19

Hi:

With the degradation of Blessing of the Zephir (not commenting if good or not) I started to redo my various ALT architectures; as I used MIDS' to redesign my alts I noticed that the classic power sets, say Martial Arts, their choices of what kind of IOs you can place in them are very classical and lacks severely in variety. Normally you are limited in MA to melee and knock back in most cases; while the newer combat power sets tend to allow you a much greater suite of choices such as melee, knockback, defense debuff, enhanced defense debuff, etc.

It would be nice, if some of these old sets could be "modernized" to accept more sets of IO choices. It may result with these old sets getting a bump in ability such as besides "just" having knockback having minor defense or resistance debuff as well, so that the powers could have access to more choices.

I am sure some of the "old" guard ranged powers such as energy for blasters could be re-looked at as well, for instance.

All I am asking is to relook at the various ATs power sets, and see if they could be made a bit more versatile or flexible with regards to IO choices for enhancing.

It would be great if many of the Target PBAOE or PBAOE powers would have a greater variety of choice on what IO enhancements types they could use, at the moment they strike me as a bit narrow.

Hugs

Stormy

Mmmm

I have mixed emotions over the new Positron, I like it in some aspects and totally hate it on others. While it is shorter in a way, and broken into two halves, it takes the pain of a lengthy TF away. On the other hand, the positioning of the mobs are too narrow and the number and size of the ambushes are frankly too large. The problem with the excessive use of ambushes is they are much harder on the support ATs and thus in a round-about way makes the TF more difficult; while I like to see more challenging TFs, I want the challenge to be more even across all ATs not solely at the expense of the support ATs.

I also did not appreciate the severe reduction in merit gains from doing the new Positron versus the old one, but then the 2 Positrons do not have as many missions, so maybe it is a break even type of thing. I liked large merit TFs because I only have to organize a team once to get that many merits, I suppose its a matter of convenience.

With regards to revamping other TFs, not sure I care to see them transformed to pityful merit earnings, with lots of ambushes, etc. I don't think that in itself is an improvement, its new, but not quite better.

If TFs going to be upgraded, an effort should be made to address brainless repetitiveness, say for instance Synapse; we get 3 identical kill all missions back to back, using the same exact map! Perhaps 3 different groups could be engaged, and have different maps.

I would like to see "Kill Alls" and "Hunts" re-addressed, lets make missions make sense! In many kill all or hunt missions, the actual goal is to obtain a bit of information, say the name of a spy, location of a base, etc. It really makes no sense to me, you have to obliterate the entire base or all "x" number of mobs to gain the information, are we super types have such incredible bad luck, that it is always the last one we beat up, the one who happened to have the information? Every time!

Also defeat boss, should be re-looked at as well, normally when a mission is to take a leader out, the objective is to de-stabilize the enemy group by denying leadership. I can see defeating the leader with his immediate bodyguards; but does it make sense to have to defeat the entire room, and in many cases the room is really huge, multiple floors with strange closet like rooms, entry ways, etc. I believe a surgical strike, should be surgical.

Also in many TFs only the leader sees the script or story line, would be nice if each team member could see the writing as well, so they can understand why they are doing what they are doing.

I also would like to see the missions themselves better balanced in the challenge aspect, do not pick-on a specific AT and then claim that made the mission more difficult. I frankly think its wrong, you have by design ranged ATs uncapable of having mez protections and then "challenge" the team by having mez attacks spammed, throwing ambushes that spawn in the middle of the group, etc. These so called challenges are totally ineffective against melee ATs who are designed to take these form of attacks as a matter of course. I understand accomplishing this is difficult, but its only right.

I also would like to address the need for TFs to have so much inter-zone travel? I am not saying don't have it all, but lets not have it at every mission either.

Finally, lets look at maps, would be nice if the maps made sense to a particular group. I can see CoT using caves, but Freaks? I would like to see where groups and maps make sense. Think of this, lots of sewer maps, cool, but which groups should operate there? I can see Vahz using them, lost as well, beyond them I really would feel pressed to justify it.

Stormy

I seen some good pros and cons...

The original intent of my post was to get relief from hunts when events interfere with them...

So I open this thread to explore ways to mitigate the impact on hunts when events negatively impact them.

1. Hunts Auto-Complete when an event impactys the hunt zone.
2. Remove the location condition of the hunt, so one can hunt anywhere.
3. Have specific "Train-like" instances for hunts to be done at.
4. Instead of hunts requiring 100% completion to complete, have the chance of early completion.


The 4th choice is a new one, and I actually like the reasoning behind it, and would do wonders for improving the game immersion in both hunts and missions. Let me explain, how many TFs starts with investigate a group? We enter their base and have to beat the stuffing out of and every mob in the base, after we have been incredibly unlucky, it so happens the janitor in the closet we missed, happend to have the secret code to the key to the vault in some other zone... Frankly the whole chain of thought in the story is rather flawed. The same goes with the Hunts, hunt 50 council, so we beat up the first 49 for the heck of it, and finally the 50th had the address to the doughnut shop...Dumb!

I believe the 4th concept should be implemented no matter what, yet it does not address the lack of avialability to the mobs when events are undergoing.

I would like to see suggestion 2 and 4 executed, thus we can hunt anywhere and each mob defeat could result with a mission success.

Hugs

Stormy