ThatGuyThere

Firstly, I haven't questioned your game-design ability or your understanding of City of Heroes in this conversation. I feel it's unfortunate you've decided that's appropriate.

Secondly, you appear making the assumption that allowing alternate power choices inherently and obviously destroys game balance. I don't feel this is a reasonable assumption. Note that I have stressed, repeatedly, that it would be essential that the "alternate power choices" would be equivalent.

Let me try this another way.

Suppose there were a full powerset available with Paragon Points called "Crispy Fire Blasting", as a Blaster Primary, that, on the whole, as a powerset, is equivalent to the 'free' Fire Blast (and thereby, implicitly, most / all other Blaster sets, give-or-take). Crispy Fire Blasting does, maybe, more X, but then, it does less Y; people are going to have their preferences (they already do, for one set over another), but overall, neither one is "the best" or "the worst", in wide opinion.

That's not a problem for me. I anticipate sets being available in the Paragon Market, so "alternate" sets being available doesn't bug me. Anyone who doesn't anticipate new powersets being available on the Paragon Market should, most likely, prepare for disappointment.

(Note that the powersets on the Market may or may not be "Free to Premium Members". That's secondary to this discussion.)

Further, that powerset - "Crispy Fire Blasting" being broken down and sold power-by-power, presuming balance is maintained, wouldn't bother me, either - "Would you like Flares, or Crispy Flares, as your power choice?". Again, assuming the equivalent powers to be approximately equal, without one having a significant non-situational advantage over another.

I'm not suggesting I'm a coder, or a game-balance expert. But I am suggesting that reasonably equivalent versions of some existing powers could be designed, and sold - expanding options available in the market and in the game, while requiring (potentially) limited Dev time to fiddle-up the numbers.

(Examples: "Less damage, more recharge"; "Less recharge, more DoT"; "Less damage, but a minor debuff attached", etc, etc. Again, I'm not trying to balance them; I'm suggesting it can (could) be done. And since such "alternate sets" would reuse existing animation / graphics / etc resources, potentially they would be less time intensive than "whole new" powersets with new animations / graphics / powers / etc.)

Edit - Again, to stress - I'm not discussing the coding difficulty, aside from noting that with 'new powers', new graphics are required, and with 'alternate powers', new graphics are not required, and (admittedly) presuming that means the 'alternate powers' suggestion would require less Dev time (which, from my limited knowledge, the Devs have indicated in the past is true).

Also corrected at least one typo.

Yes, but probably not in the way you mean that. Some powersets are better at fighting, say, Banished Pantheon than Freaks; some individual powers could show such a preference, too - "If your build is going to be heavily (A), then you should take Flares; if it's heavily (B), then go for Alternate Flares" is fine, to me.

Yes, like any other power, alternate powers would be subject to optimization. But as long as Alternate Flares is not "Flares, but with better X", I think that's pretty acceptable.

I think the distance between, "I'd like to pay Paragon Studios more money in exchange for more customization options" and "I'd like to pay Paragon Studios for a better character" is pretty vast.

Remember, this "alternate power" still takes a power choice. It still has to be slotted (well, maybe not "has to", but y'know). It's just another option. Is it a powerful option? Well, no - because we've already said, when arguing for it, that we don't want a powerful option - we want it to be an "equivalent" option. Is it a desirable option? Yes, clearly, to some (including me).

To suggest it another way - what if instead of paying Paragon Points to unlock new "numbers" behind the power (not better numbers, just different ones!), you paid Paragon Points to alter everything but the numbers - the name's different, animation's different, coloring is different, everything? Then, it's obviously a customization option.

And what if the devs made the choice between "Flares Mechanics #1" and "Flares Mechanics #2" available to every player, having carefully set up the mechanics to be (roughly, over a variety of situations; better here, worse there) equal? Well, I'd argue that's customization too.

Also, I'm not suggesting "out of archetype" powers - Tanks wouldn't get controls, Masterminds wouldn't get ... like, damage, I guess? ... it'd all still be "archetype appropriate".

Edit - To Forbin -

You mistake me. I'm saying nothing about code at all. In fact, I'm having difficulty reading my post in such as way as to take it as being about code. I'm saying, in terms of the game-mechanical alterations available in exchange for Paragon Points, those options are roughly equivalent.

In code-time, you're clearly correct - some are vastly more complex than others - but all you've accomplished there is winning an argument you were the only person in.

This reminds me of a Far Side cartoon.

In it, a group of dogs are playing - brace yourself - tether cat (as opposed to tether ball).

The artist, Gary Larson, thought of this much as a captured moment in these cartoon-animal's lives; certainly, in his mind, this was nothing worse than you might see from Tom & Jerry or Sylvester & Tweety (let alone Itchy and Scratchy). And it was funny, to him, for the same reasons. (And I happen to agree with him.)

But he got an absolute <mountain> of objections.

He theorized it's because the event never changed - the cat didn't get away, the dogs didn't get their comeuppance, no matter how many times you opened your book, the cat was still, uh, "involved" in the dog's game.

I agree with those who say that, in real life, a guy who'd been hitting on a girl for 5 years doesn't "deserve" to have her "break down" and say yes. Obviously, it doesn't work that way - and I understand and appreciate the feeling that it would send a negative message to a subset of persons.

But this isn't remotely like a realistic depiction. The two stand there, for days on end - years; probably more than a century, now - with him settin' it up, and her knockin' it down. Continually.

We never see her throw her drink in his face and leave, or sensitively explain that while he's a great guy, he's just not right for her. We never see him nurse a drink and decide to move on, or try again with another girl, or go home and sign into a MMO to make himself feel better. Their story remains in limbo, never "moving on".

So, I am in favor of a happy ending for either or both of them (preferably both). Although I can certainly appreciate those who argue it shouldn't be with each other.

(Although my personal taste for irony would have them simply randomly reverse the roles of the characters - sometimes, after server maintenance, it would be "Desperate Girl" and "Turn-Down Guy".)

Note that I agree with you here.

In addition to my aforementioned (and much-maligned) suggestion, I also think part if it is the game's "T for Teen" rating. I'm not sure smoking plays nicely with a "Teen" rating in all places among all those polled anymore.

(Abundant polygon skin, fine. Polygon tobacco consumption? Over the line. What a world; what a world!)

Don't confront me none. If we get cigars for females, I have a couple costumes to change.

Not an unfair question. But I'm only suggesting that a Google search for women smoking cigars might produce images of the type they might seek to avoid.

I'm being non-committal and just bringing up ideas. I personally see no problem with it, and certainly no greater problem than much of the existing female attire.

I'm not saying I know, and I'm not saying I agree with the logic...

...but women smoking is something of a ... particular subject of fascination among ... some men.

(Those who are old enough can use Google to prove this to themselves, should they doubt it.)

This may play a part in continuing to exclude that option. Again, not that I agree with that logic.

I'm sorry, pardon?

I'm not sure anything in the above suggestion prevents them from taking advantage of the "filtering". I'm suggesting that the "Free" accounts (Premium and VIP, too, but they're already allowed to send tells) are allowed to send tells to anyone - VIP or Premium, either, sounds good - that's flagged themselves as "helper".

If you feel the suggestion in some way is not suited to Premium players, I'm completely willing to work around whatever /tell limitations they have.

/signed. Twice if I can. And again, if you'll let me.

Full credit to Bloodspeaker. Anyone else like this idea?

I'd snap up a $ 150 lifetime. I'd probably snap up a $ 200. And I'd seriously consider a $ 250, particularly if it got "bonus monthly points". I think you're aiming low, personally, and I agree (again) with Arcanaville - "If I'm immediately willing to buy it, that means it's priced too low".

This, I agree with. Bulk discounts. Mostly because I'm gonna need, like, a billion of the things.

That's an excellent observation, Grae Knight. I agree; we should spend no time on this frivolity.

This was frequently asked and moderately new.

...aaaand that's IT.

Out of Galaxy? I suspect that will be done for you, soon enough.

As someone who ... occasionally skips early arcs, I actually have to say I don't dislike this idea. I do think presenting new players, fresh out of the Tutorial, with "LF Powerleveling" or "LFAE Team for lvls" in Broadcast might not be the best first impression.

Leaving them in mid to higher level zones - right near the Tram - means they're accessable to the players who know where they are (and therefore, who have probably played the low-level content at least a few times) and out of the way for players who haven't encountered them yet.

I think the combination of "nearby market, nearby trainer, first zone you start in" makes for an unfortunate "perfect storm" for the Atlas Park AE, making it "Farms Central". I think that's regretful - but unavoidable.

As someone who has skimmed the surface of AE's mission content, and enjoys and advocates it's creation system, I also think it belongs, in general, "not in the first zone". I can't really see many brand-new players who don't have an actively-right-there-with-them mentor heading straight into the AE building and player-created content; and I'm not sure doing so would be the best introduction to City of Heroes, either.

Note that I'm fine with leaving it right where it is, too. But I certainly see strong advantages to (re)moving it from Atlas Park.

Sooooooort of, yes. You can buy "double XP" tokens. I'm extremely curious if that means "twice as much XP for N time logged in", or "the next Y XP you earn is doubled".

Both options certainly allow for more rapid leveling.

And if you're willing to 'sell' XP, I'm not sure how far away Inf is from that - and "If Inf, then everything Inf can buy".

The whole program already has balance implications. It's been implied - strongly - that, as a rough measure, 400 Paragon Points (or one Reward Points - a chart of costs would be really handy) is about equal to one "good" current vet reward. Several of the vet awards - in particular, several vet awards working in tandem - can form a powerful mechanical advantage. As can Beast Run / Ninja Run - both of which are anticipated to be purchase-able with Paragon Points

I can't see them not tying their "new" rewards system into existing reward systems. Note that I'm not entirely convinced it's a disaster, either - although I'm certainly not convinced it's not, either.

/agree.

I strongly suspect IOs will be available for either Paragon Points or Paragon Rewards, and both will be purchased for real money. As a result, they will have an (implicit) Real World Price. I similarly anticipate that Inf will have a Real World Price (as in, you can use Paragon Points / Paragon Rewards to just get straight Inf).

Either could (IMHO, would, but I'll be honest, I know nothing) spell disaster for the markets. Worse, I think both will be true.

Note that I'm not saying "DOOOOOOM", but "Major changes in the way in which the market responds to changes in supply and demand are coming".