Thunderforce

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that's fairly unequivocally a bad thing! Without IOs creating such a wide gap in toon effectiveness, the same content could be pitched to provide a similar level of challenge, but no player with a good build and solid play would be excluded.

[/ QUOTE ]
No way! These enemies where just as hard and already in the game long before IO's where there. You can win without IO's. Lower the repp if you need to or just get help.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're talking at cross purposes. I'm just saying IF there is content in the game that can't be played without IO-tricked-out builds THEN that is a bad thing, and without the IO system that same content could be pitched to be accessible to anyone with a solid build and good play.

I don't myself have an opinion on whether such content exists. Razor does think it exists, and you can argue the toss with them if you like...

[ QUOTE ]
Against 4 AVs... Sometimes you just need to beef your character up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The expression "so what?" springs to mind.

With a pre-Inventions build a character with an decent build, without some peculiarly appropriate powerset, with a tray of insps - can fight an EB version of an AV solo and win.

Trick out your toon with a full set of this and that and perhaps you can fight the full AV solo and win.

One simple question... was the gameplay experience noticeably different, or was it just that you had to put in a lot of grinding to get back where you started?

Now, some of the late-game content is pretty hard. It may even be so hard that players without heavily ground builds are effectively excluded, because of the need to provide even the solidest builds with a challenge.

It seems to me that's fairly unequivocally a bad thing! Without IOs creating such a wide gap in toon effectiveness, the same content could be pitched to provide a similar level of challenge, but no player with a good build and solid play would be excluded.

[ QUOTE ]
Despite everythng you said, you seem to forget you're not the 'great majority' I spoke of.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is incorrect in two respects. It is completely obvious I am not part of the portion of the playerbase that likes endless grind. It's not at all clear that that portion of the playerbase is a great majority.

Since CoX spent many issues with the only late-game grinding being Hami raids, I would guess that the playerbase is considerably less enthused with grinding than most.

[ QUOTE ]
The game is not written for your own preferences I might add.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder who you are telling that to? I just outlined in some detail what my preferences are and how they are not what the game is like in this respect, and how I think it's probably a commercial necessity for the game to be this way. So it's a pretty safe bet that _I_ know it.

[ QUOTE ]
The grinding COULD be one of them, farming for inf and purples endlessly definately, and it's these kinds of things that mean there is a great supply of inf and purples availible for when we go to buy them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a common idle speculation, but conveniently you expose the fallacy in advancing it. You don't buy influence. The great supply of influence is used to buy the things you wanted.

Farmers have an insatiable appetite for their own product. They increase both supply and demand. Whether or not that raises or lowers prices is not something that I know, but _neither do you_.

[ QUOTE ]
There ISN'T a technical barrier stopping anyone being good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is. If you are a new player you cannot have as effective a build at a given level as someone who has been playing for some time and can feed influence to the toon in question.

Have a game that measures player skill, not time spent in front of the keyboard. If I wanted the latter, I'd play World of Warcraft.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with all of this (well not the chucking out IOs bit)

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

I know it's a radical proposal, but by your own account, you like smashing up mobs and reading a bit of story. Excellent. So do I.

Now, what takes up valuable smashing-up-mobs time? Oh, yes. Selling junk. Buying junk. Placing bids. Scrounging up salvage. Sorting through salvage. Running to six different kinds of shop to sell stuff to the game.

And what do we get from all that? Very little, except sometimes the game's too easy and you have to bump the difficulty level up to put you back where you started!

[ QUOTE ]
No one plays CoX so they can enjoy killing mobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself. That's exactly what I enjoy (yes, GG, "defeating"). I've enjoyed the game since well before there were any particularly expensive enhancements to go looking for (until you got into Hami raid territory).

[ QUOTE ]
The great majority want expensive enhancements to improve their character, because it's just natural for people to strive to be the best they can be, and this means making the best out of their character.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't want that at all.

I recognise that the IO system and the super-rare drops may have been a commercial necessity, inasmuch as previously CoX offered very little for people who enjoy endless level-cap grinding WoW-style. But if the game was written for my own personal preference all that would be thrown away. No IOs - and no enhancements at all; slot powers and select the balance of enhancement effects you want from the slots you have in a power.

Strive to be the "best I can be", sure, albeit preferably without sounding quite so much like an Army recruitment poster. But to me that means having a clever selection of powers and slots, evolving good tactics - both a solid "book" of tactics so I don't have to dither, and recognising on the fly when the situation demands something unusual - and putting those tactics into effect competently. Grinding the most purples to slot a build you got off the forums - that doesn't mean you're the best, it just means you've got a lot of free time.

Good build and tactics are something anyone can have regardless of time spent playing (of course experience helps, but there's no _technical_ barrier stopping a new player playing their toon well). It's a level playing field, and that's what I desire.

[ QUOTE ]
And let's not mention that mission in the Wretch arc which has the indicator pointing in the wrong direction, despite the map showing the mission elsewhere and has been like that since Issue 6!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a general case of the bug where the exit door indicated from a given area doesn't change based on where you are going? Harmless when you come out of the MA by the East door for a destination West of you - vexing in Pocket D where you get sent to the villains' door no matter what.

[ QUOTE ]
This just happens to have been on the list of spelling mistakes to fix at that time. We try and fix those regularly as we catch them or as they are reported to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me be blunt here; no, you don't. You generally completely ignore them as they are reported to you. For example, I reported Phalanxer in issue 3, and in subsequent issues, both by /bug and on the forums. It was fixed by War Witch in mid-2007. Many of the typos in the list I assembled remain unfixed today, years after they were first reported. I have completely given up reporting typos as a result.

[ QUOTE ][*]Positron's Blast: The Positron's Blast set should correctly display its name as 'Positron's Blast' instead of 'Positrons Blast'.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why - with hundreds of apostrophe errors in the game - was _this_ one fixed?

[ QUOTE ]
True, you might argue that most on Defiant just hang's out on #Defiant Events, so a "server global" channel would be enough

[/ QUOTE ]

But if someone did argue that, they'd be wrong. I might be playing on Union right this instant, but if a TF I want comes up on Defiant, I want to know about it. Having it cross-server maximises the chance of having something to do when you don't want to solo.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I disagree (kind off) a daredevil should be able to beat a hulk its a comic book stable

[/ QUOTE ]

More importantly, it's a gameplay staple - as far as possible, PVP 1v1 shouldn't result in one participant being hosed from the word go, because that's not a lot of fun from them. Of course that means the ATs have to be twisted into funny shapes compared to their PVE origins, where it's sensible to have defenders be low-offence low-defence support classes, but that's better than just being handed a "you lose!" card at the start.

[ QUOTE ]
and all this rubbish of using isps is cheating is a big steaming pile of dog poo

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's cheating, but I do think the situation is unfortunate - do you want to PVP, or do you want to spend your time in the AH buying fat insps? Because the more effective insps are (and you propose to make them still more effective), the more there will be a pointless arms race where I have to buy a trayful just because my opponents have.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
World PvP server.

[/ QUOTE ]
Be honest.. would you let people do roleplay or chat without blasting them? Would you respect that other people are not always into fighting/pvp?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you, on a "World PvP server"? Don't start a toon there if you don't want PvP! If you roleplay, roleplay a character who is prepared to stop chatting and face danger at any moment.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying when they _do_ think about it they will go "Oh, about the same as bases. That's basically nothing. OK, then."

[/ QUOTE ]
So it will be thought about.

[/ QUOTE ]

That strikes me as every bit as blindingly obvious as it is irrelevant to the question of whether the disc space requirements could be prohibitive or even particularly significant, which is what we were actually talking about. It also wasn't being disputed by anyone, so I don't know why you are so eager to demonstrate it.

You also seem a bit confused about whether you're posting to this thread, not posting to this thread, or posting and then deleting all the comments immediately.

[ QUOTE ]
Balls I'm out of this, not even sure why it is worth arguing the toss,

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly your position seems quite indefensible, so that seems best.

In reply to (yet another) deleted comment, no, I'm not saying the devs won't think about the storage requirement. I'm saying when they _do_ think about it they will go "Oh, about the same as bases. That's basically nothing. OK, then."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you want a slider to mute the one bit of looped background music in the game, and to add looped background music to the rest of the game.


[/ QUOTE ]it's just that, normal background music is suppose to loop, it's making the environment alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you say, but in fact (as you should figure out) looping music can be much more annoying because it doesn't go away, and you want a special slider to turn off looping music but leave non-looping music on.

[ QUOTE ]
Neither of us know how much space it will take.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither of us knows _exactly_ how much, but we don't need to, because any reasonable estimate makes the cost of that space microscopic. Being wrong by a factor of ten or even a hundred would merely make it "very small" rather than "too small to count".

[ QUOTE ]
Which is more than what the base costs would be bearing in mind that originally it wasn't realistic to expect everyone to be able to make a one person base.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly was realistic to expect that. It was _true_, with the release of bases, that everyone was able to make a one person base. Not everyone did by any means, but of course if the storage costs were at all significant then NC would have had to worry about the worst case. And that's with 2005 storage costs, which were over four times as high as they are now!

[ QUOTE ]
Because I could have sworn that without actually knowing how much storage you need per/house, knowing how much storage costs means squat.

[/ QUOTE ]

But again that is hardly a complete mystery. There are two approaches that suggest themselves. One is to speculate about how much data a base could possibly take up, assuming that the implementation is fairly naive. Obviously any competent programmer can do that.

The second is to notice that in late 2005 it was feasible to offer every toon the ability to create their own SG base (which obviously is of comparable size to any sensible implementation of houses) and that storage is enormously cheaper now than it was in 2005.

By analogy, if you tell me Positron owns a bicycle, and ask me how much it weighs, I'll guess about 10kg. I could be wrong - it could be 4kg of carbon-fibre confection, or it could be 40kg of cargo trike - but if you say "you don't know, so it might weigh fifty tons", I'm still going to laugh at you. We don't know exactly how much storage a house would consume, but I think we can be confident it would not need hundreds or thousands of times as much storage as an SG base, and it would be that sort of level that would make the cost significant.

[ QUOTE ]
But I stand by the assertion that the storage costs will be non-trivial if every single character (not account) in the game were to get a personal base.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can assert what you like; you can assert that there are geese on the Moon. But unless you actually have an argument to support your position, especially when the contrary position does have a strong argument from someone who understands what storage actually costs, you might as _well_ be asserting that there are geese on the Moon.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
144Gb of disc is, what, about a tenner? So that would be a hundred quid for 144Gb of backed-up quality disc in a server facility. That's a hundred quid total to serve every subscriber. The data storage costs are, I reiterate, laughably small.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the data transmission costs?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're currently in an SG base there is already a similar type of data transmission going on. So why worry about the data transmission associated with something people do instead of SG bases?

[ QUOTE ]
And the back ups?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I have mentioned backups every time I have mentioned the rule of thumb that proper storage costs ten times what buying a disc does.

[ QUOTE ]
And the extra work needed to make sure the integrity is kept?
And the work put in my support for those people who lose stuff from their houses?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is mounting rather a distraction from asking about the cost of storage. Presently, however, this work is done for SG bases. If people are instead using something which uses the SG base code with a different hat on, it's hard to speculate that there would be more work. Indeed, the current situation implies a lot of petitions and work when shared SG bases are stolen from. If people who belong to shared SG bases don't have to keep all their storage there, that annoyance should be diminished.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure it might be laughably small, it might be so small that adding hdd wouldn't be needed. But TBH neither of us knows that do we?

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to explain what is wrong with my reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that every current subscriber decides that they want an APPLE for their character, and assuming that each has four servers full of characters (12 per server). Assume that the current subscribers is 30k. Using my figures and I'll restate I don't actually know the size of these things I get about 144,000,000k data storage and the bandwidth to go with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

144Gb of disc is, what, about a tenner? So that would be a hundred quid for 144Gb of backed-up quality disc in a server facility. That's a hundred quid total to serve every subscriber. The data storage costs are, I reiterate, laughably small.

[ QUOTE ]
But I do know that the devs have said in the past that they'd rather not give people more storage for various things due to data storage and bandwidth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "effect on the AH" explanation is far more plausible, inasmuch as it actually makes any sense.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, at least in part. Two things I think you overlook though. One creating a personal SG, inviting your extra 14 characters (bonus prestige is for first 15 members)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm well aware of that, but if you look at the actual costs of warehouse rooms and racks you will see that 12 members gets you 270 salvage slots and 15 members gets you exactly no additional salvage slots. That is why I produced "12 members, 270 slots" as the no-effort figure.

[ QUOTE ]
bearing in mind if you only have one account you potentially have to have a stranger invite you and your alts into the SG in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter that they're a stranger (you don't have any storage to steal from until after you're finished with the stranger) and it takes maybe five minutes at a busy time to round someone up who'll do it (and six more minutes relogging) so I don't see this as a serious issue.

[ QUOTE ]
And two if you are in a personal SG you aren't in a SG with all your friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true, but we _started_ with the observation that many people prefer 270 salvage slots to an SG with their friends.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want it to replace SGs, or SG bases in any way shape nor form. I want it to coexist with them offering something that they don't and allowing them to offer something that APSTAIAWSs don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's misguided, not that PEARS with non-SG-base features couldn't be interesting. The original motivation was to encourage people to join multiple-player SGs rather than using personal SGs by, rather than nerfing personal SGs, provide the functionality some other way. That can only work if PEARS _do_ actually provide the functionality of a personal SG base!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because "RPG" in computer games doesn't mean "roleplaying game", it means "vaguely D&Dish mechanics like experience and levels". Sure, you _can_ roleplay in the MM ones, but there's no particular compulsion to.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, sorry, it does. Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what it stands for - that doesn't mean that's what it is. You can go from 1 to 50 without ever uttering a line in character, without ever imagining your character's mental state, without ever considering their motivations (or even pretending that they are a person _with_ motivations) - in short, without roleplaying - and this is not even particularly unusual. What the game is _about_ is some sort of tactical third-person skirmish combat.

[ QUOTE ]
even with things like Oblivion and Diablo and suchnot, its still technically a roleplaying game, as you take on the role of the chracter.

[/ QUOTE ]

You control a humanoid avatar in a videogame. That isn't taking on a role. Is Super Mario Bros a roleplaying game? No. Is it a computer RPG? No. What's the difference between Super Mario Bros and Diablo? Stats and levels. It's the stats and levels that make people call it an "RPG" - not any roleplaying!

[ QUOTE ]
Theres a little thing that some people may not have heard of, oddly in a MMORPG;
Roleplay


[/ QUOTE ]

Because "RPG" in computer games doesn't mean "roleplaying game", it means "vaguely D&Dish mechanics like experience and levels". Sure, you _can_ roleplay in the MM ones, but there's no particular compulsion to.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly can't think of any potential for abuse of 1.1. And getting married is such a superhero thing to do. Why, practically every hero in the comics is married.

[/ QUOTE ]
Manticore and Sister Pscyhe got married.

[/ QUOTE ]

Statesman ate a ham sandwich once, but that doesn't mean we need a mission, badge, and substantial XP reward for eating ham sandwiches.

[ QUOTE ]
Also in regards to 1.1... It will only work when those 2 people are teamed together,

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously completely beyond the ability of farmers to arrange?

[ QUOTE ]
and 1.25 isn't much, also that could be changed to a lower amount or make it only influence.

[/ QUOTE ]

1.25 is two free bars each level!

Any significant reward is going to lead to marrying just being something you do at 30th along with the Aura mission.

I certainly can't think of any potential for abuse of 1.1. And getting married is such a superhero thing to do. Why, practically every hero in the comics is married.

[ QUOTE ]
If you only concentrate on one aspect of the game, it'll leave every Issue looking less interesting to you

[/ QUOTE ]

I left out "and how PVP has been totally ruined and will never be any good ever again", didn't I?

I do wonder why they bother. I don't like broccoli, but you don't find me posting to the forum every day about how I ate some more broccoli and hated it and very soon now I will never eat broccoli again.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, no matter how good the players are, a team entirely composed of team-build empaths is going to be a trifle dull as you zoom around gradually nibbling monsters to death.

[/ QUOTE ]
mmmmm... tempting! Both RA's x8 with a generous lashing of Fortitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither RA boosts damage output (assuming you have no endurance problems, and if you have endurance problems on a team-build empath at the level when you have both RAs, something is wrong). Fortitude provides a nice percentage boost to damage - what a shame that five-quarters times diddly is still diddly (same goes for Assault).

Team-built empaths tend to be woefully short on attacks at all but the highest levels because there are no lousy powers in empathy. Even skipping Absorb Pain only squeezes out a second attack. Fortitude's a nice buff, but it works on your existing damage output...

This is all the result of a misunderstanding.

"Wait, you wanted new effects for blue and purple _insps_? Oh."