UberGuy

"Hi, I want this thing. Other people may not want this thing, but if they don't, they can just be asked not to look at it, even though if my idea is successful, it'll be going on all over the place."

Sorry, but "just avert your eyes if you don't like it" sounds incredibly dismissive. Which I suppose I can understand, coming from someone around here who has interest in PvP - they have to be used to being dismissed themselves. Still, I don't think it's going to get you much backing among PvErs, though.

Your idea sounds neat for a ground up approach to a new game. I find it wildly unlikely to come along around here. I expect any future PvP changes/improvements to remain sandboxed in their own parts of the game. I think that's just too ingrained here.

The third one isn't going to be situationally useful for my Regen Stalkers at all. Well, OK, it'll be situationally limited to when they're in combat taking damage. Which... is 100% of the time pretty much any of my powers are useful.

Honest question, because I truly don't understand this part. What's the functional difference in an increased cap and a power that raises the cap so it has room? Unless you're looking for benefit beyond even the proposed increased cap through stacking (which I can see them wanting to avoid), I don't see the functional difference.

Woah, holy cow, those sound nice. Thank you <someone> for the max HP increase. (Yes, I know it's just in testing, but thanks still.)

I'd love to. That's not what PvP would be, except in the case of occasional rigidly contained RP-oriented PvP. Real PvPers would not likely put on entertaining battles. The point of PvP (in any game) is to triumph over other players, not put on a dramatic show. On occasion, those two things overlap. However, I suspect that would be the exception, not the rule.

It's not an argument.

Too bad. That's how everyone I know uses it. I will continue to do so.

Right now, the converters themselves are random. So that's not a good route at all.

Look, there are things about CoH that I like, and which distinguish it from other games. If there weren't, I would have no loyalty to it - I could substitute any other game and it would offer me the same things I enjoy. Every game system has distinguishing features that give it this sort of consistency and distinction from its competition. D&D 3e had a consistency of features. D&D 4e has a consistency of features.

Claiming it's different every time I play it without acknowledging that it offers consistency of experience (and consistently different experience from other games) would take willful ignorance. This is what I am talking about.

In any case, this was not even what you rebutted, going off into garbage comparing the business models of a cereal and game maker, thereby stretching the effective context of my analogy beyond all possible recognition. In effect you built a strawman argument out of a simple analogy by arguing extensions of it that were never meant to apply.

Your post was dumb. That you argued against the analogy itself (badly) without any clear intent to argue something about either WiR, sexism in products (like D&D) or like/dislike of 4e D&D. As a result, you threadjacked a topic that was already about three steps removed from the OT. So your post was both dumb and massively off-topic.

I won't be responding to you about this again. Not in this thread at least.

Oh for ****'s sake.

It was an analogy comparing how I (would) feel about two things. It was not an analogy comparing Kellogg's and WoTC. Breaking it down as if it was a comparison of those two things is completely pointless.

Jesus.

I think it depends on whether this "incarnate content" has any sense of progression the way the iTrials do. The iTrials definitely are moving upwards in terms of the rank of even the "grunt" foes in them. Lambda and BAF are boss-heavy. UGT is EB heavy, with nearly as high a percentage of EBs per spawn as Lambda has bosses and almost no minions. I could see them doing something like that in later "solo" content, if there's any sense of "later" in it.

I'm not sure it's a good idea overall, but I would enjoy it personally.

I ... really had the impression you were smarter than this.

I doubt very much most ill-gotten gains from RMT are going to fund terrorists or even the various varieties of "the mob" out there. But giving these people your CC or even just account info is not just pants-on-head stupid, it's pants-on-head-by-virtue-of-head-up-butt stupid.

That really doesn't jive at all with the interface. Boosters have no concept of "In Set" or not.

If this was for boosters, then originally boosters did something rather different.

OK, I read what you said earlier about this male/female euphemism thing, but seeing in print, as a way of communicating with other people, it looks insanely dumb to me.

First of all, this is a horrid example of what you're championing. They removed option. They completely stripped out the complexity, they did not add things that allowed people who didn't like the complexity to be more successful, while keeping the complexity for those who liked it.

Your post suggests that because complexity was present, people could not play D&D with a focus on roleplay, which is ridiculous. People could not only do that, they could mix those two styles together. Sure, the party might have friction between players if you had min/maxers and roleplayers together, but that is more a function of the players than of the game.

Of which this was not an example. WotC lost me as a customer. I have not bought anything related to 4e. I have an immense library off pre-4e material - I probably spent thousands of dollars on D&D over the 20 years or so. I borrowed or pirated 4e stuff because my friends are playing it. I am enjoying the campaign, but not because of the game mechanics, and if I never play in another 4e campaign, I won't miss it.

I feel like I had been eating Corn Flakes for 20 years, and one day I bought Corn Flakes and in the box were little cubes of wheat bran. The makers decided that bran cubes had a better cross-demographic popularity, so they came up with this new cereal but started calling it Corn Flakes. It tastes OK, but it's sure not the Corn Flakes I want.

I certainly assume they mean "I run around doing missions (or whatever) end-to-end, primarily by fighting stuff in the mission". When I do missions, I tend to treat them as clear alls, even if I don't need to. I play this game for the combat, so when I've no one's interests but my own to satisfy, I spend as much time in combat as I can.

(Note: I have little doubt Dechs is soloing the whole missions. I was just responding to the more general comment/question.)

Edit: I too tend towards characters that are skewed towards success at this sort of thing. I do gravitate towards melee characters, and when I don't, I gravitate towards capable or strong soloists among "squishy" ATs - most of mine are Corruptors and Defenders and a Controller or Dominator here and there, the non Dominators have powersets like Dark Miasma, Rad Emission and now Time.

The biggest factor I find in being able to do anything x8 is how much AoE you have. The faster you can mow down foes, the faster you cut down incoming damage. If you're single-target focused, you shrink enemy spawns slower. They do you more damage over the course of the fight, because there are more of them in play for longer, and beyond some point, many characters can't survive that extra damage for that long. High mitigation and strong AoEs are the mark of the game's strongest soloers. If you can ratchet up one side you can offset a deficiency in the other, but it also tends to make you more likely to run into foes you can't handle, because they may end up slipping into that deficiency in a way your strong side isn't good at offsetting. All that said about AoEs, I don't enjoy characters who can't also lay out some decent single-target damage, so I gravitate towards powersets that combine AoE and single-target damage. I like Dual Blades, but not Electric Melee, even though EM is excellent at mowing spawns down.

I (like some others here) feel 4e is a dumbed down version of D&D. The analogy I make with it is that it s the difference in a video game made for a desktop/full computer with keyboard and mouse versus a video game made for a console system. Its controls are more basic, and detail was omitted in the interests of speed.

So ... they thought women wanted a less complicated game? If I was a woman, I don't know if I'd appreciate that.

Honestly, I can't see anything in 4e that would make it more attractive to women. Perhaps there was a corporate decision at WotC to shift art and writing styles in the products - I could see that. But the nuts and bolts of the product itself? I boggle at that.

Possibly more than offset by the removal of the ability to have more than one of the other pets out.

Right, but that's a huge part of the point. "Done correctly". Sure, the devs might screw up the game kind of tangentially making any change, but it always behooves people to be cautious when they are explicitly adding something you're not interested in, for people who don't share your interests (or at least have significant non-overlap). A game's player community is an ecosystem, and the devs are unlikely and/or unwise to add new components to them without some effort to channel existing players into the new stuff, so the new people have someone else to play with.

Sure. But that's why I specified "complete with poses". That's not how Gen-13 was drawn.