Valerika

I would love a religion-themed expansion myself, but it's like my mother used to say when I was a little kid--"Look at this mess! We just can't have nice things!" I'm certain people would get pretty angry about it, and it would lead to some ugly scenes. A shame, really.

That really sucks I worked at an amusement park, and I can definitely vouch for people's stupid behavior. I'm sure that you're right--people would use this to gimp themselves. That's why I'm hoping that making it a vet reward (preferably a much later one) would minimize that a bit.

The funny thing is, I've seen people complain about gimping themselves, and then other people complain because they became TOO STRONG. "I'm too powerful! Nerf me!" Ugh. I know they think they're doing what's best for the game, but it always reminds me of the kid in class who begs the teacher to give everyone more homework. I mean, can't you just do more homework on your own? This is for casual gamers, not hardcore players, so it's SUPPOSED to be easy! If you want a challenge, don't call for nerfs, just stop min/maxing! Actually, I'm ranting, so I'll stop

I think it's a little bit of that, but a lot of what I was saying earlier about people getting too strong and then complaining that they're Super-Uber. Before we had ATs (also before ED, but that's a different story), making a Tankmage was possible if you knew what you were doing.

So you think we could end up with ten origin-based paid booster packs? I hope not. After they're done with SBV, I'm hoping they either:

1. Use another criteria for booster packs
2. Quit charging for them and just give them to us as future updates (Not likely, I know)

As a matter of fact, NONE of my characters fit into these categories, even though ALL of them use the booster packs. Even though I use the booster packs extensively, they rarely go on characters with corresponding origins. For example, if you pointed at Malicio and said "Cyborg" because of his booster pack pieces, you'd be wrong.

City of Heroes/Villains definitely helped me out when I got back from Afghanistan. I hear you there, and welcome back.

I would like that ability too, but since we already have angel and demon wings tied to veteran rewards, I doubt they'd make an entire booster pack just to give those wings an added animation. Most of the booster packs so far have tended to revolve around origins (magic, science, etc), and since we've already had one for magic, getting another one is unlikely. I like the animation option, though, and I wish Sexy Jay would consider it as an emote or something like that.

I agree that giving new players access to power pools at level 1 is a bad idea because it can lead to a general lack of understanding of AT/powerset mechanics. Having to pick at least a few powers from your primary and secondary is like having training wheels to keep you from falling as you learn to ride a bike. As such, I don't think new players should ever be able to bypass picking from their primary/secondary from the beginning.

HOWEVER, I do believe that after a certain point, having such a restriction places an unnecessary limit on your builds--especially if you are using set bonuses (like Global Recharge enhancers, etc) or if you have a "late blooming" set that has lousy choices up front but better options later on. As such, I think you should get the option to use power pools at level 1 as a veteran reward.


I think such a restrictive policy might have made sense in the days before IO sets, but nowadays I think it's ill-advised. The first counter-example that pops into my head is the perma-dom dominator. Sometimes you have to make some pretty strange power choices (picking multiple power-pool powers that will accept +def LoTG enhancements, for the most part) in order to fit in all that global recharge, but in many cases, it's worth it.

I would never one-star someone because they had a strange build, even if I was convinced it was gimped. Sometimes odd builds have synergy you never would have expected. However, if after teaming with that individual, they ACTED or PLAYED like they were gimped, I might lower their rating a bit.

So would I, but I would like it if you could also put out the fire the way you do on the outdoor fire mishes. You could have a bunch of small blazes that have to be put out in a certain amount of time. You can deal with them in several ways--click on them like glowies to put them out, or use a fire extinguisher, or just hurry and get the guy out before the small fires grow and engulf the building so he burns up.
Or burn things until they blow up, or radiate something until it glows green and melts, or riddle it with bullet holes, or put a fist-sized hole in it, or use mind powers to make the bad guys break things over each other's heads, etc. Many, many ways to skin a cat without making specific powersets feel left out of the destructible environment fun.

While we do have a couple of "protect the glowie" mishes, this idea takes that further in a way that I find interesting. It might be hard to complete missions like that if you have no travel power, though. Maybe if you were on one of the convoy vehicles while they were traveling or something...I dunno. Definitely worth fleshing out more. +Rep for you, Soul Train.

I think that largely depends on what your definition of "reality" is. Angst-ridden "fallen-from-grace" villains and the "I really mean well" types are all the rage in literature and in comics, but they've never struck me as truly villainous or authentic--they don't seem to exist "in reality".

In my opinion, you have to read nonfiction to find true villains. For the most part, they had pampered childhoods with loving familes. They weren't abused, warped, or sent down a sad, inevitable path of self-destruction. The only thing about them that is truly tragic is that they were born with shriveled souls--the gifts that life gave to them should have gone to others who needed it more.

"Real" villains aren't nearly as limited as your profile suggests. They don't care about outside influences (mostly because they are sociopathic or sadistic), and their intelligence and influence ensure that they rarely ever get caught. Most of them die rich and happy, surrounded by the success their acts have brought them--and even the ones who get caught usually die quickly rather than suffer the same agony they've inflicted on others. The ones who go to jail usually go to white-collar facilities and continue to enjoy many of the luxuries they've denied their victims. Maybe they'll pay for their actions in the afterlife, but that's a matter of personal faith.

The course of their lives isn't set by outside events. They enjoy a freedom that doesn't even exist in nature--a lion kills animals because he is bound to it by his nature. If he doesn't kill, he will starve and die. Real, true-to-life villains are more like trophy hunters. They kill because they *ENJOY* killing--it's fun. And they are often patted on the back by their friends for their skill in the bargain.

I disagree. In my opinion, real heroes often go beyond the boundaries of expected societal norms. They aren't doing what society tells them to do--often people tell them they are crazy. "Why are you trying to build a school in Afghanistan? Why can't you just settle down and raise a family like a NORMAL person?" Heroism is rarely the most "efficient and effective" way to behave. Being a hero often means putting yourself in harm's way. It means risking scorn or death because the right thing is more important that the popular or socially accepted thing. Being heroic "feels good", but that's not because it is easy or efficient. Quite the opposite.

I know this is just a typo, but it lead to a very interesting mental image...

It gets plenty of use on my home server, Virtue. So much so that it's actually a little laggy.

It's not your place to tell other people how to enjoy their gameplay--if they want to pay $15 a month just to stand around, that's perfectly fine. NCSoft can use the money, and they aren't bothering you, since they aren't clogging up Atlas Park, etc.

Besides, I'd much *MUCH* rather they hang out and talk in Pocket D than do it during an actual mission. I *HATE* it when a couple of people on my team slow everyone else down (and sometimes get them killed) by stopping to RP chat while everyone else is fighting. As far as I'm concerned, God Bless Pocket D and the RP'ers it rode in on.

I only PvP very, very rarely, but even I think that the current PvP system makes no sense. Give PvP'ers the same system we have in PvE and let God sort the rest out.

This part of your suggestion pretty much explains why the rest of the suggestion is a terrible idea.

No, this would kill the small vestage of PvP that we have left, and disperse the few remaining smacktards who won't leave due to lack of interest into the general PvE population, with a nice new griefing tool for them to use.

I already see all of the super-powered battles I care to see--with PvE fights. I don't want the irritation and lag induced by watching heroes fighting each other in high traffic areas.

You've definitely got that right. It sucked the last couple of times it was brought up too.

I tend to agree--after all I crossed the line a little talking to you in the first place, and that was probably one of the more relaxed parts of the thread. This topic is bringing out the worst in people on both sides. While I realize I'm pretty passionate about CoH, some of the things said in this thread are deliberately inflammatory. Both sides have resorted to name-calling, insults, and character assasination.

I like this idea. It allows everyone the ability to create any of the costumes they want at character creation, while still allowing people who want to flaunt their leet uberness a form of self-expression. Nice compromise as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry, I tend to get carried away sometimes. I enjoy a good debate, and Umbral makes good arguements. Sorry for contributing to a threadjack.

Fair enough, if literacy were that common during those wars, I'm sure you could get a representative sample. However, refer to my previous statement regarding false bravado in the face of war--add to that the censorship still present still present in much of war correspondance, and you'll realize that you aren't getting an accurate picture of war even now, much less back then. As for how "wonderful" their generals were, of course they said that. It's typically a pretty poor career move to badmouth your commanding officers on paper...even if they were as poor as many of the generals we saw during the Civil War--mostly Northern generals. That's why Lincoln had to keep fiiring his generals for incompetance, and it's also why the South (with its more capable generals and the advantage of home turf) was able to continue fighting for so long despite vastly inferior numbers, supplies, and a less capable industrial base.

The "stupid fighting" was just that--stupid fighting. As one "wonderful general" was fond of saying--the best way to win a war is to inflict the maximum number of casualties on an enemy so that he's unable to continue to fight. Rules of war still exist to protect the innocent, but they don't require you do things that deliberately hamper your own war effort. Generating the slaughter of one side is the point of war--you aren't being warriorlike if you fail to press the advantage against an enemy that could end the war quickly, especially if the slaughter is confined almost exclusively to the enemy's troops. Sometimes, civilian casualites are considered acceptable if they bring a quick end to a war--how many people would have died if the U.S hadn't dropped nuclear weapons on Japan and had instead attempted a full-scale invasion? At the end of the day, the rules of war are the basic guidlines of what your society implement and still live with itself. That's why the U.S. forces don't attack hospitals or mosques, even though we know the enemy uses them to stage and launch attacks. But if your society can't live with itself if your soldiers don't stand in a straight line and wear bright clothing...you figure it out.

Bogus. The top of the military chain was (and is) too important to lead battles from the front lines, and they knew that even then. That's why kings and queens stopped heading their armies during medieval times.

You're completely missing the point. Fighting in large lines is required, but you don't have to do it:

1. Standing up
2. Wearing bright colors
3. Close enough to charge in with bayonets anyway

That's one of the advantages the American army had towards the end of the American Revolution. We made greater use of snipers, we used terrain to our advantage (something even the ancient Oriental armies knew how to do, but had somehow become "dishonerable" among western armies), we even used forms of camoflauge at times. We couldn't afford to fight the war England's way--if our use of tactics during that time makes us dishonerable, then fine. You can argue that winning the war was inevitable and that a large foreign power can't help to hold a colonial power so far away, but that definitely wasn't the sentiment at the time--even among your letters from troops...

Bogus again--warfare, then as now, was largely religious in nature. Consider the Taliban, ask people who fought in the Crusades, people who gave their lives for the Emperor of Japan, the Vikings, etc. Fighting for "God and Country" has been popular since men picked up a gun. It gets people to fight a lot sooner than just telling them you're doing it for economic reasons or political reasons. As for expansion, even American colonials believed it had a religious element. Ever heard of Manifest Destiny?

The mentality of the time persists--fighting the Taliban is largely like fighting a medieval army in many ways. Their tactics have evolved, but their rationale for war remains the same.

Here's the thing--back in those days, very few people were literate. You had to be pretty well-off to be able to read in the first place, so if you were able to write an account of the battle, you were probably either an officer or got your information secondhand. Officers back in those days tended to stay at the rear. In fact, most officers, then as now, had pistols rather than rifles because they would only need them if:

1. The enemy had already broken ranks and penetrated the line, and officers were using them for self-defense
2. If their own men started to run away, officers would threaten to shoot them for cowardice.

It's easy to say you're fighting because you're brave and crave glory and adventure...when the alternative is a bullet in the face. I think a lot of the bravado present in those texts was either made by people who didn't know what they were talking about, or by people who literally had a gun to their head.

As for the enemy showing greater respect--that depends largely on who you are fighting, and what their tactics, resources, and religious/social motivations are. Is it smarter to stand in a straight line, wearing bright colors, or is it smarter to use the landscape to your advantage? Bravery is largely a smokescreen to hide poor tactics. It's easy to shout "come back here and fight like a man!" when melee fighting is all you know how to do... Also, if you think that dying in battle will instantly send you to paradise, you may be less inclined to duck.

Interesting question. I'm definitely a believer in immersive gaming, so all of my characters have bios. I figure, if I'm going to play a character for that long, I want to know where they came from.

Normally, I have a bio mostly fleshed out at character creation, but occasionally I've tried to "shoehorn" a bio to fit a character concept. For example, a while back, I created a Dual Blades/SR scrapper--mostly because I liked the powersets and playstyle. I seriously considered deleting her because...I just couldn't explain her powers in a way that didn't sound cliche or ridiculous. I finally came up with a highly elaborate bio involving Ouroboros, medieval Japanese Emperors, and a father's love. It was arguably one of my better bios.

On the other hand, I've had bios that started before a character even existed and continued to float around to new characters. I had a mentally and physically abused but gifted psychic character that started out as a dominator, rehabilitated into a controller, and finally backslid into a widow. Her bio is so compelling that she just doesn't seem to either die or get to a happy ending...

I have noticed this, and it's annoying as hell. You definitely hit the nail on the head.

Look--you said I was passionate, and you're absolutely right. I wouldn't have gotten very far in life (and I might not have come home from Afghanistan at all) if I didn't have a "forceful personality". But if I hurt your feelings, I apologize. I know that you mean well, even if we disagree. We both want to see CoH succeed. If you have more to say, don't let me keep you from saying it. I'm not saying I won't debate you, but I have no desire to pound people into the ground like a tent stake...