captrench

I am also having the exact same issue. I had not changed my password to my Master Account but no matter how many times i have reset my password or had support reset it for me nothing works.

You cannot contact them by phone or chat, only email and when they send you stock responses after three days saying they have reset your password YET AGAIN, it really drives me crazy lol.

I've been trying to get this resolved for almost 8 days now. And i have to add, NCSoft has by far the WORST customer service i've ever been the victim of. Not being able to speak to a human being no matter what is just the absolute pits.

heres a thought...

How about, instead of forcing customers to post on a totally unrelated game site about their issues before they are resolved, like shown here...
http://www.overclock.net/t/1232980/n...-problem-fixed
...you, yes YOU NCSoft, actually invest in some actual ******* customer service???

Players dont want to learn tricks to get their support issues resolved, they just want their support issues resolved. Dont turn getting support into a metagame with NCSoft as the instance boss...

ffs.

[EDIT]
ok, i know what the problem was, for me anyway. My broadband has been upgraded, same provider, but they just upgraded the exchange and cabling, and as part of that work our ip address has changed. As a result it seems that seems to have raised a flag on my account which somehow royally screwed it.

Anyway, i have just recieve an email saying they have temporarily authourised my ip address to access the account, so i have FINALLY been able to get in and verify everything is ok. jeebus but that was hard work...

I think revamping old content, fixing old bugs/glitches etc... instead of developing new content is always worthwhile, but needs to be prioritised, same as any other planned piece of work. At this point in the games development, i think revamping old zones would be a great idea. The oldest zones in the game are mainly early level zones, and players cant wait to get past them because the newer, and higher level content is so much more immersive and challenging.

Unfortunately, the devs have stated a few times before that redeveloping an existing zone is the same amount of work as creating a new zone, so they prefer to add new content, instead of revamp old zones. I understand that, but i think its a long term mistake. I understand it not being the main focus, but at some point the older content needs to be revamped otherwise your older zones become more and more something to be yawned and sped through to get to the newer and more exciting content in other zones. Given the games state now, i think it would acceptable to hold off on new zones and revamp existing ones, and address any long standing bugs at the same time.

Oh... errmm.. to the OP /signed i guess

All the following is just my opinion, not law!

Not a fan of speedruns personally. To me they are maths, a cost/benefit exercise that leaves me cold. Time invested for max gain and corners cut to minimise time spent. Its not a heroic struggle, or villainous master plan in action, its just a very un-immersive button mash. To me, its like work, and i resent feeling like that in a game i pay to "play".

I will do a speedrun occassionally, if nothing else is going on, some tfs are so well crafted that they are fun enough to be worthwhile, even if you are passing by everything in a blur.

But dont make it feel like work, please. I want to play. Just my two cents, theres room for all players i'm sure.

I too would like to contribute to the coalition of evilness... lvl50's i can bring are:

Raq - MM (Ninja/Dark)
Raiq - Brute (Dark/Dark) *best slotted toon*
Cerberus Prime - Brute (Elec/Elec)
Maelstroms Blade - Brute (Dual Blade/Energy)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's your own daft fault, the Quartermaster sells ALL SOs from lvl 35 up Ya nonce. This is why I use him rather than the blooming seller who you have to do a mission for.
I mean, honestly, who came up with the bright idea of the shops needing unlocking?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I looked at the list it stopped at 40 O.o

[/ QUOTE ]
keep scrolling down mate, you'll see the 50's appear as well. i've made the same mistake myself a few times till i realised. The Cimerora quartermaster *does* as previously stated, sell SO's from 35-50

[ QUOTE ]
I love to eb able to build my own private Lab/lair, even if there was a size restriction (ie smaller than SG bases) it could include one tp that links to the world portals and to your SG base (if you have one). Perhaps a TP in the SG base which allows you to tp to any members lair/private base if it's open to SG members...

I know I'd enjoy creating a base per character and I know I'd use he invention system a lot more to craft items for that base.

Think of the possibilities!

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread discussed in gobsmacking detail on the Suggestions forum here

[ QUOTE ]
How about sunday 19th + 26th 7pm for EoE collecting?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do It.

hmmm... i dont think being able to respec powers in a small way is necessary, you might as well just use a respec proper. I dont see the value in having a "halfway house" solution to respeccing.

Part of what makes respeccing currently worth thinking about is the fact that if you dont think about it you'll have wasted something valuable. Respeccing is a part of the game that has a value of its own, in that you need to do missions to get them, or wait until there are drops for the recipe, or have subscription for a certain length of time. i like the fact that in order to change your toons powers in fundamental ways it should require a sort of commitment in money or time to do it. An "Adjuspec" sounds like its going to be a cheaper and smaller version of a respec itself, but otherwise is exactly the same, which sort of devalues from the original version. It doesn't bring anything new, its a duplicate, albeit on smaller scale.

Its not even a suggestion for something that people are already working around, with the "so why dont we just implement it properly" type of argumemnt. People currently value respecs (even if they dont like them) because they are not necessarily easy to get and once "got", its a significant piece of work to rejig your whole toons config, even if you are just going to change one power. The value we currently place on respecs is based on how difficult/time consuming or otherwise we think respecs currently are. If you insert a cut down/cheaper version of otherwise the same thing you devalue an existing piece of functionality. I think thats a dangerous thing to do "just because" it would make life easier because it sets the precedent that convenience makes a good game, which it doesn't.

One compromise i would be happy with, is the ability to simply "unslot" an enhancement. To simply be able to remove something and place it in your enhancement tray. Purists would argue that this is still fundamentally changing the config of your toon as enhancements are in themselves part of that config. That may be so, but i think just being able to unslot a small number of enhancements would not be for me a game breaking piece of functionality. It would not be a "respec" proper as you would not be changing powers or the slots allocated to those powers, but it would be a respectable "middle ground" between full respec and no respec.

One way to look at it, for instance, lets take, as an easy example the Dual Origin magic/(mutant?) enhancement Gauntlet or Greaves. Unslotting these enhancements would metaphorically be taking off the items they are named after, or in the instance of Single Origin mutant enhancements, taking a neutralizer for the genetic enhancement you brewed/injected/cultured etc...

I accept that not everyone values the same things i do in a game with a bit of challenge, and that we all have our own reasons for spending our money and time on this game. I am not averse to the idea of compromise between full respec and no respec at all, but i have a gut reaction on certain suggestions, and all i have detailed here is my gut reaction to this one.

[ QUOTE ]
Always hate to see players leave because of this. Hope you can come back in the not so far future.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed Emned, long standing players are the backbone of this little community. or i like to think so anyway. it is just a game, but theres a lot of chat, socialising and goodwill that gets passed around even so. so its always a shame when players feel they have to leave for one reason or another, but doubly so when it seems they still want to play the game but cant cos of rl life issues that get in the way. grrr!

*shakes fist at Real Life. Real Life shrugs indifferently*

Sorry to hear it Heyman, if its finances the problem then i hope one day that resolves itself in a good way and you make it back in an issue or two.

Watts Up (Elec/Elec Blaster)
Professor AWTH (aka Accident Waiting To Happen) (Rad/Rad Def)
Angel of the Abyss (Dark/Dark Corr)

plus a few in my sig...

i cant claim the credit for this idea. i read it here , in the PVP/Arena Forum, posted by Fahie.

Anyway, i think its a great idea, and can think of a few ways of implementing it, but thats besides the point. The reason for the initial post it seemed to me was that it was possible to have range for a sniper power that was greater than the pc/npc draw distance set in your graphics options. It seems a shame for gameplay to be limited by your graphics settings/hardware limitations, but this suggestion could neatly bypass that.

[ QUOTE ]
Used it to paste a copy of my lead villains powerlist/spec all the way to lvl 50, helps me get the right power every few levels to match my planned spec.

[/ QUOTE ]
handy little tip that. Not rocket science, but not something i'd thought of. Cheers!

/signed Good stuff

First off, Welcome to the Wall Of Text!

onwards...

[ QUOTE ]
But the amount you can store in the Auction House is pitiful (18 on my oldest toon I think)[ QUOTE ]
But those 18 slots can store 180 recipes or 180 salvage or 18 enhancements. If you have a character that doesn't use the AH, I have several, they can be used to store a huge amount of stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
All my toons use the AH, I do missions, they get drops, they get sold via the AH, simple as. The more you use it the more Wentworths badges you get, the more "slots" in the AH you can earn. Regardless, taking my oldest toon as an example, with 18 slots, I can only store 18 different items. I would not want to "store" 10 of the same item, except to sell, so to me, the AH, as a storage medium, would only hold 18 items total, not 180. I would like the fascility to store enhancement sets ahead of the time that I will use them for respeccing, in the same way that storage is used in my personal sg, which certainly holds more than 18 items, the same or not. As I said, the AH is really only fit for purpose as a buying and selling medium, but works very well in that capacity.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm advocating a personal base that would work like an account/side wide house for your characters. So each server/side would have a separate one eg all your heroes on defiant would have access to one and the villains on Union another.
Within the house/base/apple/etc you would have some storage that could be used by all the characters that have access to that house to store enhancements, salvage or recipes in limited amounts (but not so limited as to be pointless ).

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that your advocating more a sort of generic warehouse for all account wide storage (lets leave definitions of "account wide" for now, I think we are agreed "account wide" is over stating it somewhat). You would have a player based extra "cupboard" that would be personal to the player not the players individual toons. You are free to suggest that, but if we have PEAR's as well, it makes more sense for that storage to be somehow included in that, game immersion being fairly important to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise again you are straitjacketing a PEAR in the same way as an sg base. You would have to choose the storage that one toon over all the others needed, and that storage would have to appear in every other toons PEAR whether it was wanted or not, to the same degree or not.[ QUOTE ]

One of the reasons why I don't want a tiny storage allocation. But I think if you do it like this people won't just hoard everything, because if you have say twenty characters using one 'house' there won't be enough storage for all their gear, so some will have to be sold, or at least stored in a more socially acceptable way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you make a good point there, but I dont think it holds enough water so to speak. Yes, your suggestion here is a nice tidy solution to hoarding, if the player had no alternative. Which they do. They could create their own sg, along with base and storage, something this suggestion was made to avoid in the first place. Each player, can already create their own sg along with base if they require or want to. But, if PEAR's are implemented the way I think they should be, there would be no need to create an sg and base just for storage alone, and be a lot less likely to create supergroups of their own that they solo run like mine, and therefore be more likely to actually join another supergroup for all the other benefits that supergroups should provide. If creating a supergroup had stringent requirements that needed to be met your idea might be tenable, and it is a good idea. But its too easily circumnavigated, and the solution to it would be to just go back to what is already available, create your own sg, something this thread was meant to suggest ways of avoiding in the first place.

Regardless of whether every toon actually has their own sg, which we know they dont, every toon has the abiliy to start one. So whats the difference with a PEAR? If most of my toons had their PEAR and storage, along with the fascility to transfer items safely across to other toons, there would not be a need for me to start my own sg, just for some glorified cupboard space. I might still create one, but it would be more likely because I was actually interested in devoting some time in game to building up and bringing together a group of like minded players for the fun stuff supergroups and bases can be used for. There would be no viable reason for solo supergroups, although there's none so queer as folk, so you might still get the odd player, who just wants a solo supergroup because he "just does".

Its very easy now for any player to own their own solo supergroup, with maximum storage. But it doesn't make sense in game. Why would anyone call themselves a seperate name on top of their hero/villain nickname just because they wanted a cupboard? You'd just buy/build somewhere, stick a cupboard in there and get on with it. No need to make a drama out of it. But at the moment, we create a name for a "supegroup" of one toon so that we can create a base, so that we can add a cupboard. Its just not consistent.

Yes, a PEAR might be extra info to be stored server side, but they have already given every toon the ability to create their own supergroup and base as well. Again, if you dont want a PEAR for every toon, same as with supergroups and bases, you dont have to have them. But if you do want the functionality of a PEAR with storage, only having supergroup bases as an option is overkill, both as an option to transfer items and store them. If you have a PEAR you are much less likely to need a supergroup, bases provide lots of storage because they need to for lots of characters/toons, a PEAR wouldn't have to. I'd say total of 60ish enhancement slots of storage, so at any one time you'd have storage for one respec's worth of sets. That should be more than enough I think, but others may disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
If it is just transfer of items you want from it surely an easier method of doing that would be to implement some sort of mail system similar to WoW, you'd get all the functionality without the additional over heads, plus you can then establish a trading interface bypassing the AH and its associated costs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could do, agreed. No reason that cant be done from within a PEAR or anywhere else if its a "clicky/glowie" type item that has that functionailty, but if the devs simply made it part of the existing "email" (used tongue in cheek) system then it would at least be an improvement over what we have currently. Its always nicer though when functionality can be mixed/included with game content though, like the AH and Ivention tables, in a way that doesn't break game immersion. But for the record, a method to transfer items is not all I want, its just one of the items on the list.

[ QUOTE ]
It comes down in a way to how you plot your characters. Most of my Defiant heroes are close personal friends, they share their equipment, they share everything... including beds in one case. They would if given the chance set up a single house for themselves, after all they aren't all going to be there at once so why not? In that context storage that is in the house would be far more sensible to be shared than if each had their own house and couldn't share without their next door neighbour holding onto stuff for them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then a supergroup base would make sense for that sort of toon concept. As you said to Evangel earlier ("You have the absolute right to play your alts as you like"), its up to you how you envisage your toons interacting with each other. You already have an option for shared storage. Your toons might very well set up a group together and therefore a base (or comfy shared flat if thats how you want to design it), or not. Currently you only have the choice of a supergroup base, there is no other choice for a toon that doesn't want to setup a supergroup, which I would not envisage a lot of my toons doing, but for item security and storage options there is no other choice. My suggestion does not prevent you from having the shared space you envisage your toons having, and helps toons that just want storage and their own place, no sharing, no supergroup. If sharing is wanted, I go back to the "fascility" of being able to transfer items from one toon to another. Yes, it could be done via email (already discussed here ) with very little difficulty, that would be utterly boring, but maybe the easiest way to implement it, I dont actually know. it could also be done via the wormhole/pocket dimension/gizmo type idea I came up with earlier. Or you could have a seperate storage item for "shared" storage account wide. Either way, there is merit in the idea for PEARS alone, with storage of whatever type inside. You advocate only account wide storage, and I understand your reasons for that, but I dont think that will address sufficiently the issues that drive players to create solo sg's along with the handicaps that entails, which was one of the bugbears that started this thread in the first place. I really do think we will have to agree to disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
The devs have already said that they don't want to increase our personal storage as they fear that too many people would hoard stuff and kill the AH. If you increase every characters storage space across the board that would be entirely what you are doing. If however you only increased each characters storage by a tiny amount that on its own is of little use then you don't run that risk. Adding the tiny additions together to make a large collective pool for several characters would then be a sensible option.


[/ QUOTE ]
Another good point, but one which I dont think holds enough water, for already stated reasons, but first things first. I was not aware of the devs statement regarding extra storage so that is good to know, going forward. Out of interest, do you have a linky to that statement? No worries if not, it sounds plausible and is not meant as a challenge. It would just be good to see the whole topic's ins and outs as it were.
Secondly, every toon already has the ability to create its own maxed out storage base. But in order to do so it has to create a supergroup. This should not be necessary. The motivation to create your own supergroup will not be there if PEAR's are properly implemented (personal storage and account wide item transfers), and supergroups will more than likely become what they always should be, groups of players with some of their toons maybe in one group, maybe some in another, and maybe some in none, just content with their own PEAR and whatever it contains. Solo supergroups are in most cases there not because players want a single toon/player group, but because something is missing from the games functionality or content in terms of security (asking mules to hold your stuff), capacity (not enough existing storage without a base) or creativity (i cant own a living space in keeping with my toons concept, without forming a supergroup, scrabbling for prestige and making a base). Your suggestion does not adequately solve, if at all, those problems imo.

[ QUOTE ]
The other thing that I think should be thought about is server data storage, the more complicated the solution, in the sense of adding more stuff per character the more data that will have to be stored and transmitted. One house per account might take up 100k of data (no idea how much it really takes) if you then say you have all character slots open on an account they still only take up 100k. If you say that each house is individual to the character with all slots open your looking at 3Mb or more of storage/transfer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what your reasoning is here. Using your game client you only ever access one toon/area combo instance at a time. You, whoever is in your team and the area you are in. When you access your PEAR it would be the information for that area instance only you would be accessing from the server, same as if you were accessing your supergroup base (which can hold a fairly huge amount, 10,000+ items, in it already)
I have always said that PEAR's should be scaled down compared to bases. Yes, PEAR's would take up extra server side storage, but so would extra content of any sort. We ARE proposing extra content. Thats always been a given to me. Anything extra, content wise, will most likely increase the storage required for the game on the server side. The client also has been increasing since I first started playing about 3 years ago. I dont know the numbers, and am not going to pretend to, I am making a suggestion alone. Its up to the devs to prioritise based on feasability and merit. I am not going to keep quiet about a potentially good idea because of the possibility it may be an extra 100KB or 1MB of extra info.

I'm in... let me at im! grrr...

OOC - all evenings and weekends are good for me, until that lottery win turns up, in which case 24x7 will be fine by me too

[ QUOTE ]
Ahh! I feel so silly now! lol

Sorry Captain Trench

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, thats what it stands for . I used to write funny (to me) short stories about Captain Trenchcoat, and i adopted the name for forums etc... Someone said that it sounded rude once, and that along with its sometimes too long for name limits made me shorten it... shame

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is a separate issue TBH, what precisely extra do we need in the way of storage that you can't access already outside of a SG? Salvage will go into a vault and everything else can be either stored on your character or in the AH. So why would personal 'bases' need any storage? Unless of course you're going to use it to transfer between characters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point about the Auction House, i had completly left that out of my thinking. But the amount you can store in the Auction House is pitiful (18 on my oldest toon i think) as well so that proves your point as far as if capacity isn't good enough it might be more frustrating than anything else. I would like the fascility to store up a few sets i've made and bought, for instance for a future respec i'm planning to unleash on my enemies, or just any of the same storage related reasons why i ended up creating an sg for myself in the first place (i just wanted more than one toon had).

Am i right in thinking that you're advocating only account wide storage in the PEAR? You seem to want extra storage and PEAR's but by your statement above not want extra toon level storage at all...? Just want to be clear. Apologies in advance if again i've misinterpreted.

If thats the case, we can just agree to disagree on that, i would prefer to see a mixture of extra personal storage along with the fascility to transfer stuff between toons. In the same way that the AH is not really sufficient as a storage mechanism for me but perfectly fit for purpose as a buying and selling medium, i would be happy to see account wide storage as smaller in capacity, but good enough for temporarily holding items until the intended toon logs in thats going to collect them and hold in its own personal storage. If however your version was implemented instead, with a larger capacity for account wide storage but no extra personal storage as such, i'd be happy too with that. i just prefer my version, but seeing as neither version has been implemented and we're not able to mind control the devs to force it one way or another, its all moot to me.

I see storage as "purchaseable" in incremental steps for PEARS, and with PEARS being personal to the toon they are created for. Any functionality thats put in them via purchaseable items would not, therefore appear in another toons (hero to hero/ villain to villain) PEAR on your account. Otherwise again you are straitjacketing a PEAR in the same way as an sg base. You would have to choose the storage that one toon over all the others needed, and that storage would have to appear in every other toons PEAR whether it was wanted or not, to the same degree or not. Account wide storage should be more of a fascility in transfering rather than storage to me, so a single item providing that functionality, if bought at the toon level, across all your toons seperate PEAR's makes more sense to me. All those toons that have bought it can share stuff, those that haven't cant. I like the idea of each toons PEAR having only the functionality and storage that is suited to that toon, like each base is, which is the players choice ofcourse, limited by what that toon can purchase with its own inf/money. Even if that inf can be transfered from another toon. Some of us are pedantic and like to go through the motions of "earning" certain things toon by toon. I believe also in Guildwars, that each toon has to specifically buy the "fascility" to store items in the account wide Xunlai chest.

For PEAR's, having to save and buy over time the functionality and decorative items within your fave toons PEAR should be something you should enjoy doing seperately with each toon, or not do, if you dont want certain or all toons to have a PEAR. I dont like the idea of buying/creating it once on one toon and its present for all PEARS on ever other toon. The way account wide storage is implemented in Guildwars is good, but its not very exciting, it does the job, but otherwise its one box that sits in the middle of various locations with an agent standing next to it. You pay a minimal amount of money to access it the first time and thats it, its all the same for all toons. I like the idea of being able to go to various and multiple different objects in a PEAR to access different types of storage (bookcases for recipes?). I also like the idea that the storage should be limited per storage object (5 items per table or rack of shelves, for example only!) in the same way that its done for sg base storage, just scaled down slightly. If you want more shelves, boxes, vaults or other storage objects then you should have the freedom to expand your toons personal storage as you see fit. It would feel more realistic and therefore be more immersive, and give a feel of depth to a PEAR, than a generic buy once only item that does everything storage related for every toon on your account as in Guildwars. PEAR's should be as cutomisable as bases, but scaled down in functionality, size and cost so as to reflect the smaller scope of a PEAR compared to an sg.

[ QUOTE ]
No I agree, but if you set the account wide storage too low, which I felt you were suggesting, you end up with it not actually being especially useful. In the old days you used to be able to trade inf between characters. But with a maximum value of (iirc) 99,999 per trade. So the ability was there but it was so pitiful it wasn't worth being there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, i remember that time and i get your point. I think its the same point i would make, and made, about the AH being used as a storage medium. You can do it, but its going to be very frustrating because its not really good enough as a generic storage medium. Again, i think, but could be wrong, you are in favour of larger account wide storage, whilst i would prefer larger toon level storage fascilities in a PEAR, with the fascility to transfer items to other accounts via a smaller account wide storage medium. Again, if thats the case, we can agree to disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think that player 'housing' will in any real way detract from any but the most basic of bases.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope not, i certainly dont want it to. Bases are a valuable part of the game for me, i would hate to think that a new addition to the game broke an existing "good thing". Definitely not what i want.

[ QUOTE ]
And I suspect that the most basic of bases now are going to be for those people who are using them as 'housing'.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, agreed. Thats how mine started, but with a gf whose tf crazy and now more hooked than i am, my base is starting to look like a base for an sg with at least ten active players. And it always nice to get the sg badges too...

[ QUOTE ]
I've observed this entire thread and not seen any post you have made that has established that you were using the term "crits" for another personal definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

my first statement
[ QUOTE ]
how about a badge for killing a certain number of crits with just your sniper power?

[/ QUOTE ]

how that line makes sense unless i meant crits as "creatures" is beyond me, but hey, whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
It would have formed a lot of common sense if you did let us know before.

[/ QUOTE ]
i didn't realise the term "crits" meant anything else except short for "creatures", despite what you seem to think. but now i know. yay.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your repetitive use of "see above explanation" to comment on a quote of mine, that's kinda silly when you were aware that I was un-aware of your personal meaning for crits.


[/ QUOTE ]

it was sort of to highlight that all your points were effectively making the same point, that critical hits are not killable... which after the first time you highlight that from one angle makes all the other angles repetition, but that didn't stop you anyway from pointing them out.

anymore of this and people are going to suggest you and i get a room...

[ QUOTE ]
Killing a certain number of crits? How can you kill crits?

[/ QUOTE ]
To me, "crits" are creatures/npc's/computer controlled thingy's i kill. i never meant critical hits. dont ask me where i made the association with "crits" as being short for creatures, i honestly cant remember, but nethertheless, thats what i meant. i really dont see how anyone can get hung up on the idea i was talking about critical hits, but thats ok, we're all clear now.

[ QUOTE ]
"Killing Snipers is really no different from killing any other type of crit" Snipers are an enemy rank for mobs. Crits are when you deal double damage with a power. They're two totally different things.


[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, you really have an axe to grind here... see above explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
How would dealing criticals be classified as "skill"? Landing criticals are random. In addition, playing as a Scrapper or Stalker would make this badge easy as hell!

[/ QUOTE ]

See first explanation above, really, let it go, its ok, i never meant what you seem to think i meant... err...

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that Lost Ninja has already corrected you on using certain terms for in-correct meanings, but I felt that I should've gone into your post further and specifically list them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

LostNinja correctly identified that i had my terminology wrong, not that i was talking about getting badges for landing critical hits. leastways thats how i interpret his post after mine. Anyway, i hope you feel better after having listed them out. Sorry that it wasn't about what you thought it was about.

So, for the record, i was suggesting that there be a badge for killing npc killable thingy's with your snipe powers, regardless of the fact that this badge would effectively not be able available to all, and without the knowledge of the policy statement by the devs that all badges should be achievable by all AT's, which i am now aware of (thanks to Imoba). i didn't see it as necessary to start a new thread cos it was similiar enough in theme to the current thread. apologies if i have upset anyone by posting here. apparently it wasn't polite.

I had a similiar issue on my old pc when i upgraded the graphics card. i went for an GeForce 8 at first but that was taking too much power and causing hangs all the time just to boot, or maybe just after logging in if i was lucky. replaced that with 7600 now, whcih i think requires less power and doesn't hang at all now, except for those caused by memory leaks in CoX. I dont know about WoW, but Guildwars overall seems to be a much more polished game in terms of graphics performance and game stability than CoX so that may explain why you never have problems there, although that doesn't help unfortunately. Its wierd that it happens even when your pc isn't in a game, again, i had that too occassionaly, but replacing the card with a lower spec one sorted that. My old pc spec is an intel P4 1.9mhz 1GB RAM GeForce7600 with a 350mhz PSU. The hangs with the old graphics card started to cause corruptions in sys files so after replacing the card i reinstalled the OS as well just to be certain i was starting from as clean a slate as possible. You are using a lower spec card than the 7600 so i would not have thought power drain would be an issue as it seemed to be for me. Just in case though, if you do have any extra cards in your slots that are not strictly necessary it may be worth removing them from the picture to see if less power drain on your PSU helps, and if not then that should rule out that as an issue.

sorry, i cant be more specific, i've sort of brain dumped what i did and thought at the time i had a similiar issue. Good Luck.

[ QUOTE ]
if you're going to go with such a low limit why bother having storage at all

[/ QUOTE ]

Because one of the initial points of this was that you shouldn't need to have a solo SG just to have some cupboard space. If you have a PEAR with some toon level only storage, that fixes that issue specifically. If however what you want is a fascility to transfer items between toons without an sg or willing lackey then that is a seperate issue. Account wide storage, and its associated "object" (table, cupboard or wormhole), might only be necessary to serve as a way of transfering between toons, not as a permanent storage medium, if toon level storage is already available in your PEAR and your happy with that.

[ QUOTE ]
Should be at minimum the same amount of storage a capped level 50 has at base

[/ QUOTE ]
umm... Please explain, what cap is that? You mean the salvage cap? or the 10 enhancement limit on each toon for storage? Or the maximum amount of storage i can hold in my solo base? That would be a lot, and the same amount of storage that any base has, which i have stated i dont want to emulate as i dont want to see sg base functionality undermined. Apologies for being dim/slow if i've missed something obvious here. its quite possible.

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of nothing worse than having to swap back and forwards to transfer stuff from character to character because the storage cannot contain enough to be useful

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm only playing with the possibilities, its not a necessity for account wide storage to be substantial if your toon level storage is sufficient, and yes i am suggesting they be seperate and distinct. I'm not bothered if account wide storage is so low in space that it can only be used to transfer a few items a time. It depends what its focus is, is it to be "storage" proper, or just a means of transfering, and currently we are both hoping for personal storage of any sort to be possible. To me its better than handing over stuff i've spent hours earning to a complete stranger on the internet who i've never met in real life as a solution. Since when is that good advice? But thats the only alternative to owning an sg at the moment. Luckily for me i have finally persuaded my gf to play as well, so thats one nightmare over. Anything is better to the only two existing solutions at the moment imo.

I'd be happy with your version too i think probably, but i dont see it as a bad thing to have limited account wide storage if you also have seperate toon level storage in your PEAR. i think we both agree there need to be limits on that storage, account wide or not,for me the reason for the limits is that i would like to ensure that bases are superior in every way in functionality. I'm not going to assume your reasons are the same.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know some players have definite views on storage not being account wide, but other games do this (eg, Guildwars "Xunlai chest" I think?), and it breaks the game, or disillusions newby players not one iota.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference being that allowing people to share stuff account wide with no restrictions like GW would quite likely break the AH.

And before you start moaning at me for not understanding perhaps you should look at the post you referenced in the OP, and my other replies in this thread.

I want account wide storage, but I think sensible limits should be used rather than just using a Xunlai Chest thing!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm... what is "AH" you are refering to your post? Secondly, i think we are in agreement on limits for account wide storage, i have said in a previous post that it should be limited quite severley (maybe 10 slots, even 5!), so that its not useful enough to be used as storage per se, but more as a way of transfering storage between toons (hero to hero, villain to villain). i would not want account wide storage to undermine existing storage fascilities in game, just to provide a means by which items could be transfered.

so i think we are in agreement about it being limited, though maybe not in agreement on some of the finer details... i think

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've just had another random idea. Keep PEARS(tm) as purely personal for your toon as far as storage is concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Terrible. We started with PEARS as a way to reduce the incentive to have personal SGs, and now you want to make them less useful than personal SGs!

That said, the idea of an SG base item that gives access to account-wide storage isn't a bad one, as another way to diminish the incentive to have personal SGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, fair enough, you are correct, the idea did start out that way. But...

PEARS(tm) still have merit as an idea even if they are just for background and round off a toons concept. The fact they could be used for toon level storage only again does not invalidate that either, as with even just toon level storage you would simply have the same issue you have now, regarding getting someone to hold your stuff while you relogged with your second "recieving" toon etc... but you would now not need an sg to get that storage just for your toon if thats all you wanted.

Effectively i have moved the solution of account wide storage to an sg instead of a PEAR, by that wormhole thingy i suggested, which i actually like because it pushes the functionality of an sg, whilst the idea of a PEAR in my mind still has merit, as a toon level (only) storage medium, and background detail for your toon concept.

I'll be honest in that i'm still playing with the ideas from this thread in my head, so apologies if i seem to be advocating one thing one minute, and another the next. But i'm happy for the idea to be attacked, poked and prodded from all sides as it seems generally to be worth thinking about.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there insectoid like wings that actually flap (like the angel and demon ones available straight from the character creation screen)?

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm... the insect wings do flap, but so fast they are just a blur (like an insects wings do... er...), so not really like the angel or demon wings. But i think they're really cool regardless and worth experimenting with.