je_saist

If the system is asking you for the admin password, then CoH was installed using administrative rights. You won't have the read/write access required to play if you disable the admin prompt.

also, here's something else you might want to know: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...50&postcount=6

and another time UAC has come up: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...82&postcount=2

Layered Vision is handled by the driver separating the camera positions of the game into separate rendering views, not by the game. I just went over this not long ago: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...27&postcount=4

Actually it's not a guess.

We do know where Mastermind Customization sits on the list: After Going Rogue Launches it would be looked at.

It was made very plain and clear to all players by multiple red-names, including a demonstration at one of the conventions, as to why Mastermind Pets are not customizable. Mastermind pets are exposed to players under a costume-overlay system, similar to how the Stone Armor set's Granite Armor is exposed, how the Kheldian Shape Forms are exposed, and to how Halloween Costumes are exposed.

Allowing customization of costume overlays requires several more changes not only to the user-interface, but also to the processing engine, and to the database storage engine. The exact difficulty of exposing costume overlays as customizable options is so extensive the developers at one point considered a completely new stone armor design to replace the existing Granite Armor Overlay.

Now that Going Rogue is out, development resources might be available to implement the required changes to the game's internal engines. Which brings us to other things that we know about MM pet customization.

At this point, the intended plans seem to be to allow humanoid pets limited access to themed costume parts. E.G. Thugs will have a variety of vests and pants, but will lack options like Camouflage. Mercs will have costume options with military jackets, camo-pants, bandoliers, and other assorted uniform / military gear. Ninja's will have mostly robes, and so on and so forth.

As far as I am aware the subject of robotic pets has not been addressed by any Paragon Studios employee in an official manner, non-official manner, or off-the-record manner. My guess is that rather than trying to simply filter existing costume parts into each MasterMind theme, the developers will simply introduce new robotic models as pet options.

No idea. AMD's OpenGL 3.x Crossfire support is still immature. As of the most recent drivers OpenGL Crossfire still doesn't work on Heaven 2.1.

That's a hard question to answer. On paper the desktop GTX 260 has nearly twice the memory bandwidth, and depending on the core, anywhere from 30% to 40% higher shader fill.

However, both the GTS 250 and the GTX 260, in real games, despite having higher texture fill values, shader fill values, and memory bandwith amounts, didn't exactly slam-dunk outpace the RadeonHD's 4000 series on launch.

Given that, on paper, the 5850 mobile chipset is probably going to go somewhere in between the RadeonHD 4850 and the RadeonHD 5770 on performance, it's difficult to say whether or not a desktop GTX 260 would be more powerful.

On paper? Yes.

In real games with a real processor? I don't know.

Yes, this is true for Nvidia.

SLI support for CoH is only in the most recent Nvidia drivers. As in this month's drivers.

Nope. Laptop chips have both thermal and power consumption limits that desktop chips don't have.

The 5850 mobile will easily outrun them. On paper all of the 5850 mobile chips, the 5830 mobile chip, and the 5870 mobile will all outrun the GTX 480m.

on paper yes.

While the Thugs themselves don't really have that large of a repertoire of debuff effects, dark Does.

Howling Twilight, Twilight Grasp, and the Dark Servant all have -regeneration powers. If you have around a 100% recharge bonus, Howling Twilight can be pulled up every 45 to 50 seconds, delivering it's massive 500% regen debuff.

Couple that with Tar Patch's resistance debuff and you have one powerful combination for laying down damage that an enemy won't be getting back.

right up until it's decided to retcon the entire story so that it takes place right after episodes 4-6.

In effect, it is.

Thing is this: the City of Heroes game is contained in a semi-unique package format called .pigg.

Any one patch requires the modification of multiple .pigg files. Ergo, when writing a new patch in, the game is having to open up each .pigg file and modify the data.

So yes, this is normal. This is how the game is built.

I wouldn't say that.

Some of the Bulldozer demonstrations have been on existing AM3 motherboards that you can buy today.

The catch is the same as the Socket AM3 to Socket AM2 compatibility. The Bulldozer chips won't be as fast on the existing Socket AM3 infrastructure, and will need the new socket in order to achieve maximum performance.

Nvidia doesn't provide OSX drivers.

Apple writes their own OSX drivers for Nvidia hardware. Apple may have access to the BSD source code and may pull from the BSD driver.

UPDATE YOUR GRAPHICS DRIVERS PLEASE

Once again, the link to update your drivers is here: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownloa...b_win7-32.aspx

Also, what I said earlier about the 5450 still applies to a 4500 series graphics card. It's still way too weak to run Ultra-Mode options.

The suggestion was made several months ago to follow Valve's lead and re-code a new launcher using QT / KHTML / WebKit. At that time the developers were receptive to the idea of using QT / KHTML / Webkit, but there were two barriers:

• Barrier 1: Development Time: No work could be done on a new launcher until after Going Rogue launched.
• Barrier 2: NCSoft itself: NCSoft does have it's own launcher software. However, that software leverages Microsoft's .Net Framework, and I think that speaks for itself.

With Going Rogue out, now probably would be a good idea to push the move to a new launcher that doesn't use .Net and does not leverage the IE rendering engine.

* * *
Dell's page for this laptop is here: http://www.dell.com/us/p/studio-1558/pd

The specifications for these laptop are here: http://www.dell.com/us/p/studio-1558/fs

The most they say about an add-in graphics card is a 512mb ATi card. However, there is no ATi graphics card presented as upgrade option through the web-interface. As best as I can find, strangely rfrom the Refurbished section, Dell seems to have shipped the Studio 15 with a RadeonHD 5450: http://www.dell.com/us/en/dfh/notebo...55&cs=22&s=dfh

The desktop 5450 isn't capable of running Ultra Mode, and the mobile card is significantly WEAKER. However, the 5450 is an OpenGL 3.3 capable graphics card, and it will try to render in OpenGL 3.3.

So, what is going on is this: you are asking the graphics card to do something it just can't do.

Turn Ultra Mode options off, and you should be fine.

Also, download updated Catalyst Mobility drivers:

32bit: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownloa...b_win7-32.aspx
64bit: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownloa...b_win7-64.aspx


Then, next time, don't buy a Dell.

http://www.cityofheroes.com/news/pat...patch_not.html

http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patch_No...Charge_Changes

So... both not only the main webpage patch notes, but also at Paragon Wiki in the patch notes... That's not really that hard to find.


AND INSERT MASSIVE FACE PAW HERE..



I just read back through that and realized you asked about Lightning Rod, not Shield Charge.

The combat numbers aren't much help here:





They don't make a note of the radii change on Shield Charge, so if there is one on Lightning Rod, it's not listed.

The patch notes also don't say much about lightning rod either: http://www.cityofheroes.com/news/pat...00909184t.html

http://www.cityofheroes.com/news/pat...patch_not.html


So, since there is no clear answer, let's go ahead and find one.

Take one part ice / electric tank and find a bunch of nemesis:



Stir in 1 Cup Lightning Rod and check Pet Damage



Okay, from the combat spam, it seems that Lightning Rod is kicking off a constant damage across all targets. There does not seem to be a radii split between targets that were close and targets that were far away.

Kiss Nvidia goodbye if they do another price drop. Nvidia's cost to actually physically produce the GTX 470 and the GTX 480 graphics cards was already over the retail MSRP of the cards, as evidenced by the price-points Nvidia kept talking about in the months prior to the release of the GTX 470 and 480. It was well known that the GTX 470 and GTX 480 were not exactly bringing in profits, one of the reasons Nvidia pushed the GTX 465 out the door despite the 460 respin that was only a few weeks away. The GTX 470's new price point reportedly places the MSRP way under the physical construction cost.

The example given before with the GTX 200 series of cards is that Nvidia was having to wrap the chips with $20 bills in order to get board partners to take the chips. With the GTX 470, if the information I have is accurate, Nvidia's having to wrap the GTX 470 with a $50 bill.

The GTX 460, from the best information available, was possibly the first chip Nvidia had since the GTS 250 that cost less to actually make into a graphics card than the targeted price point, hence the swiftly dropped price on the GTX 460 784mb cards. However, the new price point of the 460 may once again put the card in the area where Nvidia is having to pay vendors to take the chips since the physical manufacturing cost is probably greater than the MSRP cost. I say probably because I don't actually know the exact break-down of the factory reference Foxconn GTX 460 1gb card. It is possible that the GTX 460 1gb might still be profitable at it's new price point.

I do know that many board vendors, such as Galaxy, Sparkle, Zotac, MSI, and Asus, were cutting corners on construction of various Nvidia cards in order to eek out profits. Given that little bit of information, I'm inclined to believe that the price drop on the GTX 460 and GTX 470 is likely to decrease the number of Nvidia board partners.

Basically, I don't know what Nvidia's strategy is right now, and I look forward to upcoming investors calls. Reports have been brewing of a GTX 580 card, presumably a suped-up version of the GF104 used in the GTX 460.

http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles...10aHotfix.aspx

AMD has a new Anti-Aliasing implementation currently listed as: Morphological Anti-Aliasing

Now, I don't actually know all that much about MAA. According to Guru3D the new feature will also work on RadeonHD 5x00 series cards, and can be used under DX9, DX10, and DX11 API's: http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=331108

If what Guru3D says is true then MAA should also work across OpenGL 2.x, 3.x, and 4.x API's, which should mean it will work in City of Heroes. The big question is whether or not AMD will backport MAA to any previous graphics cards. As I understand the previews MAA has a significant performance penalty, and there's a chance that previous generation cards simply may not be able to process MAA.

Also, the HotFix driver lists some issues with OpenGL acceleration, which may indicate some other uncovered errors that would affect City of Heroes rendering.

Sadly I wasn't in the pre-press on the 6850 / 6870, so I can't really give any insightful information about the cards themselves.

Yes. Resist Energies gives you 25% resistance to end-drain effects.

It is available at level 12 on Tanks.

Suggestions for an older version of any particular game tend to be fairly popular for many MMO's. In some cases, such as Sony Online Entertainment's Planetside and Star Wars: Galaxies, there are clear breakpoints where the developers went from a good or great game into something that really needed to be rolled back right after introduction. E.G. Battle Frame Robotics and New Game Enhancement.

For most games the breakpoint between what players liked and what was good for the game are not as clearly defined. As already covered by other responders in this thread, the glory days some players are hung up on, like the godlike fire tanks and fire hose instant healing are offset by clear deficiencies in other classes. The closest City of Heroes has ever come to a decidedly clear breakpoint in releases has been the I13 Player Versus Player revamp. That particular breakpoint involves a percentage of the player base that is in the low single digit percentages, if that.

I know some players do like to cite Enhancement Diversification as another breakpoint, but the subscriptions recorded by NCSoft showed no short or long term impact from the ED change. Most players also realized that ED was something that did need to happen in order to get the game in balance.


There are some other technical problems with the desire for an older version of the game server. One of those issues is fairly simple:

That Server and Client Code May No Longer Exist.

When game developers commit changes to the source code, somebody might make a back-up of the old source code in case there needs to be a revision history. After enough changes have been made, or if entire sections of the code are replaced, the old copies of the code are likely to be deleted. There's little point to keeping archived copies of known to be bugged code if the current code is exhibiting no regressions.

This is one of the reasons some bugs take forever to track down and fix, like the 9/6 anchor level split (have somebody at level 41 on a 50 team, and everybody down to 44 gets exp from the mobs). The developers may not actually have the actual source code from when the original error was made, and a programmer has to go through a lengthy reverse engineering process.

In some cases, referencing SOE's Planetside and Galaxies again, the publisher stepped in and deleted old source code copies, effectively burning the bridges between the new code and the old code, and forcing the developer to keep building on bad game design choices.


Another technical issue is the actual hosting of the code. Presuming that the original source code was still available, who actually handles the hosting of that code?

In the case of City of Heroes the game is hosted by NCSoft. Would NCSoft be willing to provide server hardware and network bandwidth for an older version of the game? Would hosting an older version of the code that is not going to be maintained or updated because it has already been maintained and updated be a wise expenditure of NCSoft's resources?


One of the common suggestions when the lack of the older code, or the availability of hosting that older code, are brought up is the suggestion to simply implement the old power effects into the game under the current engine and the current code base. The Tech is already in the game to alter the method by which powers work based on other factors. E.G., powers in PvP zones can have different values, or completely different effects, than they do in PvE zones.

There are several big technical issues with this suggestion. Never mind the elephant that is GAME BALANCE.

At some point somebody is going to have to sit in a chair and manually code the new power separation status in.

At some point somebody is going to have to sit in a chair and manually code the new old power values in.

At some point somebody is going to have to sit in a chair and manually code new mission and zone parameters in.

Who is going to do that? Is it really worth NCSoft's money to pay somebody in Paragon Studios to re-implement older aspects of the game when that developers time would be better spent on new content?

No. It isn't.


From all aspects, glory days of MMO's don't happen because they just aren't financially viable, from any given aspect. They aren't worth the cost to the hosting company to maintain and host code that is already being maintained and updated. Nor are they worth the cost to the game developer to re-implement under the current engines.

Let's say that SOE did own up to Planetside's B.F.R.'s being a huge mistake, and rolled back to pre-B.F.R. days. How many other changes have been made to the game in terms of weapon balance and game features? How many new vehicles and weapons have been added that were actually thought through? All of those would have to be re-implemented, and chances are the existing source code wouldn't be a copy-paste into the older source code.

So, wave goodbye to the horribly unbalanced days of the past. Glory, they were not.

as many other posters have said, Working As Intended

It's also likely that you will see more of the Devouring Earth in Future Praetorian Content, given that the Hamidon and the Devouring Earth are among the Praetorian Lore's Big Baddies.

Pets like the Quartz are looking to be one of the methods by which the developers intend to reign in the player base's obsession on Soft-Capped Defenses. Against Quartz buffed enemies, your best friends are heals, resists, and a high HP.

Now, this does not mean than every future mob is going to shred through Defense like it was butter. The developers are fully aware that there are power-sets in the game that only have Defensive Buffs, such as Ice Armor, Energy Armor, and Super Reflexes. Other sets, such as Stone Armor, Shield Defense, and Willpowerare also heavy on the Defensive side of powers.

It is likely that future mobs will carry extremely short term defense debuffs that any archtype with Defense Debuff Resistance will shrug off. The suggestion has also been made that Defense Debuff Resistance be given a protection similar to mez debuffs, and that Powersets with Defense Debuff Reistance would also get a protection modifier.

Powersets without Defense Debuff Reistance would be shredded under such a system, allowing Defense Based Powersets to continue as normal, while encouraging powersets without Defense Debuff Resistance to think about different ways to improve their performance.

... oh where is it...

Now, I wrote this specifically in response to somebody who was using an Intel Graphics card, but the same holds true for what you want.

Ultra Mode Features are ONLY exposed through the Highest Shader Model leveraging the OpenGL 3.x API.

Ultra Mode Features are NOT EXPOSED through lower shader models. So, like Zombie already said, you have an Ultra Mode Feature turned on. You will need to disable Ultra Mode features in order to leverage a lower shader model.

Now, if you don't know what is an Ultra Mode feature, I can help you there. I've got a nice long post in the Technical Support thread detailing all of the available graphics options as of Issue 18: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219534

Deary, I'm quite familiar with the Apple Line-up. Your machine might exceed the recommendations for the original Graphics Client.

However, outside of the new PowerMac's with RadeonHD 5770, there hasn't been an Apple system sold that meets the Ultra Mode Minimum Requirements. Ergo, I can probably safely tell you that your computer does not meet the minimum requirements for running Ultra Mode Graphics.

Turn Ultra Mode options: Off

Try actually dropping by the Technical Support section instead of Suggestions and Ideas.

Uh huh. That's what I thought.

Okay, here's something you did not know about Fury.

Brutes need fury to match the damage of other archtypes.

Somebody, not me, actually worked out the numbers. A Brute needs to average somewhere around 63% base fury in order to match the damage output of a scrapper at the same level with the same exact enhancement slotting.

This means that in an average solo situation a Brute with identical slotting to a scrapper is actually not going to be that far ahead of a scrapper in terms of total damage.

http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patch_No...0-08-16#Brutes

• # Modified the Brute Fury Formula so that there is a more gradual degradation of Fury Build Up while attacking/being attacked instead of a sharp fall off at 80%. The fall off begins at 30%.
• # Reduced Fury Decay Rate from 2 points per second to 0.75 points per second.
• # The overall result of these two changes to Fury Generation is that it will be easier to maintain low levels of Fury, while gaining very high levels of Fury will be more difficult.

At 80% Fury, a Brute should be more powerful than a scrapper in casual play with the same exact slotting.


Now, in teaming situations, that dynamic does change. Scrappers do benefit more from damage boosts than Brutes: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Damage_Cap#Damage

A Scrappers maximum damage cap is 500%, or to your display tracking, 400%. A scrapper's critical does 2X damage, This means that a scrapper floored into their damage cap will actually have a damage bonus of 1000% on a critical strike.

The brutes maximum damage cap is 775%, or to your display tracking, 675%. Because the Brute's damage cap is so high, they pretty much require two full fulcrum shifts in order to actually cap their damage... and they will still be doing less effective average damage than a scrapper. This also means that Brutes will continue to benefit from OTHER PLAYER'S DAMAGE BOOSTS long after everybody else no longer gains any practical benefit.

uh huh. Safe to nuke. Okay, yes I can see this most nukes do -1000% recovery and painbringer can counter that...

but... really... really horrible example.

Thing is, you don't understand what Forge Does.

Forge isn't just a Damage Boost. It is also a To-Hit boost. Brutes drive Fury not only by being hit, but by hitting enemies. Increasing a Brute's to-hit enables them to land more hits and drive higher amounts of Fury.

Forge is just as valuable to Brutes as it is to every other archtype. It can actually even more useful to brutes because Brute's have such a high damage cap to begin with, and will benefit from the application of Forge as just a Damage bonus even with other archtypes are capped.

So: Why use Forge on a Brute?

BECAUSE IT IS THE SMART THING TO DO YOU FOR YOUR BRUTE FRIENDS.

Trust me, your Brutes will thank you for looking after their damage and to-hit.

Why do you not use it on a brute?

All tabs within the main chat window can moved anywhere within the window.

So yes, you can drag tabs on the top split to the bottom split.

There are also a series of numbers (1, 2, 3, 4) across the top of the main chat window. These open up into sub windows where you can place more chat tabs.

There are no user-exposed method to modify field of view.

There are no developer-exposed methods either. According to Television, implementing various resolutions that require Field of View changes, such as those supported under AMD Eyefinity and Matrox Triple Head2Go, requires some hefty changes to the back-end.

Off the top of my head there is no method exposed to users inside of the game.

In theory you may be able to modify key-stroke repeat levels through the Operating System itself.