lionsbane_EU

[ QUOTE ]
There you go. Arrogant wasn't a word I had actually used in reference to you, but you're definately making the assumption there that I don't understand what your idea entails. I do, you just refuse to accept that, and believe myself and anyone else who disagrees just doesn't understand you. I think that you don't understand how such a system would actually work, but I'm not going to assume that. Perhaps you do and want it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're going round in circlesa and I keep dropping the thread and someone one makes points that prompt me to reply.

Rereading what I wrote it does seem that I patronised you. I apologise for that. I didnt mean it qiute as harshy as it came out.

Ok. Last night 2 very interesting things happened. I was sked into a 8 team. I played off (after sk) against + 5s.
Now at level 25 myself. what real value did I add to the team?
A too high proportion of my strikes missed and when I hit I caused minimal damage.
However I gained 2 levels. ( i was about 3 bars into a level when we kicked off,.)

Meanwhile, a player who had 2 accounts brought his level ONE to the team.

The rest of the team were (apart from a level 31 and a 33)level 34 ish (the mobs were 35)

I could and strictly speaking should, have SKed with a 34 for team efficentcy sake. But I wanted the extra xp being +5 could afford me, knowing I was covered by a pretty strong team.

The level 1 guy finished the session at about level 8 I think.

Now, both he and I exploited a loophole in the gaming system. The team didnt benefit from us. We benefitted from it.
And we';re both pleased about it but- should that opportunity be open to us? Isnt that kind of thing (and it goes on, understandably, all the time) against the spirit of the game?

In my scenario, the worst case seenario that everyone is hitting me with, is being in a team against (scaled) + 1s getting xp relative to that.

And the only upside to all that is that the 50s team could wipe the map a bit quicker than If I stayed in a team at my normal level.

So while you could argue through the eye of a needle that yes, it is possible to mildly power level, it just doesnt compare even remotely to the current system.

[ QUOTE ]
I think its easy to say this isnt gonna happen so why carry on the Arguement

[/ QUOTE ]

Because everyone seems to be missing what i'm saying and are asking me to verify what I mean. I conceded the point quite a while ago.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you see a PLing hole in that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, thats what you get now more or less sk'd to a 50, dont forget the majority of pl'ing teams aint got a handy bridge.

And that aside under your system you can PL 7 at a time, so that by far out weighs the slight xp disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Hunour me here cause maybe im missing something. Lets say I am level 15 and do a mission with 7 team mates and we fight level 16s.

Lets say purely for the sake of argument I end up (no debt) with 3000 xp points as a result.

So after i drop the team I get an invite with a level 50 team. Against level 53s.

the game will only grant me aprox 3,000 xp because it will treat the 53 as if they were 16s for xp purposes.

So how can you power level on that basis? Am i missing something?

[ QUOTE ]
And because of that im accused of being arrogent and dismissive.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I generally try to be impartial, and I am here too, but TBH I don't think it's the substance of your posts that lead to these accusations - it's the phrasing. Taking a few quotes from your earlier posts in this thread, we have:

Besides who the heck cares about a question mark? Crikey some of you really stretch the limits of pure pedantic nonsense. Can those of you who are like that please stay away?

Is it possible that the intellegent posters, the ones who dont jump at every opportunity to be sarcastic or to knock someone else, please post?

Or nort? But the wasters? Please stay away, Cause you are a drain on these boards you really are.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your sarcastic tone isnt appreciated and makes you look pretty pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you read the title or my whole point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Standoff, if you're gonna do this you have to put in the posts that prompted such responses. That is completely unfair. You havent shown why I responded like that.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting doing away with the concept of teaming wioth lower levels, I'm suggesting a better (imho) way of updating a 5 year old syatem to make it even more accessable than it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I asked the ones who can only go to the lowest denominator to stay off my thread. Please oblige.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same

[ QUOTE ]
I did ask that if you want to post on topic in favour or against, please do so. I Also asked that if you are unable to manage that, then please stay off my thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same

[ QUOTE ]
What part of that nonsense you just served up was on topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, these are all fragments quoted away from their original contexts, but to a fair degree that doesn't matter. Repeatedly make posts of that sort of tone in any context, and it does form an overall impression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why dont you go through the posters that have spoken to me in a civilised manner and post my responses there? You know full well I was being flamed and you also know I dont like being flamed or the people that do it.



[ QUOTE ]
FWIW I've said this to try to explain why people react the way they do, not to try to provoke any sort of flame war...

[/ QUOTE ]

Read this thread again and see who started with thr insulting behavior. I have never ever started (intentionally) a flame war nor have I ever flamed someone unless they directly flamed me first.

For instance, I dont think you ever actually flamed me and I dont think I've ever had a cross word with you. But we disagree frequently.

But yes, I sure as hell finish them. Usually its because I post and keresnki locks the thread but hey

[ QUOTE ]
You wouldnt be able to powerlevel if this system were implemented. Can I be any clearer than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How would you not be able to power level with your system?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said ;
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard the reasoning out, dont buy into a lot of it because quite frankly, the current system supports PLing far more than an auto sk that will only allow pro rata xp regardless of the level of the mission.


[/ QUOTE ]

From an earlier post.

In other words the game would mark your, for example level 10, chars xp exactly as if you were running a mission against level 11 opposition.

the only differential may be if, for instance against an AV.

Can you see a PLing hole in that?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm quite sure your idea has merit, but you don't seem to be willing to admit that the existing system does, actually, work and changing it over to the mechanism you suggest may be too much work for the benefits received.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never once said it doesnt work. I personally dont see anything wrong in taking a working idea and evolving it.
And yes, I do think it would be better but I am aware that others dont. Why should that stop me putting counter views forward when someone says they dont like it with reasons that I think can be circumvented? Doesnt mean I'm right, but that i have an idea and I'm rebutting the point thats being raised because the objection you present can be overcome.

For example I have stated several times that with this system you CANT power level at all. Yet you keep coming up with that as a reason not to implement such a system.
And telling me that i keep ignoring the fact that the power levelling (which cant happen) makes it a no go.

And because of that im accused of being arrogent and dismissive.

You wouldnt be able to powerlevel if this system were implemented. Can I be any clearer than that?

Your point about it being too much like hard work to get off the ground may be valid, but its hard for me to listen to your objections when you clearly dont fully understand what i have been driving at in the first place.

I stated already that I'm dropping the thread because of a lack of enthusiasm about the idea. I dont have an issue with that at all.
I really do when I'm accused of being arrogent when in fact the point I was pretty clearly making was ignored and the idea debunked becauyse of an issue that wasnt even part of the suggestion.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do I get the feeling that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

Your idea may have some merits but I think as the system we have now works best to leave well alone. there are many more pressing problems then this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I was just closing my contribution to the thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Without reading the whole thread, because I'm feeling particularly lazy tonight.

The way I see it is Auto-Sidekicking isn't a terrible idea. In fact, I can see situations where it'd be a damn sight more useful than what we currently have. Provided it wasn't used to just powerlevel 7 toons at once rather than the 4 or so people do now. How often does that happen though eh?

All in all though, I do think that our current system is better as it fits the whole premise of a sidekick. Someone showing the ropes to a new player. Though I would prefer it if the maximum range was increased slightly. Them boxes can really crowd up a screen if you're all moving about mid battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

What really has to be considered here is the attitude of the boards themselves. If, for example, there was no side kick syustem in place and the devs announced they'd introduce one, or I suggested the syatem, the boards would be full of the downside. (PLing in particular)

I remember suggesting that respecs should be more freely available and a typical answer critisised me because free respecs would somehow taint the sanctity of the current respec system. The fact that locking a new player into a bad build iusnt necessarily a good idea commercially didnt seem to come into it.

So it's very difficult to really get a clear proportionate response here.

I put it forward, and while the concept has had some support, its had more detractors.

I've heard the reasoning out, dont buy into a lot of it because quite frankly, the current system supports PLing far more than an auto sk that will only allow pro rata xp regardless of the level of the mission.

I have no doubt there will be occasional teaming with stone tankers and kin controllers but again, given that the the auto sked player would only get proportonate xp, how many people would actually do that? Strictly speaking, youde be better off in your own team on an unyeilding mission wouldnt you?

So what ever motive yioy would have for joining a higher leveling mission, Power levelling would be at the bottom of the list.

In fact I've been reading this thread about all the comic book heroes who sk and how the current system matches the concept.

Ironically it doesnt match it at all because the primary reason for SKing (aside from teaming with friends) is power levelling. And If I took a poll out of how many sk to join a friend and how many sk to power level, I think I know which one would come out on top.

What would be the point of going to an auto sked mission to power level if the most xp you would get would be 1 levels worth of xp above what you get if you fight an even levelled con now?

As I've said I just think auto would remove the ulterier motives for sking pretty much entirely and just make it easier for teaming in general and more challenging cause its a lot easier taking on the malta with an 8 man 50 team than it is with a few mentoired 10s or 20s thrown into the mix.

But like I said, those are my thoughts. I cant pursue this here because the boards, apart from a few notables, seems so much against it.

[ QUOTE ]
if there should be one tankimng primary that is superior, it should be invulnerability

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No tanking primary should be superior. This is a MMO, not a comic book. If one powerset is clearly superior to others, 90% of players will play that set.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may think that but it isnt the case and never was. In the first year or so of the game, there were disinctly superior sets but they weren't all jumped on disprortionately. Invulnerability, for one, was the most powerful Tanker primary but ther ewere plenty of other tanker AT sets out there.
In fact Tankers were and probably still are, the least used hero AT (apart from War+ Peace)off all. Yet the original manual implies quite strongly that Tankers are the most powerful AT. Certainly the most important. (big man on team,) People play what they want to play.

I'm doing it myself right now. A MA/ SR scrapper. Hardly the most effective Scrapper set but it's the concept I wanted.

It doesnt work the way you think it does.

Saying that, I never said it should be more powerful.
It's pretty universally agreed that, across the board, Will power exceeds Invul. I was saying that's strange because IF the devs wanted one Tanker primary to exceed the others it ought to be Invul.

[ QUOTE ]
right now, the weaknesses of inv are HIDDEN by invincibility.
the fact that a player MUST get:hasten for dull pain, aid other & self, possibly fighting pool for Weave stacked with tough hide and invinc( 24% defense with 0 mobs, 19% with debuff from Uny)states that invulerability, though imho not gimped for PvE, is in the very least "tricky" and restricting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forget stamina (and the two powers you have to take first) and the fact you use up a power pool that Willpower doesnt need to do. That alone gives Willpower a massive advantage.

From start to finish, willpower is a much more attractive and player friendly set. Even down to the fact its glowy toggles are much more subdued than Invuls Disco ball effects.

And that's coming from someone who has 4 invul alts.

[ QUOTE ]
WP is said to be better than Invuln.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Only for suvivability, it's much worse at holding aggro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you dont use taunt. Between reasonable use of taunt and gauntlet there is hardly a noticeable difference.

Which does make me wonder, because if there should be one tankimng primary that is superior, it should be invulnerability without question, simply because of its iconic connotation.

[ QUOTE ]
edit: Due to a really inaccurate thread title I did miss the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Scarlet, I'm not saying drop it at all. I'm saying improve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You might have been better saying that you wanted to improve the system in the title then... as it stands it rather sounds like you want rid.

[/ QUOTE ]

The title was deliberate, although I intended a question mark, because I wanted people to look at it.

In one sense it may have been a misjudgement. On the other hand I wrote a whole post outlining what I really meant so I struggle to really understand why the title would end up causeing so much consternation and misconceptions.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be interested to hear what you come up with in regards to possible solutions to the concerns put forward. If they seem like they'd work then, hey, maybe your idea's worth a go.

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent got the time or the resources to think the solutions to the downsides properly. I'm not sitting round a table with a group of people that can fire off fcts and figures or give me feasability projections.
Besides, I put a suggestion forward, asked an opinion and got it, so for me it's asked and answered.

However just to quickly give you one off the cuff reply.. what is wrong with capping the xp so that there is only so much a lowly can earn, regardless of the level of the mission.

I do see issues to be honest. The biggest is out leveling your own content, but in a way that's a non issue because debt is so minimal and levelling is so fast, we do that all the time anyway. And, if there were no big gains to be had by going into an auto mentored mission, I dont think things wwould be thrown to far out of scew anyway.

But look, I put a thought forward and its been stamped on. That's fine.

Although it's good to see that from that idea other suggestions are coming through.

Isnt that what all this is for?

[ QUOTE ]
Okay then - I was going to avoid this scary thread but no, I shall Feel The Fear and Do It Anyway, as they say...

To answer the original post (and just remind myself what that was again, amongst all the shouting ) Lionsbane, I can see your point. If all possible mentors leave the team and there are no missions of lower level doable at that time, the sidekick loses out and that sucks for him/her.

However, with the system you've suggested in place - and hopefully I've got this right, which is that when a player of a much lower level joins a high-level team and enters a 'their-level' mission with them, the mission automatically mentors them - my concerns are this:

Theoretically, a person can create a new character, maybe do the tutorial if they like to get to level 2, run around and kill low-level stuff for a bit - and then think "Well, look at all these missions in the Baby Areas that I can do. Blow them for a game of soldiers - I'm gonna jump on some level 50 missions, woohoo!" And that's how they level up their character, for the rest of the game. Not only do they then miss out on, like, half the game, but if they're relative newcomers to CoX they might... let me see, how can I say this tactfully? Oh well... be pretty bloody useless to their level 50 buddies, because they won't have gone through the early-level process of feeling their way through their newly-acquired powers that the 'Baby Areas' offer. I mean, it's fine to stuff up a few times when you're in a team of same-level people who are just as likely to be making stuff-ups of their own, but by the time you've legitmately worked your way up to level 50 maybe you'd be looking for people who have a bit more idea of what they're doing. The existing Sidekick system ensures that the number of inexperienced players is proportionally balanced with experienced ones, but the system you're suggesting could theoretically allow 1 level 50 and 4 level 7s or something - so the level 50 could end up 'babysitting' a team of inexperienced lowbies through a mission. In a while, the level 50 players would get wise to that fact, tar all low-level players with the same 'newbie' brush and just refuse to take lowbies onto their teams - which kind of leaves them high and dry in much more of a sense than just being an abandoned sidekick.

That's just my opinion. I await your response with baited breath (and fear in my heart... )

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a well thought out and elequently spoken argument to my suggestion. And it has stopped me in my tracks somewhat because I take your point.

But I work from a different angle to this.

To me I look at something knowing there will ALWAYS be a down side.

The first question I ask myself is: If I can achieve my goal and eliminate the downsides, will it be worth it?
If the answers yet, I take the concept, look at the downside and see if I can address that. If I can address the problems then we're on a winner.

So, in my mind, this idea works. (im only giving MY opinion.) ~Next I look at the brainstorming about what the negative side affects , such as you mentioned could be, then I try to find solutions.

So the fact that there could be negatives doesnt nessecarily prevent me from putting the idea on the table in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
Well,I dont agree that it would necessarily preticipate PLing and even if it does there are ways to prevent if if so desired.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, think about it.. If a level 1 can enter a level 50 mission, and get auto-SK'd to 49, just what do you think the farmers will do?
level 53/54 mobs
1 x level 50 Stoney
1 x level 50 fire/kin
6 x level 1's sucking up the XP.

Hell... *I'D* do it, and I'm not a farmer!

[/ QUOTE ]

I do take your point here.
But, you know what I think the problem is, FFM? I make suggestions to make things easier for casual players.

Most of the posters here think from the veterans perspective. Thats why its so easy to pick holes in suggestions like this, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

Yes, if you find a stoney and a Fire kin, it may be done, but the vast majority of players wouldnt even think of that.

Or bother to find them.

The other thing is maybe we are innured to the devs NOT thinking it through properly and assume, that, if such an idea was a go, they wouldn't have thought of a way to deal with the pretty minor negatives.

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion of your post/s above , which you didn't ask for and may be against the rules but here goes anyway, is that when you open a topic for discussion it is a good idea to allow people to do just that before you leap in and start to tear their opinion to shreds.
You have vented your displeasure at a number of posters here who have had the temerity to disagree with you however I would suggest you have brought this on yourself.
Reading the entire post it looks to me as though what you actually wanted was not peoples opinion of your suggestion, but an argument perhaps better suited to a verbal exchange judging by the speed of your responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I have an example of that please? Seems to me I have answered those who have posted intelligently, in kind.

And likewise, those who cant quite "get it up."

I did ask that if you want to post on topic in favour or against, please do so. I Also asked that if you are unable to manage that, then please stay off my thread.

What part of that nonsense you just served up was on topic?

[ QUOTE ]
Ok Lionsbane. Here's a point for you:

A group of six people are teaming - three Level 50s, three Level 49s (Auto-mentored).

One of the Level 50s DCs in the mission. When the mission ends, the other two Level 50s log off. The 49s are reverted to their natural levels. Oh look! We have the situation your trying so adamantly to get rid of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in the sense that because the mission owner has logged the others lose the mission. But that happens (rightly) whether you are sking or not. I don't understand your point.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, most people are in SGs these days. All you need is the base teleporter or a local SG Portal.

[/ QUOTE ]

To do what? Have I missed something here?

[ QUOTE ]
The sidekick system works just fine as it is. Your suggestion will still enable people to PL. In fact probably more so.

At the moment the maximum number of low level players that can get into a high level mission is 4. Under your system, all they'd need is one level 50, and 7 could get in.

The phrase that applies here I think is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but it can be improved. People have latched on to the PLing because I made reference to it.

But the fact that, if done right, it would make PLing less desireable (because of no bridging mainly) would be a side affect.

I'm thinking more of the times when an sk has to drop a team or when you cant balance the SKs properly and have to drop one or two.

Or when you are an SK, and your team mate moves out of range or goes to the hospital.

It just struck me as a more sensible way of enabling younger levela to play with their higher level friends without the complications.

But, its just an idea. If no-one thinks its a good one, then fine.

[ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that you're arguing for a change that really isn't needed (or wanted by the looks of it). The sidekick system, whilst a game mechanic, is also a pretty important concept to comic books and works very very well within the game. Changing it just so that more people can powerlevel (this is exactly what would happen), is dumb.

Sure, you could make it like the one being put into CO, and sidekick multiple people, but even THAT is bending the sidekick concept a fair bit. Traditionally, a hero has ONE sidekick, not four.

IMO, there's already been too many changes to the game to suit pure game mechanics, and too much "concept" stuff is getting left behind. If they keep on doing that, we won't be playing a comic book superhero game any more...

So no, I don't think this is a good idea. If you have more low levels than high levels, then swap around; exemplar the high levels instead and do some lowbie missions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well,I dont agree that it would necessarily preticipate PLing and even if it does there are ways to prevent if if so desired.

Still, I asked a straight question and you gave me an opinion without some of the nonsense I seem to be getting so thanks for that.

[ QUOTE ]
I think maybe he means a question mark might have added something to the title

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a question mark. What are you talking about? Annd if not- so what?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes - because I put it there, to make the thread seem more like a discussion

[/ QUOTE ]

That was an accident. It was planned to be a question. So thanks. But I didnt know you could affect someone elses thread like that.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll turn the tables on you.

your team lost the sk for one member. So you have to break the team or get him a new mentor. How &%$£^&%$ selfish was your team to not try and find a mission compatible level or something you could all involve yourselves in? If it was a PuG then well, self-serving to the last man from the sound of it. If it was an SG team then shame on your SG for it's lack of support.

Drop the SK system? No wai! It's fantastic. Yes it can be used for power levelling (unless GG's on the team but hey ho) and it's within the rules.

Final point: This is the first ever thread I've read saying stop the SK system in some 2.5 years here. I'm all for the minority voice but damn you must be feeling cold about right now

[/ QUOTE ]

Scarlet, I'm not saying drop it at all. I'm saying improve it.

Answer me this: What would it remove from the current system? What would a syatem where the mission auto sks a player take away from the current SK system?

How would anyone lose out?

Apart from street farming. And maybe the game can keep the sk system for that.

I'm not sure if I'm writing in English and the computers translating to googldegook cause you are one of the brighter posters here and even you didnt understand what I was suggesting.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a weekend thread, started by our very own resident Troll

Pinch of Salt becomes a glass of salt

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked the ones who can only go to the lowest denominator to stay off my thread. Please oblige.

And I'm not a resident anything pal. I dont want to be associated with people who find it funny to just constantly carp others.

So count me out of residency. My friends on these boards all happen to have two things in common: They post intelligently and I havent heard them instigate a single flame, or make any kind of cheap comment like you just made.

I aint resident here I assure you.

[ QUOTE ]
It's 1AM on a Sunday night, and your topic title basically calls to scrap one of the things that makes this game more accessible than the plethora of Korean grindathons and Everquest clones.

Mild sarcasm was a pleasant surprise, I was expecting full on flaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the title or my whole point?

I'm not suggesting doing away with the concept of teaming wioth lower levels, I'm suggesting a better (imho) way of updating a 5 year old syatem to make it even more accessable than it is now.

Can you see that now?

[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? You honestly think that the devs couldnt compensate for that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How could they? Put a restriction on the number of lowbies you can invite to a team? Oh! But wouldn't that kill the teaming spirit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sarcastic tone isnt appreciated and makes you look pretty pathetic.
To answer your point it took me all of three seconds to suggest they cap the xp relative to their level, like now. How many lowbies in the team are irrelevant from that point of view.

And you really think a full team of lowbies with only one or two 50s in there are gonna stand up for very long in a 50s mission?

Firstly, not everyone thinks like you apparently do and secondly, it would have to be balanced high and low just to give the low levels a decent chance of survival. Not everyone is a cookie cutter you know. So, if 7 lowbies want to jump on a 50s mission, good luck to em.

[ QUOTE ]
As for being mentored one level below the Threat Level of the enemies, the Level cap is 50 so that wouldn't be possbible (I think).

[/ QUOTE ]

then the best they could be is like now 49. So what?
Thats no different to now is it? I'm not suggesting we reinvent the wheel here. Im suggesting this may be a way of makimng the current SK system smoother and more user friendly.


[ QUOTE ]
What on earth is wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said there was anything wrong with preventing SK dumping. I just don't agree with your idea. There's a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont have an issue with you not thinking its a good idea (although your examples of wy not are tissue thin) I dont appreciste your patronising tone though.

Eh? What happened there? It didnt register and now it does?

Besides who the heck cares about a question mark? Crikey some of you really stretch the limits of pure pedantic nonsense. Can those of you who are like that please stay away?

Is it possible that the intellegent posters, the ones who dont jump at every opportunity to be sarcastic or to knock someone else, please post?

Or nort? But the wasters? Please stay away, Cause you are a drain on these boards you really are.