rsclark

The context here is not "playing the game". It is "keeping the customers happy". The EULA has nothing to say on that topic.

You don't know what they are doing. Something they did at some point didn't work as they intended, so they are trying something else.

That's great, but unless Zwill came in with a bag of new 8 terabyte solid state drives and they all started dancing around the office singing Love Train, I wouldn't call it an upgrade.

We have "server upgrades" at work, and you'd be shocked how often it results from someone saying "hey, look what I found in the closet."

Yea, unless the move is "down 3 plugs on the power strip", I don't buy the 12 hour estimate.

In the future on a normal week, you would be able to run this mission once and get a hero/villain merit (as an example of the good reward.)

Since you had never run the mission before, after completing, you get that same good reward table and get a hero merit. This is the first time award bonus and it does not count for the once a week reward.

If you immediately ran it again, you would get that same reward table, and could get your second hero merit - making a total of 2 in one week. That's the double he was talking about. Not double rewards for running it once, but the option to run twice and get the good reward both times.

Since you can never get the first time bonus again, you will never be able to get 2 in one week again and will be restricted by the timer to only getting one good reward a week.

So, currently if you run it a third time, you will get lesser rewards. In any future week, you will only need to run it twice to get the lesser reward.

I began a statement with the word "if". That makes no claim to the truth value of any other part of the statement, and only links them causally.

That's an excerpt from my new book "If" the Most Misunderstood Word on the Internet - coming in May from Harper Collins.

And the level of the io is set by the level of the character. Depending on how they define that second part, it could mean that exemplaring below current level-3 would always diable these - making them worse than buying one on the market.

I'm guessing that's not how they work, since it would make the whole idea a rip off, but it's possible.

In order to be persistent, the gameworld must maintain continuity. It's definitional.

I don't know what any of those words mean.

That sounds like a case for an arbitrary buff to the opponents or debuff to the character. You know, things that might make it difficult without affecting the act of the player playing the character. "This is harder for some reason" is different than "you have 2 buttons to press and spend 3/4 of your time getting knocked down".

Compared to other level 20 content it's about average. At 20, I don't even know if I'm going to delete the character or not, because it's not done enough to play. There's a reason for shooting through those levels as quickly as possible.

A dinner is still bad if the food is high quality, but it's served off of the floor in a truckstop bathroom.

The story they are telling could be told with a CoH MadLib book.

"Come here, says <dead magic using NPC>, the traitorous <other NPC faction> have stolen my <generic magic object>."

Huh?

What definition are you using of those terms?

Tier 9 isn't bla. It's a solid power that just happens to be unavailable half the time.

Yup, assuming everything is working - which it apparently isn't.

That's the part that keeps bothering me in these discussions. Fort and Selection are powers with similar uses. Fort is overall more useful because of the incredible defense, but selection is more generally useful, because it isn't duplicated by a dozen different powers and set bonuses. Then people say selection is the worst power in the set, while fort is one of the cornerstones of emp. Fort is better, but it isn't "best vs worst" better.

So, the anti-TA.

Compared to a hero/villain merit which is worth 100+ merits, it's pretty bad. Giving different players a 5X difference in reward is a problem.

If Justice Blues is correct (I use "if" since i haven't confirmed that myself), then this doesn't work.

Once on a 50 to get the notice, but then never again.

And I didn't like it on the WTF either. And, remember, they changed the awarding of shards on exemplared content only after people complained about the WTF.

I agree, except for the beta timeframe thing. It should have been something that was considered and handled long before it got to the beta stage.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Well, the persistent world is pretty much the defining trait.

Yes, they created a potential problem and then solved it badly. The better solution is to avoid creating the problem.

The question comes down to how easy that is to accomplish. Lets say they got in writers who decided to change who the incarnate letter writer is. How likely is it that they would contradict some hint that had been left in one of the already in-game letters?

It's not like they have revealed the writer at this time, but there are elements in the game that exist only because people were basing the past writings on that undisclosed fact. By not having a plan beforehand and sticking to it, you increase the chance you're going to write these loose ends and have elements that do not quite fit, and with as much content as already exists, that's a major concern.

Because a 50 is more powerful than a level 20, so should be able to accomplish anything a 20 should be able to. You've yet to give a reason a 50 should be gimped.

Actually, mid 30s works pretty well. By your logic, why not just level lock at 2 - after all, alternating those two underslotted attacks and brawl is loads of fun.

Lower levels have some semblance of a point when you are learning to use a characters, but once you're past that point, then ... well, you're past that point.