Amazing Praetoria game mechanics idea!
By
Ad Astra,
Posted on: 2009-11-29 23:21 in Suggestions and Ideas
Quote:
I just wanted to point out that threats aren't generally taken well... also, it can be surmised that anyone making those comments obviously doesn't support your idea, since they believe it to be made in jest. In fact, saying this thread is little more than troll-bait is making a very strong negative statement. If you truly value the positive and negative feedback, as you say you do, then why are you asking that very strong negative sentiments be removed?
|
Originally Posted by OPTICAL_ILLUSION
To those who have dropped comments about this being a troll thread and such, please remove them or I'll have our friendly neighborhood Mod8man remove them for you.
|
Quote:
I just wanted to point out that there are things called forum posting rules. I'm being nice enough to give people the opportunity to modify or delete their posts before I have mod8 do it for them. Troll/flame posts lead to locked or deleted threads and I'm not going to allow that to happen here. |
Originally Posted by Thirty_Seven
I just wanted to point out that threats aren't generally taken well... also, it can be surmised that anyone making those comments obviously doesn't support your idea, since they believe it to be made in jest. In fact, saying this thread is little more than troll-bait is making a very strong negative statement. If you truly value the positive and negative feedback, as you say you do, then why are you asking that very strong negative sentiments be removed?
|
It is very unfortunate that I even had to explain that to you.
Either contribute to this topic or move along.
A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Black_Barrier
Guess it's hard to click while actively trying to keep the drool away from the keyboard...
|
I love the joke ideas people post. Almost woke my son up laughing as I read this one. You guys have great senses of humor.
Quote:
Sorry to derail once more. EF, I'm glad we can agree to disagree. The unfortunate part (for you) is that it becomes an argument of quantity. |
Originally Posted by EmpireForgotten
Probably the only thing we can agree on. We are just two completely different types of players. That's not a bad thing, it means the game is diverse enough to attract multiple types of gamers.
We're way off track from the point of this sarcastic post but I guess my point, which might you might not be able to get (Not meant in snark, we are just completely different gamers) is that even though I have a toon built to perfection and a team built to perfection and I am playing my best - I would hope that it would still be tough. I guess I am looking for the heroic moment when the mission is so close to failure yet you manage to pull out the win in the end. Sure, I can engineer that scenario, but it just isnt the same for me. Anyways, back on topic I guess |
Who do we make more content for? The 98% of the players who either play casually or go semi-hardcore, or do we make content for the remaining 2% Super-Hardcore gamer-gods who can make Hulk look like the Incredible Wimp.
The answer will invariably be to make more content that the rest of the populace finds to be a challenge. A bit of honesty? Never been on a single team that's completed an STF, let alone MoSTF, nor any MoITF either. It's a challenge for ME, and I enjoy it.
There's no such thing as a "challenge" in the PvE game, really. Either you do things, or you don't, there's not much a team of competent players with non-gimped builds can't do. That's one of the problems with this game - short of the Hami raid and maybe an STF or RSF with certain team compositions, things in this game are either win or lose, with very little middle ground (you know, the kind of fights that are drawn out and to-the-wire, or something that requires large amounts of expertise, communication, and/or gear, a la WoW's endgame raids).
However, someone upthread suggested that if someone isn't feeling challenged by anything while they're on their fully IO'd build, they should strip out the IOs and then try. The problem with this idea is that it requires you to take the time and effort you spent on becoming the best you can possibly be, throw it out the window, and then (relatively speaking) gimp yourself in order to be "challenged." That isn't a challenge, that's just lowering yourself a few pegs to put yourself at everyone else's level and is more boring than challenging. There should be high-end content that coordinated teams with high-end builds (or lots of buff stacking, as they can be interchangeable and complimentary at times) do have difficulty with, and that content just doesn't exist right now.
You ask "who do we make more content for?" I answer "everyone." Yes, it's time-consuming, but catering to as many types of players as possible means you will retain more of those players, and who knows - maybe even gain new ones. There's already a plethora of content for "casual" players, a few contacts' worth of stuff for the "hardcore" players wouldn't hurt anything.
@macskull, @Not Mac | XBL: macskull | Steam: macskull | Skype: macskull
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."
Quote:
Why not argue then to remove IO's completely? Why have them if they're just going to be diminished for purposes of balance? |
Originally Posted by Tokyo
Did I say comparable? I said PvP "like." I never said comparable.
If you don't have a follow up argument, that's fine by me. I realize a comparable DR system won't make it into PvE, it wouldn't make sense to implement the same system. But a DR system that's "like" PvP that decreases the benefits of IO and their bonuses for the purposes of balance. I still do not see as a bad idea. |
Influence is trivially easy to come by now. It's extremely easy to have a character with IO's for much of the game with little effort at all...except perhaps the time it takes to actually do some shopping and crafting.
IOing is an option. All you really need to invest is time. If you're not willing to take the time to IO, it's your own fault. Not game design, not other players, and certainly not the Devs. Clearly I'm not talking about Purple sets or ultra expensive individual IOs. You don't need them for a marked improvement on performance anyway.
This is a bad idea that thankfully I'll never have to worry about. As has been stated, it isn't an option we'll see implemented.
Quote:
Good argument. Ask the Devs.
|
Originally Posted by Ignatz
Why not argue then to remove IO's completely? Why have them if they're just going to be diminished for purposes of balance?
|
There is nothing inherently bad about the idea. It just happens to ruin an element a "small percentage" of the playerbase enjoys.
You guys are on the same side of the fence that we were in i13 beta. You're way of playing is being attacked, though for reasons Im not even sure of, you are taking the suggestion of such an implementation and crying, when we had to deal with the actual thing.
To the person who added "Harrison Bergeron" as a tag:
I tip my hat to you, good sir or madam. You are well informed and "get it."
Sorry to interrupt, carry on.
50s: Inv/SS PB Emp/Dark Grav/FF DM/Regen TA/A Sonic/Elec MA/Regen Fire/Kin Sonic/Rad Ice/Kin Crab Fire/Cold NW Merc/Dark Emp/Sonic Rad/Psy Emp/Ice WP/DB FA/SM
Overlord of Dream Team and Nightmare Squad
Quote:
I'm sorry, but you don't get to tell others what a challenge is for them. When you say that there's no such thing as "challenge" in the PvE game, you alienate exactly the people that you're trying to convince. Some of us like the challenge level the PvE game offers, and like the PvE game here because it doesn't require the things that WoW does. I like that I don't need certain gear to complete a task. I like that I can form a team of less-than-optimal builds, and still come out on top.|
Originally Posted by macskull
There's no such thing as a "challenge" in the PvE game, really. Either you do things, or you don't, there's not much a team of competent players with non-gimped builds can't do. That's one of the problems with this game - short of the Hami raid and maybe an STF or RSF with certain team compositions, things in this game are either win or lose, with very little middle ground (you know, the kind of fights that are drawn out and to-the-wire, or something that requires large amounts of expertise, communication, and/or gear, a la WoW's endgame raids).
|
That is not a problem for me. That's exactly why I like the game.
Quote:
| However, someone upthread suggested that if someone isn't feeling challenged by anything while they're on their fully IO'd build, they should strip out the IOs and then try. The problem with this idea is that it requires you to take the time and effort you spent on becoming the best you can possibly be, throw it out the window, and then (relatively speaking) gimp yourself in order to be "challenged." That isn't a challenge, that's just lowering yourself a few pegs to put yourself at everyone else's level and is more boring than challenging. There should be high-end content that coordinated teams with high-end builds (or lots of buff stacking, as they can be interchangeable and complimentary at times) do have difficulty with, and that content just doesn't exist right now. |
If you know how to make a challenge, and get the fights that you're looking for (the longer, more drawn-out, might win, might lose ones), but choose not to do that, it's not the Dev's fault. If you choose not to do that, because you feel like you're gimping yourself, even though it gets you just what you want, then you're weighing risks versus reward for yourself. You have the right to come out of that comparison with whatever view you have, but the Devs have to make a choice on which side they want to aim towards. So far, they've aimed towards creating content for the majority first.
They can't create challenging content faster than players can figure out exactly how to make them trivial. It's almost impossible to do. However, you probably can find challenges made by players in the AE that do exactly what you're looking for. You can find those arcs, and run them, and get the challenge that you want. But insisting that the Devs focus on the 2-3% of powergamers in a game full of casual gamers is asking them to put the vast minority in front of the majority.
And the Devs have released new, supposedly challenging content for level 50s to do. The ITF and most of Cimerora was aimed at this group. And yet, I'm betting that you think that that content is too easy now, too, since it's been run so many times, and people know how to beat it. If the Devs released 4 new TFs designed specifically for high-end IO builds, I'm betting it would take less than a month before those players found that stuff too easy, and wanted more. Meanwhile, the regular players would have gotten nothing except content that they can't complete during that time, and they're clamoring for new content, too.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
The fact that many of you don't get that PvP and PvE need entirely different leveling mechanisms is beyond me. In the PvE game, it doesn't hurt to have players of different power levels, to an extent (i.e., you need at least a minimum of performance). In the PvP game, having those kinds of disparities can ruin the experience for many.|
Originally Posted by _Lith_
There is nothing inherently bad about the idea. It just happens to ruin an element a "small percentage" of the playerbase enjoys.
You guys are on the same side of the fence that we were in i13 beta. You're way of playing is being attacked, though for reasons Im not even sure of, you are taking the suggestion of such an implementation and crying, when we had to deal with the actual thing. |
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to complain, but trying to say that the the PvEers don't have a right to complain because the PvPers have exactly what we don't want is the wrong argument to be making, since you're talking about two different requirements for rulesets.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
If you think Arcana was making belittling statements, you're at the stage where you're deliberately trying to derail the thread.|
Originally Posted by Tokyo
I was asked to give examples of instances where someone was excluded from a team because of the lack of IO bonuses. So I sited my own experience.
I was excluded from that particular TF because my Emp was not equipped with IOs. Therefore the team leader concluded that my build was inadequate. The second time I was excluded from a team because of my build was a LRSF. My dom was not perma so they opted not to take me. These were two instances and I'm positive i'm not the only one that has experienced this. While many team leaders might not be forward about their selections, they DO many times check for IO bonuses. I'm glad you can solo-positron with SOs. I'm sure that comes with some experience. Experience I have yet to gain and many others have yet to. While you don't agree DR is needed, I'm going to continue to disagree. I only see a widening gap between the performance of IOed and SOed builds once GR comes out and "super-powered" is included into the formula. IO's are optional. My definition isn't incompatible with the games design. However, being at a very large disadvantage to IOed builds isn't FUN. It wasn't fun in PvP for casual gamers and that's why it was changed. And please leave the belittling statements to the PvP threads, Arcana. |
Address this point for me. Don't sidestep: The devs have specifically said they know by looking at the numbers that this system will not work in PvE. How does you repeating over and over "I really want it" change that?
Basically all you've been doing is repeating yourself without coming any compelling reasons why such a radical change would improve the game.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
Quote:
Evading the question isn't a clever way to make your point, despite what you think.
|
Originally Posted by Tokyo
Good argument. Ask the Devs.
|
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
If you think Arcana was making belittling statements, you're at the stage where you're deliberately trying to derail the thread.
Address this point for me. Don't sidestep: The devs have specifically said they know by looking at the numbers that this system will not work in PvE. How does you repeating over and over "I really want it" change that? Basically all you've been doing is repeating yourself without coming any compelling reasons why such a radical change would improve the game. |
You either aren't reading or I can't compel you to agree with my argument. That's all.
Reducing the benefits of IO bonuses isn't impossible in PvE and that's what I've been suggesting by implementing a Diminishing returns feature.
I believe by adding a diminishing return feature it will make the game much more challenging. It would also shallow the gulf between those that don't have IOs and those that do.
That has been my argument.
You're free to disagree.
Quote:
However, you have yet to demonstate why the gulf between those who have IOs and those who don't needs to be shallowed.|
Originally Posted by Tokyo
You either aren't reading or I can't compel you to agree with my argument. That's all.
Reducing the benefits of IO bonuses isn't impossible in PvE and that's what I've been suggesting by implementing a Diminishing returns feature. I believe by adding a diminishing return feature it will make the game much more challenging. It would also shallow the gulf between those that don't have IOs and those that do. That has been my argument. You're free to disagree. |
You have also yet to show why your idea is the best, or even a better, choice for making the game more challenging.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
I've already given examples. You don't want to accept those examples. IO bonuses have little to do with skill and or experience and more to do with giving the player an advantage over SOed builds which the current system utilizes as its framework. |
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
However, you have yet to demonstate why the gulf between those who have IOs and those who don't needs to be shallowed.
You have also yet to show why your idea is the best, or even a better, choice for making the game more challenging. |
Perhaps it isn't the "best" however it's the quickest solution "I feel" to balance IO bonuses for a SO system. the other solution would be to rework the entire mission and TF system to compensate for IO's and set bonuses. That seems like much more work.
Do I really need to explain why reducing set bonuses would make running missions and TFs more challenging?
Quote:
Link please
|
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
If you think Arcana was making belittling statements, you're at the stage where you're deliberately trying to derail the thread.
Address this point for me. Don't sidestep: The devs have specifically said they know by looking at the numbers that this system will not work in PvE. How does you repeating over and over "I really want it" change that? Basically all you've been doing is repeating yourself without coming any compelling reasons why such a radical change would improve the game. |
Quote:
You have given anecdotal evidence, which can easily be countered with anecdotal evidence the other way. You say that these things have happened, I can say that they don't happen all that often. If the chance of occurrence is low, then the problem is not really something that the Devs need to address, especially if it's just player action involved, and not a game mechanic that is enforcing it.|
Originally Posted by Tokyo
I've already given examples. You don't want to accept those examples. IO bonuses have little to do with skill and or experience and more to do with giving the player an advantage over SOed builds which the current system utilizes as its framework.
Perhaps it isn't the "best" however it's the quickest solution "I feel" to balance IO bonuses for a SO system. the other solution would be to rework the entire mission and TF system to compensate for IO's and set bonuses. That seems like much more work. Do I really need to explain why reducing set bonuses would make running missions and TFs more challenging? |
You do not need to explain how reducing set bonuses would make the game more challenging. What you need to explain is why the game needs to be more challenging, and if it does, why player choices shouldn't come into play. The game has a wide variety of challenge settings already. Why should those who choose to build in such a way so as to minimize the challenge be forced to play to what you can build?
You've been told already in this thread that if GR was brought into the PvE game, how the entire slew of enemies would need to be reworked for it, and how all of the player powers would need to be reworked because of it, and how the Devs have tried it, seen the numbers, and have said that it's not going to happen because of all the work involved (plus how the players would react), and yet you still say that it would be less work than other options. I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion, when you have no evidence to back it up, and everything that we've heard from the devs has the exact opposite conclusion.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
Astronomically wrong, at least in my case.|
Originally Posted by _Lith_
There is nothing inherently bad about the idea. It just happens to ruin an element a "small percentage" of the playerbase enjoys.
You guys are on the same side of the fence that we were in i13 beta. You're way of playing is being attacked, though for reasons Im not even sure of, you are taking the suggestion of such an implementation and crying, when we had to deal with the actual thing. |
1. I picked a side before you knew there were sides.
2. The side I picked was not to implement the proposed changes without a way to opt-out in the arena.
3. There's no side in this case, because the suggestion won't be implemented.
4. It won't be implemented because there's no problem it solves that the devs perceive to be a problem. Players envious or annoyed at the levels of performance achievable with the invention system are not a problem. Even when I've *directly* suggested to the devs that they might want to dial back some of the invention system buffs *a little* I've been told directly that a) those are the buffs they've determined the playerbase wants and they can provide in a non-game breaking way and b) the invention system was specifically intended to provide a way to earn those buffs.
5. The only problem Castle wants to solve, without completely overhauling the entire powers system, is to moderate buff super-stacking for high-end encounters, so he doesn't have to play the same game they first used in the LRSF: namely jack the levels up (initially it was +5) and use massive counter-buffing. That *might* cause him to try to get a limited form of DR implemented for those encounters, but PvE-wide that is dead as a doornail internally.
I'll start "crying" when Castle tells me they've suddenly changed their minds and are implementing DR PvE-wide. Until then, I don't feel remotely threatened by suggestions to do so posted on the forums, because the subject was already shot down internally. Its extremely unlikely to even be *revisited* much less reversed until well past Going Rogue, and if they consider it then it'll probably be at least two issues from that point before we see it. In other words, PvE is essentially safe from DR until winter 2010, with the possible exception of ultra-high end encounters in GR, and that's probably a less than 5% chance.
As to whether there's anything "inherently bad" about the idea, lets just say I consider it slightly worse of an idea than charging people extra to play scrappers because they keep posting AV-soloing videos.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
And nothing would change if content was added that you never did, but it would retain subscriptions of players who were looking for a challenge that is above what you consider to be a "challenge."|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
I'm sorry, but you don't get to tell others what a challenge is for them. When you say that there's no such thing as "challenge" in the PvE game, you alienate exactly the people that you're trying to convince. Some of us like the challenge level the PvE game offers, and like the PvE game here because it doesn't require the things that WoW does. I like that I don't need certain gear to complete a task. I like that I can form a team of less-than-optimal builds, and still come out on top.
That is not a problem for me. That's exactly why I like the game. |
Quote:
|
That was me that said it, and I stand by it. If you intentionally make the game to easy by your choices, you have the choice to not do that. It doesn't require anything other than switching your build, really, which is free, except for the cost of enhancements in it. And if you're downgrading, you should have enough money for it anyways. If you know how to make a challenge, and get the fights that you're looking for (the longer, more drawn-out, might win, might lose ones), but choose not to do that, it's not the Dev's fault. If you choose not to do that, because you feel like you're gimping yourself, even though it gets you just what you want, then you're weighing risks versus reward for yourself. You have the right to come out of that comparison with whatever view you have, but the Devs have to make a choice on which side they want to aim towards. So far, they've aimed towards creating content for the majority first. |
@macskull, @Not Mac | XBL: macskull | Steam: macskull | Skype: macskull
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
You have given anecdotal evidence, which can easily be countered with anecdotal evidence the other way. You say that these things have happened, I can say that they don't happen all that often. If the chance of occurrence is low, then the problem is not really something that the Devs need to address, especially if it's just player action involved, and not a game mechanic that is enforcing it.
You do not need to explain how reducing set bonuses would make the game more challenging. What you need to explain is why the game needs to be more challenging, and if it does, why player choices shouldn't come into play. The game has a wide variety of challenge settings already. Why should those who choose to build in such a way so as to minimize the challenge be forced to play to what you can build? You've been told already in this thread that if GR was brought into the PvE game, how the entire slew of enemies would need to be reworked for it, and how all of the player powers would need to be reworked because of it, and how the Devs have tried it, seen the numbers, and have said that it's not going to happen because of all the work involved (plus how the players would react), and yet you still say that it would be less work than other options. I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion, when you have no evidence to back it up, and everything that we've heard from the devs has the exact opposite conclusion. |
....
You asked for examples of why IO bonuses should be subject to DR. I provided examples through explaining personal experiences. Of course they are anecdotal.
if you need evidence that IO sets offer a disparate advantage to SO's please jump on Mid's.
How would "the entire slew of enemies" need to be reworked when the system doesn't account for IO's or bonuses in the first place?
Please link me to a post where the Devs have explicitly stated "We would have to rework the entire system. If bonuses were subject to a diminishing return in PvE." I don't buy it.
I will, however, buy that the Devs won't implement a DR like feature because they feel the PvE community do not want it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tokyo
Did I say comparable? I said PvP "like." I never said comparable.
|
PvP=/!/=PvE
There is no comparison. There never has been. IOs in PvE dont matter to anyone other than the player becuase you are all on the same team, so it benefits them it benefits you.
Brute can do more DPS than yours? That means enemies die faster.
Defender can H34lz0r more than you? That means you die less.
Dom can perma-dom? That means the mobs get to attack less.
The list goes on and on and on.
Leave PvE alone. It works fine. Yes, PvP is mostly broken, and yes it needs fixing. Thats a whole seperate issue.
And no, its not an amazing idea. If this is all a joke, then I can grin and appreciate it, because some of the comments are funny indeed. If this is actually a serious question...
The serious answer is No.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
 |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
PvP=/!/=PvE
There is no comparison. There never has been. IOs in PvE dont matter to anyone other than the player becuase you are all on the same team, so it benefits them it benefits you. Brute can do more DPS than yours? That means enemies die faster. Defender can H34lz0r more than you? That means you die less. Dom can perma-dom? That means the mobs get to attack less. The list goes on and on and on. Leave PvE alone. It works fine. Yes, PvP is mostly broken, and yes it needs fixing. Thats a whole seperate issue. And no, its not an amazing idea. If this is all a joke, then I can grin and appreciate it, because some of the comments are funny indeed. If this is actually a serious question... The serious answer is No. |
Not sure what this has to do with the post you quoted. I stated it shouldn't be comparable (the same to PvPs DR) in that post.
of course another suggestion would be to keep ED for IO's and remove ED for SO's and have the player decide whether they want to structure their build around SO's or IO's so that both enhancements have benefits.
That would be a completely seperate thread of course and I'm not even sure it could be done or whether it would actually be a "good" idea.
I have only read about half of the thread and I somehow felt compelled to add my 2 cents.
For the record: I like the idea of diminishing returns. I don't like the PvP or ED implementation but I believe there could be good ways of doing it. Do I believe it has even a remote chance of making it into general PvE? No! The devs have stated it and I'm not sure how well the game could survive it. Each time you make large scale changes to the game mechanics you risk your playerbase and I'm not sure if it is worth it.
Now for the interesting part: the reasons people have given to implement DR.
Casual player's complaining that they aren't as 'uber' as veterans with a gazillion influence? Of course they aren't! So what? So while the fully IO'd billion dollar scrapper killed 5 foes you only killed 1? Good for you: your team just dispatched 6 foes. I am always looking for interesting chalenges in this game. If I have better IOs(#) then I will just look for different challenges than without them.
Players not wanting to team with you because of your build? I have to say this has NEVER happened to me. If it did, I think that player would earn a top spot on my global ignore list. This is a game. It is about having fun. Whoever loses sight of this I don't WANT to play with. (It happened the odd time where a player tried to force a playstyle which got him on the same list...)
Not sure if this added anything to the discussion but then I don't think that there was any reasonable discussion for the most part to begin with.
(#) Better IOs for me is a relative term. Even as a 60 months Vet I do not have a single purple IO slotted and neither do I have one of the big ones (Numina, Miracle, LotG, etc.) I do have the odd pricey one like a Steadfast Protection +Def or one of the knockback protection IOs.
Wow this has become a pretty hot topic!
For the record, I am being completely serious about this suggestion and will have a few more additions for this topic soon.
Big thanks to those who have contributed both positive and negative constructive feedback, keep it up so this remains a productive, meaningful and worthwhile discussion.
To those who have dropped comments about this being a troll thread and such, please remove them or I'll have our friendly neighborhood Mod8man remove them for you.
Thanks
A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670