Am I alone in this...

Find people that aren't build-nazis. Level shifted characters won't care if there's someone on the team that isn't hitting anything. Hell, find a team that has vengeance, and you'll be their best friend. Totally serious.


You've managed to find an extreme case to try to prove your big point. If that's all you have to go with, your argument is flawed. Apex and Tin Mage are not required for anything but perhaps getting a badge or two.

Play your alts. If you've got a ton of them, like many in this thread claim, you should be good enough at this game to take weaker-soloing builds and manage not to die. Teaming is not required for 95% of the game, and that still hasn't changed, even with Incarnates. If you want to do the remaining 5% of the content, you know the requirements, and you'll do what it takes to meet them, like everyone else. That also has not changed since the game began.

Off base?

There were a lot of people telling other people to quit complaining about the game not giving them what they want.

Now a lot of those same people are the ones doing the complaining, and they are getting bent out of shape because the people they were telling to suck it up for 6 years are saying the same thing to them now.

Basically, those people are being treated the same way they were treating other people for the last 6 years. It all boils down to people thinking they can say something to someone, but when the positions are reversed you better not DARE say it to them.

So, yeah, that's where the "How's it feel?" came from. People getting outraged over being told the same thing they were saying for years.

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.

I was responding in this thread, about this discussion. Of which I have been vocal, so felt your comment targeted my way.

But apparently I am angry and cynical today, so maybe I'll just slink away.

I think this is missing the point.

The problem is having to make a choice at all.

This system has the potential to be the first point in this game's development where, if a person wants to pursue the new content, it'll have to be at the exclusion of everything else the game has to offer.

That's not a choice we've had to make before.

If it goes down that road (that's a big 'if', mind you), that's not just offering content for a different playstyle, that's a fundamental change in the design philosophy behind the game.

Now, if there's a beginning, middle, and end to this system (which currently looks to be the case), then fine. Ultimately, it won't matter. Everyone will be able to get to the end point eventually, no matter their pace. The pressure to "keep up" will be lessened considerably.

But if the Incarnate system represents the way it's going to be from here on out... that is a different story. And I think it's safe to say that is what a lot of people are concerned about.

Yah, I'd agree, some folks are being a bit alarmist right now. On the other hand, I think others are being a tad too cavalier and dismissive about the whole thing. The truth is, it's impossible to say what sort of impact this is all going to have in the long-term, because the developers aren't telling us what their basic design strategy is for the franchise. And they ain't likely to, either. At least not in a way that isn't empty, lawyer-vetted market-speak.

So. Words of caution, yah?

To the people freaking out: This could be awesome for the game, even if you yourself aren't into it. I know you don't want this to become every other MMO. I understand. Neither do I. But... that isn't necessarily how this is going to evolve, so try not to jump to that conclusion right out of the gate. There have already been changes made to the system specifically to accommodate casual play. Thus, the developers have not, at least so far, tossed out the design philosophy that's informed the game for the past 6 years. Try to step back and give the end game a chance. The game needs to evolve to remain relevant and vital.

To the people gloating: This could be an unmitigated disaster. If you think that this game is somehow magically immune to all the negative cultural dynamics that systems like this tend to engender in a community, I think you're sadly, sadly mistaken. Furthermore, if you think that a sudden abandonment of the design strategy around which this game has built its customer base for six years won't negatively impact your game experience, I'd call that very short-sighted indeed. This system has to be successful. In order to be successful, it has to be embraced by the larger community. If it isn't, it'll be dropped, and that'll be that. No more end game for joo. So, please, I implore: dispense with the surly, insulting language. All it does is contribute to the existing distaste for the system, which, ultimately, is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Thanks for reading.

No. Not in any way, shape or form. You have freedom of choice. You prioritize what is important you. You play the content you want. Do what matters to you. I wanted the third WST badge as fast as I could get it. When Kahn was the TF of the week, I ran it 25 times because it can be done fast. I made a big push that week because *I WANTED TO*. There was no force. There was no pressure. There was no coercion. Now I'm done with that badge. Last night I ran a level 46 toon through the Numina TF. The night before I was running a stalker through some friends patron arcs. I'm doing some of this, some of that.


No, having to make a choice is good. If everything was laid out with only one progress path to follow, then you're not playing a game. You're reading a book or watching a movie.

As for incarnate progress being at the "exclusion of everything else", utter nonsense. How about some balance? If both are important to you, split your time 50/50 between each. YOU choose. YOU decide. YOU prioritize. In my opinion, having choices and options is an excellent situation to be in.

I don't see much value in getting upset about potential future developments that I have no control over, no information about, and may or may not happen.

I have plenty of things to get upset about that did or are actually happening. I don't feel any need to add anything to that list, and I don't very well understand why anyone else is interested in doing so either.

I have no problem, however, with some well reasoned suggestions for future development priorities, in the right context. So instead of freaking out, I'd love it if we can move the conversation in different direction.

Even with all the content that's been added to the game, I've never felt that playing the new content has led to the exclusion of anything else. AE, Going Rogue, Incarnate Content--even with all that, I still play the original content on a regular basis. So I don't see the developers forcing me to make that kind of choice any time soon. Or ever.

Of course, it helps that I don't feel like I have to do all the content on every character. I don't collect all the badges on every character, and I don't plan to take every (or even many) characters down the incarnate path. So that helps.

I think "make a new character" is a way better offer than "Pick your favorite toon to make Ub3rl33t and stop complaining it's too hard for all your alts".

And on a sidenote someone mentioned the craft/breakdown system. All "common" Incarnate components take 4 shards to create, what is with them all breaking down to 1? If they all take the same amount to make you shouldn't be penalized if you do a TF for fun and want to swap the reward for one of equal value you actually need.

So you're saying you couldn't solo an Elec/Fire BLASTER on +0/x0?

Now I KNOW you're joking.

Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here, sorry.

We'll see. I think it's far too early to say one way or the other. The problem is this dynamic most certainly exists in other games, so some people are twitchy.

Yes, I'd like that!

Agreed, and that's what we've had for these many years, which is why I've remained on board.

But if splitting one's time 50/50 or 30/30/40, or any other breakdown, ends up putting a person way behind the curve on this new aspect of the game, that's a very different dynamic than anything we've had previously. If, in order to experience the new stuff as it emerges, one has to commit a significant amount of playtime into just a couple-few characters, that's introducing an either/or scenario that's very new to this game, and likely won't be well received.

I myself don't like either/or. I've happily delved into everything this game has had to offer over the years: PVP, base building, inventions, the market, MA. None of it has ever demanded a level of commitment that effectively excluded participation in other aspects of the game for an indefinite amount of time.

That the Incarnate system is showing signs of demanding that level of commitment is what has some folks nervous. Understandable, given the fact that other MMOs fervently pursue that kind of formula.

In any event, brushing off the concerns, or talking down to those who have them won't help. Instead, I'd suggest pointing out the aspects of the system that pretty clearly say: we don't intend to adopt the same methodology of other MMOs. We wish this system to be accessible, no matter how casual your approach is to it, and we are taking steps to facilitate that.

Such as, for example, the way leagues are being designed.

I mainly want to respond to the caviler comment.

It's a game. Why would I be anything but cavalier toward it?

Seriously. Why?

I cannot think of anything that could happen to the game that would make me get as emotional about it as some people seem to be about it, resetting all characters to level 1, adding the PvP mechanics to PvE, any of the 'worst case' scenarios are just going to make think "hmm..interesting, let's see how this works" and then log in and play.

City is, unquestionably, my favorite hobby. I spend as much or more time per week in game most weeks as I do at work. Even if it shutdown tomorrow, I don't see any reason to be anything other than cavalier about it.

Clarification: that word wasn't being used in relation to the whole game. It's describing how some people have chosen to respond to the concerns expressed about the system, and the assurances that basically boil down to "it can't happen here". Which, frankly, I'd call wishful thinking.

'Cavalier' as in: haughty, disdainful, or supercilious; offhand or unceremonious; domineering.

Fair enough.

Intresting point you brought up about teams, 2 nights ago I was kicked from a team because I was just a lvl 50 no alpha slot unl;ocked.

Huh? +0/x1 is Heroic. Actually, it's easier than Heroic was at the beginning, because you used to have a lot more over-lapping spawns and buggy triggers (like level 30+ Nemesis showing up in level 20 missions). Oh, and you didn't have the option to turn off bosses, back in the day.

But wait, it gets better: You can now choose to do missions at -1/x1, if you're really worried about soloing speed. You'll earn less experience per defeat, but you may well earn more experience per unit time. If you're really having trouble soloing a high-offense character through the early game at base difficulty, then the only thing I can suggest is that you use more Inspirations, specifically Luck Inspirations. Inspirations are the answer to almost every solo-related problem.

The following is meant to respond to the thread in general, not Psychic Guardian in particular:

An extra end-game progression necessarily hurts alting, but only to the extent that players care about achieving the pinnacle with every single character. Any extra progression on top of the basic 50 levels would do that.

But is that a valid concern? Is there really any difference between leaving an alt at level 45 for months or even years (I've done that) when the cap is 50, and leaving a level 50 alt without Incarnate boosts when the (new) cap is five Incarnate boosts? Why should you feel any more compelled to complete every single character's progression now than you did before? Would you feel the same annoyance if the level cap had been raised to 60? How about if those extra levels were extraordinarily slow?

For some weird reason, any mark of progression that isn't explicitly labeled as a character level seems to drive people to distraction. I include myself, by the way: when the WST first came out I found myself mindlessly grinding the same TF three or four times in a feverish quest to "complete" a handful of my favorite characters. Then I took a step back and took stock of the situation, and realized that there was no rush. And at least with regard to Alpha, not only is there no rush; there's very little mechanical incentive to bother with the Tier 4 boost at all, for most builds. The Tier 3 boost is one Notice of the Well. One Weekly Task Force. One.

The Tier 3 costs a butt-load of shards too, you say? Well, yeah, except that any level 50 content will allow you to earn shards as a natural consequence of playing the game normally -- and after I-20, any content at all will do. If you run in teams, and especially if you run a level-50 TF here or there, those shard requirements will fly by.

So if you were in the mood to play a given level 50 anyway, you will earn shards. If you're at all interested in teaming, you'll earn them fairly fast. If you were not interested in playing that character anyway, then the shard grind shouldn't suddenly make those characters more compelling. If you don't treat the game like a job, it won't seem like one. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not solo players should have faster options to obtain Incarnate boosts, but the Incarnate system, in principle, isn't anti-casual (or anti-alting) anymore than levels are.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

Years ago i had a Force Field Defender kicked from the team for having no heals. i've also had a Dark Miasma Defender kicked from a team for being Dark Miasma. This was of course after being randomly invited.

My 43 Earth/Storm joined a Numina team where half were there for the WTF NotW. Number of people kicked: 0.

Last night i joined a LRSF team that was at least half 50(+1) and several 50s no Alpha slotted. Number of people kicked: 0.
We were making a MoLRSF attempt. One player died near the end of the first mission so we restarted. Then they died in the mission to take down Ms. Liberty on the second try. Number of people kicked: still 0.

After that i joined a SMSF on a whim where at least four out of seven were under 50. Number of people kicked: 0.

Are my anecdotes about teams interesting, or is it irrelevant to what you want to assert?

i really haven't had much difficulty finding teams recently even for lower level content, and the two servers i play on the most are Virtue and Champion. i've had little to no difficulty finding teams on either server, but i do use global channels for that. Although i have found that i get a lot more tells asking if i'm looking for team when playing redside.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence until it supports my argument! Then it is real evidence. Internet Law :P

The thing that actually most bothers me is the assertion people are making that the end game system turns this into a fundamentally different game. I've been around since release, and I've seen and participated in pretty much every single "fundamental change" this game has enacted. If there's one thing all of these fundamental changes have in common, its that nothing fundamental changed.

First of all, the notion that the end game is fundamentally antithetical to alts is unoriginal. The same charge was made against the invention system, which was the previous "thing for 50s to do." People complained that in effect the invention system was *the* singular way for level 50 characters to develop, but the time and energy necessary to make the perfect optimal invention build was too high to be able to do it for the X number of alts they had. The invention system "fundamentally changed" the notion that when you hit 50, you were "done."

Before that, the fundamental change was Hamidon, and Hamidon enhancements - once the pioneers spent all that time and energy figuring out how to do Hamidon in a way that was reproducible in open raids. Level 50 progress was doing that one raid over and over again until you had a character with 80 HOs. And that was grindy and time consuming and required doing things not everyone wanted to do. It was a "fundamental change" to the way players managed alts and level 50s.

Before *that*, the complaint was that it just plain took too much time to level to 50. If the game encouraged playing alts, why did it take so long for people with lives and kids and jobs to get to 50? Why couldn't someone get to fifty in a reasonable amount of time, like say a couple of weeks of a few hours a week, which is all the time these busy people had? The game was unfriendly to alts for people who could only spend "normal" amounts of time playing it.

Now its "the devs added something, and its something I must pursue, and this will cause me to spend time doing something other than what I was doing before, ergo this is a fundamental shift in the game." forgive me for generalizing, but people who think this is a fundamental shift are quite frankly only noticing the fundamental shift from the changes in the game being about things they liked or didn't care about, to things they just coincidentally happen to. Its happened non-stop throughout the history of the game. It happened with the release of City of Villains, and people saying the red side would detract and distract from the blue side, which was the "real game." It will happen in the future with game additions beyond the end game and the Incarnate system.

Its a change, and its not a change you have to like. But all this talk about this being a "fundamental" change really makes me wonder how short the collective memory of this game actually is.

We've always had level gated content. Even with side-kicking, its very hard to get your level 30 onto an ITF. Even when this game was just two minutes old players were finding out that Perez was level locked and you couldn't enter it to team or even run the missions you had that were inside it until you reached its minimum level. The game throws gates in your face from birth, and they never go away.

I'm not saying not to voice displeasure when the game does something you don't like. But attempting to characterize the end game system as being so fundamentally unique as to suggest its obviously problematic contradicts the entire history of the game. This is not a fundamental change. What I'm finding personally is that increasingly, I'm prepared to fundamentally disprove that point, which is a step I'm usually not willing to do for emotionally charged issues, but I'm increasingly less concerned about.

I'm not worried about converting people to the cause. At this point, the people who don't like or want an end game aren't going to be convinced by any any argument to like it: you can't be convinced to like something anyway. But while I think there are lots of details that can be and should be improved, this notion that the core fundamental nature of the end game system as an end game system is somehow going to critically damage the existing playerbase is a notion I reject as being probable. The players who actually liked playing the game will still like playing the game. The players who needed a specific set of circumstances to be encouraged to play may or may not. I believe at this point the former are more important than the latter.

Its not that I'm not concerned about the potential social dynamics. In fact, I tend to be far more concerned about those than I am about any set of numbers in the game. Something I think almost no one suspects is that my strongest feedback to the devs over the years hasn't been over numbers for numbers sake, but player interaction with the game: how will something affect the accessibility or playability of the game. How will it affect the dynamics of grouping, mass perception, peer pressure, or social constructs. So when I say that I don't accept the notion that the end game is going to damage the playerbase to anywhere near the degree some people seem to be claiming, its not because I don't know, am not aware of, or don't fully understand those issues. Its because I've thought them through carefully, and I've come to the conclusion those concerns are not sufficiently warranted.

I get what you are saying, Aracanaville (and over the years your voice and opinion are on the short list of those I listen to implicitly). But for whatever reason, this change does indeed feel different to me (the first since I've been playing - only since I7 I admit). Right or wrong, the perception lays there mocking me.

• It is gated, that's fine. But it is gated in a different way. There, so far, hasn't really been an arc or story with meat on it... which feels off.
• The new trials have cool elements, but are just long, complex single missions....
• ...that require teaming. It is an MMO, I know, but before there were missions (solo or teamed) or TF as a range of options. The range on this feels constrained.

It is a feeling, my own, that this isn't my CoH. *shrug* I'm clearly not alone, and I have a feeling that I may be in the minority. In no way do I think it is *doom* or going to hurt the game in general.

But it may have fundamentally hurt it for me. I probably just need a break.

That statement (the italicized one in the devs' voice specifically) has two problems: its highly subjective, so what one person feels demonstrates this will not satisfy others; and its extremist, because once you use the words "no matter how [much]" you make the assumption people will draw a reasonable line across that statement, and what people find reasonable is highly variable. So its unlikely that any evidence pointing in that direction would not be controversial, if not out-right rejected.

The system seems reasonably accessible, and far moreso than most of the end game systems I've seen in other games. It requires only moderate amounts of time to get the majority of the progress available. It even encourages the harcore players to pursue diminishing returns in a way that provides opportunities for less dedicated players to continue to receive significant rewards: things like the Very Rare slots and WST badges create long-term pursuit goals for players that, in the act of pursuing them will continue to create demand for WST teaming which increases the likelihood of other players to be able to participate. WST targets are not always level 50 task forces and strike forces, which means level 50s pursuing Notices are creating an environment where low level alts can participate and get an alternate reward: massive XP bonuses. All you really have to do to participate, is participate.

Is it accessible enough? That's subjective. Honestly, the only player group I think have a legitimate accessibility gripe are low activity soloers. And they have *always* been on the low end of reward and progress earning. That's not new, and while it can be tweaked, that issue cannot be fully resolved without basically disconnecting rewards from activity, which I would be loathe to do.

How so?

Shards drop for a 50 just like Purple IOs do right now, doing whatever a 50 does against lvl 50 critters. This hasn't changed with Incarnates. Soon, Shards will drop for a lvl 50 doing ANYTHING in the game as long as their Alpha slot is unlocked.

Other items needed for Incarnate content are only available while doing said content, and can only be useful while doing said content. If that content isn't important to you, you don't have to touch it. Be happy with your Alpha slotted, level shifted self and go to town on the entire rest of the game.

The mechanics don't lock you out or force you to choose. You do, by what you deem important. It's no different functionally than choosing to play a Brute over a Scrapper. You could argue that the mechanics behind the two ATs "force" you to play one over the other if you prefer a certain playstyle and have particular tastes, but again, that's YOU making that choice and distinction, and making it important enough to affect your decisions.

You also make choices every time you log in. If you want to farm some Vanguard Merits by running some Mothership Raids, you are, by default, excluding yourself from all content that doesn't get you Vanguard Merits, and even narrower in focus, you exclude even running Rikti missions because they're inefficient compared to running a Raid. If you choose to alter your costumes, or perform a respec a different day, you are choosing to forgo actually playing and progressing your character during that time. Was that a detriment before? What has changed now?


The Incarnate system is designed to be different than the normal path to progression because it has to be. By choosing not to raise the level cap, XP is taken out of the equation, as well as gaining new powers or enhancement slots in the traditional sense. In its place is a reason to do Incarnate content over and over. Making level shifts from the newer slots effective only during Trials is part of that incentive. There is nothing wrong with this tactic, and there is zero evidence that the rest of the game is headed down a similar path, no matter how many Chicken Littles there are screaming that the sky is falling.

There are no orcs running around Paragon City, no giant dragons flying overhead, and last time I logged in, it didn't say World of Heroes on the splash screen. The Devs are not turning this game into a clone of another. If they wanted to do that, they would have made it and been brushed by the wayside by the 600lb gorilla.

Lots of things "feel differently" to me simply because I personally care about some things more than others. There's nothing wrong with that. But I don't represent my feeling as an objective reality that everyone should honor by default.

Its safe to assume that someone publicly objecting to something feels that that change or issue is fundamentally different than all others they didn't complain about, because this one is prompting a complaint. It has to cross a threshold the others didn't. But that is basically a truism, because all complaints are about issues that are fundamentally different from all other issues in the sense that they specifically elicited a complaint, that means the fact that they are fundamentally different in that way is not significant.

To put it another way, suppose I were to say that a particular issue was important because unlike other issues, this one made me want to object publicly. By itself that's sort of redundant, and its implying I think the problem is important because its specifically important to me. That's a dangerous assertion to make. Saying something is fundamentally different because its subjectively unpalatable, but not in an objectively novel way, is a way to attempt to craft a subjective complaint as an objective, and therefore universal, problem.

That's the part that bothers me. Not the fact that people feel differently about this issue as opposed to other issues. Rather: subjective complaints don't need demonstrative proof. Objective ones do. Crafting a subjective complaint as an objective one lets people have two bites at the apple: they can claim the complaint isn't simply a personal perception and thus more credible, then deflect counter-assertions as irrelevant to their personal perception foundation because they are subjective in nature. Or to put it in less circular terms, they can claim the game has an objective problem with tampering with people's subjective perceptions, and say the problem is important because its subjectively important and its universal because its objectively verifiable that it affects subjective perceptions.

As clever as that sounds, I don't find it to be kosher. Its not an impossible assertion to make, but I believe that rather than having all the tactical benefits of both arguments, it requires the asserter to overcome the weaknesses of both instead, which means it has an extremely high hurdle to overcome. No one's making any attempt to hurdle it, though. They seem to be taking the easier way around by asserting that if something looks like a problem, it s a problem by definition because the game is required to cater to players' perceptions as an entertainment medium.

I don't like that assertion because anyone can use it to assert anything they don't like about the game is wrong by definition.

And THAT is where you go astray. If your main concern is 'keeping up with the Joneses', then the problem lies with you, and not with the game. If you want to try to 'keep up' with a certain segment of the playerbase, feel free. But don't complain that the game is MAKING you do it.