Praetorian Invasion + iXP = common sense?

Is there a guide somewhere on "How to make sure your suggestions don't get implemented"? Because this really ought to be added to it.

I'd put it right after the entry on, "Suggest how an event should run after it has already started."

In terms of framing this, OP, perhaps a better tactic would have been, "I've looked at the Praetorian invasion information, and thought this idea might be interesting to consider for future invasion scenarios". That might be a little better-received.

there are things in personal communication on the internet that baffles me, this is one. perhaps my argument would be more persuasive if i were passive aggressive and nasty.

Gee, sorry I only just HAD the idea today, and not before the event started. Maybe next time I will be sure to have any ideas in the proper time frame? In regard to making sure suggestions dont get implemented...if I actually thought there was a tiny tiny chance of them LISTENING to a good idea and acting on it, maybe then I would try to frame the suggestion a little more politely. As it stands, there is a bucketload of evidence that they dont listen, that they just do whatever they want, regardless of weather its a good or bad idea. Case in point, and yes, bringing it up again, i13 and pvp. So many good ideas..and they ignored pretty much every one of them.
So by all means..you can keep having faith in nice polite suggestions being listened too..I am not going to.
Another example. About a year ago, me and a friend were complaining how hard it is to invite your own toons to a personal SG..since there is no way to send a global type SG invite. My friend sent a suggestion into support..and they wrote back saying..Wow thats a great idea! I am forwarding it onto the game development. And you know what? We STILL cant do that. Oh yeah, I understand there is more important things to look at in the game..but how long would that take, seriously?

You already have all 4 very rares made for Alpha?

--Rad

Why would you make 4 very rares for alpha?

Guessing one for each tree since there are 8. That said, err. Ya. Why? Can see maybe a few alternates for situational differences or for one of your three builds. But capping it out seems excessive.

Especially since about two of those threes are useless if you have any type of major investment in Set IOs.

Alpha when compared to the slots we have no isn't all that impressive.

There are a billion good ideas submitted hourly online (ok, slight exaggeration). The one you suggested has been bandied around for over three years, at least, and while it sounds simple to implement, there are several other handles that need to be put in place, and some of them will run into existing code.

Take, for example, invitation validation- does the character you're inviting qualify for supergroup participation (on the same server, of the same side, etc)? Right now, there's no need to really check "on the same server" as all invites work that way. There will be once you have global SG invites. Since the invitation is immediate, it checks for whether you qualify or not when the invite is sent... but since there's a time delay in global self-invites, it would have to change this to check when the invitation is received (or you could have vigilantes get the invite, go villain, then accept it). Heck, the entire thing would need a queued-prompt system done so it doesn't waste system resources the whole time its pending! ...AND let's not forget that supergroup tech predates global chat, and that global chat originated as effectively a separate chat server that was tacked onto existing chat, so there's no reason to expect that ANY of that global handle tech will really mesh with SG management at all. All that's in code that originated over a half-decade ago, and old code being modified by someone other than the original author has a much bigger chance of unintended errors, so more development time, more qa time, and more peer review time is necessary to make the changes safely and confidently. *

Making "brilliant" ideas is rather typical on the net. Don't pat yourself on the back for being better than the devs because of them. Implementing and prioritizing those ideas on a schedule and making the tough triage choices-- that's where the challenge lies. When you can't comprehend how the devs could be listening and NOT implementing your ideas, you conclude that the devs can't be listening. More likely, particularly as evidenced by your post style, you're just not looking at enough of the picture to make a good judgement.

As a player, though, It would be ridiculous to expect you to see the big picture. (Despite how I sometimes arrogantly sound, I don't see any more of the picture than you- I only work tangentially to this field, so I just have a different viewing angle to that same big picture). What you CAN do, though, is something a lot more rare on the web- make suggestions in a tone that doesn't suggest you know everything when its clear that you don't and that demeans the people that are in a position to make them happen.



*Still, I'd LOVE that feature.

They are? I convert my shards to threads to use for the new slots. They are far from worthless.

I'll have to check tonight, but I think there are two different groups of enemies fought during the BAF and Lambda trials. I think the BAF is against WarWorks and Lambda is against the IDF? If that's true, then that should be the determining factor for what slot gets awarded the iXP in a possible Praetorian invasion scenario. If you defeat WarWorks, it goes towards your one set of slots; if you defeat IDF it goes towards your other slots.

You mean the current way the trials work? Granted non-50's can't enter them, but that is exactly how it should work if it were ever implemented.