Greycat

I know it's been mentioned on some of the ones I've been on to disable camera shake (which, I believe, is under "Control"... ) I'd also heard something about not having buff numbers sent, hadn't tested it really. That said, I bring empaths, thermals and pain doms instead of my tanks and such because at least they can do something if I'm seeing a slideshow. 🙂

1. You know, I never really paid attention to what the ATOs were slotting into. I *think* it might be because of the globals? But even those are centered on you... I don't know. I wouldn't argue with it. 2. This might be where it is because of the assumption you have pets. Maybe something that would scale up or down depending on the number of pets. 3. I'd let someone who plays with the numbers more look at that. Accuracy, especially for T1s (which, when you have three, are -2 to you,) I couldn't really argue on. 4. Which powers are you thinking of? I'd assume the first step there would be "tweak the powers," as opposed to replacing. Some - not necessarily just rez powers (*looks at Serum*) - are generally regarded as skippable, yeah. Or are you looking at powers on a secondary? Those, I don't think I'd remove, since they're useful on teams. It kind of *would* be nice to be able to resurrect a minion. 5. Another I'd let people who play with number balance look at. 🙂

.... ok, but you can do the exact same thing now by frankenslotting from four sets? And I'm not sure you're factoring ED into this. (Or I might be reading this wrong. *shrug* Also possible.) (Edit: It is me reading it wrong, I see what had me wondering about ED- going from that 74% to 175%, talking about two different things.) My counter-view to this is that by using one of *these,* you're sacrificing the abiility to get a six (or five or four, depending on how many you use) slot bonus from the set itself, so there is that cost involved, as well. Not to mention the literal cost in making the IO. Mako's Bite, a rare quad, costs 490k to craft plus salvage - one of which is a rare - though, honestly, I usually just use drops. A plain old 50 Acc *also* costs 454k to craft, ignoring salvage. I don't know that a frame would cost the same - a quad, likely. Then you're using three *more* common IOs - so we're looking at nearly 2.5 mill per level 50 player-created-quad. (Yes, I know, some people are rolling in it, that's not everyone.) I don't personally think that people would load up on these (other than some experimental builds, perhaps) and sacrifice the set bonuses people use now. I think they'd throw a few in here and there for flavor (damage/taunt, as mentioned for an example, which doesn't exist elsewhere,) but otherwise would prefer sets for higher end builds or just plain IOs for those who don't really care at all. If this did somehow get onto test and was found to be "too much," making each similar to a set - unique within the power - would be fine with me, as it would still accomplish the goal of letting players mix things up and try combinations that aren't otherwise available. (Edit 2:) I do think this would also be a help when it comes to development getting really underway and looking at new sets. Face it, people will post builds and talk about combinations, so if something seems to be talked about a lot - I'm going to lean on that "dmg/taunt" again for example - it might just get a set with that in faster.

First, they can't be converted. This is solely "You can create your own double, triple or quad value IO, with similar values to what a set IO would give but no set bonuses." The only drop you "get" is what I'm calling the "frame" you combine with the common IOs you want aspects of in. There's really no reason to try to convert, so it sounds wholly different than what you're talking about - which, frankly, is already done here on the market. Converting's something I'd leave for set IOs. "Enhancing the same attribute more than once" is part of what I think the flexibility aspect of this would attract people with. How much *more* each would give would be up to the devs to adjust. For instance, putting two END reductions in a lvl 25 triple plus one "something else" shouldn't add up 16%+16% but perhaps 16%+8% for a 24% END reduction plus 16% whatever other aspect of the same schedule. (I'm perfectly open to the values being tweaked.) No. You do not get the full value of each IO, as mentioned. You get what they would be in a similar IO. For instance: Level 25 Endmod IO. Reduces END costs by 32% by itself. Add it to a level 25 dual "frame" with, say, a recharge. You now have an IO that, similar to a 25 acc/something, enhances ACC and one other item on the same "schedule" by 20%. (I'll use Shield Breaker as a reference for values here, which has Acc/Def Debuff at 25 showing both values at 20%.) Add it to a triple and it enhances by 16%, with two other aspects at 16%. (I didn't see a quad at that level after checking several sets, probably from the percentages being too low.) So for the acc/dam/end/recharge in your example, at 50, you'd be getting values similar to the Devastation Acc/dam/end/rech with each aspect at 18.5%, but without the set bonuses - so you might, for instance, change the Acc out for a Taunt or Def Debuff or whatever the power you're looking at slotting it in takes that might not be expressed in a set.

And even "oh, should be easy" or "they have it" can have ... odd results. While I wouldn't say it was *easy,* I think it was the issue they brought in the popup temp power tray? When that was on beta, it *completely screwed up* three entire ATs - Warshades, PBs and Dominators - by messing with their inherent. THey had no idea why, speculation was that it "moved" the power (the shapeshift or Domination button) somewhere. So, yeah. Unintended consequences. 😄

Without. And as mentioned, there are some combinations that just don't exist, or only exist as hami-Os.

It depends. What have you already done as a 50? My first thing is "Roll another alt," personally. 🙂 But yeah. Unlock your Alpha slot. (You're going to want that if you want to join a "tinpex," as without it, you're at a -8.) Start tweaking the build, if that's what you're into. Dark Astoria was mentioned - it's pretty much where the story takes you.

Yeah. Roll your own Hami-o. Adding bonuses would just... be too breakable. Not to mention dumping more spaghetti onto COH's codebase. 🙂

.... side note, I wish that argument would stop being used. It's fine to say "This would take a lot of dev time," because it's surprising what would, but until someone here hires them and has to assign people to projects... I wouldn't take "I wouldn't use this" as an attack though. If nothing else you can use it as a gauge. Heck, *I* don't think I'd use it, but that's not saying I'm against it, either. At least you're not wondering if people are just ignoring it.

And as far as the subject at hand, if convenience is the issue: - Sure, P2W option to reject common/uncommon/rare (are you sure?) salvage. - Optionally, or additionally, some commands: /deletesalvage common (or uncommon or rare) /auctionsalvage (rarity) (cost) (so, /auctionalvage common 6 would auction all common salvage for 6 inf each.) /movesalvagetovault moves everything (or add common/uncommon/rare) to your "vault reserve" vault.

As far as the "forum game," as it was put - At least for me, no, it's not a "game," nor is it meant to show some sort of superiority or put someone down. The point of the forum is discussion - and that does mean also pointing out existing solutions to the problem being presented (assuming a "problem" is being addressed) or down sides with whatever the suggestion is, including if it's something unworkable. Yes, the person posting it should be prepared to defend their post. (Or abandon it if it's one of those "Oh. Wow, I didn't know that, yeah, that wouldn't work" or "I didn't know a solution already existed in game!" items.) This should not be used or seen as a personal attack on *either* side. It's hard to do sometimes, absolutely. We're not face to face, most of us don't personally know each other, so it's very easy to take something dashed off in a minute as being snarky or condescending or otherwise rude. (And yes, there *are* some posts that are just that. Let's be real.) You, the person making the suggestion, have put thought (I hope!) into the idea, it's something you think would be great, and suddenly you have a bunch of people telling you there are problems or it's not the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is, sometimes, hard not to feel attacked. The only advice I can give is back up, take a few breaths, and re-read what's getting you annoyed. And *do your best* to cut that off at the pass - whether that's asking (*politely!*) for clarification or even just saying "Look, the last three responses have been pretty much just snarky put downs, I'm not responding to you any longer." If you have to actually *put* the person on ignore for a day or two so you don't even see the posts, do that. But do your best to gauge intent, too. Back on live, I was known for "copypastas." I had responses for some fairly common suggestions (vehicle travel powers, for one.) Some people took them as attacks. The whole point of them, for me, was to say "OK, we've talked about this in the past. To summarize, here are what we know of as problems, here are some ways the idea hs been given in the past, here are what the devs have said if they've weighed in. So let's shortcut all that and see if there's something new we can do with it," primarily to avoid retreads and some things that would bring up arguments. Everyone had the same info, and occasionally they *would* be jumping off points for interesting discussions or new twists. Which was the point. But they were never meant to be "Your idea's stupid, and so are you," or "read the 10000 pages of the forum, noob!" Unfortunately, some people took them that way. *shrug* It's the danger of a text medium. All we can do is try our best to avoid misunderstandings.

Responding to some comments: I'm sure it'd be somewhat easier than completely reprogramming the game to use modern graphics, but slightly harder than fixing typos. I can't be more precise than that 🙂 Yes, I had "rarity" in mind there, too, I forgot to mention it. And yes, multiples of the same adds complexity - but, ,honestly, to me it's like IOs anyway. You can just slap a set in, or pick something that matches what you want ("eh, I don't really want to slot heavily, half ACC half DMG from that set works fine,") or you can go crazy plotting set bonuses and the like. And as someone else mentioned, I see these treated as regular commons as far as attuning. But I'm not the one you'd have to sell on the idea - the argument could, after all, be made that these have more of a "cost" to the user than a common IO (craft the frame, craft the IOs, eat the salvage and INF cost for all of that) so attuning "should" be allowed. I'm not set in stone either way. They absolutely would not skip ED. They are, at their heart, still "common" enhancements. Though, to me, it also gives a situation where someone doesn't want to "waste" part of a regular enhancement going over ED, so (with the regular split or the multiple of the same effect) they can go RIGHT up to the line, then add a little something else (say, a partial RECH IO.) Oh, I should note, these wouldn't take sets, so no making a dual with common DEF +LOTG global, or 2/3 DMG 1/3 Proc. (Part of the power concern.) Other than that, the potential complexity is part of what I think some people would like. By "No vendor buying," you're looking at merits? Or regular stores? We can't buy common IO recipies at regular stores as it is, and as far as merits... I have no idea what they would be priced at if they *were* there. I think, power wise, these would walk the line between "standard" IOs and sets - other than experimental builds, I don't think someone would put them in (say) half their build, but would sprinkle them about to differentiate themselves a bit. Oh! Yes, they also would not "add" effects. I don't think I mentioned that. For example, the Taunt/DMG I mentioned. THey'd act like HOs - the Taunt part would work but you wouldn't suddenly get DMG added. However, if you put it in (say) Fiery Aura on a tank or brute, both components would work.

IOs give us a lot of flexibility in slotting. There are a lot of sets out there. But, there are some combinations that (as I recall) only exist in HOs, or don't exist at all. I'd propose creating a way to let players make them. What drops: "Frame" recipies. These give dual, triple or quad power categories for the player to fill out. (Similar to Acc/Dam, Acc/Dam/End, Acc/Dam/Rech/End.) What happens: A player crafts the frame. They then take whatever IOs they want and fill in what they're looking for. For instance, if they want a dmg/-tohit, they put one damage in and one tohit. Details: The frame controls the level. (Though I'm not set on this.) It controls the percentages of each "section," just like (say) an acc/dam has a certain percentage of accuracy and damage enhancement in one IO. I'm *thinking* the IO would have to be within 10 levels of whatever that "section" is... or above. For instance, a level 25 "two aspect" frame could use a level 15 IO and, if someone had one, a level 45. Yes, this means a quad aspect could use a lot of low level IOs (hey, reason to make those level 10s.) Empty or partially filled frames are not slottable. Why: Why not? 🙂 Might be interesting to see what people come up with. On top of having some things that don't exist as IO sets (for instance, Taunt/DMG, looking at Taunt sets, or maybe a Taunt/Stun,) players could play with percentages - I don't see this as being limited to "Must have one different effect type in each" (past the dual frames, because dam/dam would just be damage.) For instance, you could take a triple and make it damage/damage/def debuff. Or acc/acc/end, giving more of an acc buff with a touch of end reduction - something IO sets don't do. Some like that would probably have to be indicated differently, like "PIO (player IO) triple acc+/end" for someone doing an acc/acc/end. Would these be able to be put on the market? At the very least, the frames would, yes. They'd be recipies. Probably crafted empty frames as well. I'm not sure how much of a mess the market would be with the variety of what people could create being put on it, but I'm not against it. These would also be storeable and tradeable. Are these boostable/catalyzable? Like regular (common) IOs, no.

Just for general reference, from Paragonwiki - There are several Enhancement aspects that have been retired and combined into new ones. The currently known ones are: Cone Range, which was incorporated into the Range aspect; Endurance Drain, and Endurance Recovery, which were merged into the Endurance Modification aspect; Team Defense, and Self Defense, which were merged into the Defense Buff aspect

So you could also say you used it as seed money for getting into marketeering and the initial few characters you made?

So do you farm? "Just for the rewards" then, or just an outside observation? I should probably answer my own question here: 1. As mentioned, curiosity. I don't generally farm. (And if you watched me farming... I'm pretty sure the facepalms and "why are you doing that?" questions could be heard from COH to the other side of WOW.) 2. Rewards. I'd rather spend time and tickets getting rare salvage than buying it or hoping for drops. I can specify what I need and pick it right up. And, yes, dump the rest on the market.

This is it exactly.

Since I'm doing an "out of curiosity" LBFF at the moment (and for me it's experimental, seeing what I can do, similar to when I ran one of the CEBR brutes in late-live,) I thought I'd ask: How many of you farm because you enjoy the act of farming, and how many do it only for the rewards? (Inf / "this lets my SG run CCs" / "I can get people PL'd up.") Would you find yourself running farm maps if it weren't for farming bringing in the most INF? (There's also the "And why" here - is it just mowing down this many enemies, seeing what you can do to really optimize builds? Or all about that inf?) Or is it a balance between the two ("I do it for the inf, but I enjoy it and would probably run farms anyway, just less frequently" sort of thing?) *Pure* curiosity here. (Similar to badgers who don't like PVP going in to PVP zones to get those badges, versus those who enjoy the game and the badges are a plus - they'd find themselves in there at some point anyway even without badges.)

Thanks! (Yes, for those wondering, I now have an email with 1b inf waiting in it.)

... heh. Borrow an idea from some other games. P2W vendor "pet" that sells your salvage on demand. "Sell: [x] All common salvage at [100] inf."

@Therra Arcson (I'm not proud, I have alts to feed!)

Can I have a billion influence? 🙂

"Ignorantly low." That's a way to make friends and influence people. And no, I wouldn't be "red in the face with anger." This is a game. I treat it as such. I also try not to post ridiculous hypotheticals like "everyone will sell purples for 1 inf." Look through the market now. Things not in demand have a low selling price in their history. Things that *are* in demand have a high selling price. Why? Because someone else decides "No, I want to get this much at a minimum." Or another buyer decides "No, I really want that piece" and bids more. It's how the market works. Speaking of how the market works - from ParagonWiki (copied from the market "trainer") - If multiple players are selling an item for different amounts, the person with the lowest list price will sell first as long as a bid is higher than their list price. Thus, if a lot of people are listing an item for 100 inf, someone who lists the same item for 10,000 inf may never sell it even if people are paying 100,000 inf for it. Likewise, it's possible for someone who lists an item for 100 inf to sell it for 100,000 inf while someone else who lists the item for 10,000 inf only sells it for 10,000 inf. So, y'know, another reason to list low. By the way, I haven't "earned my fortune." I don't bother playing the market, for the most part. So your assumption there... well, you know what they say about assumptions.

Can you tell with those robes? (Some of the models *are* a bit more petit - and several of the ... er... non voluntary volunteers you can save are women, so....)

Nope.