arcaneholocaust

Sounds like an extremely baseless claim. And the implied assumption that the demographic breakdown in an MMO is similar to the breakdown in the comic book universe sounds pretty absurd.

I’m pretty sure any “for every foe near you” power is going to aggro foes. Not taunt them but still aggro them. Maybe I’m wrong.

Maybe, but “ice man” and “fire lady” are going to get swept up pretty fast whether we seize those names every year or not. Best for players to at least try to grapple with the concept of creativity.

I find it hard to believe that nothing but random letters would go through, but, if that’s the case, we’re light years away from that here. In the event that we experience unprecedented growth and start to have even modest difficulty coming up with original names, the proposed policy that affects levels 1-49 is something I’ve said I’ll live with.

Well... having no name release policy at al would have less problems factually, and precedent from the gaming world tells us lack of such policy does not hurt games one bit ;)

I was referring to Noyjitat’s suggestion that multiple versions of zones be made. Something I vaguely remembered reading earlier but didn’t do a good job of referring to.

You’re absolutely not wrong there. If you’re not losing your mind in 2020, you are amongst a most privileged elect.

No it is definitely not because several users are claiming the policy is not even going far enough. I haven’t gotten the impression for instance that the advocates here agree that level 50’s should be 100% immune. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t think playing different parts of the same game is quite comparable to requesting multiple versions of major mechanics for the same parts. PvP is the only example here where the mechanics change radically, and it’s been well documented what a tremendously detrimental idea that was. And managing multiple sets of mechanics at every level of gameplay soaks up dev time, so yes it would affect everyone.

I will say that this could arguably be balanced if you basically made skulls/hellions minions worth practically as much as underlings from a stronger enemy type and so on with xp scaling by difficulty across the board. That said, clear no vote due to reasons already detailed. Primarily because (1) that’s a ton of dev time better used in hundreds of other ways; (2) it would likely break the game in numerous ways; (3) just don’t like it. Also, people suggesting that we do things like this but make it optional by setting up different shards etc... all these opt-in and opt-out suggestions are getting out of hand. At the end of the day everyone needs to be playing the same game, and an elaborate multiverse of dramatically different mechanics by location just sounds like bad design. Heck, dramatically different mechanics already killed PvP on i13.

I will admit these are true points, but every point here can be flipped on the other side with ease, yes. Because there isn’t an objective answer and we’re expressing opinions here. As you and I both know.

Ok ok so apparently I have to clarify that formerly possessing something in an entirely different universe does not equate to possessing something now. You are still equating entitlement to possessions to entitlement to non-possessions.

Feeling entitled to one’s own possessions versus feeling entitled to another’s possessions is NOT even in the same ballpark.

I don’t think anyone disputes the numbers, Galaxy Brain. If someone has a principle about something being wrong, a utilitarian argument isn’t even going to make a dent. We’re arguing on 2 separate ethical planes here. Just food for thought.

Your argument makes sense. It’s a utilitarian vs hardline principle disagreement we’re having here: neither is necessarily wrong. Like I said, I think the current dev-backed policy is a reasonable compromise for starters because it is sensitive to both sides of the issue by at least giving level 50’s immunity.