Rudra

That's why I watch the pet window. If they are in the pet window, they are valid and can be affected. If they aren't, they aren't valid and can't be affected even if you're looking right at them.

Uhm... what? If using macros isn't your cup of tea, that's fine. However, your reasoning here fails. If you have a Stay macro set up to command your pets to stay, then all pets you currently have update to that command even if they are already affected by the command. It doesn't matter if they've always been there or you just summoned them. Now if you hit your Stay macro before all your pets are listed on your pet window? Then yes, the ones that weren't spawned yet will ignore it because they didn't exist at the time you gave the command. As long as your pets show up in the pet window, they are subject to your commands. (You can also set specific pets to stay, go, follow, whatever in the pet window as long as you have it set to Advanced Mode.) I wonder, then, how you feel about the recent Mastermind rework? Where they changed the functionality of the summon spells, among other things? The only changes to MMs that I am aware of is that some pets had their defense or damage resist moved to their 1st upgrade power so players can buff their defense or damage resist. And when it works, I'm fine with it. When it doesn't work, I'm not fine with it. What changes are you talking about? (Edit: Or are you talking about the changes made to the MM's native attacks with their own weapons? They didn't change how I use them, so it doesn't bother me. Changing how pets function when summoned though? That will change how I use them by requiring me to add steps to summoning them.)

*sigh* If you want to host walking competitions, no one is stopping you. You can even make SG bases specifically for your competitions.

Almost all my MM characters have 6 macros. Aggressive, Defensive, Passive, Follow, Stay, Dismiss. (Edit: Each macro applies only a single pet command, as labeled.) With those 6 macros, I can summon pets at a distance from me and then immediately follow with the Stay macro and have them stay there. @biostem's bind summon would probably work better. As would pet command binds for Aggressive, Defensive, Passive, Follow, and Stay. I would be fine if an option to change MM default pet states were made available. However, I am very much opposed to changing MM default pet behavior to Stay. If you want an option that better suits how you use your pets? Fine. Just don't seek to impose it on me or anyone else. Edit: 7 macros. I also have an Attack macro.

MM pets are default Follow so they stay with the MM. If you want to summon pets and have them be at enemies, summon them and use the Go To command. They will go to where you send them unless you move too far away. (Edit: A tactic I use if I want my pets fighting away from me is to set them to Aggressive and then use the Go To command to send them into the spawn(s) I want them to distract or fight. They run to their designated spots and fight there without running back to me, so I can run past or weaken an enemy position if needed while retaining an easy escape vector.) Summoned MM pets in combat immediately move to attack enemies not because they are summoned in default Follow, but because they are summoned in default Defensive and either the MM or at least one of the MM pets is taking damage.

I just checked my beam rifle character. Not invalid. Not as a character running around or when I visited a tailor to check that possibility. So I'm not understanding this comment.

Getting infinite free costume changes for 9 whole levels plus 5 free costume change tokens isn't enough for people?! And as I have maintained this entire time, there is no need to be fully slotted with enhancements at all times, especially when talking about SOs. Edit: And hey! There is even a popup that tells players IOs are available and what contact to see to learn about them. So now there shouldn't be any complaints about new players not being informed about IOs,

At level 10, the player should have already settled on what they want their character to look like and even get a free tailor token for having reached level 10. Plus another free tailor token at 20, 30, 40, and 50.

One thing I would like to add that keeps getting overlooked in conjunction with your costume point: Which is why all tailor visits up to level 10 are free. So players can tweak, alter, or even completely replace their costumes at will until level 10.

This was already known. When HC was a private server, they increased the xp and inf' awarded by mobs so the people on the private server could get back up to where they were on Live.

I could probably get behind that. For SOs and DOs to stop degrading when they reach -3.

Correct, patrol xp only affects the xp you gain, not the inf' you get. So if you have patrol xp, you wind up getting a smaller ratio of inf' to xp.

I just had a weird thought. What if enhancement converters also worked on SOs and DOs? For 1 converter, you can change your SO or DO to a random equal level SO or Do depending on whether you are converting a SO or DO. And for 3 converters, you keep what the enhancement is, but you get a different origin.

Not same price. That will never happen. However, maybe a 2.5x rate can find acceptance instead of the 3.846285x your pic shows.

Something that those of you asking for the prices to come down keep overlooking is what, I think @Luminara, pointed out. The sale price versus the purchase price is a ratio. And if you reduce the purchase price, the sale price also goes down. So at best the situation stays as is, and at worse the situation gets worse because now it becomes even harder to afford things like IOs. I'm pretty sure a consensus can be reached by improving how often an enhancement of the correct origin drops for the character, though how high that rate should be will again find disagreement. Though if you want to focus on costs, maybe instead ask for the gap between sale price and purchase price to be narrowed. Though again, I still maintain that there is no need or game expectation for characters to be fully slotted until after they reach level 50.

I prefer to cover my bases. Better to provide information someone already has than withhold information they don't.

Not sure what in my post you don't like. I didn't oppose your suggestion, I just attempted to help you find something that might help you.

Good thing their argument doesn't rely on that then.

It's almost like seeing into the future and knowing what some 5k poster is gonna reply with, or something. If your argument relies on those that do different from you just shutting up, then you have no argument.

Stop telling others to shut up when they do something different from your claim. Edit: Especially since the Live devs intentionally made the game easier to solo by making it possible to make AVs into EBs and EBs into bosses just so soloers could clear those missions solo.

You can click on their name if they comment in chat or you can click them if they are standing there. You can't do either if they aren't chatting or present to click. Which is what I routinely ran into on CO. I see someone, their appearance is interesting, I start examining them, and they are gone before I can send them a message. Or they bound off after finishing dealing with the contact they are at while I am reading their bio before I can message them. I have lots of experience of having to do a search for a character name, realize there are 4 of them online, trying to figure out which of the 4 I just saw/read, and then have to type out their full character+global name because they just aren't commenting in chat or in my vicinity to click and message.

You can also make existing storage items smaller by embedding them partially in the walls and/or floor. You just need to have enough of them accessible to interact with.

Not me, sorry. I couldn't even get past the 2nd portal on the map. I do know that the moment I entered the mission, I immediately saw 2 bosses, a lieutenant, and a minion pop out of the 1st portal followed soon after by another pair of bosses, lieutenant, and minion on -1/x0 (which is actually -1/x1 except that the character never had the spawn size difficulty changed so I could enjoy laughing at the x0 part.)

There's a reason why I prefer CoX's naming paradigm over say CO's even though CO lets me use any name I want even if someone else already has it. Here in CoX, if I see Capt. Starfinder and want to send him/her/them/it a message but (s)he/they/it have already left my field of view, I can just type /t Capt. Starfinder and send that character a message. Back on CO, sure I got whatever name I wanted, but to send someone a message that passed my field of view and is now gone from it, I have to do a search for Capt. Starfinder to find that player's global name, assuming there is only one Capt. Starfinder on at that point in time otherwise I have to wonder which Capt. Starfinder that is running around in the game I actually want to talk to, and then type /t Capt. Starfinder@Pandora'sBoxPlayer to send that person a message. So just sending someone a tell that they have an impressive costume design or an enjoyable bio is a royal pain in the rear. So yeah, while I would like to make use of character names I used back on Live but other players on the server beat me to for the characters I want to bring back, I don't want to have to deal with trying to figure out which Munchkin Starchild or Crimson or whatever from however many of those names are currently on is the one I want to talk to. Nor do I want to have to type in <character name>@<global name> every time I try to talk to someone. Come up with a better means of everyone getting the character name they want that isn't requiring sending tells to All Father Odin@IAmTheMightyNorsePantheon, and I would probably be more open to shared names. Now, expanding the character limit by 5 or so for names and/or adding more special characters to allowed characters? I'm all for that.

The only fix I would personally consider is bringing back TOs. (Which I was against removing....) The TOs could even be set to never expire. Sort of a pre-generic IO enhancement. However, that would be limited to an 8% improvement because that is the benefit TOs gave at full value and I believe that is why they were removed.