Rudra

You still have to get all the currently required debt and then work it off. The badges aren't awarded for getting the debt. You have to work off the debt to get them. In my view, that means it isn't any easier. Not a point I am inclined to get into an argument over though. Already had one argument over how different people view things, not inclined to have another. Edit: I can't remember the timing for when debt got curtailed. Whether it happened before or after the debt badges were added. If it was before, then my considered argument is DOA. If it was after though? As I already pointed out, debt used to be significantly higher than it is now. To some players, like me, debt is not a bad thing. I understand it is a bad thing to others. Which is why the OP is only an option I am asking to be available to players. Not a blanket change to debt being forced down everyone's throats.

While we're at it, can we also get base NPCs with the emote? So we can finally put NPCs on the Carnie couches that actually work with the couches?

The OP doesn't make the accolades easier to get. And I would be against moving the accolades to the P2W store regardless. Accolades should be earned. And with the OP, you still have to get all the required debt and work it off. You just don't have to stand there and die as often to do so. The requirements for the accolade are not being reduced. The requirements for the debt badges aren't being reduced. Players are just being given the option to have a debt rate more in line with how the game used to be. Edit: Hells, I was tempted to also ask to have the option to play without the debt cap. Make the game even more like how it used to be for those players that may want to go that far. It's not like anyone is under any risk to get buried under debt like we did back before badges and debt was neutered.

While not what I would prefer, the previously given advice to make use of Monster Island to get rid of patrol xp has proven to be decidedly more effective than my other methods of doing so. It cut my time to do so in almost half, so that even if I have max patrol xp, I can still squeeze some play time in after getting rid of it. I still hate patrol xp. I always will and I won't deny it. I would really enjoy having the option to never deal with it again. That said, I figured this would just be a simple method for those that play with debt to be have a better option to do so. As for cheapening the badges, I am inclined to disagree. After all, just because you can get double the normal debt per defeat, you still have to be defeated to get that debt and you still have to work that debt off to get the badges. And using patrol xp to do so is a decidedly inefficient means of doing so. So I don't really view this as cheapening the debt badges. You still have to accrue all that debt and work it off. As opposed to cutting the required debt in half for the badges which would make them far easier to get. That would cheapen them, because now you only need to work off half as much debt as before. Whereas with the OP, you still ahve to work off the current full value. Now, if you want to say that the OP gives the perception that the badges are being cheapened? I would still say I disagree, but each person's perception of a thing is going to be different. I can accept that argument.

From City of Data: https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=controller_buff.force_field.personal_force_field&at=controller Personal Force Field gives you +40% resist damage (all), +67.5% defense (all), +100% teleport resistance, and +50% elusivity. All at level 1. You are untouchable. It takes some high end enemies to break down this level 1 power. So as has already been stated, if you want to breeze through a zone unharmed? This lets you do it. If you want to not die when all the Tankers, Brutes, and other meat shields and damage dealers die? This lets you do it. If you want to stand there as the high end mobs work on debuffing you to the point they can attack you? That's on you. This is why you cannot attack enemies while PFF is active. Because you are in a nice little shield that would let you rain doom on them with impunity. As a level 1 power. So no, PFF does not need to be able to let you attack through it. And if you want to rest? Get out of the fight. Run away. Resting in mid-combat when the things that want to kill you are trying to kill you is a bad idea. Edit: PFF also buys you lots of time to go through your inspirations and merg them into any greens and blues you may want. As long as you have enough of different types to merge. So you can merge and then use inspirations to recover rather than heal. Or just stand there if the mobs can't debuff the shield that bad and just let your own regeneration and recovery restore you.

Outdoor graveyard 2 has a break in the geometry visible from the right angle.

This is getting off track, so I'll address it once. If you choose to address it again, fine. I'm only addressing it here. The reason for why something is done is the justification for why something is done. The justification for why something is done is the reason for why something is done. You may hold that the reason is in error. And yes, justifications can be in error. However, if someone is giving the reason why something was done? They are justifying why that something was done. Edit: If the reasons for why something is done is precluded from being a valid part of a discussion, then you make it impossible to justify the thing that was done. Edit again: Providing dictionary reference and thesaurus reference. (Yeah, I'm fine playing the let's link the definitions game. I do so routinely. And I kept my word. I am only addressing it here. Never said I would not go back and edit to post proof as needed.) From Merriam-Webster with link. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justification b: an acceptable reason for doing something : something that justifies an act or way of behaving could provide no justification for his decision From Cambridge with link. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/justification justification noun [ C or U ] us /ˌdʒʌs.tə.fəˈkeɪ.ʃən/ uk /ˌdʒʌs.tɪ.fɪˈkeɪ.ʃən/ a good reason or explanation for something: There is no justification for treating people so badly. It can be said, with some justification, that she is one of the greatest actresses on the English stage today. From Thesaurus.com. (Note the root definition they use to find synonyms.)

Uhm... what? The reason is the justification.... The reason for the rule being in effect, which is a holdover from Live when they implemented the rule to get Marvel off their backs, is the justification for why the rule exists. How can you ask for a justification and then say that the already given reasons are not a justification? That is some seriously broken logic.

And yet there are notices declaring that use of IP even if not for profit are subject to full legal recourse. Don't believe me? Run a movie and read the legal disclaimers. You don't have to be making a profit for copyright to kick in and slap you down.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 The Freakish Lab of Dr. Vahizlok is a level 30-39 arc. How can you call that "beginner content"? Edit: And since it is level 30-39, when you exemplar for it, you are level 39 with powers up to level 44 and all your set bonuses.

Homecoming is technically a pirate server. The devs don't need any unnecessary headaches.

To the best of my understanding of the situation, that isn't true. The appearance+powers+name+background is what defines Wolverine for instance. Though the background is less a concern since that is optional for players to use. So if you make a character named Wolverine, there is no problem. If you use the claws+regeneration power sets, there is no problem. If you have a similar background, there is no problem. The problem arises when you make a character that looks like Wolverine, has the same power sets, and uses the same name. If it can be argued that you are making Wolverine, rather than a character that may be similar, that is the problem. Companies take their intellectual property very seriously, but they can't really say much if someone comes up with something similar. Hence, characters that are clones are renamed to something else when reported. Characters that are reported as being clones and a quick look by the devs shows it is not, do not get renamed. I had this problem back on Live. I made a character named Darkwatcher. A feline contact that granted missions in AE. The character got reported. I was notified it was under investigation. The character got left alone.

Because counting defeated mobs isn't the same thing as counting xp. Whether normal xp acquisition or debt reduced xp acquisition, it is still xp acquisition. The count of defeated targets is not. Edit: And if you want to address how debt protection and patrol xp would interact with it, I would say debt protection overrides it, since like turning off xp, it prevents the accumulation of debt. As for patrol xp, it already pays off debt, so I would presume it would still function the same.

And what about any other player that wants to pursue debt for any reason? Like badgers?

That whole argument was predicated on the claim that the OP should not be done because it would be a punishment. As opposed to another option to let players play the way they may choose to. So I was compelled to point out that getting debt also has its rewards. Such as the High Pain Threshold power you get with the High Pain Threshold badge. Also, not least of which would be the debt badges themselves for the badgers in the game who set out to be defeated ad nauseam to get those badges. The point of the OP is to let players accumulate said debt at an increased rate just like they can accrue xp at an increased rate. If the devs decide it is not a great use of their time/resources, that is their decision to make. When it comes to the debt badges, I keep thinking back to before there was a debt cap. Back when xp debt for being defeated was decidedly higher than it is now and some players including myself had several levels of debt built up. Not intentionally mind you, there was no reason to want debt back then. Though it did have the benefit of making it possible for my dark/dark scrapper to always have every enhancement slot filled with current SOs as I leveled. However, we do have debt badges now. Players do pursue those badges. And this would be a benefit to them. As @TheZag said, the option can also be used by players to give themselves higher consequence for being defeated. Added encouragement to avoid it. There are different ways players can use the OP. I hadn't even thought of @TheZag's approach until it was mentioned today. Available options can be used by players for whatever suits them and they deem fits. The OP would also quite likely be the simplest suggestion to be implemented in the game I have seen in the forums in quite some time. The ability to implement the OP already exists in the game. We can decrease how much debt we get. The game already had higher debt accrual rates before it was turned down. So implementing the OP is well within the realm of feasible and would require far less dev time/resources than most other suggestions I have seen. I get that you don't think it would be a great use of dev time. I think it would be a simple use of dev time. Let's let the devs decide if it is worth their time. Edit: Also: https://archive.paragonwiki.com/wiki/Relentless_Badge I was using paragonwiki as my reference. HC changed it.

How would the level pact achieve the same effect? The leveling pact feature does not affect how much debt a character can accrue. It affects how much xp pacted characters get, keeping them at the same level. https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Leveling_Pact Edit: It would also require every character that wants to make use of the OP to be pacted. Even if the concept of the character is the "lone wolf" hero/villain.

In a way, it is - it is a self-imposed limitation you are placing upon yourself. You are so off base, it's not even funny. If a player chooses to turn off xp, that is not a punishment. The player has a goal in mind and the xp goes against that goal. Because players back on Live requested the ability to turn off xp, it was given to them. That means it is not a punishment no matter how you look at it. The player wants to play at a set level, and turning off xp makes that possible. It is not a limitation. It is not a penalty. It is something the player wants to do. Just like playing with SOs instead of set IOs is not a penalty or a limitation, it is something some players want to do. Your argument is more than just flawed. It defies the whole point of players asking for and getting the ability to turn off xp. Asking for the ability to get increased debt from a defeat is the same thing. It is not a penalty. It is not a limitation. It is not a punishment. Stop pushing your perception that only getting xp is a reward on others. The High Pain Threshold badge requires the character have the Relentless badge (pay off 200,000 debt), it used to require the Deathless badge (pay off 1,200,000 debt). Upon acquiring the High Pain Threshold badge, the character earns/is awarded the High Pain Threshold power which grants the character +10% hit points. That is a reward. The character earns a new power that makes the character more resilient. Your insistence that only xp and salvage drops are rewards flies in the face of how the game actually works. Nice strawman, there. I'm merely arguing that debt in and of itself is a punishment as outlined by the game and by intent. As I've stated multiple times, you can play however you want, but don't equivocate a player's choice with what the game considers a reward or a penalty. Then give me a reason why this option should not exist when players have the option of doubling their xp gain rate and have the option of getting zero xp. Your argument has no basis. Your argument boils down to "I view debt as bad. Anything that stops you from getting full value of xp or slows down your xp is bad". And given the options we already have in the game to not get xp at all, that argument doesn't hold water. Give me a reason, given that we can turn off xp, which most definitely inhibits our ability to get xp, since it is set at a limit of zero, why this option should not be considered. Give me a reason that is not "well, despite being able to turn off xp, which completely stops us from getting xp, it is bad for us to have the option to get less xp because we are getting more debt we choose to get". Give me one reason that actually makes sense. (Edit: And if you think players can play however they want, why are you even arguing against the OP? If a player chooses to use the OP's option, guess what? They are playing the way they want.)

If you choose to be defeated, and you are defeated, what did you do wrong? Seems like you did something right to me. And yet we have the ability to turn off xp completely. So I guess that is a punishment too? No actually, you are. Debt was originally intended as a punishment for being defeated. That was the design intent. Debt has since moved beyond that simple presentation when it not only had 6 badges assigned to it, but became a requirement for a villain accolade to make your character stronger. Is debt still a punishment for being defeated? As long as you are trying to level, yes. If you aren't? Not in the least. Who cares about the minimal xp exploration badges give you? I'm not talking about exploration badges. What about powers? Does that count as a reward? Like, oh I don't know, the accolade power you get for getting the accolade you need the debt badges for? Or is getting new powers no longer considered a game reward? If that is the case, everyone should stop leveling past level 1. You're only going to get new powers and enhancement slots for them. You keep arguing from the "you get less xp because of debt, so that inherently and unequivocally makes it a bad thing, therefore it is punishment" point of view, but that argument fails when you add in that we are given the ability to completely turn off xp for our characters and that there are players that choose to forever keep their characters in a not level 50 level range. And that is obviously not a punishment. That is a player choice. Just like the OP would be a player choice. If the player wants to accrue more debt? Let them. If you don't want to accrue more debt? Then don't. Or are you only in favor of more options for the game if you will be personally using it?

And that would be your opinion on what constitutes or doesn't constitute punishment. Debt is a game mechanic. And it is a game mechanic with badges assigned to it. So players are rewarded for being defeated enough times. Just like they are rewarded for winning enough times. If a player chooses to accrue debt, then they are making use of a game mechanic. A punishment is inflicted on someone for doing something wrong or failing to do something. So the debt mechanic, if you ignore the associated rewards, is a punishment for being defeated. The debt mechanic, if you add in the associated rewards, is a simple game mechanic players are encouraged to make use of. That is from a game perspective. You are only looking at part of how debt is presented in the game. Edit: And one of those badges is a requirement to get an accolade. So there is added reward for accruing debt. Edit again: Can villains get that same accolade by going blue side and just getting the blue side version of it? Yes. What about players that want to play pure villains? Like players that want to play pure Praetorians? Tell them tough luck, go blue side and get that version instead, then go back red side and pretend you were never blue side?

How is it a punishment when the player chooses it? As stated in the OP, it is an option. Not a requested flat change to accrued debt. If the player has to choose it for it to be used, it is not a punishment.

The amount of debt accrued per defeat. I am asking for the option to accrue double the normal amount of debt per defeat just like we can get double the amount of xp per defeated foe. In response to your post to just get defeated more often? Then how about we take out double xp and just have players defeat more foes? The option to get double xp exists. Why not double debt?

We have the ability to increase our XP gain at P2W. Would it be possible to also have the option to increase our XP debt rate as well?

I wouldn't call it completely ridiculous. Maybe not feasible with game engine, but only a dev would know that for sure. Would definitely be interesting though. Have Mirror (Standard) and Mirror (Random) options? Sure, sounds fun.

I'm pretty sure the reason why we have Ouroboros and it works the way it does is because the game engine could not function the way you are describing. In order to exemplar your character down to the appropriate level to do the lower level missions and arcs, the character needed someone to exemplar down to. The exception was TFs. So the Ouroboros system works like a modified TF to enable players to exemplar down even while solo to do lower level content. Pretty sure that is an around the clock situation actually. It seems to me that a much larger percentage of players would rather join and follow than lead. (Especially since the bulk of teams I see are PI radio missions to level up lower level characters.) Also, there are players that at the correct level range prefer to do the content solo for various reasons.

I can only think of one mission I would think was important but is not in Ouroboros, and that is the magic box mission from Hardcase. Aside from that, the only missions not in Ouroboros that I am aware of, are the filler missions.