Rudra

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.

Fitness never had Boxing or Kick. It was Swift, Hurdle, Health, and Stamina. In that order. Edit: And a "few extra slots" wouldn't help players round out their builds more. It would be used to make their characters more powerful by squeezing in a few more set bonuses. There are already plenty of options for players to make well-rounded or power-build characters. And that is the choice they make. To either make a general approach character that can beat the game (casual player, lazy player, inexperienced player, or fun player depending on your point of view) or to make a min-max character that needs Hard Mode content to even come close to presenting anything like a challenge for them (hardcore player, dedicated player, knowledgable player, or munchkin player depending on your point of view). Players don't need more slots to 'help round out their builds a bit'.

No. I am asking for a new means of storing and transferring inf' that can be accessed in a SG base and be direct deposited into for the sake of simplifying the process for the player base. I am not asking for the removal of a sunsetted system. I am not asking for the re-purposing of a sunsetted system. You are correct in that I am asking for a completely new system. And I thought using the name from the sunsetted system made sense and would be feasible. Have you ever coded before? You can set up a variable that is tracked to accomplish something in the program, but in and of itself, it has no meaning to anyone other than the coder. Now, you could just leave the variable as "X", "string", or whatever and just hope the user can figure it out or that you will remember what that variable is for later on down the line. However, for the sake of knowing which variable you are dealing with, particularly so the user can understand, you assign that variable a name. That name can be changed and it will not affect the linked variable. The variable itself can be changed and not affect the linked name. And while I can't currently remember the examples, there are repeat use names already in the game and they are not causing code problems. NPC A and NPC B have the same name, but they are not the same character. This is the same thing. It's just a name. Edit again: For reference and explanation, say you have tracker "M". Now if the character's alignment is "Hero", call up name "Influence". Tracker displays name "Influence" for the tracker. If character alignment = "Villain", call up name "Infamy". Tracker displays name "Infamy" for its value name. If character alignment = "Praetorian", call up name "Information". If character alignment = "Null" or other assigned attribute, call up name "Prestige" or other assigned display name. If the suggestion forum was limited to things that were so easy it's simple to justify dev time for, then the suggestion forum would be empty. You can disagree with any suggestion. You can point out that some things are going to be tricky or potentially more difficult than it may be worth to implement. That does not mean the suggestion should not or cannot be made. If the devs want to take a crack at the OP? I would be very appreciative. However, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, I have no delusions that it is going to happen. That should not dissuade anyone from making a suggestion though. Because sometimes? A person can be pleasantly surprised. Edit: It's like someone asking for a new power set. You think that is so easy it's simple to justify? It is extremely complicated and labor intensive. Are you going to go to the threads suggesting new power sets or alternate animations for existing powers and tell all those authors that it is out of the question because it isn't so easy it's simple to justify dev time for? The typical suggestion is very complicated and dev time intensive. We get to ask for them anyway, and we hope the devs think "that's a good idea, I'll at least look into it".

No, I am not. Re-read the OP. Read the posts I've made in this thread. Nothing in this thread, nothing in the OP, has anything to do with legacy prestige. Prestige from Live is dead. I want it to stay dead. No disabled system is being re-activated, re-purposed, or re-anything. At all. I took the name. It's just a name. Just like influence, infamy, and information are just different names for the same thing. The name of inf' not currently being held by a character, thus not having the associated alignment name, can be anything. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I am not trying to bring back the prestige system we had on Live. I am not using that system in any way, shape, or form for the OP. The OP is just about giving players the ability to put their inf' into a pooled location without having to type out their globals into an e-mail address box or having to run to a contact or interactable object that lets them dump their inf' to use (edit: which doesn't even exist yet), so their alts or other players in their SG can be able to access and use it if and when needed. Please stop arguing like the name "prestige" (edit: as used in the OP) has anything to do with the disabled legacy system. Yes! That is what the OP basically is. I only have about 5 pages of characters to log on to find who has what to send to who needs what. Most of which have 0 inf' because I keep grabbing what they have to send to other alts, and which character has any amount to send is constantly changing. Others have much, much more. The OP would make sharing their inf so much easier than the current options. That is what the OP is about. You are correct. That is entirely what the OP is about. A quality of life change. No power creep. No bringing back hated, legacy systems or mechanics. Just a collective pool of inf'. Called whatever people are comfortable with calling it. I just happened to have chosen the name "prestige".

The team leaders can already invite other players to their respective teams, which alleviates that. They can see person broadcasting to join the league and invite that player themselves, preventing the creation of unwanted new teams forming in the league. That said? I'm still fine with it. It simplifies the process.

*sigh* That is the point. Influence, infamy, and information are just names for a single shared mechanic. Prestige or stored inf' would also just be a name. It serves no other purpose than to be a name for the "not currently held by any character" store of influence/infamy/information. I don't know how many times I have to say this, I am fine with it being called Stored Inf'. Or whatever other name makes players most comfortable. Edit: I get that some people are against the idea of a central storage for inf'. I don't understand why since some of those people are the same ones calling for inf' to be account-wide rather than character held. However, they should argue about the proposition of a central storage rather than getting bogged down and upset over a name. This is simply a quality of life thing that I do not expect any dev to actually bother with but would make game life so much easier for players with large numbers of alts.

Actually, to continue my previous post here since you already responded to it, I just logged on a vigilante character and went to Sharkhead Isle where I had absolutely no problems spending my influence at a red side vendor. So your statement is in error. And if you look back at the previous page, I already list 8 different ways to send inf' to your alts and friends. I am well aware that other options exist. However, as I state in options 7 and 8, having a central storage option would greatly simplify things for players with large numbers of alts rather than have to log on every alt to check to see if they have any inf' to send.

The problem with that comparison is that if you have LOTS of infamy and you undergo the process of becoming a villain, you do not automatically have lots of influence after you finish changing sides. You would need to start over and build up your influence, which would start to see your infamy decrease. Going from hero to villain? Same thing. You lose your influence and start building up infamy instead. Edit: However, since it is a single mechanic with different names, no such loss occurs. Vendors in Praetoria, the Rogue Isles, and Paragon City accept the currency of inf'. They just won't talk to characters of the wrong alignment. Look, we have gotten seriously off the rails off the topic of the OP. And all because of a name. I've already stated I am fine with changing the name to stored inf'. And yet, arguments are being presented to make the name something it is not. A vessel for central storage of inf'. Why is the name such a big deal that even when I agree to a name change to INF, people are still arguing about prestige?

So you are saying that influence -> infamy is an exchange? It's a name change. If the name is what everyone is so hung up on, like I said 4 posts up, then just change the name from prestige to stored inf'. It's just a name. I'm fine with using a different name. Edit: The point of the name change to prestige is because while the influence or infamy or information is held in the SG base, it is not aligned with heroes/vigilantes (influence), villains/rogues (infamy), or Praetorians (information). It is unaligned while in storage. That is the whole point of using the prestige name.