Rudra

I've turned on Walk and still lost them. Surprisingly often, at a corner we are both at. Yeah, I know to advance, wait for them to get next to me again, advance, wait for them to reach me again, rinse, repeat all the way to the mission exit. That doesn't count the number of times the NPC following me would stop, run back two or three rooms to find their bearing again, and immediately be lost because they backtracked beyond tracking distance. So even advance and wait approaches don't always work. However, my comment was giving the explanation for why it was happening as requested in the OP. (Also, just for clarification, I don't use Sprint or any other travel power in a mission. Just my defensive powers. [And anything even remotely stealth-like gets turned off the moment the NPC is free.] There was no way for you to know that, but it means I don't have to turn off Sprint to try to avoid losing non-combat NPCs since it is never on.)

The difference is combat versus non-combat NPC. Combat NPCs see through stealth and follow even through wide separation. As far as I can tell, so they can find you again after they run off to aggro on something nowhere near them. Non-combat NPCs lack the perception of combat NPCs and get lost, unable to find you if they blink or sneeze.

That's fair. I was looking at the more or less standard skill progression for these kinds of characters. They learn to defend in close first, then progressively apply it to ranged, with AoEs often being the only way to hit some of them until they figure out how to evade those too. It doesn't make sense for a progression scale to me to switch range and AoE defenses, but I'm fine with doing so for mechanics. Any other opinions on the matter? Anyone else think AoE defense should be before range defense or at least moved to T5?

And a not insignificant portion of those 50s are fully slotted incarnates with passive debuffs such as -Max HP (which seems to be the favorite) triggering on all their attacks at a minimum. I agree with @Doc_Scorpion. GMs have been getting easier and easier to deal with. Even back on Live. Once upon a time, GMs all had levels. Those levels were removed and GMs made the way they are now because players would hunt down and solo all the GMs. Which players are doing now. Sounds like it's time for GMs to get another buff to make them a threat again. I am aware this has nothing to do with the OP. I apologize, but the thread has already derailed. Back on the OP? I am against "fun options" 1, 3, and 4. 1 because GMs are already plenty easy to trigger in zone as @Krimson said. 3 because when TFs that trigger zone invasions are the WST, I find street sweeping including as part of my current contact's arc to be more than tedious. And often, that is the only contact I have available on that character and that is the character I want to play on a contact I want to progress. 4 because of the hard limit of costume slots already being so easy to reach. I'm okay with 2 because it won't impact anyone outside the SG base, but it does require the devs to re-enable NPC movement in bases. And I have no idea how much work that would entail.

Okay, given the lack of feedback on whether the secondary T9 should be a panic button or attack power, I'm going to stick with the panic button and look at specific scales and APPs. So the proposed AT is currently as follows: Striker Inherent: Unstoppable: When HP drops to 25% or less, gain +10% regen and +10% speed (recharge and movement) until above 25% HP. Critical Capable: No. Melee Damage: 100-110% Scrapper damage? (Base damage values to be equal to or slightly higher than Scrappers due to lack of crits). Ranged Damage: 80-85% Blaster damage? (Focus is melee. Let the Blasters and Corruptors rule ranged combat.) Armor Values: 90% Scrapper base value? (Needs to be lower than Scrappers given the advantage of being able to engage either at range or melee at will.) Primary Power Pool: Melee T1: Light damage melee attack (fast/very fast recharge) T2: Moderate damage melee attack (fast/moderate recharge) T3: Special power depending on set (Examples include perception increasing toggle/click power [including +ACC or +ToHit] or ToHit debuff attack) T4: Cone moderate damage melee attack (moderate recharge) T5: Mez Protection T6: Confront T7: High damage melee attack (moderate recharge) T8: Cone high damage or moderate damage+special melee attack depending on set (moderate-long recharge) T9: PBAoE severe to extreme damage melee attack (long recharge) Secondary Power Pool: "Range" T1: Light damage or minor damage+special ranged attack (moderate recharge) T2: Melee defense, typed defense, damage resist, or regeneration power depending on set* T3: Moderate damage ranged attack or light damage+special ranged attack depending on set (moderate recharge) T4: Ranged defense, typed defense, damage resist, or regeneration power depending on set* T5: Self heal or Aim depending on set (Dropped Build Up in favor of Aim due to the set being ranged as opposed to melee.) T6: AoE defense, typed defense, damage resist, or regeneration power depending on set* T7: PBAoE utility (enemy debuff) power (toggle or moderate recharge click) T8: Cone or TAoE moderate damage ranged attack depending on set T9: Panic button power Ancillary Power Pools: As Scrapper? *- Relevant combinations of defenses or resists as per the reference Scrapper armor sets. For instance, fire attack secondary pool would tap the Fiery Aura Scrapper secondary for relevant data, ranged blade (vacuum wave) secondary pool would tap Super Reflexes for relevant data, and so forth.

The original process of turning off xp and getting double xp was already an opt-in. You had to select to get 0 xp. I would much rather that system was restored. It never made any sense to me why they disabled that. However, if the devs are opposed to restoring the system to how it was, then yes, I support the OP. Double inf' for 0 xp as a P2W buff would be fair.

In the end leaving the only maps being paid for, and so even more ignored than they already are, are the non-farm arcs where players are actually trying to tell stories. Or causing players that actually make stories to just give up what little hope they ahve of anyone ever even trying their stories. Yep, nix this as an idea for an inf' sink.

This isn't WoW. (Edit: We're still waiting on the vectored knock system the devs have been working on, and it uses a mechanic the game already has. Damage reflection is not a mechanic the game has.) While I would like more pets available to my MMs, the point of the APPs/PPPs is to fill gaps in the ATs. So Scrappers get access to range attacks. Blasters get access to armor. MMs get access to more ranged attacks and control options. If you want more APPs, then flesh out what the new pool looks like. What are the powers? What order do they become available?

That is a big assumption. Especially given the discussion you and I are having on the double inf' xp thread you started where you are going on about not being able to afford SOs. Which a lot of characters can't do without assistance. Sure. More options is always a good thing. Edit: Though some options are off the table just because of game limitations. Like extra costume slots unless you can't buy them any more once you hit the current limit. (Since the current limit is basically set by the game's limit.)

Unless something has changed, to the best of my understanding, that is typically held to be SOs. A game where all available ATs with any choices of powers from their available power sets can complete the game regardless of whether they play solo or on a team. Grinding. The projected income wasn't even enough to keep a leveling character fully slotted with TOs when the game came out. You were (and still are to the best of my knowledge) expected to upgrade from drops, supplement those with bought, and fill gaps as you go. The process left you with red enhancements that no longer worked more often than not. So if you leveled slowly, you had less gaps to fill. If you were buried under debt, which is no longer possible, you could maintain sufficient income to fill those slots regularly. With the drive to max level as quickly as possible these days? You get to play catch up on enhancements at level 50. Maintaining a full set of enhancements was never doable without either rich alts to sponsor you, very lucky drops, or knowing how to game inf' acquisition. So as far as I'm concerned? The OP is a non-issue. Players want double xp? Go for it. They aren't going to be able to start slotting full sets (or even fill their slots with SOs) until they do some grinding for inf'. That's the trade off.

I have an army of characters with no enhancements still. I'm with @Captain Fabulous. Alms for the poor? If you just want to get rid of all that burdensome inf', I'll gladly take it off your hands.

Level never. I've played to 50 (not in farms) on multiple characters that by the time they reached 50, had maybe 5 (IO) enhancements of any kind slotted because I was saving up for IOs and rabidly offloading the dropped enhancements. (And that includes the free IO from doing the invention system tutorial.) It gets much harder as you level if you have no enhancements, but you are never required to slot to beat the game. Given the nature of MMOGs from my experience? Yes, we are expected to trade. And the AH makes that easier to do. What? SOs are just better DOs that are just better TOs. They are there to enhance your ability to deal with threats in the game. (I know you know this, but you asked.) Given the difference between sell and purchase prices? No. It would not. Players are already heavily incentivized to go the IO route. They are directed to by other players. They are encouraged to by the set bonuses which were granted to offset the hatred that was ED. However, it is not necessary to play the game, let alone play it "well". Players are most likely expected to use the recipes they can use and vendor or auction the rest. I'm thinking of a time when getting enhancements wasn't difficult. I'm pretty sure it was... ... never. Even just TOs prior to IOs was prohibitively expensive for new characters as they progressed. Back on Live, I had one character that was able to stay current in TOs, then DOs, and finally SOs. And that was back in a time when debt had no cap and my Dark/Dark Scrapper was buried under 8 levels of debt. Back before the xp gain rate was pumped up, then pumped up again. So progression was slllllooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww. It did mean I could keep that character slotted with enhancements though.

With no pathfinding beacons available in SG bases, you would have static mobs. Ranged attacks would be viable for them, but not melee unless you closed to melee with them. Makes for easy to deal with invasion.

After watching that video? I've changed my mind. I'm no longer fine with a damage meter being added to the game in any capacity.

The regen thing was a joke as far as I could tell. It looked like one even before @JasperStone pointed out it was. The issue is that you refuse to answer basic questions about the OP and instead deflect away from having to do so. I'm in agreement with @JasperStone and @Spaghetti Betty. This thread reads like a troll thread. You refuse to engage on the OP's subject matter except to say you won't engage with it. If you cannot explain the OP or you refuse to explain the OP, then this thread needs to be shut down.

What the hell?!

Sentinels already exist as armored range characters. Can't use it. 😛

Oooooorrrrrrrrr... instead of dual pistols, just make it a single pistol. Now shield users can use it too.

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, that is pure garbage. It was garbage when Adobe said it about things you made using their programs. It was garbage when Microsoft tried following suit. It is garbage here. I play the game and use their content/program, yes. However, any characters I make are mine. I don't make clones/ripoffs/homages of other characters. I make mine. And when I play another game, they are still my characters. Don't care what that rep said. (S)he can stuff it. Your comment also is ignoring @JasperStone's point. Someone makes a character, (s)he can play said character however (s)he wants as long as it does not violate the Code of Conduct. That makes that character that player's and can be used however they see fit within those limits. The OP reads as an attempt for one player to impose their will on another player. Still waiting for answers to my questions though. You can still prove me wrong.

I don't care how old the player base is. The players can be in grade school or nursing homes. Who cares? That doesn't change how people behave when given the opportunity. (I know some very mature kids and very immature adults.) The community here is usually pretty laid back and helpful. However, given what I've seen of human nature, the OP is an excellent way to change that. Maybe not large scale, but noticeably. Everytime a thread like this pops up, I think back to CO which had this at the end of whatever they called their version of TFs. And it got quite toxic. To the point of characters getting booted from teams for not doing enough damage. Not a common occurrence, I admit, but it did happen depending on the team. (Usually, it was just braggarts going on about how good they are compared to the rest of the peons on their team.) If the desire is to see how well a build stacks up to the creator's expectations for damage? That can already be evaluated just by playing the game and checking your combat log versus how long it looks like it takes for you to win. Are you killing mobs as fast as you thought you would? Yes? You're doing good. No? Maybe go back and tweak something. If it is someone else's expectations for some reason? Play with said person and ask how you are stacking up to their expectations. If you want to improve your build's efficiency/power compared to others? The forums give an excellent way for the community to look over the build and help improve it. There are too many variables in how any given build performs either solo or on a team for the OP to actually do anything useful. Look, I'm fine with a blind data post giving you a standing if you want. I don't get it. I don't understand the desire for it, but sure. However, it should be an opt-in system and it should be devoid of character data other than your own. As in no other character is identified in the data, instead the page tells you the team's average damage and your average damage. A blind stat page like @biostem said.

Who is going to be mad about you answering questions? I don't see anything inflammatory in either the questions or the possible answers. Why are you singling out AE? Why is the autocast the problem? What problem are you trying to fix? (Because I don't see how this is going to do anything about farming.) Why should the player base be punished for the sake of trying to handicap farmers? Even ignoring the question of who cares how others play, those four questions seem to be fundamental. At least to me.

You still haven't answered why AE should be singled out. Edit: And here's another question for you: Why should the player base writ large be punished for the sake of trying to handicap farmers even if only in AE? This won't stop farms.

Yeah. Though, again. I am open to alternatives. If anyone has ideas, please post them.

It's a perception thing. Even from devs/GMs. You run around with X number of players or get in a chat with Y number of players and z% of said players when the topic comes up complains about it, it can be taken as "a lot". Also bear in mind, that some responders don't normally give any thought to the popup tray, but when the topic is broached, may then decide that yes, they don't like it either. Which broadens the perception. However, the comments about the popup tray I've seen prior to this thread were requests for it to simply go away. Not find additional use. Also, agreed, being able to set fly poses at the tailor would be of great benefit to players. (Not me as I rather like the plain fly pose we start with. Especially since I can use the Hover pose during the flying now that both powers can be used simultaneously.) Back to the OP though? I'm still against it. Noone has given me a good reason to change my mind.

I don't know if this counts as zone geometry errors, but Port Oakes is getting pretty bad. Not only are the turrets at the fort still floating and characters walking down through the fort walls, but I saw a car and truck driving down the road occupying the same space. I realized that when the car turned off down a side street and the truck kept going straight. And near the docks, NPCs are walking through the parked truck at the intersection.