Rudra

I know we've asked for the various paintings and pictures we see in the various office maps, but what about the wall mount animal head trophies in the mansion maps? Or the (not animated) armors of the Midnighters Club? Any chance players will be allowed to make trophy/display rooms or noble villas as bases? We have trophies from the major heroes and villains, wall mount trophies and armor displays would be a nice way to round out a display room.

My guess? Is like the female incarnate Tsoo sorcerers, just without the glowing tattoos.

Not sure why you are confused, @KaizenSoze. As a VEAT, you are playing a Soldier of Arachnos or a Widow of Arachnos, even if you turn your back on Arachnos or even go hero. If your character washed out of widow training, they aren't going to give you widow gear. If you washed out of widow training (and survived) and then started over in the Soldier program, you are a Soldier of Arachnos. They give you the SoA weapons and armor. If you then progress to Bane Spider or Crab Spider, you are a Bane Spider or a Crab Spider. If you made it far enough in the widow program to get the psionics or Night Widow gear, you didn't wash out and you are a Fortunata, Night Widow, or Blood Widow. That's the way Arachnos works. Now, if you want to open up the SoAs and WoAs to the APPs instead of being locked to patron powers? Sure. If you want to come up with some sort of psychic power pool to branch them and other characters out? Let's see it. However, your proposal currently works against the idea of the VEATs. (As far as I know, the typical Arachnos program wash out washes out by death.) Edit: If you want a new EAT, then let's talk new EAT.

Except when they do happen, they happen everywhere at once. However, I don't know about waiting an hour. I usually see a small gap between zombie invasions and banners during the event. Otherwise, it feels like I'm always in one or the other. Guess It is a question of when I am on versus when you are on.

I'm not a fan of this idea. It goes against how Arachnos operates. Since the VEATs are just Arachnos troops as PCs, I'm not a fan of the idea of seeing a Crab Spider start blasting me as a Fortunata.

Count me as someone who likes this idea. Plus, the added option to extend some of the animation times in the character creator rather then just leave it on for those powers that aren't an always on thing but have really long animation times compared to the permitted time in the CC.

Okay, this may seem confusing, but I have an issue with the pet rename function. While I can rename my pets anything I want up to the character limit, those names are not retained if they are shared. For instance, I want my bots on one of my MMs to be Combat Drones, Sentinel Drones, and I have not yet decided on the Assault Bot's type. I can rename all my Battle Drones to Combat Drones, and they will remain that way with the differentiating number affixed to them. Great. That is what I want. However, when I have to re-summon for any reason, only 1 retains the Combat Drone designator, and the rest revert to Battle Drones. Same thing with the Protector Bots being called Sentinel Drones. Rename them? They stay renamed, until re-summoned. Is it possible to set MM pets to be able to share the same name? (I would just name them Combat Drone 1, Combat Drone 2, and so on, but I run up against the character limit.) Or can we have the character limit raised so more naming options are available to us? Edit: I can't even rename them to default. I tried renaming my Battle Drones as Battle Drones again and they still summon as Combat Drone and Battle Drone. What the hell?!

Technically, we had AOs. They were called TOs. And everyone got out of them as quickly as they could. 😛 I get your point. You're saying like IOs are. The way enhancements were set up though, you went from all origin enhancements to double origin enhancements to single origin enhancements as things became more tailored, and thusly more efficient/powerful, for your character. I'm glad making IOs work that way was deemed undesirable.

Okay, found it. It's in Darrin Wade's Midnight Draws Near arc. The word is Caelestis and basically means heavenly or divine. So... yeah... basically incarnate. My apologies.

No no no. I appreciate the effort, but that is not the word meaning I want to look up. On the tablet in the Origin of Power arc that lists 6 origins with 1 crossed off, there is a word for the crossed off origin. It isn't incarnate. It may mean incarnate, but that is what I will be looking up next time I get to that tablet. I forgot that, thanks. Edit: Nevermind. Just went through the arc. Either it is in a different arc, the tablets were changed so that clue does not come up any more. or my memory is faulty. No tablet in the Origin of Power arc refers to 6 origins with 1 crossed off. I just finished clicking all of them. ... was it a Cimerora mission that had the tablet then?

*shrug* The clue isn't listed on paragonwiki and I'm not in the mission or have immediate access to it right now to find the clue and look up what the word on it means. If it does refer to incarnates? Then the question becomes why was it crossed off on the tablet when it is still around. Were incarnates wiped out in ancient times and believed gone forever? If so, how and why? So even if the tablet does refer to incarnates (which I still intend to find the word and its meaning eventually), then it still leaves available plot points to address. Not saying those are the only options, just a thought that came to mind.

I think the Mu-Circle War was prior to ancient Egypt. So by that time, the Mu would have been broken and scattered, their surviving bloodlines mingling with other people, but lacking any real centric power or ability to project force. The Circle's failure to uphold their bargain also means that they would not be notable force during that time period either, as they had been broken into disembodied wraiths fleeing the vengeful demons. Edit: Huh. Here's a thought. According to the Origin of Power arc red side, there were 6 origins, but 1 was wiped out. An ancient Egypt zone could delve into that.

Been a (very long) while since I did Outbreak, so wasn't sure if it was Coyote or someone I just forgot after. Thanks.

It would be nice for my ninja/dark MM to get back to her roots and visit ancient Egypt.... (Yes, she's from ancient Egypt. She is a ninja/dark MM because Thugs didn't exist at the time and Mercenaries are no the correct approach for pets for the character. [And I kept her ninja on HC because that is what she was played as since CoV launched.] So I had to modify her a little to get the ninjas to work.) Question is: what would be the ancient Egypt story line? Cimerora is the Nictus, but I see no references in the game that would lead to them also affecting ancient Egypt too.

Tying it into the tutorial makes sense. As @Spaghetti Betty said, in the Outbreak tutorial probably a PPD contact or whomever sends you out of the tutorial can give it. In Breakout, Jensen could be the one to give it. (Redeem his standing as an Arachnos operative to a point.) In Galaxy City, you could get it from whomever your contact for leaving the tutorial happens to be. In Praetoria, it could be given by that long-winded Resistance contact where the ghouls attack as a "Here's some funds to get proper Resistance gear" type thing immediately prior to being sent off for your morality choice (after the ghouls are dealt with). Regardless, it should be given at or near the end of the tutorial. And tying it to the tutorial would reduce, not prevent, but definitely reduce, the ability to abuse it. (And as @Spaghetti Betty said, if they want to go through all those loops to farm a welcome package? That's their headache to deal with.)

Your thread title is sooooo misleading. 😃 A starting 50k inf' for new characters? Sure. Make it something they pick up from someone though. Like either P2W or Ms. Liberty/Arbiter Richard.

It was a question of desirability. When the Live devs implemented side swapping and alignment powers, it was done with the consideration that there was very little reason for anyone to play a hero or villain when vigilantes and rogues got access to all the same content with the added benefit of being able to go to the other side to play with their friends there. The answer was two-fold. Heroes got access to HeroBux for staying hero while villains got access to TyrantBux for staying villain. Those let heroes and villains buy recipes and other options in Fort Trident and the Crucible that were not available for purchase anywhere else. They also got more powerful alignment powers. Vigilantes and rogues got their alignment powers too, which were supposed to be desirably useful, just not as good as the heroes and villains got, but vigilantes and rogues could not buy anything the heroes and villains could. And if a hero or villain went vigilante or rogue? Their HeroBux and TyrantBux went away. Permanently. They had to go back to being a hero or villain and start earning all over again to buy the hero/villain only access options. Now in HC, HeroBux and TyrantBux don't exist. Those hero/villain only purchase options are in the Merit Vendors for Reward Merits. So half the incentive to play a true hero or villain is already gone. So my question is, what would be the balancing counterpoint for heroes and villains being stuck in their respective zones if the last remaining incentive is taken away? I'm open to suggestions.

It's my understanding that the alignment powers were keyed to match what benefits the specific alignments gave. So hero/villain alignments got stronger alignment powers, while vigilante/rogue got to move between red and blue sides. So if all the alignment powers were to be made available to characters without needing to be that power's alignment, then the powers would need to be adjusted. That means that the hero/villain powers would need to be nerfed or the vigilante/rogue powers buffed to be of equal power/desirability. If that were to happen, considering there is no such thing as HeroBux or TyrantBux any more, then what would be the balancing factor between heroes/villains being stuck in their respective zones as compared to the vigilantes/rogues being able to go anywhere they please?

Wouldn't it be easier to just have a shield and shieldless look that you swap between? I mean, if the devs can put in a costume toggle and are willing, then great. (I'm also going to ask for it to be expanded to other costume options too then.) No issues. It's just the... uhm... issue... of coding it.... That last two lines made almost no sense in conjunction with each other and I wrote it....

Possibly simple solution? Add shields as "backpacks" in the costume creator. Long run solution? Add a shield option to the gloves menu. (Was there some comment from a dev about shields becoming a sheathed option somewhere or am I delusional?) Either way? Sure, I have no qualms with shields as costume pieces. Question though: If the shield is a costume piece, why would it need a "shield on" toggle for shield defense abilities? As a costume piece, it would have no shield defense abilities. I could see it working similar to a combat aura where the shield appears on the character when they are in combat, but that is different.

Good bye, @kelika2. You went from a person I respected on the forums to @battlewraith levels of needing to be ignored. I really hope this is just transient, but you have successfully annoyed the holy hells out of me.

Are you kidding me? You're just trolling me, aren't you? The initial horse and carrot comment was a JOKE. That was why I included the laughing emoji I did. You said that was your intent, despite my comment being a joke. So I then clarified the JOKE you said was your intent into the original statement the joke was broken off of. If my JOKE is your take on how the game is supposed to work, especially a joke where the end result is the failure of the process (the carriage comes to a halt), then I felt there was a need to clarify the joke and the outcome. We the players, the merits, the inf'? It has nothing to do with a joke I made based on your carrot on short stick comment. As for which one is everyone misunderstanding on purpose? My response is YOU are on purpose misunderstanding my comments.

Nope. Not a clue. (I'm being sarcastic by the way.) I don't believe I have to explain this, but here goes: When you have a horse-drawn carriage, such as is used for tourism at my home city, the driver has a carrot dangling from a line attached to a stick that (s)he holds out in front of the horse to motivate the horse to move forward. The horse sees the carrot, goes to eat it, and pulls the carriage forward trying to reach the carrot. The carrot is kept out of the horse's reach so the carriage keeps moving forward and the paying customers get a nice, leisurely tour of the sights. (Provided the horse doesn't smell that bad....) On the very rare occasion the horse actually manages to get the carrot, the carriage comes to a stop. And the carriage stays stopped until the driver is able to get the carrot away from the horse or is able to provide another incentive for the horse to move forward again. The one time I saw that happen, the carriage was stuck there partially blocking traffic because the horse would not move until another carriage arrived and provided the driver of the first carriage with a replacement carrot. There! Happy now?

My point was that if you take my jest as your intent, then you are asking for the carriage, or game in this context, to stop moving forward. You are asking for it to come to a halt. My getting serious about my jest is to point out that letting the horse eat the carrot despite it being the means by which the carriage is driven is a ludicrous sentiment when it comes to the game. Your claim that letting the horse eat the carrot in my jest is the desired outcome despite the consequences is why I went back and finished the statement. And if your response to my jest was also in jest? You gave no indication for me or anyone else to take it as such.

My comment was meant to be in jest. However, given your statement that my comment is your intent, then allow me to finish the statement. Carrot on short stick gets eaten by horse pulling carriage, so carriage stops moving. If that is your purpose, then you are asking for the game to come to halt. Using my jest as analogy, giving people something that is being used as enticement in a game outside of the intended enticement kills the purpose of the enticement. Enticements are there to get people moving, or to keep them playing in this case.