Rudra

It's an assault rifle set. Why would I accept a single-shot weapon that has maybe 5 feet range as justification?

I will grant that I check for the Supremacy icon on my pets, but that is part of me watching to see if they are getting the Leadership buffs as well. And only when I am running around and want to make sure my pets are actually caught up enough for me to start fighting. Though by the same token, I also just turn around to see if my pets are there at least as often instead. Checking those icons in battle? No, I don't in battle. More important things to care about than if my pets did something silly and run out of my Supremacy radius for the moment. (And like you, I move up with my pets. Regardless of range preferred or melee preferred pets.) Not arguing against you, just giving an answer to the first part of what I quoted. So while I hope I'm not the only one, we can at least say 1 person is silly enough to.

I'm not going to ding you for it. Because just like with the Cyberpunk examples, it is a point-black, single shot attack. Even Cyberpunk has one-shot weapons like that. They aren't 0.1 caliber, but they do exist. Setting aside how tiny the bullet is in the provided example, it is a point-blank, single shot weapon that despite its concealability, is still visibly a weapon after firing it. What am I going to ding you on though, is that it is not a repeatable attack because it is a point-blank, single shot only attack. And I was under the impression you had evidence of a bullet-firing weapon that could be fired in automatic mode that lacks any discernable weapon feature. So, sorry, but I'm not accepting that. If you want to justify the Assault Rifle set not having any sort of visible weapon, even the integrated weapons I already listed, then I want proof of an assault rifle type weapon, integrated into the user, that lacks any weapon features. Gun arms? Have barrels most of the time, and a magazine sticking out of the arm. Wrist guns? Are tiny guns, sure, but they are right there on the wrist. And if they fire multiple times? Have some sort of visible magazine. Power armor style shoulder gatlings? Have the shoulder-mounted gatlings. (Edit: Hells, even Iron Man's repulsor beams have obvious emitters built into the palms. ... I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before.... Anyway, so even those would need a weapon selection from the weapon drop down menu for something like Palm Blaster that places the weapon in the palm, provides an alternate animation so the palm is firing, and lines the emanation point with the attack. So that still wouldn't be a No Gun choice from the menu, it would be a Palm Weapon choice.) So if you are going to tell me that there are examples of such that are so small they are basically just dots on the skin, I want to see them or be given a link to the source or be given directions to the source or at the very least have the source quoted to me so I can go looking for it.

Except it isn't. You and I wouldn't be arguing if it were. Here is the OP without any edits: As you can see, there is no request for customization of pets. There is no request to even be able to use different existing faction models for our pets. It is strictly randomly summoning female pets on all MM primary power sets. (Edit: Well, 4 of the sets....) Not even getting to choose if you want male or female henchmen, just randomly getting females. Nor is it presented as an option for players to be able to randomly get female pets, just randomly get female pets. That is what I am arguing against. I am not arguing against pet customization. I am not arguing against having the option of using different existing in game factions for our pets instead of the default pets we have. I am strictly arguing against whether a player wants it or not, to be getting random gender pets every time they summon new pets.

That can already be made in game. And on a previous such thread, I even provided the build to do so. (I had to use a Controller, but Controllers suit D&D style wizards better given their array of abilities than Blasters do.) And we have the runes aura that can be applied to just the hands to do that. No, for the most part, the individuals making these requests are simply looking for power sets that are flat out called magic in some fashion. Several of those individuals have already stated as much in those previous such threads. Because if it doesn't say "magic", "arcane", or anything similar, then it obviously is not magic no matter what origin is taken for the character.

Show me or provide a link. Because even micro weapons in a cyberpunk game are either single use, point-blank range attacks or are visible weapons. Edit: And even the single use, point-blank attacks are obviously weapons after they have been used.

They define what your powers are.

I can't currently be bothered to find a picture of a cyberpunk character with discrete, built-in versions of the weapons instead so please enjoy this generic smart-aleck image response for the time being. Again, and I don't know why this part of my comments keeps getting ignored or missed, I am fine with integrated weapons. Those are still weapons. Have those added to the available weapons list so they also have the correct emanation points. Edit: Even those Cyberpunk or Shadowrun characters with their built in weapons have physical weapons that get deployed to be used. They still have weapons. Edit again: And in the case of the example given by someone earlier in the thread about having a reality bending character that simply manifests bullets that kill their targets? That isn't an Assault Rifle character. That is a material creation character that just happens to be creating bullets already at velocity. That same character can be creating bullets from behind the target, above the target, below the target, anywhere they please. That character can be manifesting bullets behind himself/herself/themselves/itself to attack enemies behind them without bothering to even look at them or turn anything in their direction. Or be manifesting them to be firing perpendicular to their facing down a hall 300 feet away from them where they can't even see targets and still be killing them. How do you animate something like that in a game like this? Or even count it as an Assault Rifle character?

I thought the visual theme was bullets? It's the Assault Rifle set, not the Bullets set. It also includes a grenade launcher (which is also used to launch bean bags) and a flamethrower. So no, the visual theme is not bullets, it is a weapon that fires bullets and a few other things.

As I've stated on the No FX Everywhere thread, I oppose no FX being added to existing power sets unless the No FX still maintains the power set's visual theme. And in the case of weapons, that visual theme is a weapon.

As cumbersome and impractical as doing so would be, you can either learn how to manipulate a gun despite having hooks for hands or get a gun custom designed to work with your hooks. How is this little hook going to shoot bullets just by itself?

If you are taking the Assault Rifle power set, then there needs to be a gun of some type shooting. If you are taking Dual Pistols, then there needs to be a pair of projectile firing weapons. If you are taking Broadsword, then there needs to be something in your hand that you cleave, carve, and bash your targets with. If you have a character that bends reality and simply wills bullets to appear and shred targets, then where is the dev team going to place the emanation point? Where is the assault rifle part of the Assault Rifle power set? (Edit: In a table top game, something like that works just fine because you just tell the GM what your power is and how it works. In a video game, there are constraints placed upon us because everything we do has to have a model, mechanic, and animation that matches it. In a table top game, you can say your character just generates bullets that shred targets out of nothing. It isn't an Assault Rifle set. It is a matter manipulation or creation set that you have defined as creating bullets already at velocity striking your targets. Assault Rifle as a power set is an assault rifle set. You can't just declare the bullets do force damage or holy damage or whatever. Not in a game mechanics sense. The game has it doing a specific damage type. And the powers have required animations with their required emanation points.)

What I am saying is that I'm fine with integral weapons being available for weapon sets, but those integral weapons are going to be weapon options selected from the weapons menu for that power set. So no to a no weapon option where you just say your thick glove is the weapon because without a doubt there will be characters that are being made that don't even have that. (Edit again: Hook hands that are shooting bullets is just too ridiculous in my book.) So using Assault Rifle as an example. Your character chooses the Assault Rifle power set. You get to the costume creator. And under the Weapons button, when you click the Assault Rifle button and it brings up the list of available weapons, somewhere on that list would be say a Wrist Gun that has a back of hand gun that is used as the weapon. Or an Integrated Forearm that uses the existing Advanced Clockwork Blaster. Or a Power Gauntlet that uses a bulky glove of some type with a visible built in weapon. So on and so forth. However, there would not be a No Gun option trusting players to just go find a suitable costume piece that can be interpreted as having a gun for it. Edit again: Yes, this will require that the glove option for the costume be disabled for the integrated weapons. That is by design. Though having the weapon gloves available under the Gloves menu so they can be mirrored should also be considered. Edit yet again: Bear in mind that the animations will need to be adjusted for the new emanation points otherwise the attacks will continue to come from the current emanation point and not be connected to the attacking character. Requiring players to choose their integration from the list of available weapon models insures the attack emanation points are linked to the corresponding weapon.

Weapon sets are defined as having weapons. So I oppose a no weapon option for weapon sets. If you want an alternate weapon that is gauntlet, vambrace, glove, or whatever? Sure, let there be integrated weapon options to choose from. They still need to be weapons though.

I'm all for henchmen customization across the board. If the DEVs fear what we may do if we can fully costume our henchmen, at least give us options for different customizations across the board for each set. Want all your thugs to be women? There are Outcast and Skull female thugs, so why not use those? Want all your thugs to be clowns? Shouldn't be hard for the DEVs to design a costume that doesn't have issues for each of the Tiers I'm going to go back to "there are plenty of costumes of enemy groups that could be used for henchmen" for most if not all of the of the mastermind groups. I'm all for MM pet customization. I'll even settle for simply choosing from existing factions if that is all that becomes available. That is not what the OP is about though. The OP is about randomly having female models of MM pets be summoned each time you summon new pets. That is what I oppose. The OP isn't asking for the option of doing that, which I would be fine with, the OP is simply saying to implement random female and male models each time you summon pets. And that is what I hate about the Thugs T1 summons, that I name my pets and they die, so I summon replacements but I've got different model thugs. Now compound that frustration with suddenly Jim is now female because the models used are not only random for skin tone, but now also for gender. And expand that to all the MM sets. Hiro my ninja summon is now Misaka, but she has Hiro's name. No thanks. Option for random genders? Sure. Simply make everyone have to deal with it? Hells no.

Sure. For the suggested nerf to balance the reduce the END cost if you summon less than all the pets for that power, I recommend... Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. There is no reason for there to need to be a nerf for altered summon END cost. Bear in mind that Controllers and Dominators are going to demand the same thing, but it won't apply in their case because they always summon their full array of pets when they use their summon powers. And the reduced END cost per pet still alive does not change how quickly those pets can be summoned due to power recharge, how powerful those pets are, what upgrades those pets start with, or anything else. It changes how much END you spend if you still have pets from that power available, but is not fundamentally changing anything the power itself does. (Edit: I doubt you will get the 1/3 and 2/3 cost reduction, but a pro-rated END cost for summoning when you are not summoning them all is not out of reason by itself.)

Neither snipes nor assassin strikes have an interrupt time when they are used mid combat. Both have a quick version that gets used while you are already fighting. You only have the interrupt time if you are using them out of combat like sniping a distant foe to pull the spawn or drop like a Sapper before the fight with that spawn starts.

The OP's proposal is that you pay less per summon per henchman tier pet you actually summon with that power, but at a 66% for T1 and 50% for T2 base endurance cost increase. This part of the proposal is strictly intended to punish MMs. I don't care if the MM summon powers are changed to have a reduced endurance cost if you are summoning less than the full number of pets for that power. The issue I ahve is with the intended punishment of MMs for summoning replacements. Especially at a rapid pace to deal with high difficulty foes such as that Warrior EB that seems to have a single ST attack and the rest are extremely damaging AoEs and your MM has melee focused pets like ninjas. Or I don't know, maybe Beast Mastery that has a single pet with a single ranged attack, that still requires that pet to be in close to use because it is a cone attack. Keeping range focused pets alive is much easier than keeping melee focused pets alive, and I really enjoy my melee preferred pet power sets. Which are more dependent on being able to rapidly summon replacements for losing them in combat than a range preferred set like bots that can have the pets ordered to maintain a safe distance without a care in the world.

Okay, I think I understand what happened. No, you cannot set an escort to an added objective in AE if that objective is also linked to the escort for any reason. That function only exists in dev made missions. You can have an escort be the trigger to spawn or activate an objective, but that objective cannot be their destination. And that objective will not go active or be spawned (depending on your settings) until the escort has either fled on his/her/their/its own or you have successfully escorted him/her/them/it to the mission door. (Edit: If you want the ally/escort and the objective to both go active at the same time, then you need another objective that triggers them. They cannot trigger each other except as 1 triggering the other after the first is completed. So for your example, you can have the escort objective be the trigger to activate the glowy objective upon the escort either being freed and running away on his own or being successfully led to the mission entrance depending on your settings, *or* you can have another objective such as a boss objective that upon completion activates the escort and the other objective simultaneously. However, in the latter case, the escort and the other objective would need to be linked to the previous objective's completion, not each other.) Edit again: What you can do to keep it simple, say you want a glowy collection and an escort. You can set the glowy to go active when the escort is rescued, have the escort follow you or run off or do whatever with some escort text/dialogue, and then simply go to the glowy yourself. If you want to have the escort follow you to the glowy, then set the escort to follow, give text/dialogue when freed, go to the glowy, and then finish going to the mission entrance. As long as the escort is not triggering off the glowy with the glowy triggering off the escort. This means no setting the escort's destination to the glowy, because that is a circular trigger. Or you can have the glowy already there and active, and set the escort's destination to the glowy that way. Or you set another objective like a boss fight and have that trigger both the escort and glowy objectives, and still retain the ability to set the escort's destination to the glowy. (Edit yet again: In this last case, yes, the escort can have the glowy as his/her/their/its destination because the glowy is being triggered by the preceding boss fight, not by the escort. So they are not linked to each other, but are rather both linked to the boss, which allows you to set the escort's destination to an objective the escort is not itself triggering.) (Yet another edit: However, this will mean that the player can simply go collect the glowy even without the escort, but the escort will still need to be taken to the glowy even if it has already been collected to complete their objective.) (Hopefully final edit: I think my attempts to clarify are actually just further muddying the explanation. If anyone can make sense of what I posted and is willing to translate, it would be appreciated....)

Can you provide a screenshot of the settings for both objectives? The error is saying that they are both dependent on each other rather than one triggering when the other is completed. (Edit: And yes,you can set an in mission ally that has no guards to defeat to free. You simply select "Empty" from the normal list of enemies.)

There are times when NPCs that are following you will suddenly just make a break for it and go running back the way they came. It is usually a sign of high latency or unstable internet connection, whether at your end, the server's end, or somewhere in between. Normally, when the NPC loses you or the game loses track of the NPC, they go back to the previous path marker and then resume moving towards you. On really bad occasions, that last path marker can be back a few rooms, at which point the NPC loses you and you have to go get him/her and resume leading them. This can be repeated aggravatingly depending on what is going on with your connection, the game's connection, or the game itself if it is under a heavy load..

This example doesn't hold up very well. For instance, I have such a character, bird-themed, that is slow on the ground. So I use Fly and/or Hover to get around with that character exclusively. While I don't have a teleport only to get around character, that would also work the same way. I use my most appropriate movement for the character as appropriate. (I have 1 character that can fly, teleport, leap far distances, and run really fast. Yes, that means I have 3 different travel powers, because Mystic Flight includes Translocation, while also having Super Speed and Super Jump. We can build for whatever travel powers our characters should have and then only use those if we want.) Look, asking for the ability to disable the inherent Fitness powers is fine, and you already showed that you did so. The slow request isn't going to work though.

So am I. My first City of Villains character when the expansion came out was a Ninja/Dark MM and I lamented for what felt like forever that I was capped at level 40 until Grandville was finally added. This completely goes against your proposal. If you are a villainous mastermind player and you spend your pets freely to accomplish your goals, which means they are going to die, then why are you asking for an increase in pet summoning endurance cost that can only be mitigated by having your pets still alive?

... Right, so you were just trying to be an asshole then. Great. Am I wrong? Never leveling past level 1 is actually very easy. Make a new character. Go into the options menu and disable XP. Permanent level 1 character. I'm not saying playing this way is feasible, or at least very fun, but it is very much possible.

Circle of Thorns. Low level mages use staves for their attacks. So the animations exist. (Edit: At least to an extent.)