Rudra

As I expanded just above, this could be a goal for ALL ATs for their particular Epic Pools. Granted, but why should all the pools be set up to favor your preferred approach to character builds and not anyone else? Why should players like me lose access to our preferred T1/T2 powers in the ancillaries just to make those sets conform to what you prefer in the T1/T2 slots for your build? Why should you get to not have to expend extra slots getting powers across the board but now I have to spend those extra slots across the board to get my powers, when right now you can go with sets that give you your preferred picks early and I can go with sets that give me my preferred picks? Edit: And if the author wants to talk about "fair"? The current set up is fair, it favors no one. His/her/their and your preference favors you, not anyone else.

I disagree. With what we can do with just IO sets to improve our character's survivability and that Blasters can keep fighting even while mezzed, I find it hard to believe that a Blaster has any more difficulty with their build plans and surviving than any other AT. You are giving a Holy Quad argument, except just for Blasters and their epics. Why should Blasters get any different treatment than any other AT for their epics? Why should my Scrapper have to wait until after taking either Ring of Fire or Char to get access to Fire Blast on Fire Mastery while my Scrapper can simply grab Torrent out of the box on Dark Mastery or Ice Bolt from Ice Mastery? Because it is an ancillary power pool, a short power set designed specifically around the AT that gets it as opposed to the universal approach of the power pools. Because just like our primary and secondary sets, the powers are set up not in the same acquisition position across the set dependent upon the set's design. Ancillary/Patron Power Pools are very much designed as tertiary power pools rather than supplemental power pools like the regular power pools. And even the regular power pools, though they are the exact same in layout for all ATs, aren't homogeneous in their design. And when you get into the other ATs, which the author wants to ignore but which are relevant to the conversation, there are advantages (and disadvantages) to the way the ancillaries are set up. Like @Stormwalker said, I would very much rather have access to things like Conserve Power and Superior Conditioning before even bothering with grabbing a ranged attack on my Scrappers and Brutes, but others may prefer getting their ranged attacks first. So some sets let players cater to one approach and others let players cater to another approach. Whereas homogenizing the sets to that everyone gets their ranged attacks first or their utilities first means players all have to build the same way. Personally, I find Snow Storm and Flash Freeze, particularly Flash Freeze since I can put groups to sleep, to be much better for my Blaster's survival than Frozen Armor.

So do you have an actual suggestion you would like to make for the game?

I'm looking at the character creator screen right now, and Aim has the following options: Archery: Original Beam Rifle: Original, Bright, Dark Dark Blast: Original, Color Tintable, Soul Noir Electric Blast (Charge Up): Original, Bright Electricity, Dark Electricity, Bright Aim Charge, Dark Aim Charge Energy Blast: Original, Bright Energy, Dark Energy, Bright Aim Charge, Dark Aim Charge Fire Blast: Original, Bright Fire, Dark Fire, Bright Aim Charge, Dark Aim Charge Ice Blast: Original, Color Tintable, Custom Aim Charge Psychic Blast (Psychic Focus): Original, Bright Psychic Blast, Dark Psychic Blast, Bright Amplify Alternate, Dark Amplify Alternate Radiation Blast: Original, Bright Radiation, Dark Radiation, Bright Aim Charge, Dark Aim Charge Seismic Blast (Seismic Force): Original, Color Tintable, Lava, Crystal Sonic Attack: Original, Bright Amplify Alternate, Dark Amplify Alternate Storm Blast (Intensify): Original, Color Tintable Water Blast (Tidal Forces): Original, Bright, Dark Build Up has the following options: Battle Axe: Original Broadsword: Original Electrical Melee: Original, Bright Electricity, Dark Electricity Energy Melee: Original, Bright Energy, Dark Energy Fiery Melee: Original, Bright Fire, Dark Fire Ice Melee: Original, Color TIntable Katana: Original Martial Arts (Focus Chi): Original, Bright, Dark Psionic Melee: Original, Bright, Dark Radiation Melee (Fusion): Original, Bright Radiation, Dark Radiation Savage Melee (Blood Thirst): Original, Color Tintable Spines: Original, Color Tintable, Thorns, Metal Spikes, Crystalline Spines, Slate Spines Stone Melee: Original, Color Tintable, Lava, Crystal Street Justice (Combat Readiness): Original, Bright, Dark Titan Weapons (Build Momentum): Original, Bright, Dark War Mace: Original Power Boost requires me to go on the test server and level up to the point I can access the epic/ancillary pools, but it does not have any color options in Energy Manipulation. So your argument is quite flawed. Considering Stalker Hide has color tintable options, and minimal FX options depending on power set, I don't understand using Hide as a reference for the discussion unless it is to point out that Hide can have its color and effects changed whereas Domination cannot.

This is the Suggestions and Feedback forum. All player suggestions are subject to player feedback. In the "Concerning this forum..." thread pinned 5 down on the first page, it explains that all suggestions will be commented on by other players. It is not an attack on you, but other players giving their take on the proposal.

*flashes back to a Justice League cartoon where Toy Master shoots multiple parademons with a nerf gun, the demons look confused when the foam darts bounce off them, then all explode* @El D and others have a very good point. A set doesn't have to be "bad" to be fun and intentionally designing a set to be "bad" means it won't see much use (if any) and will eventually lead to calls to bring it on par with other sets. Additional skins and animations for existing sets can bring back the fun for anyone that doesn't find them fun any more. Adding new sets that bring something novel to the game, like the clown MM of the author and the acrobat MM from someone else in the thread adds something new and distinct that is visually and thematically fun, but making them intentionally "bad", however "bad" is meant to mean in this context, is not a good idea. I think being able to run around with clowns as henchmen would be interesting. If nothing else, it can point out the fear of clowns stereotype person and/or even play into the murderous clown of say Joker and It fame. And the acrobat MM pitch is just fun for multiple reasons. If it and the clown MM are done right as sets.

I think there is a closed beta players can apply to have access to that does that. Under NDA obviously.

The serum always appears in the main tray where Deadlock's powers are. His powers get shifted to the right as the serum appears when the flashing message pops up. If it isn't there, save yourself the pain and exit, and either reset the mission, autocomplete it, or abandon it and go get it from Eagle Eye again. This mission gets buggy when you outlevel it. Like BABs getting beefed up to the point that even with the serum, Deadlock gets annihilated.

My point is that people store things. (And they didn't forget anything they stored. Every time I go to buy anything from the AH, my friends remind me that they have it available in the base and I can take it. [I don't.]) Regardless of the reason why people store things, people store things. The game already makes it possible to store almost anything we want. (We can't store inf' or recipes in bases.) Because I know people store things for a variety of reasons does not change my opinion that the game should not make doing so any easier than it already is. And it is already plenty easy. I was hoping to clarify my feelings on the matter, but apparently I had the opposite effect. Sorry.

Something for your consideration. Just as an example. I have built multiple bases. Two of those bases have storage bins, and they are on different servers. My bases are automatically open to all my friends, an to anyone in the chat channel that wants to look around in the bases and add a character to them. I invite them to add their characters to my SGs. I don't put anything into my storage bins, and yet my bins are all full. And my friends are routinely going through the storage bins moving things around to sort them for ease of locating what they may want later. I started adding color coded banners and other labels to those bases to help with the sorting based on what was asked for. When asked, my friends say they store things in them for their next character. Makes sense to me. Great idea. Except they don't make new characters except for maybe every fourth or fifth blue moon. Now, if they were to ask me to add storage bins to my other bases for them to store things in? I would. I would even log on the owning characters for those bases to put things in storage or take them out for them every time they are on since I play more often than they do, so I'm pretty guaranteed to be on when they need me. Or they can make an alt account to have mule characters in those other SGs to facilitate transferring things without me. I would welcome having their alts in my other bases. (I would actually like to see those other bases get some use.) They can stockpile away all they want. I'll even help them with it. I still don't think characters should be allowed to be part of multiple SGs at the same time or that SGs should be able to open their storage bins to other SGs in their coalition.

That's fair. My stance still hasn't changed though. So we disagree.

Except I'm not ignoring it. As of right now, in the game, players can hoard. As an extreme edge case, we can have the scenario you presented. As of right now, we as players can: Create a character for the sole purpose of making a storage base. For the time being, we set aside character considerations such as name loss for level over time. Have that character create a SG for the sole purpose of making a storage base. For ease of tracking, the SG can have a name that informs the player of what that base is going to store without being too obvious like Purple Enhancements Storage SG. Have that character throw a storage base together. 18 storage items won't fit in the entry room, so a second, larger room is added and the storage items added. Have that character add markers to groups of storage items for ease of tracking. I already do this in the active bases I have for different salvage tiers, where banners are color coded and/or have letters to mark ranges of for what is supposed to be in those storage items. (I have 1 "active" base on Torchbearer and 1active base on Everlasting. All other bases are thematic for friends to look at or RP in.) All very easy so far. Total work required is maybe 10 minutes including the banners to mark different uses for the storage items. Now that player makes another character to do the same thing, except the base is for storing a different range or different items. Whatever that player wants. All good so far. Player wants to put in the effort to do all this? More power to him/her/them. As of right now, to transfer anything from Base A to Base B for storage, or to transfer items from Character A to Base B since they are in different SGs and SGs can't share storage item access, that player has to either e-mail himself/herself/themselves said items individually to store, or create/log on a mule character on a second account to facilitate that transfer. That's a bit of time that player has to devote to hoarding, especially with the sorting. (Having characters named for tracking what their bases store such as say Purple Avenger or AoE Master goes a long way to simplifying things.) Maybe that player decides that the accumulated drops aren't worth the hassle of logging on the mule to start the process at the time and either holds onto it for a while longer until decides to go through the process of transferring, or throws it on the AH so others can make use of it. (Basic items like enhancement drops just get vendored.) Now you add in the ability to use storage items across a coalition or by simply accessing the base via a base code. Now you no longer have the coalition's cap for SGs to work around and you no longer have the tedium of accessing a mule character to handle transfers. Now the game is encouraging players to hoard. No more incentive to just toss it on the AH rather than log on a mule and start the transfer process to the appropriate storage bases. And it is that encouragement, and the cutting out of game elements that are not imposed on the player by other players such as Group Fly usage, the probability of assets being less available to other players even with seeded assets at their dev set prices as price caps for assets on the AH, that I oppose. Go ahead and hoard all you want if you choose to hoard. The game very much makes it possible. Especially since prestige was removed. (Which I am extremely grateful for every time I go to build a base.) Play however you want as long as you are not harrassing others. The game itself should not be encouraging it though. I'm not even saying that hoarders should find things harder, because that would be wrong, an attempt to punish others for playing differently. It should not be encouraged by changes to the game though. It already is a thing. Let it be a thing. Don't make it any easier.

Valentine tips should be dismissable regardless of current character alignment in regards to the tip's own 'alignment'. If a Praetorian is getting non-Praetorian Valentine's tips? The Praetorian needs to be able to dismiss those tips. If a hero is getting Rogue Isles Valentine's tips? The hero needs to be able to dismiss those tips. Same with a villain getting Paragon City Valentine's tips. The tip system needs to be adjusted.

I don't recall saying anywhere on this thread that it would create "more players hoarding". So please don't add to my arguments for the sake of arguing against the addition. What I said was that we should not make it easier for players to hoard. That I am against making it easier for players to hoard. And that enabling players to make multiple bases that effectively share storage capacity for the sake of hoarding will negatively impact the market. Because now it would be a much simpler affair of moving assets between bases and accessing them on any single given character rather than making use of the auction house function. You don't agree with my stance on the auction house. I get that. However, adding things like "creating more players hoarding" or any other comment I did not say to my comments so you can argue against that extension is a bad faith argument. As far as the OP is concerned, the author wants to make it possible for a single given character to be part of multiple SGs for the purpose of being aware of the different activities said SGs may be running so the author can participate. That request can be achieved without linking bases to share storage capacity or making characters members of multiple SGs at the same time. And I have provided alternate suggestions to do what the author requested. Without having to deal with the increased storage without need for middle man character to facilitate transfers that making a character a member of multiple SGs would enable. That you or anyone else disagrees with why I oppose that is a matter of your respective opinions. Just like my opposition to enabling such a thing is a matter of my opinion. Hence my other comments stating that I believe multi-base shared storage as made possible by the game is something to be avoided. It is my belief that base storage should not be shared across coalitions or to non-SG/coalition members, for the reasons I have already stated. You don't have to agree with me. I even welcome your disagreement. However, we can disagree without it becoming yet another dragged out argument. Especially one that sees additions to someone's post as an argument that the person did not make.

Then while we agree on one aspect, we disagree on another.

Yes, players can already hoard things. That doesn't mean we should make doing so any easier than it already is. Edit: It's like that one request to simply have all missions be at a single door someone posted a while ago. Yes, we have Mission Teleporter and Team Transporter that will move us directly to the mission door, but why should we simply let players camp at a single door AE style to do game content? Well, players can already build all the SG bases they want and store as much as they want, but why should we make doing so any easier than it already is?

To counter this, I typically do the same, except I move to the exit for the map or level (depending on the situation) and wait there. The boss can't spawn behind me there, and once I start attacking the boss, (s)he stops running and fights me until I defeat him/her. Just have to make sure to move forward away from the exit when you can see the boss to prevent the escape for being too close to the escape point.

While the market is indeed seeded, the set costs for those seeded items is so high, we will never hit those seeded items until players stop dropping things into the market.

Isn't that what I said? *double checks* Arsenal Assault lets you use the butt of the assault rifle as a melee weapon. Technically that counts. But yeah, no dedicated melee weapon assault sets. Yep.

None of these skip leveling. They give your character additional tools, but you still have to level up to get your sets' next powers and enhancement slots. Does not skip the game. It lets you get to the game's current mission for your character faster, but you are still playing the game. Just saving travel time. Does not skip or ignore any parts of the game. It makes the game easier to play. No it doesn't. Using Null the Gull to change alignments still has the 7 day wait period to unlock the new alignment's power. I've swapped using Null frequently and always still had to wait for the alignment power. So, nope, not skipped/ignored. I have on several occasions elected to simply agree to disagree. Mostly on things I don't feel that strongly about. I have also been making a conscientious effort to be less argumentative on the forums. Though you seem dead set on making sure that goes out the window. The fact that you don't think the game economy is a sufficiently good argument in your book is not my concern. It is still a valid argument no matter how much you disagree. You stated you disagreed with me. I agreed we disagreed. We could have just left it at that. You don't like my justification for base storage being linked as proposed by not the OP or the author of this thread do not be done? That's fine. We have different opinions on the matter. So if you feel as strongly as you seem to about letting base storage be linked across coalitions, then how about you give a reason why that change should be done rather than argue that you don't like the reason I gave for not doing it?

All pets including MMs please.

Specifically melee weapons? As in the set is just melee weapons? No, their secondaries are Assault sets, so a mix of melee and ranged. Now if you are asking about them having melee weapons rather than just melee attacks? Yes. For instance, Earth Assault has its hammers. (Edit: If you want manufactured melee weapons? Aside from the gun from Arsenal Assault, not yet.)

THIS!!!!! Oh so very much this! GW isn't a powerhouse that can survive on her own in that mission, and being bubbled into only affecting self so you're forced to sit there and watch her die in an awful hurry? Is so infuriating.

You want to continue? Okay. START vendors don't give us the means to bypass or ignore any parts of the game. What the START vendors provide are formerly prestige powers, non-power pool travels (that were already available back on Live), some supplemental powers like charges of summons, some vanity powers, and the ability to increase the rate at which we level at the cost of non-mission completion reward inf'. You can't camp at a START vendor and just level up there or craft there or store there as a part of using START. So that comparison fails. Null the Gull has a power that turns you into a gull for a badge, lets you turn off being able to be affected by Group Fly because it prevents some powers from working, prevents some emotes from working, and there are players that simply don't want to be affected by it and the only way to do that was with a hidden power; lets you access other zones that have a theme but aren't available for doing missions in or defeating mobs in, lets you know what AVs you are still missing for a badge, and generally provides options that could not be incorporated into the options menu. And as the Live devs stated, they wished they could remove Null the Gull, but he was the only way they could provide some of the services that were asked for. He does not level you up, does not provide you with storage options, doesn't craft anything for you, or do anything that would bypass or ignore the game. So that comparison fails. (Edit: Right, Null the Gull also lets players simply change to their desired alignment. And yes, that can be argued as bypassing/ignoring the game, but it mostly enables playing the game with friends on the other side or by expediting access to said other side to play its content, or even let players start their characters as vigilantes or rogues rather than have to wait until level 20 to have the correct alignment for their character. That's the only part of Null the Gull that works in your favor for this discussion.) AE was intended to give players the ability to create new stories for other players to experience (and hopefully) enjoy. What it is most commonly used for however is farming. Yes, playing through AE lets players bypass/ignore the game. They can sit all day at an AE hub and level from 1 to 50+3 while earning the inf' needed to buy their enhancements and still get enhancement, recipe, and salvage drops just like they are playing the game outside of AE. However, there are no mission completion rewards for using AE and as far as I am aware, the xp and inf' rewards available from AE are reduced as compared to dev provided content. Farming is very much allowed. The live devs found out the hard way there was no way to stop farming. So farm away to your heart's content if you want. However, it is not encouraged by providing means to simplify the farming process such as by having infinite mobs spawn on a map so that a single map can be used indefinitely, increasing the xp/inf' rates of the AE mobs, or granting mission completion rewards; all of which has been requested on these forums. Because while it is fine if players choose to use AE instead of the dev provided content? The game is not being adjusted to encourage or simplify it. So AE is the only relevant comparison you provided, and even it supports my stance. If players want to build bases simply for storage? They can. More power to them. As someone who loves building bases, I understand the joy they (hopefully) feel putting it all together. If players want to link their SGs in coalitions? They can. The limit should probably be increased, but we can have personal bases and group bases at the same time already like how the OP is asking for by use of coalitions. (What s the Justice League after all? They are a coalition of super heroes that have a shared facility for coordinated group actions. While still having a personal base/lair from which they more routinely operate out of as applicable to the character.) If players want to make storage bases and link them for storage? Go right ahead. They already can. However, just like with AE farming, I don't think doing so should be encouraged such as by making base storage across coalitions open to all coalition members or for "public" use (since the bases would likely be given access codes and not shared with the public but rather be used for ease of storage and transfer). Rather, if players don't want to make use of the market? If they want to use as many bases as they possibly can for their personal use? Go right ahead, but I firmly do not believe the game should be changed to make it any easier than it already is. Does that clarify my position? Can we simply disagree now? Or is there need for further clarification that you will insist is petty because you don't agree with it?

Interpret it however you want. I don't care. However, I don't think requests to enable players to bypass/ignore parts of the game should be supported. You don't agree with me? That's fine. We disagree.